CAR_Public/141226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 257


                             Headlines

123 MCDOUGAL STREET: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
AAC HOLDINGS: Paid $2.6 Million to Settle Class Action
ADS WASTE: Class Action Lawsuits in Early Stage
ALP LIQUIDATING: No New Trial Date Set in "Rothal" Case
ALP LIQUIDATING: Bids to Stay Scottsdale Insurance Suit Pending

AMIRA'S DELI: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Bid to Compel in Knowlton Suit Denied
APPLE INC: Defends Antitrust Class Action Over iPod Prices
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Expects to Incur Additional Warranty Costs
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015

BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Cal. App. Upholds Denial of Class Cert.
BBVA COMPASS: Defending Against "Deaver" Class Action in Calif.
BERRY PETROLEUM: Settlement Fund Distribution Begins
BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Apple REIT Class Suit Fees & Expenses
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits

CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $3.5MM Settlement in Class Suit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Formal Discovery Yet in "Ford" Litigation
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Reached Settlement in FCRA Litigation
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Says Restaurant Managers Misclassified
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Provides Update on Queso Merger Litigation

CHINA XD: Faces Two Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuits
COMPASS GROUP: Court Reduces Atty Fee Award in "Terrero" Suit
CREDIT ONE: Class Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA
DUNE MANAGEMENT: Property Managers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EILAT ASHKELON: Faces Class Action Over Arava Desert Oil Spill

EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Allowed to Amend Complaint
END ZONE BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
END ZONE BAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to File Answer Indefinitely Extended
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: AMR Unit Faces Class Actions in California

EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Ohio
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals From Judgment in "Dreher" Suit
FARMER'S INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives "Dowling" Suit
GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES: Dancers Win Conditional Certification
GENVEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal "Shah" Case Dismissal

GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Garnitschnig" Action in Maryland
GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Galitsis" Action in Maryland
GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due
GERON CORPORATION: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit
GREENBURGH-NORTH CASTLE: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation

HARMAN INT'L: D.C. App. Affirms Ruling in "Russell" Suit
HITACHI LTD: Supplement Briefing Sought on Sharp's Objections
HOME DEPOT: "Marko" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HOMESTREET INC: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Merger Transaction
HSBC BANK: Court Approves Force-Placed Insurance Class Action

HUBSPOT INC: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount
ILLINOIS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
INSTALLED BUILDING: Class Action Settlement Expenses Paid
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiffs Intend to File Amended Suit
IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Action in Early Stages of Litigation

J & G TRANSPORT: Conditional Certification Granted in FLSA Case
KMART CORP: Sued by First NBC Bank in Illinois Over Data Breach
LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
LIN MEDIA: Class Action Plaintiffs Withdraw Motion to Expedite
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Tierney" Suit to Tennessee District Court

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Class Action in N.D. Ga.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Final Approval Hearing Held in "Fauley" Case
MINNESOTA: Class Action Over Sex Offender Program Pending

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 107 Class Actions Filed Over Vehicle Recall
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Eykyn" Class Action in W.D. Tex.
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Coffman" Class Action in W.D. Tex.
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: "Maciel" Class Action Dismissed
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Lewis" Action in Travis County, Texas

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Williams" Action
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Hardy" Action
NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements
P.F. CHANG'S: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
PECCOLE RANCH: Homeowners Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action

PENFORD CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Ingredion Merger
PFIZER INC: Parkinson's Drug Side-Effect Sufferers Get Payout
PHOENIX FRAMING: Sued Over Defects in Condominium Development
PROPHASE LABS: Pre-Trial Discovery On-going in Weisblum Case
QUEENS BORO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages

REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Rifle Triggers
RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Shkreli" Class Action in New York
SABRE CORP: To Appeal Final Judgment in San Antonio Class Suit
SABRE CORP: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied
SABRE CORP: Suit in Tex. State Court Over Hotel Fees Pending

SEADRILL LTD: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Has More Time to Respond to Complaint
SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: No Trial Date Set in Securities Action
SIZMEK INC: Reply in Support of Cross-Motion to Strike Due
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Toning Shoes, Suit Claims

SKECHERS USA: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Toning Shoes
SOURCEFIRE INC: 4th Cir. Upheld Settlement Order in "Vukosa" Suit
STOLLE MACHINERY: Factory Production Worker Seeks to Recover OT
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Tanner" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces Two Air Bag Defect Class Actions in Canada

TARGET CORP: Customers Can Proceed With Negligence Class Action
UNIQUE VACATIONS: Dist. Ct. Won't Stay TCPA Suit Over FCC Order
UNITED STATES: VA Workers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
UNITED STATES: Secret Service Faces Racial Discrimination Probe
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Insider Trading

VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in California Action Engaged in Discovery
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Class Suit by Former Installation Technicians
VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Files Answering Brief in Class Action
VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement

WELLS FARGO: Goes to Trial Over Alleged Mortgage Overcharges
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Driver's Privacy Act
WESTPAC BANKING: Actions Over Exception Fees on Hold
WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action by Storm Financial Investors
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Parties Presently Involved in Mediation

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE: Sued Over Deceptive Practices
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal Ruling in "Garvin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Bid to Flip Verdicts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $88MM Est. Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $155-Mil. Reimbursement Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Suits v. Transocean Ltd. Are Pending in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Has 20 Suits Pending in La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 881 PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,844 PI Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $97.471MM Fibro Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 268 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Gets Summary Judgment in Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,600 Fibro Claims at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Estimates $538MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has $20MM Charge on Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 PI Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Recognizes $73MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had $48MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Affirms Ruling in Pepsi v. Mafco Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Flips in Part Ruling in "Fagg" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Ruling in "Richardson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Bars T&N's Deposition of FMC Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in "Smiddy" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Holloway" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean View Facing $7.8MM Budget Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Deal to Resolve RPM Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Plaintiffs Suffer Another Setback
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Memorial Garden Plans

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Modified Cells to Fight Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICG, Director Prosecuted for Disregarding Safety
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Owner Faces 5 Years for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odor Leads to Fibro Discovery in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Trustees to Hire Fibro Investigator

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eynsham Car Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Suggestion to Remand Damages Claims Opposed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Fined for Failing to Conduct Fibro Check
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Halts Work at Housing Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Awarded GBP61,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General Wins Delaware Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meriden School Closed Due to Possible Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crumbling Conneaut Building Contains Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewkerne Woman Blames Cancer on Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is Canada's Top Cause of Workplace Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped Near Queensland Highway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Electrician's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Flips in Part Suit Dismissal Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Dept. Beset with Fibro Cancer Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Puts School District on Fin'l Brink

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gabe's Tower
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Queensland Poses "Low Risk"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Exposed Public to Fibro, DEQ Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Release Puts Dutch City on Alert
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Sufferer Has Fibro in House

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Fibro in Stony Creek, Yarraville
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arsenic, Fibro Found in Northstowe Ground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Laden NZ Bldg. to be Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't to Knock Down Mr. Fluffy Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty for Improper Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Prosecuting Council Over Town Hall Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Country Lane in Dunkirk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Law Nixes Deadline for Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Development to Require Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco Co. Settles Fibro, Dividends Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found on Rottnest Island
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Warns of Mesothelioma Risk in Pipes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Urban Demolitions in Turkey Spread Fibro


                            *********


123 MCDOUGAL STREET: Faces "Hurley" Suit Alleging ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. 123 McDougal Street Pizza Corp.
d/b/a Ben's Pizza, a New York for profit corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-09924-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) alleges violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  The Plaintiff is permanently
disabled and confined to a wheelchair as there is no known,
affordable cure available to him.

More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that he is being
deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting the same
accommodations readily available to the general public and he is
further deterred and discouraged from additional travel due to the
Defendant's ongoing non-compliance with the ADA.  He points out
that he was not able to receive service at the service counter
from his wheelchair because of certain barriers.

123 McDougal Street Pizza Corp. d/b/a Ben's Pizza is the operator
of a food establishment located at 123 McDougal Street in New York
County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: tdemetriades@aol.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Paid $2.6 Million to Settle Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company paid
$2.6 million to settle a consolidated class action.

In April 2013, two wage and hour claims were filed against the
Company in the State of California and were subsequently
consolidated into a class action. In June 2013, the parties agreed
to settle the substantive claims for $2.5 million during
mediation. Once the settlement became probable, the Company
established a $2.5 million reserve during the second quarter of
2013 for this matter. Subsequently, on April 9, 2014 and following
court approval, the Company settled this matter with payment of
$2.6 million. The total amount of the litigation settlement of
$2.6 million was reflected in accrued liabilities at December 31,
2013.


ADS WASTE: Class Action Lawsuits in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------
ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class
action lawsuits against the Company are in the early stage.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in Circuit
Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints
were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County,
Georgia, and Barbour County, Alabama, and in Chester County,
Pennsylvania in 2014. The Georgia case was dismissed in March
2014.

The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental
fees) that were in breach of the plaintiff's contract with the
Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss if any cannot
currently be estimated.


ALP LIQUIDATING: No New Trial Date Set in "Rothal" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court struck
the May 2014 trial date with no new trial date set in the case
entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The
motion to expand the class was withdrawn. The case went to
mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.
The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings including trial. A further mediation was held on
August 13, 2013 and no settlement was reached.

The court struck the May 2014 trial date with no new trial date
set. The defense of the case is proceeding.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. The
Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure
that it may have for this matter.

This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its
affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.
Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported
reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other
counsel in connection with this lawsuit. The ultimate legal and
financial liability of the Partnership, if any, in this matter
cannot be estimated with certainty at this time. The Partnership
is unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees
and damages, if any, which will be covered by its insurance.


ALP LIQUIDATING: Bids to Stay Scottsdale Insurance Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there are pending
motions to stay and for summary judgment which have not been set
for hearing in the case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v.
Richard Rothal, et al.

On January 19, 2012, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al., Case No.
2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida, Complex Litigation Unit. In this
case, Scottsdale Insurance Company ("Scottsdale"), an alleged
insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing"),
seeks a declaratory judgment against, among others, Waterproofing,
the class certified in the Rothal action and the Partnership,
seeking a declaration of Scottsdale's rights and obligations under
two commercial general liability policies it allegedly issued over
the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002. The case has been
transferred from the complex litigation unit to the trial court
handling the Rothal action. The declaration in this case seeks to
affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal, and the Partnership
may have in these policies.

On or about August 29, 2012, the Partnership filed an answer,
affirmative defenses and a counterclaim seeking, among other
things, defense and indemnity in connection with the Rothal
action. Scottsdale filed an answer to the Partnership's
counterclaim.

There are pending motions to stay and for summary judgment which
have not been set for hearing. The Partnership will vigorously
pursue its interests in the policies written by the plaintiff. The
Partnership is unable to determine what portion of its fees and
damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be recovered under the
Scottsdale policies.


AMIRA'S DELI: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Amira's Deli, Inc. d/b/a N.Y.
Village Deli, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09934-GHW (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) is an action for
injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act entitling the Plaintiff to attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs expended in pursuing the action.

The Plaintiff suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  The Plaintiff is permanently
disabled and confined to a wheelchair as there is no known,
affordable cure available to him.

Amira's Deli, Inc., doing business as N.Y. Village Deli, is the
operator of a food and deli establishment, which establishment is
defined as a "place of public accommodation."  The establishment
is located in New York County, New York.  The property is a five-
story building with two ground floor retail units and residential
apartments on the higher floors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
          ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
          2076 Wolver Hollow Road
          Oyster Bay, NY 11771
          Telephone: (516) 595-5009
          E-mail: tdemetriades@aol.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Bid to Compel in Knowlton Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action KNOWLTON v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC,
CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 4:13-CV-210 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), has been
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 against
defendants Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (ABC), Anheuser-Busch
Companies Pension Plan (Plan), Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan Appeals Committee, and Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrate Committee. Plaintiffs allege they are former
employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation (BEC), are salaried
participants in the Pension Plan, and are entitled to certain
enhanced benefits under the Pension Plan pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Currently before the Missouri district court is the plaintiffs'
motion to compel responses to discovery requests served upon the
defendants.  Plaintiffs served three interrogatories and eight
requests for production. It appears that the parties are in
dispute regarding Interrogatories 1 and 2 and Document Requests 6
and 8.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on November 10.
The outcome of that motion will determine whether the information
plaintiffs seek must be produced, the Court opined.

The Court thus denied the motion to compel without prejudice until
after disposition of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 18, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/U435Dmfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Brian Knowlton, Douglas Minerd, Gary Lensenmayer, and
Charles R. Wetesnik are represented by Andrew Servais, Wingert
Grebing Brubaker and Juskie LLP; Charles R Grebing, Wingert
Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP; Joe D. Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON,
P.C.; Scott J. Stitt -- scottstitt@tuckerellis.com -- of TUCKER
ELLIS LLP; & Joseph R. Dulle -- jdulle@stoneleyton.com -- of STONE
AND LEYTON.

Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Nancy J Anderson is represented by
Joe D. Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., Joseph R. Dulle, STONE AND
LEYTON, Paul J. Puricelli -- ppuricelli@stoneleyson.com -- of
STONE AND LEYTON & Scott J. Stitt, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs Richard F. Angevine, Joe Mullins,
Andy Fichthorn, and Donald W. Mills, Jr. are represented by Joe D.
Jacobson, GREEN JACOBSON, P.C., Scott J. Stitt, TUCKER ELLIS LLP &
Joseph R. Dulle, STONE AND LEYTON.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and the other Defendants are
represented by James F. Bennett -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- of
DOWD BENNETT, LLP; Jennifer L. Aspinall --
jaspinall@dowdbennett.com -- of DOWD BENNETT, LLP; Peter B.
Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN AND ARPS;
Albert L. Hogan, III -- al.hogan@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN AND
ARPS & David R. Pehlke -- david.pehlke@skadden.com -- of SKADDEN
AND ARPS.


APPLE INC: Defends Antitrust Class Action Over iPod Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Breathecast reports that Apple is currently defending itself
against a class action antitrust suit, which claims that the tech
titan banned consumers from accessing music that's released by
competing audio companies, leading to inflated iPod prices.

By banning songs from other music vendors and forcing consumers to
purchase songs only from the iTunes store, the plaintiffs claimed
that the electronics giant not only affected the business of other
music players, but it also led to the increase in the prices of
their iPods.  They are looking to Apple's FairPlay Digital Rights
Management or DRM as the cause.

According to the plaintiff, FairPlay prevents iTunes music from
being played on other music players, prevents other companies from
selling music to Apple consumers, and prevents other companies
from reverse engineer FairPlay to make themselves more accessible.
The system also deletes music it deemed unauthorized within their
own DRM.

Eddy Cue, Apple iTunes Chief, testified on Dec. 4 in Oakland,
California to explain the policies of Apple's FairPlay DRM
software and refuted the allegations being made against them.

Mr. Cue explained that closing off their products was not meant to
limit consumers and was not the cause of the increased iPod
prices.  He said that Apple did not agree with the DRM, but the
company needed to create its own FairPlay DRM software to ensure
the security of their system.  This was also the only way for the
company to make deals with major record labels and to avail of
high quality and licensed music.  He also said that the FairPlay
DRM prevents them from being hacked by sealing all the contents
within their system.  He explained that they did plan to release
the FairPlay to other companies, but it wasn't possible due to
technical issues and they couldn't find a way to make it work
reliably.

The case has come to the point that even the late Apple co-founder
Steve Jobs will be appearing in court, however, by means of a
taped deposition, according to CNET.


ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Expects to Incur Additional Warranty Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Materials, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that on February
13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Release of Claims (the "Settlement") for a class action lawsuit
filed by plaintiffs and a putative nationwide class of homeowners
regarding certain warranty-related claims for steel and aluminum
siding, which became effective on September 2, 2013. The Company
expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the
Settlement; however, the Company does not believe the incremental
costs, which currently cannot be estimated for recognition
purposes, have been or will be material.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the securities
class action is scheduled for trial in March 2015.

The Company said, "In March 2013 and May 2013, two purported
securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain
of our former executive officers seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July
2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original plaintiffs
agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated case."

"In September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased our common stock
between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013. The consolidated
amended complaint, which named us, certain of our current and
former executive officers and our former independent accounting
firm as defendants, purported to state a claim for violation of
federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"In October 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some of the
claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the two
plaintiffs from the case. The matter is scheduled for trial in
March 2015."


BAKERSFIELD DODGE: Cal. App. Upholds Denial of Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's judgment
denying class certification in the case captioned LYLE L. BARNES,
et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BAKERSFIELD DODGE, INC., et
al., Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs alleged they purchased a vehicle from Dodge pursuant to
a retail installment sale contract in which Dodge failed to
properly itemize the fees paid for license, registration,
transfer, and titling.

Plaintiffs moved for certification of the class, asserting
improper lumping together of fees as appeared in all class
members' retail installment contracts. Plaintiffs contended that
there were common questions of fact, because all class members
purchased a vehicle from Dodge, signed a contract, and the
contract disclosed the registration, transfer, and titling fees as
"N/A."

Defendants opposed, and filed their own motion to deny class
certification, asserting the appellate court's prior opinion and
contending that the proposed class members were still subject to
arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements in their standard
form contracts and a major issue in the case would be whether
defendants could compel them to arbitrate.

Defendants argued, among other things, that the class should not
be certified because plaintiffs' claims were not typical of the
class claims; the proposed class members were subject to
arbitration agreements that required them to separately arbitrate
disputes with defendants, but the named plaintiffs were not.

Accordingly, the trial court denied certification of the proposed
class, concluding that plaintiffs did not share a well-defined
community of interest in questions of law and fact with the
proposed class members.

On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial
of class certification and ruled that plaintiffs cannot
effectively represent any of the class members who must arbitrate
their claims, if plaintiffs' claims are being adjudicated in a
different forum. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of
demonstrating that substantial evidence does not support the trial
court's decision.

A copy of the Opinion dated October 23, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/10a9AUV from Leagle.com.

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt's Hallen D. Rosner, Christopher P. Barry
and Lacee B. Smith argue for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill's Robert W. Thompson and
Charles S. Russell argue for Defendants and Respondents.


BBVA COMPASS: Defending Against "Deaver" Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company was named in November 2012 as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, Cheryl Deaver, on behalf of herself
and others so situated v. Compass Bank, wherein the plaintiff
alleges the Company failed to provide lawful meal periods or wages
in lieu thereof, full compensation for hours worked, or timely
wages due at termination (the plaintiff had previously filed a
similar lawsuit in May 2011 which was dismissed without prejudice
when the plaintiff failed to meet certain filing deadlines). The
plaintiff further alleges that the Company did not comply with
wage statement requirements. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial
defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously.


BERRY PETROLEUM: Settlement Fund Distribution Begins
----------------------------------------------------
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is a defendant in a certain statewide royalty class action
case in which the parties have entered into a settlement agreement
to settle past claims for approximately $2.4 million. Subject to
approval of the settlement agreement by the court, the Company
anticipates distribution of settlement funds to begin in the
fourth quarter of 2014.


BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Apple REIT Class Suit Fees & Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp., as successor to Apple Six, will pay 20%,
and the other parties to the litigation cost sharing agreement
will pay 80%, of the fees and expenses of specified counsel or any
other counsel, consultant or service provider jointly retained in
connection with the Apple REIT class action litigation, incurred
after November 29, 2012 in connection with the Apple REIT class
action litigation, BRE Select said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") ordered that
three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner
Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et
al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and
amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple
REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and
ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint
by February 17, 2012. Apple Six was previously named as a party in
the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. class
action lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple
Six, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund
Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.,
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors
and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("David
Lerner Associates") and David Lerner. Apple REIT Seven, Inc.,
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc. are collectively referred to as "other Apple REIT companies."
The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units in Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies, or those who otherwise acquired these units that were
offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates or its
affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of Apple Six and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or
those who otherwise acquired these units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies
served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re
Apple REITs Litigation. Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with a memorandum of law in support of their motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On April 3, 2013, the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation was granted in full with
prejudice. On April 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the Apple REIT class action litigation, appealing the decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
July 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their
appeal. On October 25, 2013, defendants filed a brief opposing
plaintiffs' appeal. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply
brief in further support of their appeal. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the In re Apple REITs Litigation. In the summary order, the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the District Court of the
federal securities claims and state securities law claims and
affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. However,
the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims and
remanded for further proceedings.

After remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants filed a brief in support
of their motion to dismiss. On July 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief. Defendants' reply brief was filed on August 8,
2014.

The Company believes that any claims against it are without merit,
and it intends to continue to defend against them vigorously. At
this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible
loss or range of loss due to this proceeding.


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits
----------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Ottawa
has quietly paid EI sickness benefits to some women who fell ill
during maternity leave while continuing to fight a multi-million-
dollar class action lawsuit against others, the Star has learned.
Roughly 350 women who launched appeals in 2012 and 2013 have been
paid, according to government documents filed in the class action
certification to be heard in federal court beginning Dec. 16.

Calgary mother Carissa Kasbohm, 30, who developed a serious blood
illness while on maternity leave in 2010, wonders why the
government has paid some women and not her.

"It makes me upset," said Ms. Kasbohm, who figures she is owed
about $4,100.

"It's good that they are getting the money that they deserve, but
it makes me wonder why I am not entitled to it.  Why am I still
getting messed around? Why haven't I got paid yet?"

Liberal Party social development critic Roger Cuzner says the
revelation raises serious questions about why the government
continues to fight the class action suit.

"Instead of paying sick moms, our tax dollars are paying lawyers,"
said Mr. Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso).

"It's appalling that this government continues to fight parents,
to deny them benefits, when they know they've had a legitimate
right to receive these benefits since 2002," he said.

A spokesperson for Employment and Social Development Canada said
the government could not comment on the case as it is before the
courts.

Ms. Kasbohm is one of as many as 60,000 mothers whose EI sickness
benefits have been denied since 2002 and who stand to benefit in
the class action suit launched in January 2012.

The EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend the benefit to
working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on
maternity and parental leave.  The amendment allows parents to
stack sickness benefits onto maternity/parental benefits.  If a
parent (usually a woman) becomes sick while on maternity or
parental leave, she can apply for a maximum of 15 weeks of
sickness benefits.  Once those benefits are paid, the maternity or
parental leave resumes.

While the government paid sickness benefits to women who were
pregnant, EI officials said none of the mothers who became ill
while on maternity and parental leave were eligible because of a
"catch-22" clause in the law that required them to be "otherwise
available for work."  Technically, mothers on maternity leave are
caring for their babies and not available for work, so their
sickness claims were denied.

But in 2011, Toronto mother Natalya Rougas appealed and won in a
ruling that advised the government to either order EI staff to
ignore the offending clause or rewrite the legislation.

In November 2012, the Conservatives introduced the Helping
Families in Need Act that removed the clause.  But the government
continued to fight cancer survivor Jane Kittmer of Stratford who
won a second ruling in support of the 2002 law the following
month.  The Conservatives' new law took effect in March 2013.  But
as the Star reported, they continued to fight Ms. Kittmer.

During a grilling in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper assured Canadians that "the government is exploring ways
that this matter can be addressed and resolved."

Ms. Kittmer eventually got her money.  And so did many others,
according to the court documents.  But the class action continues.
Lawyer Stephen Moreau, who is handling the case, says the women
who have not been paid are just as worthy.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Reached $3.5MM Settlement in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company reached a settlement of $3,500,000 in the
Securities Class Action Lawsuit.

In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
Court). These complaints, which were substantially identical,
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of
the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on
January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days.

On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company and one of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state a
claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of
Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18,
2013. In February 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by
the Court. Subsequently, on September 29, 2014, the Court
certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period
from August 27, 2013, through October 18, 2013 (the Class Period),
and who did not sell such securities prior to October 18, 2013
(excluding: defendants; any entities affiliated with the Company,
the present and former officers and directors of the Company or
any subsidiary or affiliate thereof; members of such excluded
persons' immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in which any excluded
person has or had a controlling interest).

Following a mediation in mid-October conducted by an independent
mediator, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit to
settle the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to the execution of
a formal stipulation of settlement between the parties to the
lawsuit and approval of the settlement by the Court. The Court has
ordered that the formal stipulation of settlement be filed with
the Court on or before November 21, 2014.

Under the MOU, the Company will pay $3.5 million in return for a
dismissal and release of all claims against the defendants. The
settlement amount is expected to be paid by the Company's
insurance carrier. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants,
and various of their related persons and entities, will receive a
full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in
the action, as well as all claims that arise out of, are based
upon, or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts,
representations, omissions or other matters involved in the action
related in any way to the purchase or acquisition of the Company's
securities by class members during the class period.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues
to deny all of the allegations against each of them and believes
that the claims are without merit. Because the full amount of the
proposed settlement payment is expected to be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position
or results of operations. There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be formally documented and approved by the Court.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Formal Discovery Yet in "Ford" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties
have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal discovery
in the Ford Litigation.

On January 27, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company, entitled Franchesca Ford v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a
Chuck E. Cheese's (the "Ford Litigation"), was filed in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California, Cause Number CGC 14-
536992. The Company received service of process on February 26,
2014. The Ford Litigation was filed by Franchesca Ford, a former
store employee, claiming to represent other similarly situated
hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in
California from January 27, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving
unpaid vacation wages, meal and rest periods, wages due upon
termination and waiting time penalties. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount in damages.

On March 27, 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco
Division, Cause Number 3:14-cv-01420-MEJ. On April 25, 2014, the
plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Ford Litigation to
California state court and on July 10, 2014, the motion to remand
was denied. The case thus will proceed in federal court.

The parties have exchanged initial disclosures but no other formal
discovery. The Company's investigation is on-going.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and intends to vigorously defend against it, including the Ford
Litigation plaintiff's efforts to certify a California class
action," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Reached Settlement in FCRA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties
reached a settlement in principle at the September 23rd session of
the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference to settle the
FCRA litigation on a class-wide basis.

On March 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company, entitled Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's (the "FCRA
Litigation"), was filed in U.S. District Court Southern District,
California, Case Number 3:14-cv-00677-JLS-JLB. The Company
received service of process on March 31, 2014. The FCRA Litigation
was filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez claiming to
represent other similarly situated applicants who were subject to
pre-employment background checks with the Company across the
United States and in California from March 24, 2012 to the
present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and
Investigative Reporting Agencies Act.

On May 21, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The
Court conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the case
on June 30, 2014, and a Continued Early Neutral Evaluation
Conference on August 13, 2014 and September 23, 2014.

The parties reached a settlement in principle at the September
23rd session of the Continued Early Neutral Evaluation Conference
to settle the action on a class-wide basis. The settlement would
result in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the action,
along with certain related claims and releases in exchange for a
maximum settlement payment of $1,750,000, a substantial portion of
which would be covered by the Company's insurance carrier.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Says Restaurant Managers Misclassified
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in October
2014, the Company was served with a complaint alleging
misclassification of certain restaurant managers as exempt
employees under federal and New York law. The Company is
considering its response. It is too early in the litigation to
determine what, if any, potential liability may exist.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Provides Update on Queso Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
litigation related to the agreement and plan of merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with Queso Holdings Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and Q Merger Sub Inc., a Kansas
corporation ("Merger Sub").  Parent and Merger Sub were controlled
by Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo") and its subsidiaries.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class
actions were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the
Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and
Merger Sub in connection with the Merger Agreement and the
transactions contemplated thereby in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas. The first purported class action, which is
captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57,
was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second
purported class action, which is captioned John Solak v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on
January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The third purported class
action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc.
et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and
additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and
the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth
purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal
Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No.
14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 and additionally names as
defendants, Apollo Managemnet VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P. (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne,
Solak, and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions
further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted
members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the
"Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which
allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that
Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The
LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P.
and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.
The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of
these transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"); furthermore, on
January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the
"Amended Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporate all of
the allegations in the original complaints and add allegations
that the Board approved the Statement which omitted certain
material information in violation of their fiduciary duties. The
Amended Complaints further request an order directing the Board to
disclose such allegedly omitted material information.
Additionally, the Solak Amended Complaint adds allegations that
the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly
conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales
process.

On January 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Coyne and Dixon Actions
jointly filed a motion in each action for a temporary restraining
order, expedited discovery, and the scheduling of a hearing for
the plaintiffs' anticipated motion for temporary injunction
seeking expedited discovery and a hearing date in anticipation of
a motion for a temporary injunction. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and
the individual defendants filed responses to those motions on
January 31, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the plaintiff in the LMPERS Action filed a
motion to join the January 28 motion, and the plaintiff in the
Solak Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings in
anticipation of a motion for a temporary injunction.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
four actions pending in Kansas withdrew their respective motions
and determined to pursue a consolidated action for damages after
the Tender Offer closed.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were
consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57. Thereafter, the parties
engaged in limited discovery. By stipulation of the parties, the
Company has no obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the complaints filed in the Coyne, Solak, Dixon or LMPERS Actions
until after the plaintiffs serve a consolidated amended complaint,
or designate an operative complaint or amended complaint.

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v
Frank, et al. Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County
Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014 (the "McCullough
Action"). On May 21, 2014, the County Court of Dallas County,
Texas dismissed the McCullough Action for want of prosecution.

On June 10, 2014, Magnetar Global Event Driven Fund Ltd., Spectrum
Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., Magnetar Capital Master Fund,
Ltd., and Blackwell Partners LLC, as the purported beneficial
owners of shares held as of record by the nominal petitioner Cede
& Co., (the "Appraisal Petitioners"), filed an action for
statutory appraisal under Kansas state law against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, et al. v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc., 2:14-cv-02279-RDR-KGS. The Appraisal
Petitioners seek appraisal of 750,000 shares of common stock. The
Company has answered the complaint and filed a verified list of
stockholders, as required under Kansas law. On September 3, 2014,
the court entered a scheduling order that contemplates that
discovery will commence in the fall of 2014 and will substantially
be completed by May 2015.

Following discovery, the scheduling order contemplates dispositive
motion practice followed, pottentially, by a trial on the merits
of the Appraisal Petitioners' claims thereafter. We are currently
in settlement negotiations with the Appraisal Petitioners, but no
settlement has been reached. The Company has accrued for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this
claim.

"The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously; however, we are presently unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation," the Company
said.


CHINA XD: Faces Two Putative Securities Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in
two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These actions, which allege violations of the United States
securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and
are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and
Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359
(GBD), respectively.  The plaintiffs in both actions seek to
represent a class of all persons, other than defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics
Company Limited between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the defendants
made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts
in the Company's Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended September
30, 2009 and the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December
31, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.  The plaintiffs also assert
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The complaints
seek damages in unspecified amounts.

"Based on our initial review of the complaints, the management
believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them," the Company said.


COMPASS GROUP: Court Reduces Atty Fee Award in "Terrero" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in a memorandum opinion and order dated
Dec. 8, 2014, approved a settlement entered into in the class
action filed by Cesar Terrero against Compass Group USA, Inc., but
found the proposed award of attorney's fees to be excessive in
light of the factors set out in Goldberger v. Integrated
Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000).

Judge Furman pointed out that the size of the requested fee in
relation to the total settlement -- 50% -- is especially too high.
Accordingly, the Court reduces the fee award to 30% of the
settlement, or $3,000.

Moreover, the Court finds that there is no basis to keep the
settlement confidential in light of the common law right of access
to judicial contents.

The case is CESAR TERRERO, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 14CV08129 (JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Furman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/vr24hCfrom
Leagle.com.

Cesar Terrero, Plaintiff, represented by Jodi Jill Jaffe, Jaffe
Glenn Law Group, P.A..

Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig R.
Benson, Esq. -- cbenson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Sarah Elyse Moss, Esq. -- smoss@littler.com -- at Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


CREDIT ONE: Class Suit Seeks Redress From Violations of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
A.D., by and through her guardian ad litem Judith Serrano, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit One
Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-10106 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014)
seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged business practices that
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

A.D. is a minor, age 15 at the time of filing, and is a resident
of San Diego, California.  The Plaintiff is the regular and
exclusive user of a cellular telephone with service registered in
the name of her parent.

Credit One Bank, N.A. is a national bank and an issuer of consumer
revolving debt.  The Defendant is organized under the National
Banking Act, has its principal place of business in Nevada, and
does business in every state, including Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com

               - and -

          Roberto Robledo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO
          9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 500-6683
          Facsimile: (619) 810-2980
          E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com


DUNE MANAGEMENT: Property Managers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Costello, on her own behalf, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Dune Management Company, Inc. d/b/a Dune Resorts,
James Zaborski, John Does #1-100, Case No. 2:14-cv-07307-JS-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly
situated property managers of the Defendants' various hotel and
resort locations.

Ms. Costello alleges that she and the members of the proposed
class were denied overtime compensation as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Based in East Hampton, New York, Dune Management Company is a
resort group that operates under the trade name Dune Resorts.
James Zaborski is the owner and chief executive officer of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eli Zev Freedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (347) 651-0044
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0799
          E-mail: efreedberg@ezf-law.com


EILAT ASHKELON: Faces Class Action Over Arava Desert Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tova Dvorin, writing for Arutz Sheva, reports that an Eilat
resident filed a class action suit in the Tel Aviv District Court
on Dec. 7, on behalf of all the residents of Eilat against the
Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) for oil spill in the Arava
desert.

The class action suit, amounting to 380 million shekel ($95.4
million), was brought by Eilat resident Lisa Mellish, via attorney
David Mena.  The suit accuses EPAC of negligence and ecological
damage, and calls for 200 million shekel ($50.2 million) to be
repaid for rehabilitation of the Arava region -- in line with
regulations by the Ministry for Environmental Protection and the
National Park Organization -- and another 180 million shekel
($45.2 million) to be paid to the residents of Eilat, over health
risks and inconveniences caused by the disaster.

The massive pipeline oil spill in the Arava desert, near Be'er Ora
20 kilometers (12 miles) north of Eilat in the southern Negev,
involved the spill of over 1,000 cubic meters -- the equivalent of
40 tanker trucks -- of oil.  It was described as an "environmental
disaster" by environmental activists.

The spill not only closed Route 90, but also proved to introduce a
number of health risks.

"Dozens of people were evacuated from their homes at night
following the huge oil spill, and were damaged by breathing
contaminated air and affected by the strong oil smell," the class
action suit claims. "The people suffered respiratory distress and
vomiting, and some remain injured days after the fact."

The suit also notes that residents were kept from engaging in
physical activity from the fumes, and that all residents with
chronic diseases were forced to stay indoors for long stretches.

"The smell was evident and created air pollution which made it
difficult to breathe, causing vomiting and headaches," it
continues, noting that Eilat's air pollution has risen since to
80% contaminated -- well above the under-30% average.

It was also stated in the complaint that "the Ministry of the
Environment has recommended that Eilat Municipality cancel the
triathlon competition planned for Friday in the affected areas of
the leak, due to health concerns during the competition."

Attorney David Mena spoke about the case to Walla! News.

"If EAPC thinks it can lurk behind the privileges it enjoys, then
it's wrong," Mena stated. "In such cases there is no
confidentiality order over its failures."

Mr. Mena's remarks over confidentiality refer to EAPC's legal
confidentiality agreement since 1968; for over 40 years, it has
not been required to maintain transparency over its actions in
general.  Walla! also noted that EAPC had made contacts in Iran
shortly after the confidentiality agreement was forged, as Israel
and Iran had a working diplomatic relationship at the time.

"EAPC will pay a heavy price for all its shortcomings because it
was not the first time it was responsible for pipeline failures
and oil spills," Mr. Mena added.  "Three years ago there was a
similar case in Nahal Zin but luckily the area is uninhabited.
This failure repeated itself and EAPC hasn't learned from the
experience."

EAPC responded by evading accusations of foul play or negligence.

"As part of construction of the Timna airport, EAPC was asked to
perform a routine redirection of segment 42 of the pipeline from
Eilat to Ashkelon, around the area in which the airport is
supposed to be," it stated.  "Due to what appears to be a
technical problem for reasons yet unclear, a leak occurred on the
line."

"When the event was made evident, the leakage control department
of the company warned workers to immediately close the valves in
that section of the pipeline," it continued.  "The valves were
closed and isolated that section of the leak [. . .] following the
closing of the valves, the flow stopped, but some of the fuel was
trapped between the valve and the affected area."

"In view of the rapid reaction of employees and the leakage
control section, which was equipped with all the technology to
prevent a large-scale event, the company reported the leak to all
relevant authorities as required in real-time and worked on the
emergency procedures flawlessly."

It was also reported that "the company invests heavily in
preventive maintenance which includes repair of lines in
accordance with the highest international standards.  In addition,
the company invests heavily in equipping the most advanced systems
in the world in terms of operation and maintenance of the lines."

"The company manages an emergency system equipped with the best
technological means and has trained response teams for providing
professional and quick response to emergencies."

According to the EAPC, "since the spill, the company operates
around the clock in coordination with the Ministry of Environment
officials and representatives of the National Parks Authority, to
pump leakage and remove the contaminated soil. The pumping
operation has removed most of the leakage."

"According to regulations of the Ministry of Environmental
Protection and National Parks Authority, company operations have
removed enough oil to return the area to stats quo," it continued.
"EAPC is a gateway to the energy of the state of Israel, and
operates hundreds of miles of lines used by the energy sector and
provides the most distillates in Israel refineries and other
factors and activities essential for the functioning of the
economy and it has worked reliably and efficiently for decades."


EOG RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Allowed to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Julie A. Robinson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend Complaint and Intervenor's Motion to Intervene in ROCO,
INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-1065-
JAR-KMH (D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Roco filed a suit in the District Court of Seward
County, County, Kansas alleging claims on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated royalty owners of Defendant-operated gas
wells in Kansas. Roco is a Kansas corporation and has a royalty
interest in one EOG-producing well in Kansas.

Plaintiff sought leave to amend its petition to add a new putative
subclass of royalty owners in EOG wells in Oklahoma. The Second
Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant underpaid Kansas and
Oklahoma royalty owners of EOG-operated gas wells.

Defendant opposed the motion on grounds of undue delay, bad faith,
and prejudice and filed its own motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings arguing that Roco lacks standing to assert claims on
behalf of royalty owners located in Oklahoma because it is not a
resident of Oklahoma.

Sonya Smith, a royalty owner of EOG-owned wells in Oklahoma seeks
to intervene in this suit. Also, Roco seeks leave to amend in
order to add Smith as a Plaintiff. Roco argues that intervention
and amendment render moot any standing challenge.

In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Robinson ruled that the Court
finds no undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive in Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend. In addition, the Court finds no
prejudice or bad faith in allowing intervention of the proceedings
and further finds that the proposed intervenor has standing to
assert the Oklahoma claims. In granting such motion, the Court
finds that the Kansas and Oklahoma claims share a common nucleus
of operative facts and law.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/GewHRofrom Leagle.com.


END ZONE BAR: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Mano v. Marsha A. Rolfe, a sole proprietor, d/b/a End Zone
Bar and Grill; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02919-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal., December 16, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among
other things, failing to pay overtime, to pay minimum wages and to
provide meal and rest periods.

Marsha A. Rolfe is a sole proprietor of an entity doing business
as End Zone Bar and Grill -- a popular and busy restaurant that
draws big crowds for a diverse selection of sports as well as
large events, including the Wing, Rib, and Chili cook-offs.  The
Doe Defendants are affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities
and the alter egos of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
                  jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com


END ZONE BAR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Mano v. Marsha A. Rolfe, a sole proprietor, d/b/a End Zone
Bar and Grill; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-at-
01591 (E.D. Cal., December 16, 2014) asserts claims for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, penalties, and unfair competition
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Marsha A. Rolfe is a sole proprietor of an entity doing business
as End Zone Bar and Grill -- a popular and busy restaurant that
draws big crowds for a diverse selection of sports as well as
large events, including the Wing, Rib, and Chili cook-offs.  The
Doe Defendants are affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities
and the alter egos of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
                  jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com


EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to File Answer Indefinitely Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the defendants'
date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the class
action lawsuit has been indefinitely extended.

The Company said, "In March and April, 2014, three alleged
stockholders (the "Plaintiffs") filed three separate class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of our stockholders against our Company, our directors,
Energy XXI, EGC, and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of EGC ("Merger Sub" and
collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The
consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit")."

"Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, EGC, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "Merger Agreement"), including that (a) our directors
have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, EGC, and Merger Sub,
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their
allegations that (i) the Merger allegedly provided inadequate
consideration to our stockholders for their shares of our common
stock; (ii) the Merger Agreement contained contractual terms --
including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing
proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that allegedly
dissuaded other potential acquirers from making competing offers
for shares of our common stock; (iii) certain of our officers and
directors allegedly received benefits -- including (A) an offer
for one of our directors to join the Energy XXI board of directors
and (B) the triggering of change-in-control provisions in notes
held by our executive officers -- that were not equally shared by
our stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI required our officers and
directors to agree to vote their shares of our common stock in
favor of the Merger; and (v) we provided, and Energy XXI obtained,
non-public information that allegedly allowed Energy XXI to
acquire us for inadequate consideration. Plaintiffs also allege
that the Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by us and Energy
XXI on April 1, 2014 omits information concerning, among other
things, (i) the events leading up to the Merger, (ii) our efforts
to attract offers from other potential acquirors, (iii) our
evaluation of the Merger; (iv) negotiations between us and Energy
XXI, and (v) the analysis of our financial advisor. Based on these
allegations, plaintiffs seek to have the Merger Agreement
rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees.

"Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. We cannot predict
the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that might be filed
subsequent to the date of the filing of this Quarterly Report; nor
can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the lawsuit. The defendants intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit."


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: AMR Unit Faces Class Actions in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four
different putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.

On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles: and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases
have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian
cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action.
In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks.  The plaintiffs sought to certify classes on these claims
and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees
under California law.  The Court has certified classes in the
consolidated Karapetian /Aguilar case on claims alleging that AMR
has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to
dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an unlawful time round
policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting rates for
those employees; the Court denied certification of the rest period
claims of these employees.  In Banta, the Court denied
certification of the meal and rest period claims as to EMTs and
paramedics, a decision that is being appealed; the Court indicated
that it would certify a class on overtime claims, but plaintiff's
counsel have indicated that they intend to dismiss that claim as
AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeal decision.  In
Bartoni, the Court denied certification on the meal and rest
period claims, but certified a class on the overtime claims, as to
which the Company intends to seek summary judgment. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages,
if any in any of these actions.


EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
EveryWare Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company was
named on October 7, 2014, as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit in a complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The complaint alleges
that the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements concerning
the Company.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages.

"We intend to vigorously defend these claims," the Company said.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals From Judgment in "Dreher" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated, asks the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for permission to
appeal from a summary judgment order entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Michael Dreher, et al.

Experian presents two questions:

   (1) Does Congress's authorization of statutory damages confer
       Article III standing on the Plaintiffs and absent class
       members, who have suffered no injury-in-fact from the
       alleged statutory violation?

   (2) Under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 68
       (2007), a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
       cannot be willful if it was not clearly established that
       the conduct at issue was contrary to what the FCRA
       requires.  In making this "clearly established"
       determination, (a) does Safeco require a sole focus on the
       text of the operative provision, to the exclusion of other
       FCRA provisions, industry practice, statutory purpose, and
       informal regulatory guidance, and (b) does Safeco make
       willfulness a question for the court rather than a jury?

The case is an approximately 106,000-member nationwide class
action under the FCRA alleging that Experian willfully violated
the FCRA's requirement that consumer disclosures identify the
sources of the credit file information they contain.  Experian
allegedly violated this requirement with respect to credit card
accounts opened with Advanta Bank, by listing those accounts under
"Advanta" rather than using the name "CardWorks" or "CardWorks
Servicing LLC" -- the formal corporate name of the credit card
servicer that handled Advanta's accounts (and that dealt with
customers under the Advanta name) after Advanta entered
receivership.  The class claims no actual damages; it seeks only
statutory damages for an allegedly willful FCRA violation.

The appellate case is Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated
v. Michael Dreher, et al., Case No. 14-491, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The trial court case is
Michael Dreher, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions,
Incorporated, Case No. 3:11-CV-624 (JAG), in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Petitioner-Defendant Experian is represented by:

          Daniel J. McLoon, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 S. Flower St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          E-mail: djmcloon@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Clark, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Ave. N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          E-mail: jwclark@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Meir Feder, Esq.
          Ian Samuel, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 E. 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-7870
          E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com
                  isamuel@jonesday.com

Defendants CardWorks, Inc., and CardWorks Servicing LLC are
represented by:

          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          Facsimile: (757) 687-1504
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
                  ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC
          4010 University Dr., Suite 200
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 251-5400
          Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
          E-mail: kkelly@siplfirm.com

               - and -

          Justin Michael Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER LLP
          8835 SW Canyon Lane
          Portland, OR 97225
          Telephone: (503) 297-9031

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Ian Lyngklip, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
          24500 Northwestern Highway
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 208-8864


FARMER'S INSURANCE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives "Dowling" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment
dismissing Plaintiff's class action complaint in the case
captioned RHONDA DOWLING, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent, CASE No.
B248946.

Plaintiff Rhonda Dowling sued Farmers alleging a single count for
violation of the unfair competition law based on a violation of
Insurance Code section 1861.02.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of dismissal after the trial court
granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to bring the
case to trial within five years.

Plaintiffs argued in its opposition that the five-year period to
bring the case to trial should be tolled based on several events.

Farmers argued that plaintiffs had failed to diligently prosecute
this action. The five-year deadline had passed, so plaintiffs
could not obtain class certification and therefore the motion to
dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should be
granted.

In reversing the trial court's judgment, the Appellate Court cited
the Code of Civil Procedure section 583.130 which states that in
construing these provisions the policy favoring trial or other
resolution on the merits is generally to be preferred over the
policy requiring dismissal for failure to prosecute with
reasonable diligence.  Further, in computing the five year time
period within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 583.310, Code of Civil Procedure Sec.
583.340 excludes from the computation the time during which the
jurisdiction of the Superior Court to try the action was
suspended.  Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the
action based on plaintiffs' failure to bring the case to trial by
an earlier date. Hence, the judgment was reversed.

A copy of the Decision dated October 23, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/G0KH0vfrom Leagle.com.


GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES: Dancers Win Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA") class
claim in JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GALARDI SOUTH
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants (CASE NO. 14-21244-
CIVGOODMAN).

Plaintiffs are dancers who are suing Defendants for minimum wage
and overtime violations arising from their work at Defendant Fly
Low, Inc. d/b/a King of Diamonds ("KOD"), a strip club. Plaintiffs
allege claims under the FLSA and Florida law.

Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of all persons employed
as dancers at KOD in Miami, Florida.  Further, Plaintiffs alleged
that KOD's policy of classifying and paying dancers as independent
contractors violated the FLSA and that they performed the same job
duties and all were subjected to the same policies and procedure.

Defendants opposed the motion and contended that no class should
be conditionally certified. Defendants argued that dancers who
have signed and filed consent forms do not represent that they
were dancers at KOD or that they are similarly situated. Further,
Defendants contended that they do not know the specific location
of where the putative class members worked at KOD.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Goodman granted Plaintiffs' motion
to conditionally certify an FLSA claims class on the ground that
there are other employees who (1) desire to opt into the action,
and who (2) are "similarly situated" with regard to their job
requirements and pay provisions.

Judge Goodman based his ruling on the totality of the
circumstances that Plaintiffs have met their low burden to show
the existence of other similarly situated employees who would join
a collective action.

A copy of the Order dated October 23, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1wp0WdRfrom Leagle.com.

Plantiffs Jaszmann Espinoza et al are represented by Harlan S.
Miller, Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law
Offices of Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Defendants Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., et al are represented
by Dean R. Fuchs, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan
Murphey, Schulten, Ward, & Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten,
Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP & Daniel Wayne Matlow --
dmatlow@danmatlow.com -- Daniel W. Matlow, P.A.


GENVEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal "Shah" Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead plaintiffs in a
clcass action did not file an appeal from the dismissal of the
case captioned Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al.

On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil Action. No. 8:12 CV-
00341-DKC was commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland against the Company, Paul H. Fischer,
Douglas J. Swirsky and Mark O. Thornton. Following appointment of
a Lead Plaintiff group in April 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a
pleading titled Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of
the Federal Securities Laws on July 6, 2012 (the Amended
Complaint).

In the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims,
purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who had purchased or
acquired Company common stock between March 12, 2009 and March 30,
2010 (the Class Period), that the Company and the individual
defendants had violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiffs alleged
generally that defendants had made materially false or misleading
statements or omissions concerning the prospects for the Company's
leading product candidate at the time, TNFerade, and the outcome
of the then-ongoing clinical trial for TNFerade. Lead Plaintiffs
alleged that these misrepresentations resulted in the Company's
common stock trading at artificially inflated prices throughout
the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.

On September 4, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September
20, 2013, the Court granted this motion and dismissed the case in
its entirety and with prejudice. Lead Plaintiffs did not file an
appeal.


GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Garnitschnig" Action in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company disputes the
allegations made in the Garnitschnig action and intends to
vigorously defend the case.

On March 12, 2012, a putative shareholder derivative action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland against certain current and former members of our Board
of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The case is
styled Garnitschnig v. Horovitz, et al. and generally arose out of
the matters alleged to underlie the securities action. The
plaintiff, who purported to bring the action derivatively on
behalf of the Company, originally alleged that the defendants
violated their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were
unjustly enriched by the receipt of compensation while serving as
our directors. Pursuant to the Court's order dated April 5, 2013,
the Garnitschnig case was stayed pending a decision on the motions
to dismiss filed in the Shah action. On October 2, 2013, the
parties entered into a stipulation confirming that the stay of the
Garnitschnig action was lifted and providing that, if the
plaintiff elected to continue with the action, he would file an
Amended Complaint on or before November 26, 2013.

On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action
filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") that supersedes the previous
Complaint and now asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and alleged
violations of the duty of candor. The plaintiff, who now purports
to bring the Amended Complaint both derivatively and as a
shareholder class action, alleges that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors exceeded their authority under
the Company's 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "2011 Plan") by
exceeding certain limits applicable to both stock options and
restricted stock. The Amended Complaint further alleges that
Company's Proxy Statement is materially false and misleading for
failing to disclose the alleged violations of the 2011 Plan. The
Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount
of damages.

On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action also
filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to postpone the
Company's 2013 annual meeting unless and until certain disclosures
were made to the Company's shareholders regarding the 2011 Plan.
On November 20, 2013, the Court denied that motion in its
entirety. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on January 27, 2014. On September 5, 2014, the Court
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all claims except for
the claim for corporate waste, holding that the Amended Complaint
adequately alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of candor against the current Board of Directors, and
claims for unjust enrichment against certain current and former
officer and directors.

The Company disputes the allegations made in the Garnitschnig
action and intends to vigorously defend the case.

"We also are informed that the individual defendants deny the
material allegations of these actions and intends to continue
vigorously defending each case," the Company said.


GENVEC INC: To Defend Against "Galitsis" Action in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
GenVec Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company disputes the
allegations made in the Galitsis action and intends to vigorously
defend the case.

On October 17, 2014, a second putative class and derivative action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland styled Galitsis v. Swirsky, et. al., Case No. 14-cv-3265.
The Galitsis Complaint contains the same allegations and asserts
the same claims as those in the Garnitschnig Amended Complaint
(except for the dismissed corporate waste claim). At the same time
that the Galitsis action was filed, counsel for the plaintiff (who
is also counsel for the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action)
advised the Court that, in order to address certain jurisdictional
and standing issues, they anticipate they will voluntarily dismiss
the Garnitschnig action and instead proceed with the Galitsis
action.

The Company disputes the allegations made in the Galitsis action
and intends to vigorously defend the case.  "We also are informed
that the individual defendants deny the material allegations of
these actions and intends to continue vigorously defending each
case," the Company said.


GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due
----------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, that the
Company's response to the consolidated amended class action
complaint was due by November 18, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with ET or polycythemia vera, or PV. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose
facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade LFT
abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or
PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury
following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks
damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is
based on the same factual background as the purported securities
class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, both of the foregoing lawsuits, or the Class
Action Lawsuits, were consolidated for all purposes, and a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the California
District Court. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on
September 19, 2014. Our response to the consolidated amended
complaint is due by November 18, 2014."


GERON CORPORATION: To Seek Consolidation of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, that the
Company intends to seek to consolidate a securities lawsuit with
the purported class action lawsuits filed in the California
district court.

The Company said, "On June 6, 2014, a purported securities
lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or
the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and
certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is based on the same
factual background as the Class Action Lawsuits, also alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees. On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer
the purported securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District
Court to the California District Court so it can be consolidated
with the purported Class Action Lawsuits."

"On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our
motion and transferred the case to the California District Court,
and we intend to seek to consolidate the transferred case with the
purported Class Action Lawsuits filed in the California District
Court."


GREENBURGH-NORTH CASTLE: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivonne Reveron v. Greenburgh-North Castle Union Free School
District, Case No. 1:14-cv-09905-RJS (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014)
is a civil action based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on national origin and
retaliation.

Ms. Reveron, a resident of Nassau County, New York, is a Latina of
Cuban heritage.  She was a certified New York State Spanish
teacher.

Greenburgh-North Castle Union Free School District is charged by
law with responsibility for the operation, management and control
of the public education within the municipalities of Greenburgh
and North Castle in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart Lee Karlin, Esq.
          STEWART LEE KARLIN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
          9 Murray Street, Suite 4W
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 792-9670
          Facsimile: (212) 732-4443
          E-mail: slk@stewartkarlin.com


HARMAN INT'L: D.C. App. Affirms Ruling in "Russell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in
an opinion dated Dec. 12, 2014, affirmed a lower court's decision
in a class action complaint filed by a former employee of Harman
International Industries, Inc.

In his complaint, Patrick Russell alleges that the purchase deal
between Harman and two investment firms fell through because
agents of Harman made false and misleading statements to the
investment firms.  Mr. Russell contends that those statements
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The district court rendered a decision in May 2013, determining,
among other things, that Mr. Russell had knowingly and voluntarily
waived his ERISA rights by signing a severance agreement, and then
entered summary judgment for Harman.

The Circuit Court, in support of its decision, ruled that Mr.
Russell was not prejudiced by his lack of discovery, noting that
his failure to suggest any reason why his consent to the severance
agreement was unknowing or involuntary convinces the court that
discovery would be futile.

The appeals case is PATRICK RUSSELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL
INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Appellees, NO. 137095 (D.C. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision penned by Circuit Judge Karen
LeCraft Henderson is available at http://is.gd/fkILoRfrom
Leagle.com.

Thomas J. McKenna, pro hac vice, argued the cause for the
appellant. Toyja E. Kelley and John B. Isbister were with him on
brief.

Sara Pikofsky argued the cause for the appellees. Evan Miller was
with her on brief. Thomas F. Cullen, Jr. entered an appearance.


HITACHI LTD: Supplement Briefing Sought on Sharp's Objections
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti recently entered an order for
Supplemental Briefing in IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. C-07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917 (N.D. Calif.).

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators conspired
to raise and fix the prices of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and the
CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years,
resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and
certain finished products containing CRTs.  The complaint
describes how the Defendants and co-conspirators allegedly
violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel
that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply
of, CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them.

The Defendants include LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics
U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd, Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America
Corporation, Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.,
Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., LP Displays
International, Ltd. f/k/a LG.Philips Displays, Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co.
Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.,
Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Tianjin
Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Toshiba
Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer
Products, LLC., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba
America Electronics Components, Inc., Panasonic Corporation f/k/a
Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd., Panasonic Corporation of
North America, MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., Beijing-Matsushita
Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC), Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,
Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi America,
Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Tatung Company of America, Inc.,
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia)
Sdn. Bhd., IRICO Group Corporation, IRICO Display Devices Co.,
Ltd., IRICO Group Electronics Co., Ltd., Thai CRT Company, Ltd.,
Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company,
Ltd., Daewoo International Corporation, Irico Group Corporation,
Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd., and Irico Display Devices Co.,
Ltd.

The Class consists of all persons and entities who, between March
1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in
the United States from any Defendant or subsidiary or affiliate
thereof, or any co-conspirator.

Before the California district court is the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' (DPPs) motion for final approval of class action
settlements with the Hitachi and SDI Defendants (collectively,
Settling Defendants). DPPs also ask the Court to grant approval to
a proposed claim form and to direct the settlement administrator
to provide notice to the class.

The Court held a fairness hearing, where it received a belated
objection to the settlement by Sharp, which is the subject of a
motion seeking a retroactive enlargement of the time to object to
the settlement. That motion is opposed.

Now Sharp has filed an administrative motion asking "the Court to
set a conference to discuss case management issues" relating to
the instant motions.

The motion is not yet ripe, and the Court anticipates that the
interested parties may yet file responsive papers in the coming
days. Nonetheless, the Court now enters an order to solicit the
parties' views on the following specific issues related to Sharp's
proposed solutions:

  -- The Court is familiar with the requirement that on final
     approval a class settlement must stand or fall in its
     entirety. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026
     (9th Cir. 1998). May the Court nonetheless order a second
     round of notice and opportunity to opt-out in the exercise of
     its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)
     without addressing the merits of DPPs' and the Settling
     Defendants' final approval motion?

  -- Similarly, the Court is aware that the costs of class notice
     must generally be borne by the proponent of class
     certification. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S.
     156, 171 (1974). May the Court nonetheless order Sharp bear
     the costs of a second class action notice?

Judge Conti's Nov. 20, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/svd6gYfrom Leagle.com. It relates to: ALL DIRECT
PURCHASER ACTIONS Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Hitachi Ltd., No.
C-13-1173-SC.

Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei
Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson,
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Daniel D. Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.,
Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L
Klisura, Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon
Warshaw & Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady, Polsinelli PC, Aaron M.
Sheanin, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business,
Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian,, Cadio R. Zirpoli,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Silva, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri
& Saveri, Inc., Roger Martin Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp
Pallios Pacher & Silva & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP.

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph W.
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T
Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Terry
Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C. Belsky, Gross Belsky
Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Monique Alonso, Gross & Belsky LLP,
Sarah Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph
M. Patane, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP & Veronica
Besmer, Besmer Law Firm.

Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason
LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC,
Marisa C. Livesay, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis
Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Samuel J. Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of
Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B.
Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B.
Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

David G. Norby, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B.
Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

John Larch, a West Virginia resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B.
Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Gary Hanson, a North Dakota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon - Weirton, Robert B.
Gerard, Gerard Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon,
Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law
Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick &
Goldborough PLLC, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel R.
Karon, Goldman Scarlato and Karon, PC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan, St.
James Recovery Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP,
Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo
Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut &
Cambronne & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace,
Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert
James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll
Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Steven Ganz, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC.

Dana Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The
Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M.
Patane, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro
Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore & Brewer, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur
Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen,
Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler
Faeges, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers &
Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP,
Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love,
Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, David
Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman
Law Corp, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Peter
G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.
Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina
Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC &
Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert
Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert G. Methvin, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin
& Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC &
Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.
Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump
& Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro,
Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.
Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew
Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin
& Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC &
Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff,
represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric
D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman
Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle
Manning, Steyer Lowenthal, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri
and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen,
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP & P. John
Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef
Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Law
Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel
Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump
& Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N.
Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason
LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Judith
A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.
State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th
Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of
Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kerwin,
Washington State Attorney General's Office, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.
Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.
Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos,
Perkins Coie, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie LLP, Nicholas H.
Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson,
Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny
William Carter, Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff
Stern LLP, Matthew C. Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Michael Lloyd
Tuchin, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J.
Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi,
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller
and Flexner LLP & Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP.
Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A.
Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the
Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General,
Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia
A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of
the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura
Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang,
Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins
Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and
Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M.
Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..
Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon,
Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny
Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall,
Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner.

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon,
Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny
Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny
Nachwalter PA.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Matthew J. McBurney,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Giovanni Constabile, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart
Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Kirby McInerney LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP.
Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner
& Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A
Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP.

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Craig A Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Jonathan
Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons,
Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices,
LLP.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston
& Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G.
Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew David Kent, Alston +
Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske,
Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.
Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston &
Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Matthew David
Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP,
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr
& Wagstaffe LLP.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Laura Elizabeth Nelson,
Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi L.L.P..

Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP & Robert
Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Sharp Corporation, Petitioner, represented by Colin C. West,
Bingham McCutchen LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP.

YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law
Group.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., ("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese
company, Defendant, represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Rachel S. Brass,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP &
Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by
Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.
Irico Group Corp., ("IGC") is a Chinese entity, Defendant,
represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., ("IDDC") is a Chinese entity,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald,
Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal
and Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson
LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson
LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John
M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger
Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles
and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim
YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP &
YongSang Kim.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Eva W. Cole, Winston
& Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A.
Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm,
Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman, Bambo Obaro,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E.
Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph Richard Wetzel, King & Spalding,
Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge
Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA
Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin
C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto,
Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter
Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case
LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, George
L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander,
White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James
Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by William H. Bave,
III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White &
Case LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented
by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Michael Lacovara, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.
LG Eletronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim,
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and
Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,
Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Laura K
Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and
Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ethan E.
Litwin, Ethan E. Litwin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Marc Howard Kallish, Freeborn Peters LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Stephen M. Ng, Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP, Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Charles M
Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, David Kendall Roberts,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas
Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny &
Meyers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas
Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP &
James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and
McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White
& Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C.
Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James
Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White
& Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig,
White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland,
Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil,
White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J.
Sharp.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant,
represented by William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case
LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White &
Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil,
White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy
Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP & Samuel J. Sharp.
Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by William H. Bave,
III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and
Case LLP.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison
LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen
Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP,
Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & David L.
Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, fka Samsung Display Device Company ("Samsung
SDI") is a South Korean company formerly known as Samsung Display
Device Co., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Curran, White
& Case.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Douglas L Wald,
Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John
M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander,
White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Tsung-Hui
(Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP &
Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.
Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose
Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith &
Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana
Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W.
Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim
Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara
Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane,
DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-
Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company
also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas
L Wald.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company
also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by David Michael Lisi, Reed Smith LLP, Ethan E.
Litwin, Ethan E. Litwin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP
& Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton &
James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John
M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols,
Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L
Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Maxwell
Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented
by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton
Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, James Mutchnik & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP.
Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc,
Defendant, represented by James Mutchnik.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc,
Defendant, represented by Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, James Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack
Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Maxwell Cooper, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton
Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White
& Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Stephen M. Ng, Baker Botts LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany B. Gelott, Baker Botts
LLP, Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L
Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,
Hojoon Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary
Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and
Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson
LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim
YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & YongSang Kim.
MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy
Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De
Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James
F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Marjan
Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr.,
Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.
Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y.
Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Douglas L Wald, Eva
W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston
and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Amy Lee Stewart,
Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith
& Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Douglas L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C.
Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise, & Erik
T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp &
William H. Bave, III.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White &
Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel
J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H.
Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig,
White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel
James Sharp, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.
Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster,
White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp,
White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III & Charise Naifeh, White &
Case LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White
& Case LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van
Horn, Jenner And Block LLP.

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker
Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M Hurley,
Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Stephen Michael Judge,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts,
Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Ryan M. Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Stephen Michael Judge,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP.
Technologies Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by
Arthur Slezak Gaus, Dillingham Murphy, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Donald Arthur Wall, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Ellen Tobin, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt Mosle LLP,
Jeffrey Ira Zuckerman, Buris, Mallet Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, Mark
C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP.

Technicolor S.A, Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP &
Marc Howard Kallish, Freeborn Peters LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner &
Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail
Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block
LLP.

Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Charles M
Malaise,, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP.

Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Charles M
Malaise,, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP.

Alan Frankel, Respondent, represented by Norman T. Finkel,
Schoenberg Finkel Newman Rosenberg LLC, Richard M. Goldwasser,
Schoenberg Finkel Newman & Rosenberg LLC & Richard Marc
Goldwasser, Schoenberg Finkel Newman Rosenberg LLC.
Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T. Brody,
Jenner & Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP, Shaun M. Van
Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew
Moore, Attorney at Law.

Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer
Electronics, LLC and related entiMiscellaneous, represented by
Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General.

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice.


HOME DEPOT: "Marko" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marko, et al. v. Home Depot USA,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00981, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03990-TWT to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In re The Home Depot, Inc. Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.
1:14-md-02583-TWT.

Generally, the Plaintiffs in the actions allege that Home Depot,
the world's largest home improvement retailer, allowed computer
hackers to gain access to its data network in approximately late
April or early May 2014.  The data network contained the personal
financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
of consumers.  The Plaintiffs contend that the ramifications of
this security breach are severe because the thieves can use the
financial information to create fake credit and debit cards that
can be used to commit fraud and other crimes.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014 by a computer security
blogger.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 678-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 678-3401

The Defendant is represented by:

          Russell K. Scott, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 257-7308
          Facsimile: (618) 257-7353
          E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com


HOMESTREET INC: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Merger Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Homestreet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class
action lawsuit related to the merger of Simplicity Bancorp with
and into HomeStreet, captioned Bushansky vs. Simplicity Bancorp,
Inc., et al. (Cause No. BC560508), was filed on or about October
10, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
against Simplicity, each of Simplicity's directors and HomeStreet,
Inc. The action, brought by a purported shareholder of Simplicity,
seeks certification of a class of all holders of Simplicity common
stock (except the defendants and their affiliates) and alleges,
among other things, that Simplicity's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by putting their personal interests ahead of
those of Simplicity's shareholders and failing to take adequate
measures to protect the interests of Simplicity's shareholders,
and further alleges that HomeStreet aided and abetted such alleged
breaches. The action seeks, among other things, an injunction
against the merger and damages, as well as recovery of the costs
of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

HomeStreet believes the claims alleged against it in the actions
to be without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
In addition, Simplicity has informed the Company that it also
believes the allegations against it in the actions to be without
merit, and that it intends to defend against the claims
vigorously.


HSBC BANK: Court Approves Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
two more forced-place insurance lawsuits have been given final
approval by the courts, putting an end to claims that mortgage
lenders force-placed insurance with excessive costs on homeowners.
Meanwhile, other financial institutions have announced that
they're getting out of force-placed insurance (also known as
lender insurance).

In October, a federal judge in Florida granted final approval to a
lawsuit on behalf of more than 250,000 homeowners against HSBC
Bank and three insurance companies alleging illegal activities
linked to the use of force-placed insurance.  The settlement is
worth around $32 million.  The lawsuit was first filed in November
2012 and the settlement was granted preliminary approval earlier
this year.  Class members will receive cash refunds of 13 percent
of the net annual premium.

The insurance companies named in the lawsuit include Assurant
Inc., American Security Insurance Co., and Standard Guaranty
Insurance Co.  The lawsuit is case number 1:13-cv-21104 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed against Wells Fargo Bank and Assurant
Inc. has also received final court approval.  That lawsuit
involved around 1.3 million Wells Fargo clients who alleged Wells
Fargo charged inflated premiums on force-placed insurance policies
because of kickbacks that were passed along to Assurant and then
given back to Wells Fargo as commissions.

That lawsuit is Fladell et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, case
number 0:13-cv-60721 in the US District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

While some companies are settling force-placed insurance lawsuits,
others are dropping force-placed insurance entirely.  The Wall
Street Journal (11/12/14) reports that Altisource Portfolio
Solutions will stop offering force-placed insurance due to
"uncertainties with industrywide litigation and the regulatory
environment."

Force-placed insurance is insurance placed by lenders on
properties when the homeowner's insurance has lapsed or is
considered inadequate.  It is designed to protect the lender's
financial interests.  Concerns about force-placed insurance
include that the premiums are much higher than on commercially
available insurance policies, that lenders often force-place
policies to cover a greater financial amount for the lender than
is actually owed, that the policies offer less coverage than
commercially available policies, that adequate insurance was
already in place, that the coverage was applied retroactively to
cover times that no insurance claim was made, and that the
premiums are high because of illegal kickbacks disguised as
commissions.

These concerns have led to lawsuits filed by states, including
New York, against companies involved in force-placed insurance,
and class-action lawsuits filed by homeowners who often allege
that they either paid too much because of kickbacks or that the
force-placed insurance policy was unnecessary because they had
adequate coverage.


HUBSPOT INC: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount
-------------------------------------------------------
HubSpot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
complaint was filed on November 13, 2013, alleging that the
Company maintained a policy of not paying overtime to business
development representatives for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. The Company settled this litigation in November
2014 for an immaterial amount.


ILLINOIS: Faces "Bailey" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Carol Bailey, and Similarly Situated Descendants of the African
Holocaust of Slavery v. Region V of the Federal Government; Pat
Quinn, State of IL Governor; Circuit Court of Cook County; City of
Chicago; and Contractors and Sub Contractors, Case No. 1:14-cv-
10096 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2014) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


INSTALLED BUILDING: Class Action Settlement Expenses Paid
---------------------------------------------------------
Installed Building Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that all
related expenses in a settlement of class actions were paid during
the nine months ended September 30, 2014, and therefore no accrued
expense remained as of September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "A class action lawsuit was filed in February
2013 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2013 in the
Superior Court of King County, Washington, involving Installed
Building Products II, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, alleging
violations of Washington State wage and hour laws for failure to
pay prevailing and minimum wage and overtime wages. The plaintiffs
were former insulation installers for Installed Building Products
II, LLC in Washington who sought to represent all similarly
situated workers. They sought all unpaid wages, along with
litigation costs and fees."

"A lawsuit was filed in July 2013 in federal court in the Middle
District of Tennessee against one of our subsidiaries, TCI d/b/a
Installed Building Products of Nashville, alleging unpaid overtime
and failure to pay lawful wages under federal law and Tennessee
common law and in unjust enrichment and in breach of an alleged
contract. The named plaintiffs were former insulation installers
in Nashville. The plaintiffs sought to have this case certified as
a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
as a class action under Tennessee law. They sought reimbursement
of the overtime wages for all time worked over forty hours each
week, as well as liquidated damages and litigation costs and fees.

"Both lawsuits were settled in January 2014 and approved by the
court by April 2014 for a total cost of approximately $1,407,000.
Approximately $1,200,000 of this cost was recorded as an accrued
expense included in other current liabilities on our Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2013. All related
expenses were paid during the nine months ended September 30,
2014, and therefore no accrued expense remained as of September
30, 2014."


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Lead Plaintiffs Intend to File Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead
plaintiffs in a class action have advised the Company of their
intention to file an amended complaint in January 2015.

The Company said, "In March 2014, a complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against our company, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as
purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and
John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased our common stock between November 5, 2013
and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleges violations by the
defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at
artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a
material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleges
that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs."

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions.

"The lead plaintiffs have advised us of their intention to file an
amended complaint in January 2015," the Company said.

"We intend to dispute these claims and to defend this litigation
vigorously.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, the ultimate outcome of this litigation is uncertain.
An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could materially and
adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of
operations."


IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Action in Early Stages of Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iradimed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Lam class
action is presently in the very early stages of litigation.

On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S.
District Count for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil
Action"). The Lam Civil Action is a putative class action lawsuit
brought against the Company and certain individuals who are
officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff is an
alleged shareholder of the Company, and seeks relief on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period from July 15, 2014 through September 2, 2014. The
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning the Company's compliance with FDA
regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that the
putative class members suffered damages as a result. The complaint
additionally alleges "control person" liability against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Lam Civil Action is presently in the
very early stages of litigation.  The Company disputes the
plaintiff's allegations and theories of liability, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

"We have not accrued for any loss related to this matter as we
believe that any such loss is not probable or estimable," the
Company said.


J & G TRANSPORT: Conditional Certification Granted in FLSA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Conditional Certification and Facilitation of Court-
Authorized Notice in ENRIQUE COLLADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. &
G. TRANSPORT, INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-80467-
CIVGOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).

Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint alleging that J & G
Transport Inc. failed to pay them and other similarly situated
employees a minimum wage and/or the overtime rate for hours worked
over forty hours a week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs stated in their affidavits that they worked for J & G
Transport as truck drivers hauling either garbage, debris, mulch,
molasses, and/or sugar within the State of Florida during the
years of 2013 and/or 2014.

Plaintiffs further seek conditional certification of the following
class: All drivers which were employed by the Defendants from
April 6, 2011 through April 6, 2014, who were not paid a minimum
wage; and/or who were not paid proper overtime compensation.

Defendants opposed to the Motion and argued that even the lapse of
six months since the case was first filed, Plaintiffs failed to
make a showing that anyone else wishes to join this action.

Magistrate Goodman ruled that Plaintiffs have met the low burden
required to show the existence of other similarly situated
employees who would join a collective action and held that the
existence of merely one other co-worker who desires to join in is
sufficient to raise the Plaintiff's contention beyond one of pure
speculation.

A copy of the Order dated October 23, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/Tw6Oslfrom Leagle.com.


KMART CORP: Sued by First NBC Bank in Illinois Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated financial institutions v. Kmart Corporation and Sears
Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10088 (N.D. Ill., December
16, 2014) is brought on behalf of credit unions, banks, and other
financial institutions that suffered injury as a result of a
security breach beginning in early September 2014 that compromised
the names, credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates,
card verification values, and other credit and debit card
information of customers of the Defendants' Kmart brand retail
stores.

First NBC Bank is a Louisiana bank headquartered in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation with a principal place
of business located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  Kmart operates
a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise,
including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods,
apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items.  Kmart
operates approximately 1,077 stores in the United States.

Sears Holdings Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business located at in Hoffman Estates,
Illinois.  Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of
Kmart and was formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of
Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  lfanning@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  knelson@murray-lawfirm.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

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


LIBERTY SILVER: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Liberty Silver
Parties have moved to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.).  The action contains
various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012.  The plaintiff purports to bring
suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including
October 5, 2012.  An amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2013.

On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and
Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as
Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel.  On March
24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties
moved to dismiss the Complaint.

The Liberty Silver Parties intend to vigorously defend the Action.
It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company
will incur any liability as a result of the Action, or to estimate
the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company
might incur in connection with the Action.


LIN MEDIA: Class Action Plaintiffs Withdraw Motion to Expedite
--------------------------------------------------------------
LIN Media LLC and LIN Television Corporation said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that plaintiffs in a consolidated class action sent a letter
to the Court withdrawing a pending motion to expedite.

The Company said, "On July 24, 2014, we filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") which was mailed to the shareholders of LIN LLC in
connection with a special meeting of the shareholders of LIN LLC
to be held on August 20, 2014 for the purpose of voting on the
proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March
21, 2014, with Media General, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("Media
General"), Mercury New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("New
Holdco"), Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Virginia corporation and a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of New Holdco ("Merger Sub 1"),
Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of New Holdco ("Merger Sub
2") (the "Merger Agreement")."

"Following the announcement on March 21, 2014 of the execution of
the Merger Agreement, three complaints were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN LLC:
Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530) (the
"Sciabacucchi Action"), International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No.9538)
(the "Pension Fund Action"), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al.
(C.A. No. 9577) (the "Pryor Action"). The litigations are putative
class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of LIN
LLC and name as defendants LIN LLC, our directors, Media General,
New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners
LLC and several of its alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate &
Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse,
Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst
Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse
& Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM
Interim Investors, L.P. (together with HM Capital Partners LLC and
individual director defendant John R. Muse, which we collectively
refer to as "HMC")).

"On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action
voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on April
21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal.

"On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi Action filed
an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and
Pryor Actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the
plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to
enjoin the Merger, requesting, among other things, that the Court
set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014. On April
30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions
filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which was
approved by the Court on May 1, 2014.

"The operative complaint generally alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the Merger, that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual
director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their
fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN LLC by causing
LIN LLC to enter into the Merger, which plaintiffs allege will
provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaint seeks, among
other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the
Merger.

"On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a
letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite.

"The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted
with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could
have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. An
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger."


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Tierney" Suit to Tennessee District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Tierney v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-005254-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02993 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of Medtronic Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE
Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: GBubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  LCronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Laura Yaeger, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4796
          E-mail: LYaeger@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting the Company's motion for
summary judgment in the putative class actions, Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7,
2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed November 3, 2011).

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of
contract claims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
use of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay life insurance
benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance
program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Class Action in N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company faces Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D.
Ga., filed April 17, 2014), a putative class action lawsuit
alleging that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the
Total Control Accounts ("TCA") as the settlement option for life
insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts
owned by members of the putative class.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
sales practices cases against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
are ongoing.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking
a declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remains
liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual
life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company and that were transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked
that the court require Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to
indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's Canadian operations entered into in June of
1998.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment.
Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the
appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct.,
Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims
regarding the same individual policies sold by Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class
action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013,
again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as a
party.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup.
Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices
claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Final Approval Hearing Held in "Fauley" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014 to
approve the settlement in Fauley case.

In the cases C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.
(S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently
transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit,
Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits
against defendants, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has agreed to
pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between
August 23, 2008 and the date of the court's preliminary approval
of the settlement.

Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois,
seeking certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs and the
C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In August
2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the settlement,
certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled the final
approval hearing for November 2014.


MINNESOTA: Class Action Over Sex Offender Program Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
KSTP.com's Joe Augustine, citing a report by The Associated Press,
said a man convicted of sexual assault in the early 1980's will
become just the third person to be released from the state's
controversial sex offender program.

Robert Jeno was granted a provisional discharge from the Minnesota
Sex Offender Program (MSOP) on Nov. 12 by a Supreme Court Appeal
panel.  He will live at an adult foster care facility in Le Center
where alarms will be placed on his windows.  A GPS tracker will
also monitor his location 24 hours a day.  Final arrangements for
his release and public notices are still being made.

Mr. Jeno was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth
degree in June 1982.  He was committed to MSOP in April 1992 as a
Psychopathic Personality.

In 2013, Mr. Jeno applied for a provisional discharge.  Such
requests are rarely granted by State Supreme Court appeal panels.
Since 1994, only two other sex offenders have been granted such a
release, according to MSOP.  An MSOP client discharged in 2012 is
currently living in the community under close monitoring and
supervision.

Another client's discharge was revoked several years ago for not
complying with the terms of the release.

The low release rate raised concerns about the constitutionality
of the state's treatment of civilly committed sex offenders.

A class action lawsuit was filed in Federal Court against MSOP and
the Department of Human Services on behalf of all individuals
committed to the sex offender program.  There are currently 703
people being treated in the program, according to numbers posted
on the MSOP website.  The federal case is still pending.

In a court order issued in June, District Judge Donovan Frank
wrote "this case involves alleged systemic problems with MSOP".
The judge also cited reports submitted to the court by the Sex
Offender Commitment Advisory Task Force and the Office of the
Legislative Auditor, which provided damning evaluations of the
program.

"There is broad consensus that the current system of civil
commitment of sex offenders in Minnesota captures too many people
and keeps many of them too long," the Task Force found in its
report in 2013.

The attorney for Robert Jeno believes a provisional discharge
would not have been granted for his client if it were not for the
class action lawsuit.

"Without that federal court action, there would have been less
willingness on a state level to consider release at this time,"
Stephen Ecker said by phone on Dec. 5.

The Department of Human Services retained examiners and doctors
from other states to partake in the evaluation process of
Robert Jeno, a move Mr. Ecker also believes would not have
happened without pressure created by the ongoing lawsuit.

"I think the Department of Human Services would have been less
likely to take that step unless there had been this federal
involvement," Mr. Ecker said.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 107 Class Actions Filed Over Vehicle Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as
of September 30, 2014, 107 putative class actions have been filed
in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory damages
for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the
recalls announced this year and/or the underlying condition of
vehicles covered by those recalls. Most of those 107 cases concern
the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Ignition Switch Actions. In
addition, since the announcement of the Ignition Switch Recall,
various plaintiffs have filed actions (including putative class
actions) against General Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO,
Inc. ("New GM") asserting (i) economic losses allegedly resulting
from recalls of vehicles manufactured or sold prior to July 10,
2009 (or the underlying condition of those vehicles) other than
the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Other Economic Loss Actions,
and/or (ii) certain personal injury and other claims allegedly
arising from accidents that occurred prior to the Closing Date, or
the Personal Injury Actions.

In June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that 15 of the then pending Ignition Switch
Actions be transferred to and consolidated before a single court
in the Southern District of New York, or the MDL Court, case
number 14-MD-2543 (JMF). To date, more than 100 Ignition Switch
Actions, Other Economic Loss Actions and Personal Injury Actions
have been transferred and consolidated before the MDL Court. On
August 11, 2014, the MDL Court ordered the plaintiffs in the
pending Ignition Switch Actions concerning vehicles purchased
prior to July 10, 2009 to file an amended and consolidated
complaint with respect to the Ignition Switch Recall, which
amended and consolidated complaint was filed on October 14, 2014.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Ignition Switch
Actions, the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury
Actions. In that respect, on April 21, 2014, New GM filed a motion
with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Ignition Switch
Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on
July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability
and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents
prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general
unsecured claims). If New GM is successful in enjoining the
Ignition Switch Actions, plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Actions
could assert claims against the GUC Trust.

On May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a scheduling order,
which order was supplemented on July 11, 2014 and again on August
22, 2014, or (as supplemented) the Ignition Switch Scheduling
Order, identifying a number of "threshold issues" for its
resolution, including whether plaintiffs' procedural due process
rights were violated in connection with the Sale Order, whether
any or all of the claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Actions
are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and whether any
such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be
dismissed as equitably moot.

On August 1, 2014, New GM filed two additional motions with the
Bankruptcy Court seeking to enforce the Sale Order and to enjoin
the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury Actions.
If New GM is successful in enjoining the Other Economic Loss
Actions and/or the Personal Injury Actions, plaintiffs in such
actions could assert claims against the GUC Trust. On September
15, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered scheduling orders with
respect to the Other Economic Loss Actions and the Personal Injury
Actions, each of which provided that, with certain exceptions, the
Ignition Switch Scheduling Order (including related briefing
schedules) would apply to New GM's motions to enforce the Sale
Order with respect to the Other Economic Loss Actions and the
Personal Injury Actions. Briefing with respect to the New GM
motions to enforce the Sale Order commenced on November 5, 2014.

The GUC Trust has appeared as a party in interest with respect to
New GM's motions to enforce the Sale Order and filed a brief in
opposition thereto on November 5, 2014. The GUC Trust intends to
vigorously defend its position that none of the claims of the
plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Actions, the Other Economic Loss
Actions or the Personal Injury Actions may be properly asserted
against Old GM or the GUC Trust.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Eykyn" Class Action in W.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that David Eykyn and Mike Eykyn v. Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc., et. al., a purported class action suit, was filed
on October 3, 2014, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin District, against the Company,
members of the Company's board of directors and others, relating
to the Merger Agreement.

An amended complaint was filed on October 28, 2014, that includes
putative individual, class action, and shareholder derivative
claims. The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger with Global
Cash Access Holdings, Inc., that the entities aided and abetted
the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and
that the proxy statement that the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the Merger is
materially incomplete and has misleading disclosures. The suit
also alleges violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and violations of 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act against the individual defendants. The suit seeks (i) a
declaration that the action be declared a class action with
plaintiff certified as class representative, (ii) an injunction
against the defendants from completing the Merger until certain
conditions are met, (iii) rescission of the Merger; and/or (iv)
resultant damages and costs.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Coffman" Class Action in W.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that Christopher Coffman v. Multimedia Games Holding Company,
Inc., et. al., a purported individual, class action, and
shareholder derivative suit, was filed on October 23, 2014, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin District, against the Company, members of the Company's
board of directors, Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., and Merger
Sub, relating to the Merger Agreement. The suit alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, and that the entities aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the action be declared
a class action with plaintiff certified as class representative,
(ii) an injunction against the defendants from completing the
Merger until certain conditions are met, (iii) rescission of the
Merger; and/or (iv) resultant damages and costs.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: "Maciel" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that Jose Maciel v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., et.
al., a purported individual and class action suit, was filed on
October 23, 2014, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin District, against the Company,
members of the Company's board of directors, Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc., and Merger Sub, relating to the Merger. The suit
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger, and that the entities aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the action
be declared a class action with plaintiff certified as class
representative, (ii) an injunction against the defendants from
completing the Merger until certain conditions are met, (iii)
rescission of the Merger; and/or (iv) resultant damages and costs.
On November 4, 2014, Mr. Maciel filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal. The parties have filed an agreed motion to consolidate
the remaining federal cases relating to the Merger Agreement.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces "Lewis" Action in Travis County, Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that Greggory Lewis v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
No. D-1-GN-14-004324, a purported shareholder class and derivative
action brought on behalf of the Company and a purported class
action suit brought on behalf of similarly situated shareholders
of the Company, was filed on October 15, 2014, in the District
Court of Travis County, Texas, 201st Judicial District, against
GCA, Merger Sub and members of the Company's board of directors,
with the Company included as a nominal party, relating to the
Merger Agreement. The suit alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and
that GCA and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual
defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the proxy
statement that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission relating to the Merger is materially incomplete and has
misleading disclosures. The suit seeks (i) a declaration that the
plaintiff may maintain the action derivatively as a representative
on behalf of the Company, (ii) a declaration that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company, (iii) a
declaration that the action is maintainable as a class action, ,
(iv) a declaration that the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders, (v) an
injunction against the defendants from completing the Merger until
certain conditions are met, (vi) rescission of the Merger, (vi)
resultant damages and costs and (vii) other equitable relief as
the court may deem just and proper.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Williams" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that the Company continues to vigorously defend the case, Dollie
Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against the Company and others. The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A).

The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as
a class action. On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a petition with
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal
the court's ruling on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the
petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, on April
2, 2014 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order
reversing the district court's ruling on class certification and
remanding the case to the district court.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences for the Company in other jurisdictions.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Still Defending Against "Hardy" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014,
that the Company continues to vigorously defend the case, Ozetta
Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al.

Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.

On June 3, 2010, the Company and other manufacturers were added as
defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of
White Hall, allege that the Company participated in gambling
operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to White
Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the
plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on
all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six
months prior to the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code, Sec
8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify
the action as a class action.

On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions.


NUCOR CORP: 5 of 8 Defendants Reached Court-Approved Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended October 4, 2014, that five of the eight
defendants in a class action against major steel producers have
reached court approved settlements with the plaintiffs.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The majority of these complaints were filed in September and
October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs
allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, eight
steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Five of the eight
defendants have reached court approved settlements with the
plaintiffs.

"Although we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, we
will continue to vigorously defend against them, but we cannot at
this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the
range of Nucor's potential exposure," the Company said.


P.F. CHANG'S: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Lewert filed a class action Complaint against P.F.
Chang's arising from a data breach involving the theft of
customers' credit card and debit card data.  Count I is a breach
of implied contract claim on behalf of a national class.  Count II
is an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.  Plaintiff Lucas Kosner filed a class action Complaint
against the Defendant alleging the same.  Kosner's case was
related to and consolidated with Lewert's.  The Defendant moves to
dismiss the Complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Judge John W. Darrah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted, without
prejudice, the Defendant's motion, holding that because subject
matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case, the case is
dismissed.

The cases are JOHN LEWERT, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA
BISTRO, INC., Defendant, and LUCAS KOSNER, Plaintiff, v. P.F.
CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14CV4787, NO.
14CV4923 (N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/YRQ2tEfrom Leagle.com.

John Lewert, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. --
gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- at Siprut Pc & Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
-- gjones@siprut.com -- at Siprut Pc.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Thomas Alexander Lidbury, Esq. --
Thomas.Lidbury@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, Jon Peter Kardassakis, Esq. --
Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith Llp & Robert Geoffrey Cooper, Esq. --
Robert.Cooper@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard And
Smith Llp.

Lucas Kosner, Movant, represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Kyle Alan
Shamberg, Esq. -- kShamberg@litedepalma.com -- at Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC & Richard R Gordon, Gordon Law Offices, Ltd..


PECCOLE RANCH: Homeowners Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Whaley, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a
Las Vegas attorney on Dec. 5 said the Nevada Supreme Court gave a
legal victory to homeowners associations and their residents when
it ruled that "house flippers" who fully paid off liens to quickly
sell their investments at huge profits cannot now recoup some of
that money.

"It is good news for homeowners associations," attorney Pat Reilly
said.  "It is also very good news for homeowners in the
associations.  If the associations had gotten tagged for the
millions of dollars these lawsuits were seeking, the costs would
have been passed on to the people who are paying their dues every
month on time."

Although the Dec. 4 ruling applied only to one property owner,
there are more than 500 other claims involving similar
circumstances that are part of a class action lawsuit against
Peccole Ranch, he said.  There are similar class action lawsuits
underway on the same issue against other associations, Mr. Reilly
said.

Mr. Reilly, with the firm Holland &Hart, said the house flippers
made huge profits after paying off the liens, which were worth
only a few thousand dollars each.

Mr. Reilly, who represented a collection agency, Nevada
Association Services, in the case said the ruling should halt the
lawsuits.

But attorneys for the property owner and the other members of the
class action disagreed that the ruling ends their legal efforts to
recoup a portion of the payments.  Instead, the issue of whether
the payments to satisfy the liens were voluntary or made under
duress now will have to be considered in District Court, attorney
Puoy Premsrirut said.

"Every one of our cases involved foreclosure proceedings and
notices of default against the property owner," she said.  "They
did not have a meaningful choice."

Attorney James Adams said it will be up to the associations as the
case proceeds to show that the payments were voluntary.  Property
owners do not have to show they were involuntary, he said.

The opinion, issued on Dec. 4, found that the "voluntary payment
doctrine" precluded the purchaser of a residence in Peccole Ranch
from attempting after the fact to recover fees it paid to the
community association to obtain clear title to the property so it
could be sold.

The legal doctrine says that someone who makes a payment
voluntarily cannot recover it later on the ground that there was
no legal obligation to make the payment.

The ruling went against Elsinore LLC, which purchased a home in
the common interest community and paid off a lien to the
association for back fees and associated collection costs.
Elsinore then sought to recover assessments and fees it had paid
to obtain clear title.

The Supreme Court opinion limited itself to the one property owner
and not all members of the class.

According to filings in the Supreme Court case, Elsinore purchased
the Storkspur Way residence for $149,000 in September 2008.  The
company then paid the association $2,580.70 to satisfy the lien
for unpaid assessments and related costs.  In December 2008
Elsinore sold the property for $225,000, making a $76,000 profit.
Several years later Elsinore sought a return of a portion of the
lien.

The Supreme Court said the voluntary payment doctrine applied and
ruled against the claim by Elsinore.  While there are exceptions
to the doctrine, they did not apply in the Elsinore case, Justice
Nancy Saitta wrote for the court.


PENFORD CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Ingredion Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Penford Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that in early November 2014,
the Company, its directors and others were served with a complaint
purporting to institute a stockholder class action in the Superior
Court of Washington, King County, in connection with the Agreement
and Plan of Merger that the Company entered into with Ingredion
Incorporated on October 14, 2014. The complaint alleges, among
other things, breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Ingredion. The plaintiff
seeks an injunction against the proposed transaction and
unspecified damages.

In addition to legal defenses, the Company believes that it has
adequate insurance protection that is expected to provide coverage
applicable to the defense of this matter.

The case is David Pill, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Penford Corporation, Ingredion Incorporated,
et al.


PFIZER INC: Parkinson's Drug Side-Effect Sufferers Get Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Age reports that almost 200 Australians who developed gambling
and sexual addictions after taking prescription drugs used to
treat Parkinson's disease will be awarded compensation over
alleged failures to warn them about side-effects.

Drug manufacturer Pfizer this month agreed to settle with 160
Australians who took its drug Cabaser to treat tremors associated
with Parkinson's disease or restless legs syndrome between 1996
and 2010.  The agreement, ahead of a class action due to be heard
in the Federal Court, follows a settlement last year for 32 people
in a similar action against Aspen Pharmacare and Eli Lilly over
their drug Permax.

Patients are expected to share in millions of dollars'
compensation, with some losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on
gambling binges after taking the drugs despite not having prior
gambling problems.

Both Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome are
neurological disorders caused by a lack of dopamine in the brain.

"Dopamine agonists" mimic the effects of dopamine, in some cases
restoring a person's ability to control their movements.  But the
chemical is also known to produce a "rush" which has been linked
to risk-taking behaviors and addictions.  The class actions
alleged that drug companies were negligent in selling the
medicines in Australia without any or adequate warnings about
side-effects.

Arnold Thomas & Becker partner Allanah Goodwin said this led
people to go on "gambling and shopping binges and engage in
bizarre hypersexual behavior, without realising it was a side
effect" of the medicines.  Clients who developed gambling
addictions ranged from "a pensioner who might have lost a modest
sum to professionals who had a lot more money to go through," she
said.

Pat Galea, 65, lost about $700,000 on poker machines after taking
both Permax and Cabaser for about a decade for restless legs
syndrome, which creates an urge for sufferers to move their legs.

"I'd go any spare moment I was not working.  If it was pay day I'd
put most of it through and then realise I've got bills and rent
and petrol to pay.  As soon as I had any money it was gone,"
Mrs. Galea said.  She separated from her husband and gambled away
half the proceeds from the sale of their house, also selling her
car to fund her addiction.  It took years for evidence to emerge
about the drugs' side-effects and as soon as Mrs. Galea stopped
taking them, she lost the urge to gamble.  She has since reunited
with her husband and enjoys time with her three adult children and
four grandchildren.  Asked whether the settlement came close to
repaying what was lost, she laughed.

"It's a drop in the bucket.  And that's just the money.  What
about years of life for my family? What about their suffering, let
alone me?" she said.

Salvation Army financial counselor Maria Turnbull was among the
first to ask questions about a link between dopamine agonists and
compulsive gambling after a bankrupt woman in her 60s came to her
seeking food vouchers in 2006.  The woman told Mrs. Turnbull that
drugs she was taking for restless legs syndrome had led her to
gamble, and she started looking into a possible link.  Mrs.
Turnbull has since met more than 100 people involved in the
Australian class actions, including a man who developed compulsive
sexual behavior and is now on the sex offenders register.  He
needs permission to see his grandchildren.

"There are people I'm sure who have committed suicide over this.
They haven't known it was the drug doing it.  There are families
that have been ripped apart," she said.

A spokeswoman for Pfizer Australia said that while the parties had
agreed on a proposed settlement, this was subject to Federal Court
approval, and the drug company was therefore unable to provide
further comment.


PHOENIX FRAMING: Sued Over Defects in Condominium Development
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Phoenix Framing;
TCR NC Construction I Limited Partnership; 254 Seven Farms Drive
Condominium Association, Inc.; Chris Champion, Charles Kern, Greg
Turner, and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:14-cv-04757-
RMG (D.S.C., December 16, 2014) arises out of certain alleged
construction defects involving the 254 Seven Farms Drive
condominium development located in Charleston County, South
Carolina.  The Development consists of 13 buildings built between
2003 and 2005.

Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina is an insurance
company organized in Indiana.  Selective issues insurance policies
across the country, including in South Carolina.

Phoenix Framing is a Tennessee corporation based also in
Tennessee.  TCR NC Construction I Limited Partnership is a North
Carolina partnership headquartered in South Carolina.  254 Seven
Farms Drive Condominium Association, Inc. is a nonprofit
membership corporation, organized in South Carolina.

Chris Champion, Charles Kern, Greg Turner, and all others
similarly situated ("the Owners"), are residents of South
Carolina, and are owners of condominiums in the 254 Seven Farm
Drive condominium development.

TCR acted as the general contractor on the Development.  Phoenix
contracted with TCR to perform certain construction services at
the Development, which services included rough framing, erection
of interior and exterior walls and floor systems, subflooring,
applying exterior sheathing to the exterior of all exposed
perimeter walls, and the installation of columns, beams, exterior
siding, and roof truss.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip E. Reeves, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Farr, Esq.
          GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.
          55 Beattie Place, Suite 1200
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 271-9580
          Facsimile: (864) 271-7502
          E-mail: preeves@gwblawfirm.com
                  nfarr@gwblawfirm.com


PROPHASE LABS: Pre-Trial Discovery On-going in Weisblum Case
------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that pre-trial
discovery is on-going in the case Weisblum vs. ProPhase Labs, Inc.

On May 19, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
consumer (the "Complainant") against the Company, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of certain products sold by the Company,
alleges that the Company engaged in false and misleading
marketing, advertising and sales with respect to such products.
The Complainant seeks, among other things, certification of the
case as a class action, a judgment against the defendants for
damages in an amount to be determined by the court and/or jury,
and an award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs and their
attorneys.

The Company believes the claims set forth in the lawsuit are
entirely without merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit
vigorously. Pre-trial discovery is on-going and at this time, no
prediction as to the outcome of this action can be made.


QUEENS BORO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Perez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Queens Boro Yang Cleaner, Inc., Kook Kim, and Tony Shfon, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07310 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014) alleges that,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages,
(b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees
and costs.

Queens Boro is a New York domestic business corporation based in
Long Island City, New York.  Queens Boro was incorporated through
a prior owner by the name of Soo Ho Yang, whose are currently
unknown.  In September 2012, Soo Ho Yang sold defendant Queens
Boro to the Individual Defendants.

The Company still does business as "Queens Boro Yang Cleaners."
The Individual Defendants are the owners, officers, directors,
shareholders, proprietors, and managing agents of Queens Boro.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Suit Over Defective Rifle Triggers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that America's oldest gun
manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of
triggers in its most popular product -- the Model 700 rifle.  The
company has been riddled for years with claims the gun can fire
without the trigger being pulled, often with deadly results.

A 2010 CNBC documentary, "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC
Investigation," explored allegations that for decades the company
covered up a design defect, which Remington continues to deny.
But now, under a nationwide settlement filed on Dec. 5 in a
federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the
triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.

While insisting its action is not a recall of the iconic gun,
Remington says in a statement that it is agreeing to make the
changes "to avoid the uncertainties and expense of protracted
litigation."

The settlement involves a class action suit brought in 2013 by
Ian Pollard of Concordia, Missouri, who claimed his Remington 700
rifle fired on multiple occasions without the trigger being
pulled.  The agreement also settles a similar class action case in
Washington state.  The Pollard suit accused Remington and its
owners of negligence, breach of warranty, unfair and deceptive
trade practices, and fraudulent concealment--some of it involving
the company's formal response to the 2010 CNBC documentary.
At least two dozen deaths and more than 100 serious injuries have
been linked to inadvertent discharges of Remington 700 series
rifles.

In court filings, Remington denied the allegations, calling them
"inaccurate, misleading, (and) taken out of context."  And last
year, a judge dismissed several of the claims, including
negligence and fraudulent concealment.  But by this July, the
parties announced they were working out details of a "nationwide
class settlement" involving the controversial gun.

Under the settlement, which still must be approved by a judge,
Remington has agreed to retrofit the rifles in question at no cost
to the owner.  Many users had new trigger mechanisms installed on
their own, and Remington will reimburse them as part of the
settlement.  For guns that cannot be retrofitted, the company
plans to offer vouchers for Remington products.

The settlement covers more than a dozen models, specifically the
Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-
100, 721, 722 and 725.

Remington's 700 series, which began with the Model 721 shortly
after World War II, has been wildly popular not only with hunters
and target shooters, but also with law enforcement and the U.S.
military.  The gun is prized for its accuracy and smooth
operation, thanks to a unique trigger mechanism patented in the
1940s by Remington engineer Merle "Mike" Walker.

But the CNBC investigation revealed that even before the gun went
on the market, Mr. Walker himself had discovered a potential
problem with the trigger he designed.  In a 1946 memo, he warned
of a "theoretical unsafe condition" involving the gun's safety --
the mechanism that's supposed to keep the rifle from firing
accidentally.

Subsequent memos during the testing process noted guns could be
made to fire simply by switching off the safety or operating the
bolt.  "This situation can be very dangerous from a safety and
functional point of view," said a 1947 inspection report.

While Mr. Walker contended the issue had to do with the
manufacturing process and not his design, critics including
firearms experts and plaintiffs' attorneys have argued that the
same aspects of the design that allow the gun to fire so smoothly
also make it possible for internal parts of the trigger to become
misaligned, rendering the gun unsafe.  Specifically, they cite a
tiny part called a "trigger connector," which they say can become
clogged with rust or debris. Under the settlement, Remington plans
to replace the triggers with "connectorless" mechanisms -- a
similar fix to one Mr. Walker himself proposed in 1948.

Mr. Walker died in 2013 at age 101.  But he told CNBC in 2010 that
he believed Remington's rejection of his proposal back then "had
something to do with cost."  A 1948 internal analysis obtained by
CNBC estimated the cost of the change to be 5-1/2 cents per gun.

Remington has always maintained the guns are safe, and that the
documents obtained by CNBC are merely evidence of the company's
attention to quality.  The company claimed every accident was the
result of user error.

"The Model 700, including its trigger mechanism, has been free of
any defect since it was first produced," Remington told CNBC in
2010.  "And, despite any careless reporting to the contrary, the
gun's use by millions of Americans has proven it to be a safe,
trusted and reliable rifle."

Customer complaints

But CNBC uncovered thousands of customer complaints and more than
75 lawsuits alleging the gun is prone to firing without the
trigger being pulled, sometimes with deadly results.  Many of the
lawsuits were settled out of court, typically with a provision
that the terms be kept confidential.

Among the deaths was nine-year-old Gus Barber of Montana, killed
during a family hunting trip in 2000 when his mother switched off
the safety on her Remington 700 rifle and the gun went off.

Since then, Gus' father, Rich Barber, has been on what he calls a
"crusade" to learn the truth about the rifle.

"I went to the funeral home and looked Gus right square in the eye
and said, 'Son, it ends here and now,' " Mr. Barber told CNBC in
2010. "I promised him I'd never be bought off and I'd never quit
until I've effected change."

Since then, Mr. Barber has compiled a huge trove of evidence,
including thousands of Remington internal documents.  He sued
Remington, and in a settlement the company agreed to make design
changes in the popular rifle, and to offer to modify -- for a fee
-- older versions of the gun that required the user to switch off
the safety in order to unload the gun.  But the company refused to
launch a full-blown recall, and in what Mr. Barber contends is a
violation of the agreement, continued to sell some models with the
controversial Walker trigger.

Under the proposed settlement, Remington will offer to replace the
Mr. Walker triggers with the replacement mechanism developed
following the settlement with Mr. Barber.  That trigger is known
as the X-Mark Pro, but it has had issues of its own.  Earlier this
year, Remington recalled thousands of X-Mark Pro models
manufactured since 2006, after determining that "excess bonding
agent used in the assembly process" could cause the guns to
unintentionally discharge.  That voluntary recall will continue as
part of the class action settlement.

Mr. Barber is not a party in the latest class action cases, but
has served as a paid consultant to the plaintiffs' attorneys.


RETROPHIN INC: Faces "Shkreli" Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported
shareholder of the Company filed on October 20, 2014, a putative
class action complaint in federal court in the Southern District
of New York against the Company, Martin Shkreli, Marc Panoff, and
Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
8376). The complaint asserts violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public
disclosures made during the period March 27, 2014 through
September 30, 2014. The deadline for parties to file motions for
lead plaintiff and lead counsel was December 19, 2014.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the
timing or outcome of this litigation.


SABRE CORP: To Appeal Final Judgment in San Antonio Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
intends to appeal the final judgment in a class action lawsuit
filed by the City of San Antonio to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against
Travelocity and other online travel agencies in a class action
lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was
based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs
"control" hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes.
Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded
that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy
taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit
these taxes.

The Company said, "We disagree with the jury's finding that we
"control" hotels, and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the
jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict
against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which
we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not
accrued any loss related to this case."


SABRE CORP: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a judge denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the
Hotel Related Antitrust Proceedings.

On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent a
putative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed a
complaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several
other online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
federal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaint
alleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter into
illegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30
copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States.

In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The
proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013.

On June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compel
arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or
after February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010
through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must be
arbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims from
January 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010.

Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a
motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the
motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The
plaintiffs had moved for leave to file an amended complaint but
the judge denied the motion on October 27, 2014. The plaintiffs
will have an opportunity to appeal.

"We deny any conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we
intend to aggressively defend against the claims," the Company
said.


SABRE CORP: Suit in Tex. State Court Over Hotel Fees Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that, "four consumer
class action lawsuits have been filed against us in which the
plaintiffs allege that we made misrepresentations concerning the
description of the fees received in relation to facilitating hotel
reservations. Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether
Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the
nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected.

One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the trial court and this
dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court;
one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in
Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is
pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome
of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided
was appropriate."


SEADRILL LTD: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Seadrill Limited American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the
period between July 10, 2014 and November 25, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 5, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or
619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/seadrill/

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

The complaint charges Seadrill and certain of its senior
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bermuda-based Seadrill is the world's largest offshore drilling
contractor, providing offshore drilling services to the oil and
gas industry worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the strength of the
Company's business and prospects.  Additionally, Seadrill has
historically paid a large dividend, which it raised twice in early
2014 resulting in the Company paying a $1 per share quarterly
dividend during the last two quarters of 2014.  During the Class
Period, defendants maintained that due to the Company's strong
backlog and the strength of its balance sheet, despite any
turbulence in the oil industry, the Company would not cut its $4
per share annual dividend.  As a result of defendants' Class
Period statements, Seadrill ADRs traded at artificially inflated
prices, reaching a high of over $38 per ADR in July 2014.

On November 26, 2014, before the markets opened, Seadrill reported
disappointing third quarter 2014 financial results (for the period
ended September 30, 2014), announcing that it had missed its
profit targets.  In addition, the Company disclosed that it was
indefinitely suspending its dividend, citing the Company's need to
pay down its debt to strengthen its balance sheet.  The Company
also disclosed that its Board of Directors had authorized the
repurchase of up to 10% of its outstanding shares.  On this news,
the price of Seadrill ADRs fell from $20.71 per ADR to $15.99 per
ADR on extremely heavy trading volume, a 58% decline from the
ADRs' Class Period high.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Seadrill ADRs during the Class Period.  The plaintiffs are
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Has More Time to Respond to Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
California court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint in a securities class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August
13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court")
against the Company, the Chairman of our Board of Directors,
certain of our executive officers and Blackstone (the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges that the prospectus and
registration statements filed contained materially false and
misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

On October 10, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint
Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (the
"Order"). The Order provides that (i) the Defendants need not
respond to the complaint until a lead plaintiff is appointed, lead
plaintiff's counsel is approved, and the lead plaintiff files an
amended complaint; (ii) within fifteen (15) days of the Court's
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, counsel for the
Defendants and counsel for the lead plaintiff shall meet and
confer regarding scheduling; and (iii) within five (5) days of the
meet and confer, the parties shall submit a joint motion for the
Court's approval with the parties' proposed schedule for the
filing of an amended complaint, and the filing of a motion to
dismiss or other response to the amended complaint.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit.


SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: No Trial Date Set in Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no trial
date has been set in the ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved
to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable
claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1,
2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the
Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and
Consolidated Complaint.  On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for
relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to
amend their complaint under Rule 15(a) and (d) against the
Independent Directors.  Defendants have until November 14, 2014 to
respond to Plaintiffs' motion.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

Discovery was stayed pending a decision on the Independent
Directors motion to dismiss.  No trial date has been set.


SIZMEK INC: Reply in Support of Cross-Motion to Strike Due
----------------------------------------------------------
Sizmek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action plaintiff's
reply in support of the cross-motion to strike was due on November
14, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, a purported holder of common stock of Digital
Generation, Inc. ("DG"), Equity Trading ("Plaintiff"), filed a
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, Equity Trading v. Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., No.
050112/2014, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, against DG, all directors of DG, Extreme Reach, Inc.
("Extreme Reach") and Dawn Blackhawk Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Extreme Reach
("Acquisition Sub"), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the then pending Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of August 12, 2013, by and among Extreme Reach,
Acquisition Sub and DG. The complaint sought an injunction barring
the consummation of the transaction and unspecified monetary
damages.

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed with the New York state court
a request seeking an order (i) preliminarily enjoining the Merger,
(ii) requiring expedited discovery and (iii) scheduling a post-
discovery hearing to continue the injunction (Plaintiff's
"Request"), and on January 17, 2014, the New York state court
issued an order setting a briefing schedule and a hearing for
January 30, 2014, on Plaintiff's Request.  On January 27, 2014,
the defendants removed this action from the New York state court
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, causing the matter to now be captioned Equity Trading v.
Scott K. Ginsburg, et al., 14 Civ. 499 (RWS) (RLE). The defendants
also submitted briefing in opposition to the Request.  At a
hearing held on January 30, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's
Request.

On February 4, 2014, the Court agreed to a Stipulation for
Extension of Time and Order (the "Scheduling Order"), providing a
proposed briefing schedule.  On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York.  On March 12, 2014, the defendants
stipulated to remand.  On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, asserting the same causes of action as the
initial complaint and adding certain additional factual
allegations.

On July 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed
oppositions to the motions to dismiss and a cross-motion to strike
exhibits to the motions to dismiss.  On October 24, 2014, the
defendants' filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss and
an opposition to the cross-motion to strike.  Plaintiff's reply in
support of the cross-motion to strike was due on November 14,
2014.

The Company believes Plaintiff's allegations are without merit and
intends to defend this action vigorously.

"We believe the purported claims and our defense costs will
qualify for reimbursement under DG's and/or our insurance
coverage, which are subject to the applicable deductible and the
limits of the policies," the Company said.


SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Toning Shoes, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Heller v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc.,
II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00887-TBR (W.D.
Ky., December 16, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous
misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of
its toning shoes, including Shape-ups and Tone-ups.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  The shoes have a
pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and promotes its
toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health
benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com


SKECHERS USA: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Toning Shoes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Prince v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc.,
II, and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00931-TBR (W.D.
Ky., December 16, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous
misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and health benefits of
its toning shoes, including Shape-ups and Tone-ups.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  The shoes have a
pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and promotes its
toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health
benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com


SOURCEFIRE INC: 4th Cir. Upheld Settlement Order in "Vukosa" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms a
district court order certifying a class in the complaint brought
by Michael Vukosa, et al., against Sourcefire, Inc., et al., and
approving a settlement agreement, thereby overruling Anand
Daniell's objection to the settlement.  The Fourth Circuit said it
reviewed the record and found no reversible error.

The Nov. 19, 2014 ruling, available at http://is.gd/RFhuQBfrom
Leagle.com, was entered in consideration of the appeal filed by
Anand Daniel.

The case is NAND L. DANIELL, Appellant, v. MICHAEL VUKOSA,
Individually on behalf Himself and All Others Similarly Situated;
MICHAEL JOSENHANS, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated; ROBERT COLLIER, Individually on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; SALLY LEBOW,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, and SOURCEFIRE, INC.; JOHN C. BECKER; MARTIN
F. ROESCH; STEVEN R. POLK; TIM A. GULERI; MICHAEL CRISTINZIANO;
ARNOLD L. PUNARO; CHARLES E. PETERS, JR.; KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER;
CISCO SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; SHASTA ACQUISITION CORP.; ACQUISITION
CORP., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-1482.

Edward B. Gerard -- egerard@robbinsarroyo.com , Stephen J. Oddo --
soddo@robbinsarroyo.com , Justin D. Rieger --
jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com -- of ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego,
California; Patrick Charles Smith -- psmith@dehay.com -- of DEHAY
& ELLISTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Yelena Trepetin --
trepetin@browerpiven.com , Charles J. Piven --
piven@browerpiven.com , Charles Noah Insler, BROWER PIVEN,
Stevenson, Maryland; Evan J. Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com --
of BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Mark D. Gately
-- mark.gately@hoganlovells.com -- of HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph K. Kanada -- jkanada@mofo.com , Erik
Jeffrey Olson -- ejolson@mofo.com -- of MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP,
Palo Alto, California; Thomas Matthew Buchanan --
tbuchanan@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Washington, D.C.;
J. Erik Connolly -- econnolly@winston.com , Robert L. Michels --
rmichels@winston.com , Dan K. Webb -- dwebb@winston.com , Andrew
J. Yahkind -- ayahkind@winston.com -- of WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.


STOLLE MACHINERY: Factory Production Worker Seeks to Recover OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Patton, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
Stolle Machinery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03392-WJM-KLM (D.
Colo., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly
situated current or former Stolle factory production workers to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs owed to the Plaintiff and the class.

Stolle Machinery Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Centennial,
Colorado.  Stolle is a business that manufactures and supplies
machinery for the global beverage and food can-making industry.
Stolle provides can-making machinery for a broad range of global
customers and businesses.  Stolle also builds customized container
filling machines for the food processing industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Tanner" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Tanner and Marita Murphy, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings,
Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd, Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Ford Motor Company, BMW of North America LLC, BMW AG,
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan
Motor Co., Ltd, Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
Inc., Chrylser Group, LLC, General Motors Co., Mazda Motor Corp.,
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., and Subaru
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02407-SLB (N.D. Ala., December
16, 2014) arises from alleged defective airbags manufactured by
Takata.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons
in the United States, who purchased or leased certain vehicles
manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Vehicle Manufacturers,
with defective airbags manufactured by Takata.

Takata is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with worldwide
subsidiaries, and is a leading manufacturer of transportation-
related safety devices, including airbags, seat belts, school bus
seats, and child restraint systems.  Takata is the manufacturer of
all of the Defective Airbags at issue in this Complaint.

To date, approximately 16 million motor vehicles with Takata-
manufactured airbags have been recalled worldwide due to the
alleged defects.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard S. Frankowski, Esq.
          THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC
          231 22nd Street South, Suite 203
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 390-0399
          Facsimile: (205) 390-1001
          E-mail: Richard@frankowskifirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  jcohen@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                  steti@scott-scott.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces Two Air Bag Defect Class Actions in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reports that two class action
complaints filed in Canadian courts on behalf of at least 400,000
car owners nationwide echoed allegations that Takata Corp. and its
subsidiaries sold dangerous, defective air bags despite knowing
about the problem for years.

The complaints, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and
the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, said Takata was aware
of the defect well in advance of the waves of recalls initiated by
automakers since 2008.  The plaintiffs claimed Takata knew that
the inflator components of its air bags were defective at least as
early as 2001, when Isuzu Motors Ltd. was forced to recall
vehicles with Takata air bags.

"To be aware of danger and hide that danger is atrocious conduct,"
they said.  "Takata intentionally disregarded the class members'
rights and safety, and prioritized corporate profits over the
quality of their air bags."

The air bags' inflator component consists of an explosive compound
inside a metal container that may burst due to excessive internal
pressure, sending hot metal and plastic shrapnel into a vehicle's
cabin, according to the complaints.

Takata has been hit with a slew of lawsuits related to its air
bags in the U.S., and both car owners and automakers have asked
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate
those complaints.

Both Canadian class actions said the defective air bags are
present in vehicles from numerous car manufacturers, including BMW
of North America, Ford Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co., which are
not named as defendants.

However, Tony Merchant -- merchant@merchantlaw.com -- of Merchant
Law Group LLP, which filed both complaints, told Law360 on Dec. 5
that Canadian legislation allows the plaintiffs to hold car
manufacturers accountable if Takata is found to have sold
defective products.  He said the plaintiffs would then have two
years to file claims against companies that manufactured and sold
vehicles containing the defective air bags.

The plaintiffs said a 2004 incident involving an exploding air bag
in a Honda Accord wasn't revealed to the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration until 2009, when the agency's recall
management division pressed Honda on why it failed to broaden a
2008 recall to include more vehicles.

The complaints said Honda claimed to have relied on information
from Takata that indicated the defect stemmed from improper
handling of the propellant during assembly of the inflator.

In a report to the NHTSA in 2013, Takata admitted that defective
inflators from its plants in Moses Lake, Washington, and Monclova,
Mexico, may have absorbed excessive moisture that contributed to
increased internal pressure, according to the complaints.

The Ontario complaint requested no less than CA$500 million ($437
million) in general damages as well as CA$100 million in punitive
damages, but did not provide the proposed number of class members.

The Saskatchewan complaint did not request exact damages, but
estimated a class of at least 400,000.

A representative for Takata said the company does not comment on
ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by E.F. Anthony Merchant, Roch
Dupont -- rdupont@merchantlaw.com -- and Linh Pham --
lpham@merchantlaw.com -- of Merchant Law Group LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not available.

The cases are John Pham v. Takata Corp., case number CV-14-517190,
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and  Liesa Covill v.
Takata Corp. et al, case number 2014 SKQB 256, in the Court of
Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan.


TARGET CORP: Customers Can Proceed With Negligence Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Reuters' Alison Frankel, in a decision that could
have important consequences for other corporations facing data
breach cases, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson of St. Paul,
Minnesota, ruled that financial institutions claiming to have
spent billions of dollars replacing their customers' compromised
credit and debit cards may proceed with a negligence class action
against Target.

Judge Magnuson's decision is a breakthrough for credit and debit
card issuers, which often bear the brunt of costs arising from
hacker attacks on retailers because issuers have to replace cards
and respond to customers' concerns.  "As I've previously reported,
there's not much precedent on merchants' liability to the banks
and credit unions that issue cards, and what there is previously
seemed to favor Target's argument that it owed no duty to card
issuers," Ms. Frankel said.

Judge Magnuson, however, found that the banks were foreseeable
victims of Target's allegedly negligent conduct -- precedent that
will be "extraordinarily favorable" to banks in other data breach
litigation, according to Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed, who
represents the class of card-issuing banks suing Target.  "This
isn't an area where the laws are already broad and deep,"
Zimmerman said.

Target's lawyers at Ropes & Gray and Faegre Baker Daniels had
contended in their motion to dismiss the banks' class action that
credit- and debit-card transactions are processed in three
separate steps, with card issuers at one end of the chain and
merchants at the other.  Target had no contracts with card
issuers, the company argued, and the banks' data wasn't stolen
when hackers obtained information about 110 million Target
shoppers last fall.  The indirect relationship between issuers and
merchants, according to Target, is too attenuated to saddle
retailers with liability for the banks' losses.  Target's brief
urging Judge Magnuson to dismiss the case claimed no court has
ever held that a third-party "special relationship" with card
issuers imposes a common-law duty of care on merchants.

But Judge Magnuson agreed with the banks' argument that their case
is about plain old negligence, not third-party harm.  The card
issuers, he ruled, had offered adequate allegations that they were
the foreseeable victims of Target's predictably risky actions.

Importantly, Judge Magnuson said that imposing a duty of care on
Target "will aid Minnesota's policy of punishing companies that do
not secure consumers' credit- and debit-card information."  He
said he had reached that conclusion "despite Target's dire
warnings about the burden of imposing such a duty."

One factor in the judge's consideration -- and the basis of an
additional count in the banks' case against Target -- is
Minnesota's Plastic Card Security Act, which imposes liability for
card issuers' costs on Minnesota businesses that have violated the
law's restrictions on retaining customer data.  The judge said the
law showed state legislators' intent to broaden duties to
safeguard credit and debit card data.  He also refused to limit
the scope of the Minnesota law to in-state transactions, as Target
had argued.

Class counsel Zimmerman said that part of Judge Magnuson's
decision will help card issuers in future data breach cases
against Minnesota-based companies or those that store data in the
state, but plaintiffs in cases against data-breach defendants
outside of the state will have to show that Minnesota law somehow
should apply to their claims.

The judge did dismiss the banks' negligent misrepresentation
claims, finding that they hadn't shown they relied on Target's
allegedly misleading statements about data protection.  Judge
Magnuson said the class could amend its complaint to fix the
reliance problem but Zimmerman told me his clients haven't yet
decided if they will.

Target counsel Douglas Meal of Ropes & Gray didn't respond to my
email request for comment.

                           *     *     *

In his Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 2, available at
http://is.gd/plzanYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Magnuson said
Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a claim for negligence, a violation
of the PCSA, and negligence per se. Plaintiffs failed to plead
reliance, however, and therefore their negligent-misrepresentation
claim must be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Magnuson held that:

     1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Financial Institution
Cases is granted in part and denied in part;

     2. The negligent-misrepresentation claim (Count Four) is
dismissed without prejudice; and

     3. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this Order
to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the required
elements of their negligent-misrepresentation claim, should they
wish to do so.

Meanwhile, Judge Magnuson issued a second Memorandum and Order
dated Dec. 18, available at http://is.gd/nPJrwXfrom Leagle.com,
in case.  This time, he ruled on Target's Motion to Dismiss the
Consumer Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the Consumer Cases.

Judge Magnuson said the majority of Plaintiffs' claims survive
Target's Motion.  He ruled that:

     1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated First
Amended Class Action Complaint in the Consumer Cases is granted in
part and denied in part.

     2. Plaintiffs' claims under the Delaware Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act in Count I are
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiffs may not maintain
a class action as to their claims under the consumer-protection
statutes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

     3. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Count II data-breach
notice statutory claims under Florida, Oklahoma, and Utah law, and
their claims under Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas law are
dismissed with prejudice.

     4. Plaintiffs' Count III negligence claims under Alaska,
California, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts law are barred by
the economic loss rule and are dismissed with prejudice.

     5. Count V, alleging breach of contract, is dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this
Order to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the
required elements of their breach-of-contract claim, should they
wish to do so.

     6. Count VI, alleging bailment, is dismissed with prejudice.

     7. Count VII, alleging unjust enrichment, is granted as to
Plaintiffs' "overcharge" theory and denied as to Plaintiffs'
"would not have shopped" theory.


UNIQUE VACATIONS: Dist. Ct. Won't Stay TCPA Suit Over FCC Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order denying Unique
Vacations, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration and alternatively
Renewed Motion to Stay in the class action complaint brought by
Around the World Travel, Inc.

The lawsuit is AROUND THE WORLD TRAVEL, INC., a Michigan
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-12589, (E.D. Mich.)
The Plaintiff alleged that Unique Vacations sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to plaintiff and other customers without including
the proper "opt-out" language, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. (the "Junk
Fax Act").

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Unique Vacations filed an
administrative petition with the Federal Communications
Commissions asking the FCC to (1) confirm that its faxes sent with
prior express permission (i.e. solicited faxes) "substantially
comply" with the opt-out disclosure rules; and (2) clarify that
the FCC's regulations requiring solicited faxes to contain opt-out
notices exceed the FCC's rule-making authority.

Unique Vacations initially moved the district court to stay the
class action pending final merits disposition of its FCC petition.
The district court denied the request.

In its order, the FCC "den[ied] the request of those petitioners
[including defendant] seeking a declaratory ruling that fax ads
that 'comply substantially' with [the Junk Fax Act] do not violate
any regulation promulgated under the Act, even if the opt-out
notice included on the fax does not conform with all of the
specified requirements of that rule."  The order made clear that
the waiver "does not affect the prohibition against sending
unsolicited fax ads, which has remained in effect since its
original effective date."

Based on the FCC's order, Unique Vacations sought reconsideration,
or, alternatively, renewed its motion to stay.  Because the
proposed class encompasses both unsolicited and solicited fax
advertisements, defendant says that the class action should be
stayed until completion of final appellate review of the FCC's
decision.

In his Nov. 19, 2014 ruling, Judge Steeh held, "There is no
palpable defect with the court's order, nor is a stay warranted
based on any changed circumstances. Despite defendant's consistent
position that this case deals only with solicited faxes, defendant
has not proffered any evidence in support of this position to
contradict the allegations in the Complaint."

The District Court's Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/3REZxTfrom Leagle.com.

Around the World Travel, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn L.
Hara -- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson Wanca; Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca; & Brian J. Wanca
-- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca.

Unique Vacations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Mast
-- amast@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill PLC; Jenice C. Mitchell
Ford -- jmitchellford@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill PLC; Jennifer
Glasser -- jennifer.glasser@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP; Michael
Constantine Marsh -- michael.marsh@akerman.com -- Akerman, LLP; &
Reginald M. Turner, Jr. -- rturner@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill.


UNITED STATES: VA Workers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Francis Allegra partly granted Plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification in the case captioned ANNETTE E.
JONES, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant (NO. 11-681C).

Plaintiffs are current or former part-time employees of the
Department of Veteran Affairs who seeks to certify a class of
part-time government employees from any agency in the United
States government, who were denied premium pay for regularly
scheduled work on Sundays.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, for themselves and
others similarly situated, requesting back pay and interest on the
Sunday premium pay allegedly owed to them retroactive to May 26,
2003. They also seek class certification of part-time government
employees who have not been paid Sunday premium pay.

In his Opinion, Judge Francis M. Allegra cited Rule 23 of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) which provides that a
class may be certified if: (i) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (ii) there are questions
of law or fact common to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses
of the representative parties are typical of those of the class;
and (iv) the representative parties adequately will protect the
interests of the class.

These requirements are in the conjunctive; hence, the failure to
satisfy any one of them is fatal to a class certification.

He further states that Plaintiffs have failed to provide the court
with any indication that the members in the putative class
suffered the same sort of injury as alleged in the complaint. As
such, the court cannot not simply assume as much, particularly as
similar cases have been decided involving the same issues.

Moreover, in the court's view, adding claimants from different
agencies into the mix will likely create more problems than their
association solves. Thus, the court grants, in part, and denies,
in part, plaintiffs' motion.

A copy of the Opinion dated October 20, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1087Xr0 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Secret Service Faces Racial Discrimination Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Conroy, writing for Daily Beast, reports that as police
departments face scrutiny over discrimination toward black
Americans, several former agents are accusing the Secret Service
of having a similar problem.

The track record of the U.S. Secret Service in protecting
President Barrack Obama has come under intense scrutiny in recent
months due to several major security lapses, the most recent of
which prompted the resignation in October of Secret Service
Director Julia Pierson.

A recently released Department of Homeland Security report about
that incident determined that a number of "performance,
organizational, technical and other" factors contributed to the
security breach.  What is not mentioned in that DHS report is
another long-running issue within the Secret Service -- one which,
according to several experts, creates the conditions for a
breakdown in agency morale that could ultimately compromise the
security of President Obama. That threat is embodied in a long-
running lawsuit filed by a group of African-American Secret
Service agents who allege the agency's culture is replete with
racism.

In September, a man with a knife scaled a fence and ran into the
White House, making it as far as the East Room -- it was this
incident that prompted the report by DHS, which oversees the
Secret Service.  That same month, however, in Atlanta, the media
reported that an armed security contractor with an arrest record
was somehow allowed to ride in the same elevator as President
Obama.

Those incidents echo an even more serious security breach that
played out in 2011, when a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle
managed to fire some seven bullets into the White House while one
of the president's daughters was home and the other expected to
return that same evening -- yet it allegedly took the Secret
Service four days to determine the shots had been unleashed on the
president's home.

"If the black Secret Service agents' legal claims related to
racism in the agency are true, then there is a threat to the
president's security because he is a black man," says
Matthew Fogg, a retired chief deputy U.S. Marshal who in 1998 won
a multimillion-dollar jury verdict in a racial discrimination
lawsuit filed against his agency.  "If they are treating black
people differently, then how can that not affect the president?"

Mr. Fogg also is party to one of two pending class-action
discrimination cases filed by black federal agents against the
U.S. Marshals Service.  The mere fact that the most qualified
agents are not getting promoted within an agency due to racial
factors -- as is alleged in both the Secret Service and U.S.
Marshals litigation -- indicates, Mr. Fogg says, that race is an
issue in the quality of protection being provided to individuals,
including the president.

Attorney Ronald Tonkin, a former federal prosecutor who now
represents federal agents in whistleblower and employment-
discrimination cases, says regardless of which side prevails in
the Secret Service litigation, both the accused and accusers "are
affected" by the resulting tension and polarization.

"These agents are all professionals, but the question is whether
their professionalism is dissipated by a perception that they are
being treated badly," said Mr. Tonkin, who also serves as
associate counsel for the National Association of Federal Agents.
"It does, in my experience, have an effect on agency morale, and
that affects performance at some level."

The black Secret Service agents' litigation, certified as a class-
action lawsuit last year, has been pending in federal court since
2000 due to numerous procedural delays.  It alleges that black
agents, as a group, have been systematically discriminated against
in hiring, assignments, transfer, awards, promotions and
discipline.

"The Secret Service has failed to protect its African-American
special agents from racial discrimination in virtually every
aspect of their employment," the black agents' pleadings in the
case allege.  "Discrimination against African-American agents in
the Secret Service has become part of the fabric of the agency and
has spanned several decades."

A complaint filed by the 10 black agents who are named plaintiffs
in the class-action suit points to an event held in southeastern
Tennessee called the "Good Ol' Boys Roundup," which was made
public in the mid-1990s via media reports but had been staged
annually since 1980.

"The racist conduct that occurred at the Roundup included the
posting of racist signs like 'Nigger checkpoint,' a simulated
lynching of a black man from a tree, and a host of racist skits
and songs," the complaint alleges. "Officials at the Secret
Service knew about this event, and at least 30 Secret Service
agents were documented attending the event.  . . . Many of the
white special agents who attended the Roundup were promoted to
high-ranking positions in the Secret Service, including three
agents who became SAICs [special agents in charge] of field
offices . . . and two agents who were promoted to the Senior
Executive Service level."

Reginald Moore, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's
Atlanta field office, and a party to the black agents' class-
action lawsuit, declined to comment on the case or any potential
threat to the president due to the alleged racism within the
agency.  Likewise, Angela Burns-Ramirez, a former Secret Service
special agent who has an individual racial-discrimination
complaint pending in federal court against the agency, declined to
comment on the advice of her attorney.  A primary allegation in
her lawsuit, which mirrors claims raised in the Secret Service
class-action litigation, is that she "has been treated differently
and subjected to different terms and conditions of her employment
due to her race (African American).

"Despite being established in 1865, the first African-American
female was not promoted to a GS-14 [supervisory] position until
2001," Mr. Burns-Ramirez' court pleadings state.  "Only five
African-American females hold a rank higher than GS-14 within the
Secret Service."

Brian Leary, a spokesman for the Secret Service, declined to
discuss the black agents' class-action lawsuit or the impact their
allegations might be having on the agency.  "We aren't commenting
due to the ongoing nature of the lawsuit," he said.

Professor Richard Delgado, the John J. Sparkman Chair of Law at
the University of Alabama School of Law, warns that it would be a
mistake to discount the effect that racism can have on an
institution and its ability to function effectively.  Mr. Delgado
is a leading scholar in the field of Critical Race Theory, which
focuses on the ways in which racism is embedded historically in
the nation's laws and legal system.

When racist activity is claimed, "it creates a terrible
environment for both sides of the color line," Mr. Delgado
explained.

"For the minority agents who feel discriminated against, they feel
unappreciated and develop a defensive attitude at best,"
Mr. Delgado added.  "Many of their white colleagues see the
minority agents as troublemakers scheming to get ahead, talking to
lawyers.

"Both sides are certain they are right, and it's a recipe for
morale problems or worse.  It can lead to inattention on the job
or even small acts of sabotage designed to make someone look bad."

Mr. Delgado said he would not want to be "a federal official with
an agency in that state charged with looking after my back."

The solution in such a case, he said, isn't simply to ask people
to set aside their animosities, because "that doesn't work."

"The best course is to arrange a lot of contact early in life, so
that blacks, whites and Latinos get to know each other and see
we're all humans with a range of behaviors and character, some
good and some bad," Mr. Delgado stressed.

"And these agencies should be screening people early, before they
are hired, to determine if they, regardless of color, have the
right attitudes and ability to work well in diverse groups."


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Alleging Insider Trading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Basile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, AGMS, Inc., Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, William
A. Ackman, and Does 1-10, Case No. 8:14-cv-02004-JLS-JCG (C.D.
Cal., December 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of all persons and
entities, who sold Allergan, Inc. common stock between February
25, 2014, and April 21, 2014.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, insider
trading against the Defendants.

Valeant International is a publicly-traded company incorporated in
the Province of British Columbia, Canada, with its principal place
of business in Laval, in Quebec, Canada.  Valeant International
manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
products, and medical devices in the areas of eye health,
dermatology, and neurology therapeutic classes.  Valeant USA is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
Jersey.  Valeant USA actively and directly participated in the
proposed offer made to Allergan employees and stockholders, and
became a member of PS Fund 1 on April 6, 2014.  AGMS is a Delaware
Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Valeant International.
Valeant is pursuing its tender offer through AGMS.

Pershing Square is an investment adviser founded in 2003 and
registered with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
as amended.  Pershing Square manages a series of hedge funds.
Pershing Square is a Delaware limited partnership with its
principal place of business in New York City.  PS Management
serves as the sole general partner of Pershing Square.  PS
Management is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New York City.  William A. Ackman
is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Pershing Square.
Mr. Ackman, by virtue of his position with Pershing Square, at all
relevant times controlled PS Fund 1.

PS Fund 1 is a limited liability company formed by and among:
Pershing Square; Pershing Square, L.P.; Pershing Square II, L.P.;
Pershing Square International, Ltd.; Pershing Square Holdings,
Ltd.; and nearly two months later, Valeant USA.  PS Fund 1 was
formed for the purpose of serving as the acquisition vehicle in
the acquisition of Allergan stock.  PS Fund 1 was formed in
Delaware on February 11, 2014, and has its principal place of
business in New York, New York.  PS Fund 1 at all relevant times
was controlled by Pershing Square, which was, in turn, controlled
by Mr. Ackman.  The Plaintiff does not know the names and
identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Joanna W. LiCalsi, Esq.
          2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3025
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-2008
          Facsimile: (310) 392-0111
          E-mail: jlicalsi@cpmlegal.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Parties in California Action Engaged in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of San Deigo are currently engaged in
limited discovery and have agreed to participate in mediation.

The Company said, "In December 2013, one of our former sales
representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed
a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer,
LLC, one of our subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe defendants.
This action alleges certain violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on,
among other things, alleged improper classification of sales
representatives and sales managers, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages on
termination and failure to reimburse expenses. The complaint also
seeks penalties of an unspecified amount associated with the
alleged violations, interest on all economic damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the complaint
requests an injunction, which would enjoin us from similar
violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code, and restitution of costs to the plaintiff and purported
class members under California's unfair competition law."

"In January 2014, we filed an answer denying the allegations in
the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. The
parties are currently engaged in limited discovery and have agreed
to participate in mediation. We have recorded a $0.4 million
reserve related to this proceeding in our condensed consolidated
financial statements."


VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Class Suit by Former Installation Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in September 2014,
two of the Company's former installation technicians, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, filed a complaint for damages,
injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the
Company and unnamed John Doe defendants.

The complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on,
among other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination.

"We believe that we have strong defenses to the claims asserted in
this matter. Although we cannot predict with certainty the
ultimate resolution of this suit, we do not believe it will have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
cash flows or financial condition," the Company said.


VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen T. Riccio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-07829-AET-LHG (D.N.J., December 16, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Files Answering Brief in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed
its answering brief in a putative securities class action.

The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18, 2010 and August 9,
2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which
was our predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary
and has changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants
in the case were Motricity, certain of our current and former
directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith,
Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C.
Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian
V. Turner; and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public
offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets
Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company,
LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are
named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages,
including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission."

"A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its
allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the
putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a
second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was
granted by the Court on October 1, 2013," the Company said.

On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

"On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering brief," the
Company said.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Court Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that a court approved a $15.0 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit.

Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare
Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies
Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company
(U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February 22, 2011), in which sponsors of
401(k) Plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") claim that ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company
(now known as Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company,
"VRIAC") has entered into revenue sharing agreements with mutual
funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules
of ERISA. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of
all revenue sharing payments and profits earned in connection with
such payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue
sharing and attorney fees.

On September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a
class action in which the named plaintiffs represent approximately
15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors. On April 11, 2014, the
parties submitted to the court a motion for preliminary approval
of a class-wide settlement agreement under which VRIAC, without
admitting liability, would make a payment to the class of
approximately $15.0 million and adopt certain changes in its
disclosure practices. Final court approval will be required before
the settlement becomes effective. On September 25, 2014, the court
approved the settlement.


WELLS FARGO: Goes to Trial Over Alleged Mortgage Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo & Co,
the largest U.S. mortgage lender, was set to go to trial on Dec. 8
as homeowners seek to recoup about $629 million for alleged
overcharges by a company once owned by Wachovia Corp.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan
in a long-running class-action lawsuit concerning HomEq Servicing,
a subprime mortgage servicer.

The lawsuit was filed in 2001 on behalf of borrowers whose
mortgages were owned or serviced by HomEq or the lender whose
loans it was established to manage, Money Store.

Wachovia in 2006 sold HomEq to Barclays Plc, which in turn in 2010
sold the mortgage servicing business to Ocwen Financial Corp.

Wells Fargo bought Wachovia at the end of 2008 and thus never
owned HomEq, but a spokesman confirmed it remained liable for some
claims raised in the lawsuit.  Ocwen in a statement said it did
not have similar liability. Barclays declined to comment.

The lawsuit filed by Joseph Mazzei, a California resident,
contends that HomEq kept charging borrowers monthly late fees even
after their mortgages went into default, making the full amounts
owed immediately due.  It also said HomEq violated its contracts
by charging attorneys' fees in foreclosure and bankruptcy and
splitting them with a nonlawyer, specifically a unit of Fidelity
National Information Services Inc.  Sharing fees in this manner is
illegal throughout the country, the lawsuit said.

In an October court filing, a damages expert for the plaintiffs
estimated damages at $59.3 million for late fees and $282.7
million for attorneys' fees, plus pre-judgment interest of $287.4
million.

"We strongly disagree with and dispute the plaintiff's claims and
legal arguments, which relate to acts that occurred at a legacy
company more than a decade ago, and are prepared to present our
case in court."  Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said.

Moshe Horn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Seeger Weiss, declined
to comment.

The case is Mazzei v. The Money Store, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 01-5694.


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Accused of Violating Driver's Privacy Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Eggen and Mary Eggen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WESTconsin Credit Union, Case No.
3:14-cv-00873 (W.D. Wis., December 16, 2014) is an action for
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief due to the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Plaintiffs' rights and protections under
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the Wisconsin Consumer Act,
Wisconsin's privacy statute and the Wisconsin Public Nuisance
statute.

WESTconsin Credit Union is engaged in the lending of money and
subsequent collection of debt.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (715) 246-1018
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Crandall, Esq.
          CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
          1237 Knowles Avenue North
          PO Box 27
          New Richmond, WI 54017
          Telephone: (715) 246-1010
          E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


WESTPAC BANKING: Actions Over Exception Fees on Hold
----------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Westpac has
been served with three class action proceedings brought on behalf
of customers seeking to recover exception fees paid by those
customers. The first set of proceedings was commenced in December
2011 by certain named customers of the Westpac brand; the second
was commenced in February 2012 by certain named customers of the
St.George Bank and BankSA brands; the third was commenced in
August 2014 on behalf of all other customers of Westpac Banking
Group. Similar class actions have been commenced against several
other Australian banks. Westpac has agreed with the plaintiffs to
put the proceedings against Westpac on hold until at least
December 2014, pending further developments in the litigation
against one of those other banks.


WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Class Action by Storm Financial Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that Westpac has
been served with a class action proceeding brought on behalf of
Westpac customers who borrowed money to invest in Storm Financial-
badged investments. Westpac intends to defend these proceedings.
As the two named applicants have not quantified the damages that
they seek, and given the preliminary nature of these proceedings,
it is not possible to estimate any potential liability at this
stage.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Parties Presently Involved in Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
parties in a class action are presently involved in court-ordered
mediation.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by
former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin
Litigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina
International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina
Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and
are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters
involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and
reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model
images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin
Litigation include other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers.

On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation
wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the
case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted
therein against the model management defendants, and stating that
the case "may involve matters in the public interest."  The
judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske
Litigation, which dismissed that case.  The Company believes the
claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries.

On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions
to dismiss.  By Decision and Order dated August 11, 2014, the
court denied the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' motion to dismiss.
In its Decision and Order, the court limited pre-class
certification discovery to information relating to usages of the
named plaintiffs' images agreed to by the defendant model
management companies during the six-year period prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit.  The parties are presently involved
in court-ordered mediation.


WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE: Sued Over Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
Janies Reid, writing for Whidbey News-Times, reports that a class-
action suit filed against two Whidbey Island real estate companies
claims they did not disclose to buyers the dangers of jet noise.

The lawsuit was filed against Windermere Real Estate and RE/MAX
Acorn Properties.

Filed Nov. 18 in Island County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges
that the real estate agents' "deceptive acts or practices have
occurred in their trade or businesses and were and are capable of
deceiving a substantial portion of the public."

Only two plaintiffs are identified by name, but the class action
suit asks for injunctive relief for anyone who purchased real
estate located in the county's Airport Environs Mapped Impacted
Areas on or after May 11, 1992.

The plaintiffs named in the suit are Jonathan Deegan, who said in
court documents he purchased his Coupeville home through RE/MAX in
2006, and Alice O'Grady, who said she purchased her Coupeville
home through Windermere in 2011.

Neither could be reached for comment by press time.

"I have not seen the complaint yet, so I cannot comment on the
specifics of this case, but I am aware that some off-island and
out-of-state attorneys have been urging homeowners to sue
Realtors, claiming they were not told about aircraft noise when
they bought their homes," said Eric Mitten, spokesman for
Windermere in Oak Harbor and Coupeville, in an emailed statement
on Dec. 5.

"In our company, we make sure prospective buyers are aware of the
airplane noise.  We talk about the airplane noise.  We also use
standard written disclosure forms printed by the Northwest
Multiple Listing Service, which provides us with the forms most
Realtors use in residential real estate transactions in the state.

"I'm astonished that anyone who has spent any time on Whidbey
Island would say they were not aware of the noise," Mr. Mitten
said.

Terri Neilon, owner of RE/MAX Acorn Properties, said she is afraid
"the litigation could be divisive and help fuel efforts by those
who want NAS Whidbey severely cut back or closed."

"We care about our clients and certainly make sure they are aware
of the noise," Ms. Neilon said.  "We also tell clients to do their
own due diligence -- check it out, talk to others and go to the
property and listen to the planes flying overhead.  Planes from
NAS Whidbey are very effective at making people aware of their
presence."

Island County Realtors updated their version of Form 22W in
January through the Northwest Multiple Listing Service.

A long-used, one-paragraph noise disclosure was deemed incomplete
by Island County Planning Director David Wechner, who issued a
memo that spurred the change.

In their lawsuit, both Deegan and Grady said they received only
the "inadequate Form 22W" at the time they purchased their homes.

The lawsuit was filed by the Seattle firm of Terrell, Marshall,
Daudt & Willie, which sent a letter in May seeking possible
plaintiffs.

While only two people are named, the suit states that the class
will be "in the hundreds or thousands."

A contention of the litigation is that, even though the noise
disclosure was updated to mirror Island County code, Realtors are
allegedly still not providing buyers with the county's map of the
impacted areas.

The county's Airport and Aircraft Operations Noise Disclosure
Ordinance, which contains the required language, also states that
the impacted areas are identified on the "attached map."

In a rough drawing, the county's map shows all of Whidbey Island
north of Lake Hancock as the "impacted areas." It also includes
areas surrounding the Camano and South Whidbey air parks.

Failure to include both the map and the language "about the
magnitude and timing of military flight operations as part of
pre-sale notices" in real estate transactions is "unfair" and
"offends public policy," the attorneys said in their lawsuit.

The lawyers are asking a judge to approve their class action
status, damages, a modification of the disclosure forms, attorneys
fees and any other relief deemed proper.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Inks MOU to Settle Merger Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Energy Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2014, counsel for Integrys Energy Group, Inc., the Integrys board
of directors, Gale E. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy entered into an
MOU with counsel for plaintiffs in the Amo, Steiner and Collison,
and Tri-State Actions pursuant to which Wisconsin Energy and
Integrys have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the
Merger.

As announced on June 23, 2014, Wisconsin Energy Corporation, a
Wisconsin corporation ("Wisconsin Energy") and Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation ("Integrys") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").
Thereafter, WEC Acquisition Corp., a Wisconsin corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy ("Merger Sub"), and
GET Acquisition Corp., a Wisconsin corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy ("Subsequent Merger Sub") became
parties to the Merger Agreement by executing a joinder agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Integrys (the "Merger"), with Integrys
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy.  Immediately thereafter, Integrys
will merge with and into Subsequent Merger Sub, with Subsequent
Merger Sub continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy.

On October 14, 2014, Wisconsin Energy and Integrys each filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive
joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") in connection with the Merger, which is
included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, file No. 333-
198096, filed by Wisconsin Energy with the SEC and declared
effective by the SEC on October 6, 2014 (the "Registration
Statement").  The Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus was
first mailed to the shareholders of Wisconsin Energy and Integrys
on or about October 21, 2014.  Wisconsin Energy is making this
filing in connection with the execution of a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain
litigation arising out of the announcement of the Merger
Agreement.

As disclosed in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
since the June 23, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement,
Integrys and its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy,
were named defendants in ten class action lawsuits and/or
derivative complaints brought by purported Integrys Energy Group
shareholders challenging the proposed merger. Two lawsuits were
filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (the
"Wisconsin Court"), Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.,
(the "Amo Action") and Inman v. Schrock, et al., (the "Inman
Action"). Three lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Brown
County, Wisconsin: Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.;
Blachor v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Albera v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al. (together with the Amo and Inman
Actions, the "Wisconsin Actions"). Two lawsuits were filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Taxman v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et
al., (the "Illinois Actions"). Three lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Federal Court"), Steiner v. Budney, et al., and Collison v.
Schrock, et al., (the "Steiner and Collison Actions"); and Tri-
State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the
"Tri-State Action").

Each of the Wisconsin and Illinois Actions was either dismissed or
consolidated with the Amo Action, and, with the exception of the
Inman plaintiff--whose action was consolidated after the fact--the
plaintiffs in the Wisconsin Actions joined Plaintiff Amo in filing
an Amended Complaint on October 3, 2014.  The Collison Action was
consolidated with the Steiner Action.

The Wisconsin Actions and Steiner and Collison Actions allege,
among other things, that members of the Integrys board breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction; that the merger agreement involves an unfair price;
that it was the product of an inadequate sales process; that it
contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers; that the members of the Integrys board
were unjustly enriched at the expense of Integrys; and that the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus omits material
information. The complaints further variously allege that
Integrys, Wisconsin Energy, and/or its acquisition subsidiaries
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a
declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in breach
of the Integrys directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction
enjoining the Integrys board from consummating the merger, (iii)
an order directing the Integrys board to exercise their duties to
obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Integrys'
shareholders, (iv) an order granting the class members any
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants, (v) a
rescission of the merger or damages, in the event that it is
consummated, (vi) disgorgement of benefits or compensation
obtained as a result of the purported breaches of fiduciary duty,
and/or (vii) an order directing additional disclosure regarding
the merger.  The Tri-State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction and alleges that Integrys, its board, Wisconsin
Energy, and Gale E. Klappa (the Chief Executive Officer of
Wisconsin Energy) violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. It
alleges, among other things, that the Registration Statement
misrepresented or omitted material facts, including material
information about the allegedly unfair and conflicted sales
process, the inadequate consideration offered in the proposed
transaction, and Integrys' actual intrinsic value.

On November 12, 2014, counsel for Integrys, the Integrys board of
directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy entered into an MOU
with counsel for plaintiffs in the Amo, Steiner and Collison, and
Tri-State Actions pursuant to which Wisconsin Energy and Integrys
have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger set
forth below. The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of
settlement, the Wisconsin Court will certify a class consisting of
all persons who were record or beneficial shareholders of Integrys
at any time between June 23, 2014 and the consummation of the
Merger (the "Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that, subject
to approval by the Wisconsin Court after notice to the members of
the Class (the "Class Members"), the Amo, Steiner and Collison,
and Tri-State Actions will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims, including derivative claims, that the Class Members may
possess with regard to the Merger will be released. In connection
with the settlement, the plaintiffs' counsel has expressed its
intention to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The
amount of the award to the plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately be
determined by the Wisconsin and/or Federal Courts. This payment
will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be received
by any Integrys shareholder in the Merger. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive
settlement agreement or that the Wisconsin Court will approve the
settlement. In the absence of either event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

Integrys, the Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and
Wisconsin Energy each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or breaches of duty or engaged in any of the
alleged wrongful acts and Integrys, the Integrys board of
directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy expressly maintain
that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their
fiduciary, disclosure and other legal duties. Integrys, the
Integrys board of directors, Mr. Klappa, and Wisconsin Energy are
entering into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to
eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further litigation.
Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing,
including this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Current Report"),
is or shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of
filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the
additional information contained herein or in any public filing
associated with the proposed settlement of the Amo, Steiner and
Collison, and Tri-State Actions.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lee
Holdsworth against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
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 argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million.
The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

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: Crane Co. To Appeal Ruling in "Garvin" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. plans to pursue an appeal, if necessary, from the ruling
in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Lloyd
Garvin, 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 September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company has filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or
to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

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: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from a ruling in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle remains pending, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.

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: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Bid to Flip Verdicts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to overturn verdicts
in a consolidated asbestos-related personal lawsuit, 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 June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. The Company plans to pursue appeals if
necessary.

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: Crane Co. Had $88MM Est. Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had an estimated $88 million for total asbestos
liability, 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.

With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.,
effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and
extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the
costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs
relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected
to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's
previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be
filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the
Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of
December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at
such date was based on several factors which contribute to the
Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the
additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims
(which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's
total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately
90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being
filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have
recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for
mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the
forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been
favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a
contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity
and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant
actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the
past several years that have reduced the number and types of
claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant
factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the
Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with
almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to
project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense
costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers.
Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes
that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending
claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is
probable that the Company will incur additional charges for
asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such
amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for
claims which may be made subsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
September 30, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the
updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's
liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the
Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant
appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their
respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on
this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended September 30, 2014.
Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained
increase or decrease, the liability could change materially;
however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos
liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty
with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the
calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor
predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011,
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $637 million as of September 30, 2014. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at September 30, 2014 was $88
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

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: Crane Co. Had $155-Mil. Reimbursement Asset
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s asset representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for asbestos-related claims expected through 2021
was $155 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.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for
a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. To
date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such
reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of its
excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an
insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to
provide coverage for the Company's present and future asbestos
claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other
things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the
insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the
expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under a
variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an
agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount
of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth
a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based
on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition,
with ten of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into
policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage
obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in
aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing
settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been
made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other
agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-
place, claims handling procedures. The Company has concluded
settlements with all but one of its solvent excess insurers whose
policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included
in the updated liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a
single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense
and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to it, subject to a
reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings
between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company's
asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $155 million as of September 30, 2014.

The Company reviews the estimated reimbursement rate with its
insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its
overall consistency with the Company's established reserves. The
reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers
under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any
additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout agreements. Since
December 2011, there have been no developments that have caused
the Company to change the estimated 25% rate, although actual
insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will
decline over time.

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related
claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are
multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company
cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with
respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on
past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A
significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the
costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,
as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand
appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,
or significant change in relevant case law could also change the
estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

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: 15 Suits v. Transocean Ltd. Are Pending in Miss.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 15 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits against
Transocean Ltd. that were pending in Mississippi courts, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company states: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.The Circuit Courts subsequently dismissed the original 21
multi-plaintiff complaints and required each plaintiff to file a
separate lawsuit. After certain individual claims were dismissed,
593 separate lawsuits remained, each with a single plaintiff. We
have or may have direct or indirect interest in a total of 20
cases in Mississippi. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing drilling mud
additives for use in connection with drilling operations and have
included allegations of negligence, products liability, strict
liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the
complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly manufactured the drilling-
related products that contained asbestos. With the exception of
cases pending in Jones and Jefferson counties, these cases are
being governed for discovery and trial setting by a single Case
Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed by the
court to preside over the cases. Of the 20 cases in which we have
or may have an interest, two have been scheduled for trial. During
the year ended December 31, 2013, one of these two cases was
resolved through a negotiated settlement for a nominal sum. In the
other case, we were not named as a direct defendant, but the
Special Master granted a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the
absence of medical evidence in favor of all defendants. We have
obtained a similar ruling on summary judgment dismissing three
additional cases where we were a direct defendant. The resolution
of these five cases leaves 15 remaining lawsuits in Mississippi in
which we have or may have an interest.

In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act
employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive
damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our
cases. To date, seven of the 593 cases have gone to trial against
defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud
additives. None of these cases has involved an individual Jones
Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these
cases."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Has 20 Suits Pending in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 20 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits against
Transocean Ltd. pending in Louisiana courts, 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: "During the year ended December 31, 2013, a
group of lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in
Mississippi were filed in Louisiana. Four of the original cases
were dismissed through early motions. As of September 30, 2014, 20
plaintiffs have claims pending against one or more of our
subsidiaries in four different lawsuits in Louisiana. We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 881 PI Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. had approximately 881 personal
injury 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.

One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of
the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets
of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in
1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers
and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement
fund. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of
September 30, 2014, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 881 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,692
plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have
not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs
to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through
September 30, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims,
including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs,
have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied
or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and
expenses and settlement costs have been met by insurance made
available to the subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named
as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the
number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant
nor can we predict the potential costs to resolve such additional
cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has
in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially
available to the subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may
be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we
believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly
or indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we
cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these
matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any,
arising from these claims will have a material impact on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,844 PI Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's total pending asbestos claims were
8,844, 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.

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

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's total
pending claims were 8,844.

A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had $97.471MM Fibro Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's insurance receivable was
$97,471,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022
was $181,022,000, of which approximately 73% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at September
30, 2014 was $141,659,000. While it is reasonably possible that
the Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos
Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently
reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too much
uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of
future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to resolve
them beyond 2022. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for
any costs that may be incurred after 2022.

The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2012, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was $118,115,000. The Corporation increased its
receivable at September 30, 2013 by $16,340,000 to take into
account the effect of the Settlement Agreements reached in August
2013.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's
insurance receivable was $97,471,000.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Had 268 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., had 268 personal injury asbestos-related
cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 268
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 611 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

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

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
sixth case, plaintiffs have alleged compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each of the five counts
and one count of $5.0 million for the sixth count. In the
remaining cases, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named
defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
$50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

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

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

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business
primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary,
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). The Company is an
industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing
business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies,
Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies
provides the Company's customers with Total Supply Management
services for a range of specialty production components. The
Company's Aluminum Products business manufactures cast and
machined aluminum components, and the Company's Manufactured
Products business is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. In June 2014, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp announced that its
Supply Technologies (ST) business acquires Apollo Aerospace Group
(Apollo) headquartered in West Midlands, England, with operating
locations in England, France, Poland, and India.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits associated with its previously acquired, but
which are no longer owned business operations, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation has obtained dismissal of the
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by John Hallum and Janet Hallum,
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 May 2014, John Hallum and Janet Hallum, filed a law suit in the
County Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Alcatel-Lucent USA,
Inc. and over 40 other defendants, including the Company, alleging
that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested,
packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing
products that contributed to the their contraction of asbestos-
related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. The
Company retained legal counsel and a dismissal via a non-suit was
obtained on July 11, 2014.

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


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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself against
an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit pending in a Rhode
Island court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,600 Fibro Claims at Sept. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. had 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 26, 2014.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway
Corporation ("Yarway") and Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with
numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal
injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the
Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos
containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from
Yarway's purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing
in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its
alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint
packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of
asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased
substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales
operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege
that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping
and sprinkler systems containing asbestos.

As of September 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there
were approximately 5,600 claims pending against it, which includes
approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants,
are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is
indemnified by third parties. Additionally, as a result of the
Yarway bankruptcy filing, claims against Yarway have been stayed
since April 2013.

For the year ended September 26, 2014, the Company's total net
asbestos-related liability was $608 million.

Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, valves and controls, and other
industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide,
Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired
two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e
Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve
manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the
oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire &
Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form
and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Estimates $538MM Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. had estimated gross asbestos liability of
$538 million for pending and future claims and related defense
costs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 26, 2014.

The Company continuously assesses the sufficiency of its estimated
liability for pending and future asbestos claims and defense
costs. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates actual
experience regarding asbestos claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements, and the recoverability of its
insurance assets. If and when data from actual experience
demonstrate an unfavorable discernible trend, the Company performs
a valuation of its asbestos related liabilities and corresponding
insurance assets including a comprehensive review of the
underlying assumptions. In addition, the Company evaluates its
ability to reasonably estimate claim activity beyond its current
look-forward period in order to assess whether such period is
appropriate. In addition to claims and litigation experience, the
Company considers additional qualitative and quantitative factors
such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, the
Company's strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance,
including its defense strategy, and health related trends in the
overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos.
The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether
a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company concluded
that an unfavorable trend had developed in actual claim filing
activity compared to projected claim filing activity established
during the Company's most recent valuation. Accordingly, the
Company, with the assistance of independent actuarial service
providers, performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related
liabilities and corresponding insurance assets. As part of the
revised valuation, the Company assessed whether a change in its
look-forward period was appropriate, taking into consideration its
more extensive history and experience with asbestos-related claims
and litigation (including its experience with Yarway), and
determined that it was now possible to make a reasonable estimate
of the actuarially determined ultimate risk of loss for pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims through
2056. In connection with the revised valuation, the Company
considered a recent settlement with one of its insurers calling
for the establishment of a qualified settlement fund, and the
results of a separate independent actuarial consulting firm report
conducted in the fourth quarter to assist the Company in obtaining
insurance to fully fund all estimable asbestos-related claims
(excluding Yarway claims) incurred through 2056.

The independent actuarial service firm calculated a total
estimated liability for asbestos-related claims of the Company,
which reflects the Company's best estimate of its ultimate risk of
loss to resolve all pending and future claims (excluding Yarway
claims) through 2056, which is the Company's reasonable best
estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which
asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates.

In conjunction with determining the total estimated liability, the
Company retained an independent third party to assist it in
valuing its insurance assets responsive to asbestos-related
claims, excluding Yarway claims. These insurance assets represent
amounts due to the Company for previously settled claims and the
probable reimbursements relating to its total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims and
defense costs. In calculating this amount, the Company used the
estimated asbestos liability for pending and projected future
claims and defense costs, and it also considered the amount of
insurance available, the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers, resolution of insurance coverage
issues, gaps in coverage, allocation methodologies, and the terms
of existing settlement agreements with insurance carriers.

As a result of the activity, the Company recorded a net charge of
$240 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses in
the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the quarter ended
September 26, 2014. Although the Company's methodology established
a range of estimates of reasonably possible outcomes, the Company
recorded its best estimate within such range based upon currently
known information. The Company's estimated gross asbestos
liability, excluding Yarway, of $538 million was recorded within
the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for
pending and future claims and related defense costs, and
separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $245 million.
The aforementioned total estimated liability is on a pre-tax
basis, not discounted for the time-value of money, and includes
defense costs, which is consistent with the Company's historical
accounting practices.

The effect of the change in our look-forward period reduced income
from continuing operations before income taxes and net income by
approximately $116 million and $71 million, respectively. In
addition, the effect of the change decreased the Company's basic
income from continuing operations and net income by $0.16 per
share, and decreased the Company's diluted income from continuing
operations and net income by $0.15 per share.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage
issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in
one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others,
and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the
determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later
portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect
the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related
matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of
insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company resolved
disputes with certain of its historical insurers and agreed that
certain insurance proceeds will be used to establish and fund a
qualified settlement fund ("QSF"), within the meaning of the
Internal Revenue Code, which will be used for the resolution of
asbestos liabilities of the Company, other than Yarway asbestos
claims. It is intended that the QSF will receive future insurance
payments and proceeds from third party insurers and, in addition,
will fund and manage liabilities for certain historical operations
of the Company. In addition, the Company expects to make cash
contributions to the QSF structure within the next 12 months of
approximately $275 million to purchase insurance that will be
dedicated to, and is expected to fully fund, these liabilities.

Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, valves and controls, and other
industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide,
Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired
two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e
Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve
manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the
oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire &
Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form
and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has $20MM Charge on Fibro Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., incurred a $20 million charge associated with the
re-measurement of its asbestos liabilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014.

The Company states: "During the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2014, we incurred a $20 million charge associated with the re-
measurement of our asbestos liabilities net of insurance
recoveries at year end. The increase in our fiscal year 2014
liabilities is primarily due to increasing claim filings and
higher projected defense costs. Management is actively trying to
mitigate its exposure to asbestos related liabilities through
renegotiated contracts with national and regional defense firms to
lower costs and active litigation against insurers that are
disputing coverage."

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 PI Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation had 5,700 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 28, 2014.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,700 and
5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at September 30, 2014, and
2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these
cases, very few cases allege actual injury and, in the cases where
actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have
established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.
Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not
necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's
asbestos-related liability.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Recognizes $73MM Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation recognized a liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years of $73 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2014.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, engaged Bates White
LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm with extensive experience
estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist
with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White
advised Maremont that it would be possible to determine an
estimate of a reasonable forecast of the probable settlement and
defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related
claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that occur in the future.

Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $73 million to $105 million. After consultation with
Bates White, Maremont recognized a liability for pending and
future claims over the next ten years of $73 million as of
September 30, 2014 and 2013. The ultimate cost of resolving
pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of
claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in
jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont.
Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental insurance
receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos-
related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities for pending and future claims changes. However,
Maremont currently expects to exhaust the limits of its settled
insurance coverage prior to the end of the ten-year forecasted
liability period. Maremont believes it has additional insurance
coverage, however, certain carriers have disputed coverage under
policies they issued. Because no insurance receivable is
recognized for these policies in dispute, Maremont recognized a
$10 million and $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal
years 2014 and 2013, respectively, associated with its annual
valuation of asbestos-related liabilities.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2024;

* Maremont believes that the litigation environment could change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending
and future claims will be at the level consistent with Maremont's
prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact
Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims
including indemnity paid on those claims. The insurance receivable
related to asbestos-related liabilities is $49 million and $58
million as of September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The
receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based
on a coverage-in-place agreement. Maremont currently expects to
exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in
the next ten years. Maremont maintained insurance coverage with
other insurance carriers that management believes covers indemnity
and defense costs. Maremont has incurred liabilities allocable to
these policies, but has not yet billed these insurance carriers,
and no receivable has been recorded for these policies, as those
carriers dispute coverage. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont
reinitiated a lawsuit against these carriers, seeking a
declaration of its rights to insurance for asbestos claims and to
facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.
The difference between the estimated liability and insurance
receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled insurance
coverage within the forcasted period and proceeds from settled
insurance policies. Certain insurance policies have been settled
in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos
liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally
reduce recorded insurance receivables.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers, and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Has 2,800 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s ArvinMeritor, Inc., has 2,800 pending active
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 28, 2014.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell International products many years
ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to Meritor
Automotive, Inc. at the time of the spin-off of the Rockwell
automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At September 30, 2014
and 2013, there were approximately 2,800 and 2,600 pending active
asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other
companies, as defendants at September 30, 2014 and 2013,
respectively.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For
those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend these cases vigorously.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had $48MM Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s ArvinMeritor, Inc., recognized a liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years of $48 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2014.

The Company states: "We engaged Bates White to assist with
determining whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of
resolving pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related
claims that have been, and could reasonably be expected to be,
filed against the company. Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of $48 million to $62
million. After consultation with Bates White, management
recognized a liability for pending and future claims over the next
ten years of $48 million as of September 30, 2014 compared to $39
million as of September 30, 2013. The ultimate cost of resolving
pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of
claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in
jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell. The
increase in the estimated liability is primarily due to higher
defense and processing costs, on a per claim basis, compared to
the prior year. Rockwell recognized a $10 million charge in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 associated with its annual
valuation of asbestos-related liabilities."

The following assumptions were made by the Company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2024;

* The company believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending
and future claims will be at the level consistent with the
company's prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $11 million and $13 million as of September 30, 2014 and 2013,
respectively. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables
of $8 million and $9 million at September 30, 2014 and 2013,
respectively, which are associated with policies in dispute.
Rockwell has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated
claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance
policies, which are in various stages of the litigation process.
The company expects to recover some portion of defense and
indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and above self-
insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for defending
asbestos claims going forward. The amounts recognized for policies
in dispute are based on consultation with advisors, status of
settlement negotiations with certain insurers and underlying
analysis performed by management. The remaining receivable
recognized is related to coverage provided by one carrier based on
a coverage-in-place agreement. If the assumptions with respect to
the estimation period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to
resolve claims and the amount of available insurance prove to be
incorrect, the actual amount of liability for Rockwell asbestos-
related claims, and the effect on the company, could differ
materially from current estimates and, therefore, could have a
material impact on the company's financial condition and results
of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. App. Affirms Ruling in Pepsi v. Mafco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company filed a lawsuit asserting
various tort claims, including tortious interference with a 1988
stock purchase agreement, fraudulent transfer, and conversion of
certain insurance assets against M&F Worldwide Corp., MCG
Intermediate Holdings Inc., Mafco Worldwide Corporation, Mafco
Consolidated Group LLC, and PCT International Holdings Inc. (the
"Mafco Defendants"), and others.  Pepsi also sued the Pneumo Abex
Asbestos Claims Settlement Trust.

Pepsi alleged that torts had been committed in whole or in part in
Texas: "Through the Plan C Agreement, which was designed to
interfere with Pneumo Abex's [contractual] indemnity and hold
harmless obligations to [Pepsi], these defendants: (1) created and
funded the Trust; (2) impaired or converted [Pepsi]'s rights to
insurance proceeds and other insurance related and/or property
rights, and transferred certain of those rights or property to the
Trust; (3) engaged in conspiracies with Texas residents; and (4)
committed all of these acts with the knowledge that the Trust and
its agent (Integra) would pay for and administer thousands of
[asbestos] Products Claims cases through Integra's offices and
actions in Texas.

As background to the suit, through a series of transactions and
corporate transformations, Pepsi acquired certain indemnity rights
associated with asbestos-related claims.

A lower court denied the Mafco Defendants' special appearances
after a December 2013 hearing.  No findings of fact or conclusions
of law were issued.  The Mafco Defendants' filed an interlocutory
appeal, which the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District,
Houston, denied in an opinion filed Dec. 18, 2014.  The Court of
Appeals, finding that the trial court did not err by denying the
Mafco Defendants' special appearances and concluding that the
trial court's denial of the Mafco Defendants' special appearances
based on specific jurisdiction was proper, affirmed the lower
court's decision.

The appeals case is M & F WORLDWIDE CORP., MCG INTERMEDIATE
HOLDINGS, INC., MAFCO WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MAFCO CONSOLIDATED
GROUP LLC, AND PCT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., Appellants, v.
PEPSI-COLA METROPOLITAN BOTTLING COMPANY, Appellee, NO.
141400045CV (Tex. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/oxRAZAfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Flips in Part Ruling in "Fagg" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over the course of several decades, Ronald Fagg was exposed to
various asbestos-containing products at work sites, during
personal automotive repairs, during time vacationing and living in
the Libby, Montana area.  He was later diagnosed with asbestosis
and asbestos related pleural disease.  In an action, he seeks
damages from a number of seller and manufacturer defendants, who
he alleges are liable for his injuries under common law theories
of negligence and strict liability.  Two of the seller defendants,
Pacific Water Works Supply, Inc., and CSK Auto, Inc., moved for
summary judgment on the grounds that Fagg's common law claims
against them were barred by the Washington Product Liability Act,
ch. 7.72 RCW (WPLA).  The trial court agreed and dismissed the
claims as to both defendants.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated Dec. 8, 2014, affirmed the trial court with respect to PWWS,
but reversed with respect to CSK and remanded for further
proceedings.

The Court of Appeals, with respect to PWWS, found that Fagg's pre-
WPLA exposure to transite sold by PWWS is insufficient to
constitute "substantially all" of his exposure to that product.
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly concluded
that Fagg's claims arose under the WPLA and did not err in
dismissing them.

With respect to CSK, the Court of Appeals concluded that because
substantially all of Fagg's exposure to CSK's asbestos-containing
products occurred before July 26, 1981, the WPLA does not apply
with respect to Fagg's claims against CSK.  Accordingly, the Court
of Appeals found that the trial court erred in entering summary
judgment for CSK on this ground.

The appeals case is RONALD FAGG, Appellant, v. BARTELLS ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST; CATERPILLAR, INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CNH
AMERICA LLC; CSK AUTO, INC.; DUNN LUMBER COMPANY, INC.; E.J.
BARTELL'S; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; H. D. FOWLER COMPANY; MOBIL
OIL CORPORATION PACIFIC WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; and
FIFTH DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE; Respondents, NO. 697196I
(Wash. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/04gYgQfrom Leagle.com.

Meredith Boyden Good, Brayton Purcell LLP, 806 Sw Broadway Ste.,
1100, Portland, OR, 972053333, Lloyd F. Leroy, Brayton Purcell
LLP, 222 Rush Landing Road, Novato, CA, 949486169, Counsel for
Appellants.

Stephen Garrett Leatham, Esq. -- sgl@hpl-law.com -- at Heurlin
Potter Jahn Leatham & Holtmann, 211 E Mcloughlin Blvd Ste., 100,
Vancouver, WA, 98663, Kelly Patrick Corr, Esq. --
kcorr@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Pree,
1001 4th Ave Ste., 3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Anthony Todaro,
Esq. -- atodaro@corrcronin.com -- Corr Cronin, 1001 4th Ave Ste.,
3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Kelly H Sheridan, Esq. --
ksheridan@corrcronin.com -- at Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner
Preece, 1001 4th Ave Ste., 3900, Seattle, WA, 981541051, Counsel
for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Ruling in "Richardson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-employer PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., and defendant-
carrier Broadspire appealed from an Amended Opinion and Award
concluding that plaintiff James Richardson's "last injurious
exposure" to asbestos occurred in 1995 while Broadspire was the
carrier on the risk.  On appeal, appellants contend that the Full
Commission erred in concluding that the plaintiff's "last
injurious exposure" occurred in 1995 because "the only competent
evidence of record supports a finding of fact, and corresponding
conclusion of law that the [plaintiff's] last exposure occurred in
1974" when he was working as a process engineer for PCS.  In the
alternative, appellants argue that should the Court conclude that
the plaintiff's last exposure occurred in 1995, then the Full
Commission erred in not finding that the plaintiff's last exposure
occurred when he was working for the East Group since the
plaintiff performed essentially the same work at the same jobsite.

In an opinion dated Dec. 16, 2014, the Court of Appeals of North
Carolina affirmed the Amended Opinion and Award, holding that
there was competent evidence to support the findings that: (1)
asbestos was present in various areas of the PCS facility during
all periods of the plaintiff's employment; (2) while the
plaintiff's jobs after 1974 did not require as much "handson"
work in the mill department, he still visited those areas
regularly and had contact with workers who had been exposed to
asbestos; (3) even though the plaintiff and Gerald Seighman
testified that they did not think the plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos after 1974, Dr. Arthur Frank's expert testimony
established that any exposure to asbestos, even one fiber, could
causally contribute to the plaintiff's mesothelioma; and (4) since
the plaintiff was still exposed to asbestos after 1974, those
exposures, even small exposures, could contribute to his disease.
In turn, these findings support the conclusion that the
plaintiff's "last injurious exposure" occurred after 1974 because
the plaintiff continued to be exposed to asbestos in his positions
as mill superintendent and assistant to the mine manager.

The appeals case is JAMES NORMAN RICHARDSON, Employee, Plaintiff,
v. PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. (fka ELF AQUITAINE, fka TEXAS
GULF), Employer. ACE USA/ESIS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE
CO., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY/CHUBB GROUP, RSK CO., (k/n/a CAN),
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES and BROADSPIRE, Carriers, Defendants, NO.
COA14615 (N.C. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/i5GtX4from Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for plaintiff-
appellee.

Ward & Smith, P.A., by William A. Oden, III, Esq. --
wao@wardandsmith.com -- for defendants-appellants PCS Phosphate
Company, Inc. and Broadspire.

Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by Winston L. Page, Jr. and J. Timothy
Wilson, for defendant-appellee Zurich North America Insurance Co.

Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, LLP, by Tracey L. Jones and
Leslie P. Lasher, for defendant-appellee CNA Insurance Company.

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, by Jaye E. Bingham, and J. Gregory
Newton, for defendant-appellee ACE USA/ESIS.

Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, by Harmony Whalen
Taylor and Lindsey L. Smith, for defendant-appellee Federal
Insurance Company/Chubb Group.

McAngus, Goudelock & Courier, PLLC, by John F. Morris and Jordan A
Benton, for defendant-appellee Specialty Risk Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Bars T&N's Deposition of FMC Trust
------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Gallagher and Constance Podedworny allege that their
husbands' mesotheliomas were caused by exposure to Federal-Mogul's
product, Limpet, when they worked for Narragansett Electric.  Both
Mr. Podedworny and Mr. Gallagher are now deceased.  On the 12th
and 14th of September 2011, the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust filed the instant complaints against T&N entities on
behalf of Mr. Podedworny's and Mr. Gallagher's estates.

The Federal-Mogul Trust filed a Motion to Quash the Defendants'
Notice of Deposition, while the Defendants filed a notice of
deposition, seeking to depose the representative of the Federal
Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.

After due consideration of the arguments advanced by counsel, The
Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, found that good
cause has been shown that a protective order should enter, barring
the Defendants' deposition of the representative of the Federal
Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.  The Superior Court found
that the requested deposition is unreasonably cumulative because
the information may be obtained through other means which are less
burdensome, expensive, and time consuming.

The cases are CONSTANCE PODEDWORNY, Executor for the ESTATE of
JOSEPH PODEDWORNY, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS
PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP.,
T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER &
NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS
FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
Defendants, and MAUREEN GALLAGHER, Executor for the ESTATE of
DENNIS GALLAGHER, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS
PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP.,
T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER &
NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS
FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
Defendants, CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. NO. PC115268, C.A. NO. PC115269
(R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/kfVwkafrom Leagle.com.

Vincent L. Greene, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Lawrence G. Cetrulo,
Esq.; Stephen T. Armato, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal Order in "Smiddy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion
filed Dec. 17, 2014, affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing
Angie Smiddy's asbestos-related complaint with prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply
with Administrative Order No. 12.

The appeals case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
(No. VI) relating to ANGIE SMIDDY, as daughter, next friend and
representative of the Estate of Bobbie Jean Eledge Crawford,
Decedent, Appellant, NO. 134423 (3d Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rKXpdMfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Summary Judgment Bid in PI Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The William Powell Company moved for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
by Milton Fordham, who alleged he was exposed to asbestos
insulation associated with Powell pumps at several Long Island
Lighting Company power generating stations.

In a decision and order dated Dec. 3, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion
after concluding that the Defendant has not unequivocally shown
"that its product could not have contributed to the causation of
plaintiff's injury."  Judge Heitler also ruled that the Defendant
has failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to warn
of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing aftermarket
insulation applied to its products.

The case is MACHELLE MONIQUE MORALES, as Administratrix for the
Estate of MILTON L. FORDHAM, Plaintiff, v. ABB LUMMUS CREST, et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190414/11, MOTION SEQ. NO. 010 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/Ra92zlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Holloway" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Carol Holloway, brought a negligence action against
defendant, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois, alleging that
the defendant's asbestos-containing insulation had caused her to
develop asbestosis.  Alternatively, she sought to recover from
defendant on a theory of spoliation of evidence.  A jury returned
a verdict in the defendant's favor, and the trial court denied the
plaintiff's motion for a new trial.  The Plaintiff appeals.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion
dated Dec. 16, 2014, affirmed the trial court's judgment, saying
it does not find the verdict to be against the manifest weight of
the evidence, nor it does not find an abuse of discretion in the
denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

The case is CAROL HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINKMANN
SONS CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 4131118
(Ill. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/VYrsu8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Wrongful Discharge Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert O'Brien filed a complaint in the district court for Sarpy
County against Bellevue Public Schools alleging that he was
wrongfully discharged from his employment as a carpenter with BPS
because he reported the presence, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials to his superiors at
BPS.  BPS moved for summary judgment.  After a hearing, the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of BPS.  O'Brien
appealed, and in a memorandum opinion, the Nebraska Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.  The Supreme
Court of Nebraska granted O'Brien's petition for further review.
Because the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that BPS is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, it affirmed the lower court's
ruling.

The case is ROBERT O'BRIEN, APPELLEE, v. BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
APPELLANT, NOS. S12843, S13963 (Neb.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Dec. 12, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/VoWMyJ
from Leagle.com.

Jeremy C. Jorgenson for appellant.  Laura K. Essay, Kevin R.
McManaman, and Michael W. Khalili, of Knudsen, Berkheimer,
Richardson & Endacott, L.L.P., for appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ocean View Facing $7.8MM Budget Over Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Knight Shine, writing for Huntington Beach Independent,
reported that the Ocean View School District, in California,
rocked by an asbestos cleanup that has closed schools and
displaced students, now faces a budget shortfall of an estimated
$7.8 million.

"You went from being a stable district to a district that's facing
insolvency," Wendy Benkert, assistant superintendent for business
services at the Orange County Department of Education, told
district trustees at their meeting.

Benkert said the district has run through $2.9 million of $4.3
million in general fund emergency reserves and faces an additional
$9.2 million in costs related to asbestos removal and a
modernization project at 11 schools.

Benkert sketched out worst-case scenarios should the district fail
to close the $7.8 million shortfall. The district might need
emergency funding from the state or wind up with the state taking
over the district.

"But I believe with prudent decisions you can turn this around,"
she said.

Asbestos was detected in some classrooms during the modernization
project that began in July. The cleanup has closed three schools
and left many parents furious as they have watched their children
-- more than 1,600 in all -- be temporarily bused to classes at
eight schools in four districts.

As the crisis has unfolded, district officials have remained in
close contact with the Orange County Department of Education,
which has oversight responsibility.

Benkert laid out options for the board, such as scaling down or
delaying some construction work or selling an unused school site.
Such a sale, however, probably wouldn't happen quickly enough to
shore up the district's deficit, she said. Also, legal
requirements would force the district to offer any open space on
an unused site to the city first for a below-market rate.

"We have to start rethinking some of this stuff," Trustee Debbie
Cotton said. "We need to be strategic about how we delay or cancel
construction."

Kris Meyer, the district's construction management contractor,
told the board that construction is "like an aircraft carrier. You
can't just turn on a dime and just stop."

Meyer, a principal with Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., which is
handling the asbestos removal as well as the modernization,
provided a construction update for Hope View, Lake View and Oak
View elementary -- the schools closed for asbestos removal.  He
estimated that the cleanup at Hope View would be completed Dec. 29
and that construction might be done by mid-February. At Lake View,
cleanup is expected to be completed by Jan. 23 and construction by
mid-March. At Oak View, cleanup could begin Jan. 5, with
construction finished by the end of March.

All those dates, he said, are best-case scenarios.

Last month, trustees approved about $9.2 million for asbestos
cleanup and construction at the three schools. The spending was
projected to put the district in the red by about $2.8 million,
according to a staff presentation. The cost included modernization
work such as new air conditioning, lights, flooring and ceilings,
in addition to asbestos cleanup.

The spending comes on top of the nearly $3 million the district
had already spent as of Dec. 9, according to Bekert. She estimated
the total shortfall of $7.8 million.

Between Oct. 28 and Nov. 26, the district paid purchase orders
totaling nearly $1.2 million to Ledesma & Meyer, according to a
report available at the meeting. The architect working on Hope
View, Lake View and Oak View received a purchase order of $343,320
in the same period.

A special board meeting to discuss options to close the shortfall
is scheduled at the district headquarters, 17200 Pinehurst Lane,
Huntington Beach.

When Hope View, Oak View and Lake View were built decades ago,
asbestos was used as fireproofing on metal beams above the
ceilings. Over time, asbestos dust began to fall from the beams
and settle on classroom ceiling tiles, district records show.

Parents became concerned in October that their children might have
been exposed to asbestos dust in their classrooms while the
district worked on the modernization project.

In response, the district closed the three schools and began
testing for airborne asbestos at all the campuses involved in the
construction project.

While asbestos that hasn't been disturbed isn't harmful to people,
it can become a hazard when the dust becomes airborne. Inhaling
high levels of asbestos over a long period can cause cancer and
other lung disease, experts say.

According to district documents, test results at Lake View showed
airborne asbestos in two classrooms higher than levels set in the
federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, which regulates
how much asbestos can be present in public buildings like schools.

At Hope View, a sample taken in one classroom contained a single
asbestos fiber.  No air samples taken at Oak View were above the
legal threshold, district documents show.  Tests at eight other
schools showed no significant level of asbestos in the air, the
district said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Deal to Resolve RPM Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Staley, writing for Benzinga.com, reported that RPM
International Inc. announced that the United States Bankruptcy
Court in Delaware and the United States District Court in Delaware
have confirmed the plan of reorganization for RPM's Specialty
Products Holding Corp. (SPHC) subsidiary and related entities.

SPHC originally filed for bankruptcy protection on May 31, 2010 to
permanently resolve asbestos claims related to its Bondex
International Inc. subsidiary. At closing of the plan of
reorganization, which is expected to take place over the next
several days, a trust will be established under Section 524(g) of
the United States Bankruptcy Code for the benefit of current and
future asbestos personal injury claimants. The trust will assume
all liability and responsibility for these current and future
asbestos claims, and SPHC and its related entities will have no
further liability or responsibility for, and will be permanently
protected from, the claims.

At the same time, financial results of SPHC's operating
subsidiaries, which have not been included in RPM's financial
reports since the bankruptcy filing, will be reconsolidated with
RPM's results for most of the second half of the company's fiscal
year ending May 31, 2015 and subsequently. While RPM continued to
own SPHC and its subsidiaries during the bankruptcy process, their
financial results were not consolidated with RPM's during that
time. RPM will review the financial impact of the reconsolidation
during its second quarter earnings conference call on January 7,
2015.

"We are pleased to bring finality to our legacy Bondex asbestos
liability and welcome back into the RPM family an outstanding
group of SPHC operating companies that are generating more than
$400 million in sales on an annualized basis, along with strong
operating income and cash flow," stated Frank C. Sullivan, RPM
chairman and chief executive officer.

SPHC operating subsidiaries include:

* Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Corp., a producer of
commercial cleaning products;

* Day-Glo Color Corp., a leading manufacturer of fluorescent
colorants and pigments;

* Dryvit Systems, Inc., a leading manufacturer of exterior
insulation finish systems;

* Kop-Coat, Inc., a leading producer of wood treatments for lumber
and coatings for the marine market;

* RPM Wood Finishes Group (Mohawk Finishing Products, CCI and
Guardian Protection Products, Inc.), a primary supplier of wood
coatings to the furniture industry;

* TCI, Inc., a leading producer of powdered metal coatings; and
ValvTect Petroleum Products, a producer of fuel additives.

The asbestos trust will be funded with $797.5 million in pre-tax
contributions. The company estimates that the net after-tax
present value of the contributions will be approximately $485.0
million. Contributions will be as follows:

* $450.0 million in cash at closing, funded through RPM's
revolving line of credit with a group of banks;

* $102.5 million in cash, RPM stock, or a combination of the two,
on or before the second anniversary of the plan's effective date;
$120.0 million in cash, RPM stock, or a combination of the two, on
or before the third anniversary of the plan's effective date; and

* A final payment of $125.0 million in cash, RPM stock, or a
combination of the two, on or before the fourth anniversary of the
plan's effective date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Plaintiffs Suffer Another Setback
----------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reported that
a federal judge has sided again with gasket maker Garlock in an
asbestos bankruptcy case, declining plaintiffs' motion to reopen
an estimation hearing that they said had lacked key evidence.
Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of North
Carolina ruled against the plaintiffs' request in In re: Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC.

New information put forward by the plaintiffs "starkly contradicts
assertions that figured prominently in Garlock's presentation in
the estimation hearing," said Trevor Swett, an attorney for the
plaintiffs committee, in an email.

During discovery, Judge Hodges had allowed Garlock to investigate
several settlements and jury verdicts made during the 2000s, when
many of the so-called "big dusties" were filing for bankruptcy and
Garlock's own litigation costs were on the rise.

Garlock had found that claimants in 15 cases had underreported
their exposure to other asbestos-containing products, as shown by
later trust claims against other companies that had produced
products with asbestos.

In response to the alleged misrepresentation, Judge Hodges sided
with Garlock's liability estimate, ruling in January that the
company owed $125 million to present and future claimants.
Plaintiffs' estimates ranged from $ 1 billion to $1.3 billion.

Garlock in turn filed four law Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act suits against law firms involved in litigating
these claims: Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett; Belluck & Fox;
Shein Law Center; and Waters & Kraus.

Plaintiffs lawyers have since argued that Garlock in fact had been
aware of the undisclosed exposure information before discovery in
this case, and moved to reopen the estimation proceeding in June.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Memorial Garden Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Reeves, writing for Alderley Edge, reported that plans for a
memorial garden at Alderley Edge Cemetery, in Cheshire, England,
have been delayed by the discovery of asbestos.

Cheshire East Council is currently clearing the asbestos from some
sheets which had been dumped at the cemetery.  Cllr Melanie Connor
informed her fellow councillors at the meeting that they have got
to wait for it to be cleared and then the Council will come back
with some plans which are being put together by a retired
architect.

Councillor David Marren, Chairman of Orbitas, Cheshire East
Council's operating company for bereavement services, said: "Our
bereavement operatives found the asbestos, which was concealed in
undergrowth, while they were clearing an area in the cemetery for
a new memorial garden.

"The immediate area was fenced off with tape and two signs were
put up warning of the presence of asbestos.

"We immediately began to make arrangements for the waste to be
taken away and we have been notified that a contractor will be
removing it.

"Nobody has been placed at risk as the material is in an area
where no-one would normally have cause to go.

"This waste was illegally tipped by persons unknown. We would
encourage anyone who sees items being dumped to report it to the
council as soon as possible so that we can find the people
responsible and bring them to account."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Modified Cells to Fight Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New
York have found that injecting mice with genetically modified
white blood cells not only killed existing mesothelioma tumors,
but also kept new tumors from forming, reports the mesothelioma
law firm of Baron and Budd. The results of their work were
published in the November 4, 2014 issue of Science Translational
Medicine.

"We are honored to fight for those who have been harmed due to the
decisions of asbestos manufacturers to prioritize corporate
profits over health."

According to a November 5, 2014 article in the Los Angeles Times,
the injected cells successfully fought off tumor cells that were
re-introduced 200 days after the previous injection. The results,
the article states, could lead to human clinical trials as early
as 2015 if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Mesothelioma is an almost-always fatal form of cancer that attacks
the lining of the lungs. Approximately 3,000 people are diagnosed
with the disease -- which is caused exclusively by inhalation or
ingestion of asbestos fibers -- each year. Even though the fact
that asbestos causes mesothelioma is irrefutable, the import and
use of asbestos is still not fully banned in the United States.

"We continue to be extremely encouraged with the incredible
research being done around the world aimed at eliminating
mesothelioma once and for all," said Russell Budd, president and
managing shareholder of the mesothelioma law firm Baron and Budd.
"We are honored to fight for those who have been harmed due to the
decisions of asbestos manufacturers to prioritize corporate
profits over health."

A mesothelioma lawyer with Baron and Budd may be able to help if
you or a loved one contracted the disease. Please call us at
1.866.844.4556 or e-mail info@baronandbudd.com to learn whether or
not you may be able to pursue a mesothelioma lawsuit.

                       About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm
with almost four decades of experience "Protecting What's Right"
for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron
& Budd's size and resources enable the firm to take on
exceptionally large and complex cases. The firm represents
individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as
diverse as PCB contamination in schools, FLSA (overtime)
violations, pharmaceutical and medical implant injuries, water
contamination, GM ignition problems, California Proposition 65
violations, mortgage and credit card fraud and asbestos-related
illnesses such as mesothelioma.

Contacts
Baron & Budd, P.C.
Susan Knape, 214-629-0596
sknape@baronbudd.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ICG, Director Prosecuted for Disregarding Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed McConnelle, writing for Kent Online, reported that a
construction company in Kent, England, and its managing director
have been prosecuted after displaying a "shocking disregard" for
workers' safety.

Daniel Lautier and his firm, ICG Construction Management Services
Ltd, both of Sevenoaks, were ordered to pay more than GBP4,000 at
a hearing after pleading guilty to numerous safety breaches.

Redhill Magistrates' Court heard how a Health and Safety Executive
inspector visited the Surrey demolition site in June and
immediately put a stop to demolition work after noting that staff
were exposed to risks of falling from an unprotected roof and from
the presence asbestos.

The failings on the site in Chobham Road, Woking were spotted by
the eagle-eyed HSE inspector as he drove past.  Three workers were
seen standing on the edge of the roof of a seven metre two-storey,
part-demolished house despite no safety measures being in place.
Roof tiles and masonry had also been thrown from the structure as
it was being demolished.

Lautier of Harrison Way, Sevenoaks, admitted two breaches of the
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the company pleaded guilty
to one breach of the Act and a further breach of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Lautier was fined a total of GBP3,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP1,044. No separate penalty was imposed for his company.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Russell Beckett, who
investigated, said: "The disregard for health and safety shown was
shocking, and exposed workers and others to appalling risks.

"The management of health and safety was non-existent even at the
most basic level.

"There were so many failures on site. Many were obvious but all
contributed to making the site one of most inadequate and
unprofessional I have ever seen.

"Demolition of a property requires planning and that includes a
survey to establish whether asbestos is present.

"The demolition industry has vastly improved its health and safety
record but Mr Lautier decided to cut corners and to try to do it
himself.

"If this demolition had been simply carried out using an excavator
machine then there would have been very few risks involved."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Owner Faces 5 Years for Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Newsday reported that Gerald Cohen, 81, owner of Lawrence
Aviation, a former airplane parts manufacturing plant in Port
Jefferson Station, was charged on Dec. 11, 2014, with illegally
removing asbestos from a building on the company's grounds in
violation of the federal Clean Air Act, a felony. Cohen pleaded
not guilty in federal court in Central Islip.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odor Leads to Fibro Discovery in School
--------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Moreno, writing for Kens5.com, reported that complaints
about a funny smell and the sight of warning tape labeled
"asbestos" caught the eye of elementary school parents in Dilley,
Texas. Some brought their concerns to Eyewitness News.

At first glance, a dumpster with warning tape labeled "asbestos"
looks quite alarming.

"I've heard from different people about some sort of smell," said
one parent.

A portion of Dilley Elementary will soon be demolished. Parents
were told about this last year but some said they didn't know
about this asbestos warning.

"Should we get masks for our kids, should we not send them to
school?" said another parent.

Parents took their concerns to Eyewitness News and to social media
after seeing photos of a school dumpster on Facebook. A parent,
who asked to remain anonymous, decided to keep her two daughters
home from school.

"My daughter has asthma, that was the first main concern I had
when I read lungs and respiratory," she said.

Other parents were wondering if the smell is a hazard.

"Just the safety of our children and their health," said another
concerned parent.

"I have two students as well that attend this campus, and I'm not
going to do anything to put my students or anybody else's students
in danger," explained the Dilley ISD Superintendent.

The Dilley ISD Superintendent said he's returned dozens of calls
from worried parents and that he is assuring them there is nothing
to worry about.

"Our certified asbestos company that is doing the removal has
assured us that it is nontoxic," explained the superintendent.

A letter that reached parents says in part: "The air that is
exiting the buildings will have a smell, but the abatement company
has filtered the air through three filters, these filters are
replaced every four hours."

The superintendent said the district is willing to talk with any
parent with concerns about this project and the district wants to
be transparent about what it's doing to keep students safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Trustees to Hire Fibro Investigator
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Ortigo, writing for News-Journal, reported that the Board
of Trustees of Kilgore College, in Texas, is considering hiring a
third-party investigator to look into allegations of asbestos
violations at the college.

Trustee Will Roberson said he and board President James Walker
will meet to set the board's meeting agenda and are considering
the item.

"We will discuss adding an option to the agenda for the trustees
to vote on hiring an outside third party, someone who's an officer
of the court, to look into Mr. (Dalton) Smith's accusations,"
Roberson said. "We thought it would be a good idea to have
somebody who is trained in these matters and also an officer of
the court who can find out and get better cooperation from FBI or
EPA, if there is an investigation, so we're not stepping on each
other's toes."

In November, college Physical Plant Director Dalton Smith said
people have been exposed to improperly handled asbestos in five
buildings on campus and accused the college of covering up the
carcinogenic material's existence over the past few years.

Roberson said he has had multiple requests from fellow trustee
Carlos "Scooter" Griffin Jr. to look into Smith's allegations of
the college's mishandling of asbestos. He said that prompted the
board's executive council -- which consists of Roberson and Walker
-- to look at the possibility of hiring a third-party
investigator.

"What I requested was for Mr. Smith to come in and tell us his
concerns," Griffin said. "Then we could also ask questions and get
everything out on the table."

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's Tyler Region is
conducting an investigation and is coordinating with the Texas
Department of Health Services for it. Smith has said he has been
interviewed by agents from the FBI and EPA. Griffin and trustee
Brian Nutt also have said they have been questioned by a federal
investigator.

"Unfortunately, with two and possibly four investigations going on
right now, we don't think it would be good for the board to open
up everything for discussion in public at the meeting," Roberson
said.

Roberson could not provide the name of the person the executive
council is recommending conduct the investigation.

Should the college choose to hire an attorney to investigate the
allegations, the findings could be withheld from the public
through attorney-client privilege.  Smith said he welcomes any
option that would involve getting to the "bottom of the matter"
and reaching a resolution.

The board is set to meet at at the college's McLaurin
Administration Building in Kilgore.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eynsham Car Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holgate, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that a former car
plant worker died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, a
coroner has ruled.

Martin Cross, 70, of Falstaff Close in Eynsham, England, was
diagnosed with the fatal disease in July 2013 and died at Sobell
House Hospice in Oxford on September 3, 2014, Oxfordshire
Coroner's Court heard.

His is one of at least eight cases of mesothelioma in Oxfordshire
reported in the Oxford Mail this year.  The inquest heard that Mr
Cross, who was born in Headington, worked at the Cowley car plant
from 1968 until 1992. In a witness statement made in November 2013
he said service pipes at the car plant "were all lined with
asbestos".

"I remember seeing dust particles in the air. Colleagues and I
would have breathed it in."

Mr Cross also recalled cleaning tunnels that contained asbestos.

Consultant in respiratory medicine Dr Najib Rahman said in a
statement Mr Cross had contracted mesothelioma. Coroner Darren
Salter said: "I'm satisfied on the evidence available to me that
Mr Cross was exposed to asbestos during his working life at Oxford
as a factory assembly worker from the 1960s until about the 1980s.
My conclusion is, therefore, industrial disease."

Mini spokeswoman Rebecca Baxter said: "BMW Group took over Plant
Oxford in 1994. Almost all of the asbestos exposures took place
before this date.

"As the current owner of the plant as much as possible has been
done by the company to make sure that the insurance companies of
the site's previous owners receive any claims as quickly as
possible and will continue to do so."

BMW acquired the Oxford car plant from Rover. British Leyland
owned the plant from 1967 to 1986.

The Health and Safety Executive has previously said it expects
asbestos-related deaths in Oxfordshire to peak between 2015 and
2020, in line with other parts of the UK. Mesothelioma typically
has a 30 to 40-year delay after exposure to asbestos.

Legal firms bringing compensation claims say they have seen a rise
in cases from Oxfordshire.

This includes people who worked at the Cowley car plant, Didcot
Power Station and Harwell's atomic energy plant between the 1950s
and 1970s, as asbestos was prevalent in industrial buildings.

Peter Lodge, a disease specialist at Festival Law, in Cheltenham,
said after the hearing: "It is widely accepted that asbestos was
used at that plant.

"Clearly the employees were never made aware of the risks
associated with such exposure in those years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Suggestion to Remand Damages Claims Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that several asbestos defendants in the asbestos multidistrict
litigation court are opposing Judge Eduardo Robreno's recent
suggestion to remand cases back to their transferor courts without
severing punitive damages requests.

According to the Nov. 24 suggestion of remand in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robreno
suggested sending several maritime asbestos cases back to the
Northern District of Ohio.  These cases stand out from the
numerous other cases previously remanded form the asbestos MDL
court because this is the first time punitive damages have been
remanded along with the asbestos action.

On Nov. 12, Judge Robreno asked the plaintiffs to show cause why
the court should discontinue its practice of severing claims for
punitive damages and retaining these claims in the MDL court.

The defendants responded by filing their own oppositions to the
suggestion.

"The MDL court acted to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of
future claimants, securing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation's authorization to sever punitive damages claims, and
to retain jurisdiction over those claims even after associated
compensatory damages claims had ben remanded to a transferor court
for trial," defendant CBS Corporation stated in its Nov. 25
opposition.

Defendant John Crane, Inc., or JCI, filed its opposition on Nov.
26 arguing that the court should continue its practice of severing
and deferring plaintiffs' punitive damages claims.

General Electric Company agreed in its Nov. 25 opposition that the
court's longstanding practice of severing punitive damages has
"aided the court in the timely in the timely and efficient
disposition of a massive volume of cases."

"The court's practice of retaining punitive damages claims does
not reflect a lack of trust in transferor courts, but rather
important public policy consideration that this court, due to its
unique vantage point, is best-situated to safeguard," GE stated.

JCI explains that in 1991, former Judge Charles Weiner, who was
managing the docket at the time, chose to sever and retain
jurisdiction over punitive damages claims while allowing liability
and compensatory damages claims to proceed to trial.

The Third Circuit agreed with this move, saying that "the sick and
dying, their widow and survivors should have their claims
addressed first."

JCI claims severance and deferral of punitive damages aids in
conserving the "limited" funds of money available to compensate
future claimants.

"Plaintiffs and defendants agree that asbestos litigation remains
a zero sum game -- money spent on one claimant today may not be
available for another claimant tomorrow," JCI states. "The
prejudice to future asbestos claimants if punitive damages claims
are allowed, is, therefore, palpable."

CBS Corporation added that experience shows that "even separate
and apart from the question of punitive damages, today's asbestos
litigation does not tend to closely correlate liability and
culpability, causing a disproportionate drain of valuable assets
which might otherwise be available to compensate future
claimants."

"In short, this court's use of a procedure resting squarely within
its discretion to protect future claimants is not improper
'judicial activism,' but its failure to do so would amount to a
destructive form of 'judicial paralysis,' threatening MDL's hard-
won legacy of 'responsible public policy," it added.

JCI also argues that plaintiffs will not be prejudiced if the
court continues to defer punitive damages claims, because they
cannot be prejudiced by being deprived of something that they have
no right to recover.

"Plaintiffs' argument that continued severance and deferral of
punitive damages claims somehow denies them a vested right to such
damages is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected," JCI
states.

Furthermore, JCI argues that punitive damages claims will only
lead to longer, more expensive trials.

"The mere possibility of an award of punitive damages increases
the time and money spent on pre-trial, trial and post-trial
proceedings," JCI stated.

When punitive damages are requested, JCI argues that defendants
will pursue additional depositions and discovery/document
requests, leading in longer trials as each party addresses
allegations of willful and wanton misconduct.

Furthermore, punitive damages claims will not encourage
settlements.

"Because the settlement value of a case often increases when
punitive damages are at risk, plaintiffs will immediately raise
their settlement demands regardless of the merit of his or her
claim," JCI asserts.

The defendants also argue that the two goals of punitive damages -
- punishment and deterrence -- cannot be served in asbestos cases,
because "in almost every case, the asbestos exposures that
plaintiffs allege caused their disease occurred decades ago," JCI
stated.

"Awarding punitive damages now will not further discourage similar
conduct in the future," it added.

CBS explained that because asbestos products are no longer
manufactured, there is no current or future conduct that could be
deterred by punitive damages in today's asbestos litigation.

It added that punitive damages claims pose a "multiple punishments
problem," as a single defendant could be required to pay multiple
punitive damages awards in order to punish the same "long-past"
conduct.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Fined for Failing to Conduct Fibro Check
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elesha Edmonds, writing for Business Day, reported that a manager
of a renovation company in Auckland, New Zealand, has been fined
$40,000 after he failed to test ceilings at a worksite for
asbestos.

Peter Page, the manager of Apartment Renovation Company, was
sentenced at Auckland District Court on charges laid by WorkSafe
of not taking all practical steps to test a substance for
asbestos.

Shane Harris, a handyman employed by the company, raised concern
after noticing Page did not test for asbestos before they began
work on 10 units at a site in the Auckland suburb of Sandringham.

Page told Harris he had tested the ceiling and had found there was
no asbestos, but when Harris took his own sample it tested
positive for the presence of asbestos.

As a result of Page's actions, up to 15 contractors were
potentially exposed to asbestos over three months.

Asbestos dust can cause breathing difficulties or even lung cancer
if it is inhaled.

Page claimed he thought the textured ceilings were asbestos-free,
as they did not have sparkling material visible to the eye.

However Brett Murray, general manager of High Hazards and
Specialist Services, said it was a recommended practice to test
for asbestos.

"Asbestos is often mixed with other material so it is virtually
impossible to identify by eye," he said.

"The only way to be certain that materials contain asbestos is to
have them tested."

Page was fined $40,000 under the Health and Safety in Employment
Act and Health and Safety in Employment Regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Halts Work at Housing Project
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Watson, writing for The Courier, reported that an
affordable housing project in a village in Fife, England, has been
halted after the discovery of white asbestos.

Work is suspended at the site on Station Road in Thornton, after
the substance was detected by investigators on a recent visit.

Although the material was not identified in test pits during
preliminary inspections of the site, three samples of an asbestos
cement product containing white asbestos were found on the surface
of the ground.

The project to construct 11 properties has already proven
contentious with local residents, who are said to be concerned
about traffic congestion in the area.

Local SNP councillor Ross Vettraino told The Courier: "There has
been a sign on-site for several years warning about the presence
of asbestos and local residents are aware that asbestos had been
removed in the past.

"I assured local residents that the council would take every step
to determine if the site was free now from asbestos and that is
exactly what it has done.

"As the site was not secure, gaps in the perimeter fencing of the
site have already been closed.

"A further and more detailed asbestos survey will be done and if,
necessary, the site will be decontaminated."

Letters are to be sent to residents, warning them of the find,
although Fife Council admits that it cannot provide a timetable as
to when any further work at the site can take place.

Mike McArdle, lead professional, added: "I'd like to reassure
everyone that there is no danger from this asbestos at the moment.

"We are making arrangements to carry out an asbestos survey of the
site to determine if there are any other asbestos products on
site.

"We have written to all nearby residents to keep them up to date
with what's happening and to reassure them they are at no risk
from this asbestos.

"At this point, until a full survey has been carried out it is
impossible to give an estimate of what will happen on the site and
when."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Victim Awarded GBP61,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Tidman, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that
James Heneghan, 76, died after contracting the fatal illness --
his son Carl continued the legal fight started by his father when
he was still alive.

The family of a man who died of lung cancer following years of
asbestos exposure at work have been awarded GBP61,600 against
former employers.

James Leo Heneghan, of Gloucester Road, Alkrington, Middleton,
England, died aged 76 in January last year after contracting the
fatal illness.

His son, Carl, the executor of his estate and a professor of
evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, continued the legal
fight started by his father when he was still alive.

The case was launched against six companies Mr Heneghan worked for
between 1961 and 1974, when he was exposed to asbestos fibres
which found their way onto his clothes and skin.

In the first case of its kind, the family's lawyers argued that,
although the six firms sued were not Mr Heneghan's only former
employers, they should pay the full compensation of GBP175,000 he
was entitled to on account of his illness.

But, following a High Court hearing, Mr Justice Jay ruled the
firms should only pay for the asbestos exposure they were
responsible for -- about 35 per cent -- and therefore his family
would only receive GBP61,600 -- just over a third of the total
sum.

Mr Heneghan worked on a number of sites, including Trafford Park,
Withington Hospital, an oil refinery in Carrington and a hospital
in Yorkshire.

While all six former employers involved in the case accepted Mr
Heneghan was exposed to asbestos, they argued they should only pay
a portion of the compensation and not the full amount as it could
not be proved this alone caused his illness.

Mr Justice Jay said this issue had never previously been decided
by a court in an asbestos case and therefore was of 'some
difficulty and importance'.

Agreeing with the defendants that they should only pay part of the
damages, he added: "The claimant has demonstrated on the balance
of probabilities that the deceased's lung cancer was not caused by
non-occupational factors.

"However, if the question is re-framed in these terms -- has it
been proved that any of the defendants who have been sued caused
the deceased's lung cancer? -- the answer must be in the
negative."

He concluded: "It follows that apportionment is the appropriate
outcome in the present case and the claimant's recovery is limited
to the sum of GBP61,600."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General Wins Delaware Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Delaware federal court has granted summary judgment to a
defendant in an asbestos lawsuit, concluding the plaintiff failed
to provide sufficient evidence establishing that the decedent
worked with the defendant's products.

Judge Gregory M. Sleet filed the order granting summary judgment
in favor of defendant AM General, LLC, on Dec. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

Plaintiff Olga Pavlick originally filed the lawsuit in January
2010 in the Superior Court of Delaware on behalf of decedent John
Pavlick, Jr., who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 from
asbestos exposure and died later that year in November.

The case made its way to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania's asbestos multidistrict litigation. It
was later remanded to the Delaware District Court to resolve any
outstanding issues.

At the time, defendant AM General was one of two remaining
defendants.

The plaintiff alleges the decedent was exposed to asbestos in
military trucks manufactured by AM General while he was deployed
with the U.S. Army in Germany in the early 1970s. From 1971 to
1974, the decedent served with the Armored Calvary Regiment where
he supervised repairs and maintenance of several of the vehicles.

The decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working with
and near asbestos-containing automobile parts during his service
and while working for a family business using the same auto
materials. He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos while
performing home improvement and renovation projects.

The defendant is a known manufacturer and supplier of these truck
types for the army. It filed for summary judgment in March.

The court found that Pavlick failed to provide evidence that would
allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the trucks in question
were manufactured by the defendant. Therefore, there is no genuine
dispute of material fact, and summary judgment is appropriate, the
court ruled.

Sleet explained that it is undisputed that AM General manufactured
the vehicles at issue in this case, but there is no affirmative
evidence establishing that the decedent worked with the
defendant's products in Germany.

Two witnesses who served with Pavlik submitted testimonies, but
neither could identify whether any of the trucks there were
produced by AM General.

"The court does not see how a party could eliminate a genuine
dispute of material fact by supplementing the record with
additional evidence," the court concluded.

Therefore, the district court determined that, aside from
speculation and possibility, Pavlick failed to provide sufficient
evidence that the decedent's exposure was the result of his work
with AM General vehicles while in the army.

"The plaintiff has therefore failed to carry her burden of
production such that a reasonable jury could find in her favor at
trial. The court grants AM General's motion for summary judgment,"
the order states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meriden School Closed Due to Possible Fibro Find
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gebeau, writing for Meriden Record-Journal, reported that the
Connecticut Department of Public Health closed Maloney High School
to those under 18 due to concerns about asbestos.  The directive
is in effect until further notice.

A cartridge that monitors air samples became overloaded in the
midst of the school's ongoing renovations, School Superintendent
Mark Benigni said. The $107.5 million renovation project includes
the construction of a new wing that will have two connections to
the old building, demolition of parts of the old building and
renovations to the interior and exterior of the building.

It is not known whether the material detected by the cartridge was
asbestos, but the building will cleaned and inspected over the
weekend, he said.

"It may impact the weekend schedule, but our hope is that the
results will be positive, and we'll have folks back," he said.

The closure forced the relocation of a boys basketball jamboree
expedition featuring Maloney, Lyman Hall and Southington. The
event was held at the Boys & Girls Club of Meriden.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crumbling Conneaut Building Contains Deadly Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Todd, writing for Star Beacon, reported that a blighted
building in downtown Conneaut, Ohio, that has drawn the ire of
city officials contains asbestos, but the magnitude of the removal
process won't be known until next year, according to John
Williams, finance director and acting city manager.

A technician with Monit-Air Group conducted tests inside the
former Bunkhouse, 216 Main St. The examination found evidence of
asbestos around piping and in some flooring, Williams said.
Additional details are forthcoming, he said.

"Full results won't be known for several weeks," Williams said.
The final asbestos report will allow the city to seek quotes from
companies that can remove the substance.

"We won't know that cost until we go through the process, but I
know it will be substantially more than the testing," Williams
said.

Monit-Air was paid $500 to conduct the analysis.

At issue is a long-closed building, an old store last used as a
night club, that began shedding bricks from its exterior walls
early this year. Bricks fell from sections of its north- and west-
facing walls, requiring the city to erect barriers to keep
pedestrians and vehicles a safe distance away. This summer, crews
from the city's Public Works Department removed the loose bricks,
minimizing the threat of a wall collapse.

The state of Ohio seized the building many months ago for unpaid
taxes. The state has no problem with the city demolishing the
structure if it is deemed a health or safety threat, officials
have said.

In November, Hugh Ingram, owner of NorthCoast Construction in
Conneaut, offered to demolish the building free of charge if the
city picked up the cost of asbestos removal and debris disposal.
At the time, Ingram said he wanted to help the community.

"Instead of complaining about stuff, let's do something about it,"
he said.

The city is hoping to obtain a grant to help defray some of the
cost of asbestos removal. Also, officials are exploring purchasing
the ex-Bunkhouse property from the state to make it easier to
market the future vacant lot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewkerne Woman Blames Cancer on Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Gazette reported that a woman in Crewkerne, in Somerset,
England, who is suffering a terminal form of lung cancer says her
condition may have been caused by exposure to asbestos from her
time working in a care home.

Doreen Gain, 71, was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of
the lining of the lung which is widely linked to asbestos exposure
-- in December 2012.

Mrs Gain believes she may have been exposed to asbestos dust while
working at the Bowhayes Lodge in Crewkerne between 1995 and 1998.
Residents and staff at the home were offered reassurance there is
no asbestos there.

In March the Western Gazette reported Mrs Gain suspected that
washing her husband's clothes may have triggered the disease. But
an examination of her employment history by a law firm has
recently opened up a new possible cause. Now Novum Law is
appealing for more information.

Doreen's condition has recently deteriorated to the point where
she now requires an oxygen cylinder to breathe, and is being cared
for at home by husband David and children Katrina and Jason.

Speaking about her experiences at the Bowhayes Lodge, Mrs Gain
said: "I remember the suspended ceiling with the asbestos ceiling
tiles. Maintenance men had to move the tiles from time to time to
access the service pipes behind the tiles and also to change the
strip lights. I noticed that there were two maintenance men
constantly working on the premises.

"I also remember the maintenance men going in and out of the
boiler house which is likely to have contained asbestos lagged
pipework and asbestos dust and fibres could have been transported
around the premises by the maintenance men."

Bowhayes Lodge was owned by South Somerset District Council at the
time Doreen worked there, before the building was transferred to
Yarlington Housing Group in 1999.

A spokesman for the council said that it does not hold any
documentation in connection with asbestos and health and safety at
the site due to its records being transferred with the change in
ownership.

Yarlington Housing has stressed the building is now free of
asbestos and poses no risk to the health of existing residents and
staff.

Paul Bullows, the firm's facilities and health and safety manager,
said: "After thorough testing in which many samples were taken the
report concluded that no asbestos containing materials were found
in the building. Therefore, there is no reason for residents to be
concerned or worried that they are at risk from asbestos at
Bowhayes Lodge."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro is Canada's Top Cause of Workplace Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tavia Grant, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that
asbestos exposure is the single largest on-the-job killer in
Canada, accounting for more than a third of total workplace death
claims approved last year and nearly a third since 1996, new
national data obtained by The Globe and Mail show. The 368 death
claims last year alone represent a higher number than fatalities
from highway accidents, fires and chemical exposures combined.

Since 1996, almost 5,000 approved death claims stem from asbestos
exposure, making it by far the top source of workplace death in
Canada.

The numbers come as the federal government -- long a supporter of
the asbestos industry -- continues to allow the import of
asbestos-containing products such as pipes and brake pads. A Globe
and Mail investigation earlier this year detailed how Ottawa has
failed to caution its citizens about the impact that even low
levels of asbestos can have on human health. Canada's government
does not clearly state that all forms of asbestos are known human
carcinogens. Dozens of other countries including Australia,
Britain, Japan and Sweden have banned asbestos.

Canada was one of the world's largest exporters of asbestos for
decades, until 2011, when the last mine in Quebec closed. The
mineral's legacy remains, as it was widely used in everything from
attic insulation to modelling clay in schools and car parts and in
a variety of construction materials such as cement, tiles and
shingles. Health experts warn long latency periods mean deaths
from asbestos will climb further.

"The indications are that we can expect an increase [in asbestos-
related diseases] to continue for at least another decade or so.
And that's assuming we as a nation ban it now. If we don't do
that, we can expect it to continue to rise indefinitely, but
perhaps at a lower rate," said Colin Soskolne, an Edmonton-based
professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

In Australia, which banned asbestos in 2003, asbestos-related
diseases continue to climb. The "responsible public-health action
would be to ban the use of asbestos in Canada and other countries
and replace it with substitutes," said Dr. Soskolne, who is also
chair of the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies
of Epidemiology, adding that there is "no demonstrated safe way to
use it in Canada."

Asbestos-related diseases have a long latency period of typically
20 to 40 years. Many victims die of mesothelioma, an aggressive
form of cancer caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos,
and asbestosis, a fibrosis of the lungs.

The data come from the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards
of Canada and is typically updated every fall. For 2013, the most
recent year for which annual data are available, it shows the
single greatest cause of death was mesothelioma, with 193
fatalities. Asbestosis was a factor in 82 deaths.

"There's some misconception that we banned it -- and we haven't,"
said Jim Brophy, former director of the Occupational Health Clinic
for Ontario Workers in both Windsor and Sarnia. Canada now has "an
enormous public-health tragedy, disaster on our hands."

All commercial forms of asbestos including chrysotile, the type
formerly mined and most commonly used in Canada, are classified as
carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Its evidence shows there is no "safe" form of asbestos nor a
threshold that it considers safe.

The agency's position is at odds with Health Canada, whose website
continues to play down the risks of asbestos exposure. It never
clearly states that all forms of asbestos cause cancer, but rather
that chrysotile asbestos is "less potent" than other forms and
that there "is no significant health risk" if the fibres are
enclosed or tightly bound.

"Asbestos poses potential health risks only when fibres are
present in the air people breathe," Health Canada says. The
problem is there's no way of ensuring that all products are always
bound or enclosed. Brake pads wear down; renos stir up dust while
pipes and tiles get sawed.

Britain's national regulator for workplace health and safety
informs its citizens that asbestos causes about 5,000 deaths per
year -- but there is no comparable information on Health Canada's
site. Health Canada told The Globe and Mail it has no plans to
update its website, last revised in 2012.

And while the World Health Organization bluntly says "all types of
asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and
ovary, and asbestosis," Health Canada still says asbestos fibres
"can potentially" cause asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer
"when inhaled in significant quantities." The potential link
between exposure to asbestos and other types of cancers "is less
clear," it adds.

The workers' compensation numbers don't fully capture the total
number of fatalities in Canada as not everyone is covered by
workers' comp and not every claim is successful. Separate
Statistics Canada data show almost 4,000 people died of
mesothelioma alone in the decade to 2011.

Heidi von Palleske says the numbers also don't capture wives and
children who have been affected. She calls herself an asbestos
orphan -- her father died in 2007, with asbestosis and lung and
prostate cancer. He was a former worker at a plant run by Johns
Manville, which made asbestos-fibre products. Her mother, who
shook out and washed her husband's clothes for years, died of
mesothelioma in 2011 and Ms. von Palleske's sister and brother
have since been diagnosed with pleural plaque (a calcification of
the lungs).

"It's inexcusable," said Ms. von Palleske. She wants to see a ban
and better supports for families affected by workplace exposure.

Miners were among the first to be affected, but the range of
occupations with workers exposed has expanded in recent decades.

About 152,000 workers in Canada are currently exposed to asbestos,
according to Carex Canada, a research project funded by the
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The five largest groups are
specialty-trade contractors, building construction, auto repairs
and maintenance, ship and boat building and remediation and waste
management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped Near Queensland Highway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that tonnes of crushed
asbestos have been illegally dumped near a highway west of
Brisbane, a local councillor says.

Ipswich councillor Paul Tully says large amounts of the deadly
substance have been found just 200 metres off the Warrego Highway
at Haigslea, along with about 80,000 dumped tyres.

"It's crushed asbestos from buildings.  It's not just sheeting.
It's crushed, broken and lying out in the open and it's lying next
to a major highway," Mr Tully told AAP.

He said the material posed a serious health risk.

The council or the state government would seek a court injunction
to force the company responsible to safely remove the asbestos and
tyres from the site on Haigslea Cemetery Road, he said.

Mr Tully said the council had fined a company $60,000 for dumping
the asbestos and tyres, but he would not name the firm due to the
likelihood of further legal action.  He said the 80,000 tyres
dumped at Haigslea and 100,000 more found at a second site at
Kholo, just outside the Ipswich city area, could be the largest
illegal tyre dumps ever found in Queensland.

The company involved appeared to have moved the tyres to the two
sites after being ordered by the neighbouring Brisbane City
Council to move them from a property at Pinkenba, Mr Tully said.
He said the dumps posed environmental as well as health risks.

"If these illegal dumps caught fire, they would cause major
environmental damage with the Kholo dump near Lake Manchester
posing an extra threat to the pristine lake area," he said.

"Illegal tyre dumps are one of the greatest threats to urban
communities with fires burning for weeks and each tyre releasing
up to seven litres of oil into the atmosphere. It's time these
environmental cowboys face the full weight of the law."

AAP is seeking comment from the departments of health, and
environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Electrician's Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a man from Swanwick, in
Hampshire, England, died after years of being exposed to asbestos,
an inquest heard.

George Brough, 89, died at the Countess Mountbatten House hospice
in West End as a result of significant exposure to asbestos
throughout his career at Southampton docks.

The former electrician, who lived at Swanwick Shore Road,
eventually gave in to bronchopneumonia on October 6.

As well as working for Lancaster and Son foundry and the London
Electricity Board alongside laggers, Mr Brough also worked aboard
the Queen Elizabeth during the 1940s and 1950s.

Recording a verdict of death due to industrial disease, senior
coroner for south and central Hampshire, Grahame Short, said: "In
the circumstances there's no doubt in my mind George Brough was
exposed to asbestos for a prolonged period of his life in the
1940s-50s and he was diagnosed as suffering from plural plaques
disease prior to his death.

"It's clear from that medical report I've just read that he was
identified as being at risk of death due to the asbestos
exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Flips in Part Suit Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Kentucky appellate court
has reversed in part an order dismissing an asbestos action with
prejudice, finding that the case could not be dismissed with
prejudice against non-moving parties.

In the Dec. 12 decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals further
held that dismissal of the action with prejudice against the
moving parties was not too harsh of a penalty since the plaintiffs
failed to diligently pursue their claims but instead "hoped to
leave open the door to future claims on the speculative hope that
additional injuries would emerge."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Police Dept. Beset with Fibro Cancer Fears
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Nickerson, writing for Stamford Advocate, reported that new
asbestos warning signs posted throughout the police headquarters
in Stamford, Connecticut, have led to scores of police officers
filing notices with the state Worker's Compensation Commission.

Since the jarring red signs went up declaring the building
contains asbestos fibers that could cause cancer, 51 officers have
filed notices that they may claim compensation for illnesses
caused by asbestos, said Awilda Quesada, district administrator at
the commission's office on High Ridge Road.

Just after a young female police officer turned in her form,
Quesada said officers had been streaming into her office and she
expects many more to file the notices. She said the notices will
be kept on record until a claim is made, which in the case of
asbestos-related illnesses could take decades.

Where the injury on the printed form is described it reads,
"Member has been exposed to asbestos containing materials located
at 805 Bedford Street which has been the Stamford police station
since 1955."

City officials say the new signs do not mean that asbestos is in
the air in the 59-year-old building, but there is a danger if
someone disturbs one of the 17 asbestos "hot spots" and asbestos
particles are released. No work is currently permitted in those
areas without federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration approval.

The filings by officers are being made about six weeks after the
city was fined $2,720 for failing to protect workers from asbestos
or screen them for exposure to it.

Stamford Police Association President Todd Lobraico said the
asbestos problem, coupled with the lack of a police contract for
four years and the developments in Ferguson, Mo., have driven
morale among the city's 270 police officers to the lowest point he
has seen in his 18 years behind a badge.

"Clearly the signs make it evident there is a danger present. It
is causing quite a stir with our membership. Not only do we have
to worry about our safety on the street, we have to worry about
our safety when we enter our place of work," he said.

Lobraico said he suggested to his members that they file the
notices, and he hopes the entire force will get them filed in the
near future.

He said one police officer pointed out that if signs like those
pasted to walls and doors all over the department were in a
school, parents would be furious. "And the same thing should apply
to police officers," he said.

Even with these problems, police officers are still holding the
line against crime, he said.

"Our police officers have been doing a phenomenal job closing
cases and catching criminals, and while they are doing this, they
have the asbestos to deal with and now the warning signs to deal
with every time they walk into the building and their offices.
Four years later we are still without a contract, yet they are
still doing an outstanding job under all those conditions," he
said.

In the 12-page OSHA report issued near the end of October, the
city was faulted for not informing housekeepers and contractors in
the building about potential health risks of the presence of
asbestos and not removing asbestos-containing materials in a
manner to contain its spread.

According to city documents, there are 17 hot spots with damaged
asbestos that include the men's and women's locker rooms, weight-
lifting room, lunchroom and lounge and major investigations
department.

Two signs were glued to doors in the public lobby warning of
asbestos in the ceiling and floor tiles.

In January, the city is set to begin quarterly air testing in the
building and putting police officers through tests for pulmonary
functioning and basic health, and chest X-rays are being
considered.

City Chief of Staff Michael Pollard said the search for a new
building for the police department is a challenge. To name a few
unique needs, he said a police department needs an extra-large
records room, space for a firing range and a jail, three times the
parking for an ordinary commercial facility, as well as a central
location to ensure police response times don't suffer.

Pollard said the city has checked out a few locations, but they
were found lacking.

"We are beginning to explore unconventional opportunities. We have
no hesitation about wanting to get people out of the building, it
is just a matter of finding the right location and facility," he
said.

Meanwhile, he said with the air tests already taken in the
building, there is no concern with air quality or asbestos in the
air. The signs were put up by order of OSHA, but as long as those
areas are not disturbed and the asbestos is not allowed to become
airborne, there is no danger, OSHA has told the city, he said.

"This is a top priority. We have been looking diligently for
months," said Pollard, adding the city is about to expand its
search.

Chief Jon Fontneau said he, too, was troubled by the signs that
appear to put an exclamation point on the reports of asbestos in
the building and he would not dispute Lobraico's claim about low
morale in the building.

Fontneau said most of the asbestos in the building is above the
cosmetic ceiling tiles and at this point no one is allowed to open
those tiles even if there is a leak in a pipe or a break in an
Internet wire.

"It's absurd. These are tough living conditions our officers are
being subjected to as they work in this building day in and day
out. As they walk into the building, they see the signs and as
they walk out, they see the signs that this building is not safe,"
he said. "It certainly doesn't boost morale around here, and there
is word that the officers are anxious to get out of this building.
Me included."

Although at first there OSHA set a March deadline to clear the
asbestos out of the building, but the city has since had that
order rescinded as long as they are working to find another place
to move.

Fontneau said the city has not been given a free pass and must
work hard on getting its officers out of the building. "As long as
the city is showing good faith and moving forward with a new place
to move, we will be within OSHA guidelines. The city has to
continue in good faith to keep looking and my understanding is
that they are," he said.

As a rule police officers don't talk on the record about police
business, but many officers -- especially those that have been
working in the building for decades -- are taking this personally.

Sgt. Andrew Gallagher, who has been in the building for nearly 25
years said one of the hottest asbestos zones in the building was
found to be in the gym ceiling tiles, right above his head, while
he has been using the cross trainer and treadmill. He said he has
been showering and brushing his teeth in water that may have lead
deposits for as long.

"The door to the office I go into every day now has an asbestos
warning. Four feet away from where I sit, there are heating pipes
wrapped with asbestos covers," he said. "I've worked very hard in
the city for many years and I hope that just by coming into my
office to do my job I don't get sick."

Sgt. Peter diSpagna said from April of 1999 until two or three
years ago he worked in the property crimes office that was then
located on the first floor in the northeast corner of the
building. When the OSHA report came out, that office was
identified as having the highest concentration of asbestos than
any other work area or office in the building.

DiSpagna said that he filed his notice because he doesn't want an
illness to catch up to him later on without having a notice filed
in a timely manner for his own protection and to keep any future
claim from being scuttled.

"As a police officer and a Stamford taxpayer, I find this a
despicable situation that the city should allow these conditions
to exist with city employees. It is not the first time they knew
about asbestos in the building," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Puts School District on Fin'l Brink
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Knight Shine, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that
a small school district in Orange County, California, that was
forced for close campuses and bus students elsewhere in the wake
of an asbestos scare is now reeling under a multimillion-dollar
budget shortfall.

"You went from being a stable district to a district that's facing
insolvency," Wendy Benkert, assistant superintendent for business
services at the Orange County Department of Education, told
trustees for Ocean View School District.

Benkert said the district has run through $2.9 million of $4.3
million in general fund emergency reserves and faces an additional
$9.2 million in costs related to asbestos removal and a
modernization project at 11 schools.

Should the Huntington Beach school district fail to close its
$7.8-million shortfall, it might need emergency funding or could
be taken over by the state, Benkert warned.

"But I believe with prudent decisions you can turn this around,"
she said.

Asbestos was detected in some classrooms during the modernization
project that began in July. The cleanup has closed three schools
and left many parents furious as they have watched their children
-- more than 1,600 in all -- be temporarily bused to classes at
eight schools in four districts.

As the crisis has unfolded, district officials have remained in
close contact with the Orange County Department of Education,
which has oversight responsibility.

Benkert proposed several options for school board members, such as
scaling down or delaying some construction work or selling an
unused school site. Such a sale, however, probably wouldn't happen
quickly enough to shore up the district's deficit, she said. Also,
legal requirements would force the district to offer any open
space on an unused site to the city first for a below-market rate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gabe's Tower
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Vied, writing for Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, reported
that Bruce Jones, chief operating officer of Professional
Hospitality Services, the Wisconsin company attempting to
refurbish Gabe's Tower, announced that the project is moving
forward and indicated that an asbestos abatement program
will begin soon after an October inspection of the old hotel
building confirmed the presence of the material.

In a news release, Jones' company said Linebach Funkhouser Inc.
was hired by the company to survey the building at 1926 Triplett
St. for the presence of asbestos. City officials earlier confirmed
that the company performed the asbestos inspection Oct. 28.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Fibro in Queensland Poses "Low Risk"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that the risk posed by
tonnes of crushed asbestos illegally dumped near a highway west of
Brisbane, Australia, is low, health authorities say.

THE Ipswich City Council says large amounts of the deadly
substance have been found just 200 metres off the Warrego Highway
at Haigslea, along with about 80,000 dumped tyres.

Workplace Health and Safety officers have advised public health
officials that the site poses a low risk for exposure.  But
efforts are underway at the site to further reduce that risk, the
West Moreton Hospital and Health Service said.

"There have been no concerns reported to the Public Health Unit
relating to contact with the potential asbestos site," it said in
a statement.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection is
investigating the dumping and has already ordered one unnamed
company involved to clean up the site.

"Failure to comply with a direction notice is an offence," a
spokesperson for the department said.

"Subject to the outcomes of further investigations, additional
compliance action may be taken."

The council has also moved against one unnamed company, fining it
$60,000 for dumping the asbestos and tyres.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Exposed Public to Fibro, DEQ Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Law, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality issued two fines after a
contractor hired an unlicensed asbestos abatement company for a
Southeast Portland home project.

DEQ, which concluded the project likely caused the release of
asbestos fibers into the air, fined Classic Image Homes $9,529 for
allowing VIP Construction to perform asbestos abatement at a home
on 3431 S.E. Rex St. VIP, an unlicensed subcontractor, was fined
$11,200 for doing the project without a license from DEQ. The home
project involved removing or disturbing asbestos-containing floor
tile, paper duct insulation and popcorn ceiling texture and joint
compound.

DEQ charged the companies allowed construction waste from the
project to accumulate outside the residence, potentially exposing
the public to asbestos fibers.

Asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis. There is no known safe level of exposure.

Classic Image Homes has appealed the penalty. VIP Construction had
until Dec. 22 to file an appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Release Puts Dutch City on Alert
-------------------------------------------------------
PressTV reported that asbestos released by a fire has prompted a
state of emergency in the Dutch city of Roermond.

The marina on the Maas River was set ablaze destroying a lot of
sailing boats in the city, which borders Germany. The fire
released enormous amounts of asbestos into the air.

Roermond's Mayor Peter Cammaert said, "It's everywhere, on the
streets, roofs, in gardens."

The approximate 57,000 residents were only allowed to leave or
enter through special decontamination points.  The Roermond train
station and access roads have been blocked. Shops and two schools
remained closed.  Meanwhile, aid workers searched for asbestos
residue and began cleanup efforts wearing protective apparels.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was once widely used for
insulation because of its resistance to heat, fire, chemicals and
electricity.  The insulating substance is regarded carcinogenic
and highly bio-hazardous.  This carcinogenic substance has been
banned in more than 50 countries. If inhaled, there would be a
high risk of chronic lung inflammation and cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Sufferer Has Fibro in House
--------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Moffiet, writing for Auckland Now, reported that loose
pieces of asbestos left in Collin Semmens' Housing New Zealand
property for more than a year came as a shock just months after he
was diagnosed with lung cancer.

The Auckland man recently discovered his roof cavity was "covered"
in the potentially deadly material when a contractor came to
install a new kitchen range.

After working above the ceiling the contractor came back down with
a photo showing what Semmens described as "little bits of rubbish
and little bits of tiles and nails covered in asbestos".

"There's asbestos right through the roof and I said to him 'now
you're covered in dust from that stuff' and he's only a young
fella. I said 'if that gets into your lungs you've had it'."

Semmens said the building scrap was left in the cavity after the
old roof tiles were replaced last year.

He and his partner Sandra Trueman are both invalids and have been
living in the property for 10 years. He says HNZ offered to move
them but weren't going to remove the material.

"In the meantime if someone else moves in here they're not even
going to know. If it breaks down that's it; it's a very dangerous
chemical."

Semmens is a smoker but doesn't know if the asbestos has affected
his health.

"You never know, it could have affected me and with my lung
condition it's not very good.

"It's a very dangerous chemical. I've had a cousin die from that."

Housing NZ property services manager Marcus Bosch said testing
confirmed the dangerous substance in the left-over scraps which
were "about the size of a hand".

"We are investigating why these small, solid asbestos-containing
pieces were not removed when the whole roof was replaced, as they
should have been.

"However, the material left in the roof cavity is not considered a
potential health risk because of the location and condition it is
in. Nevertheless we will remove them as soon as possible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Fibro in Stony Creek, Yarraville
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bridie Byrne, writing for Herald Sun, reported that Melbourne
Water has been issued with a clean-up notice to remove a stockpile
of sediment that contains asbestos dredged from Stony Creek.

The notice follows Environment Protection Authority sampling of
sediment found traces of asbestos downstream of Somerville Rd in
Yarraville.

Routine sampling also found lead, zinc and hydrocarbons consistent
with urban catchments.

The detected asbestos wasn't in a respirable form and air
monitoring confirmed it was below detectable limits.  Independent
testing has advised that the risk to human health was negligible
to low.  The results were similar in another stockpile found
further downstream, south of Francis St.

Both stockpiles are fenced and sign-posted to ensure no public
access.

Further testing upstream has returned no trace of asbestos.  It is
believed Melbourne Water is complying with EPA requirements to
assess the stockpile and manage any risks associated with the use
or disposal of the sediment.

The EPA will continue testing and monitoring in the area.
Concerns have also been raised by environmental groups over the
stormwater run-off coming from a neighbouring industrial
properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arsenic, Fibro Found in Northstowe Ground
----------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge News reported that arsenic, asbestos and bombs from the
Second World War are among the things lurking in the ground at
Northstowe, England -- but the problems should all be solved come
move-in day at one of the country's largest new towns.

The remarkable findings at the former Oakington barracks site have
been uncovered by engineers Hyder, as they investigate the full
scale of the task to ensure the 10,000-home new development is
safe to be lived on.

Such findings are not unusual at former defence sites, while the
environmental aspects of the town will have to be signed off by
both the Environment Agency and South Cambs District Council.

Contractors Hyder are also confident there will be nothing to
worry about once it has done its work across the site, which will
eventually cover an area the size of Newmarket.

Paul Kitson, a senior project manager for the Homes and
Communities Agency (HCA), which is developing phase two at
Northstowe, said: "Housing development occurs on brownfield land,
such as ex-military land, which contains localised contamination
all the time.

"Northstowe is a brownfield site and has some areas of localised
contamination which were identified in a 2007 report, submitted
with the phase one application in 2011 and more recently outlined
in the HCA's remediation strategy, submitted as part of the phase
two planning documents.

"There is well-established science behind the identification and
remediation of contaminants on brownfield land, like Northstowe,
and ultimately the remediation must be signed off by the
Environment Agency and council officers. The HCA has appointed
suitable professionally qualified scientific advisors to support
us on this.

"Before any development can take place, we will carry out further
investigation where contamination is identified.

"And we would invite a planning condition to be imposed on the
phase two application which would require further more detailed
remediation strategies and action plan, these would need to be
signed off by the Environment Agency and South Cambridgeshire
District Council."

Comparatively high levels of chemicals such as lead and vanadium
have been discovered along with methane and carbon dioxide.

Two 500lb bombs have also been uncovered and further work is
underway with specialists to mitigate the dangers of any work
going forward.

There was better news, though, with no presence of mustard gas.

Of eight broad identified risks, just two of them are thought to
have a high risk during the site's development. Hyder has already
identified some six pages of detailed work to prevent the
contamination causing harm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Laden NZ Bldg. to be Demolished
------------------------------------------------------
Nancy El-Gamel, writing for Waikato Times, reported that a 69-
year-old building in New Zealand that contains asbestos is to be
demolished to make way for a new supermarket.

The building, on Peachgrove Rd in Hamilton, is covered in plastic
to prevent neighbours from inhaling asbestos fibres and getting
sick.

George Asplet, project manager for the new Countdown supermarket,
says that the company is going above and beyond what legislation
requires of them to keep the risk minimal.

"We have an asbestos consultant for independent testing and
WorkSafe has been on the site three times.

"They keep an eye on what we're doing and they're happy for the
way the process is going."

A WorkSafe New Zealand spokesperson said, "WorkSafe is satisfied
at this stage that all systems are in place for a safe removal
process."

Two buildings on the old Mighty River Power site have been found
to contain asbestos and have been covered in plastic to ensure no
fibres escape while workers remove the offending material.

Dr Richard Wall, medical officer of health, said that asbestos was
only of concern when the material was inhaled.

"[Asbestos] has sharp microscopic fibres that can penetrate the
lung and can lead to cancer and a disease called asbestosis.

"If they are doing it properly it shouldn't be a problem."

Asbestos was commonly used in building materials because of its
heat resistant properties and is only a risk when those materials
start breaking down.

"Generally asbestos in homes won't be a problem if it's in good
condition.

"As long as it's not crumbling or flaking away, it's not a risk,"
said Wall.

Both the deadline and the budget for the new supermarket have not
been significantly affected by the discovery of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't to Knock Down Mr. Fluffy Homes
---------------------------------------------------------
James Glenday, writing for ABC News, reported that the New South
Wales Government is following the ACT's lead by committing to
knock down all buildings insulated with potentially deadly loose-
fill asbestos roughly 40 years ago.

The substance was pumped into more than 1,000 houses across
Canberra, and an unknown number of properties in NSW, by an
operator that has become known as Mr Fluffy.

While a clean-up operation costing about $1 billion is already
underway in the ACT, fixing the same problem in NSW is likely to
cost hundreds of millions of dollars and could affect more than
1,000 families in suburbs like Parramatta, Manly, Lithgow, Yass,
Bungendore and Queanbeyan.

"The only enduring solution is for these homes to be demolished,"
NSW Finance Minister Dominic Perrottet said.

"There is no dollar figure you can place on the health and safety
of citizens in New South Wales."

Between 300 and 1,000 New South Wales homes are expected to be
contaminated with the asbestos insulation, but only 57 have been
identified.

Most of the affected properties found so far are in Queanbeyan,
just on the edge of the ACT.

However, authorities are still searching for Mr Fluffy homes in 26
different council areas, predominantly in parts of Sydney and
towns surrounding Canberra.

Queanbeyan Mayor Tim Overall welcomed the announcement, and said
it would give "a high level of certainty to affected home owners
and residents".

"Until now, many affected home owners and residents have been
living on the edge of financial uncertainty and long-term health
risk," he said.

The State Government will provide a package for affected families
that will include rental assistance, counselling, environmental
cleaning and house inspections.

The Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Taskforce has also been
established to look at the best way of demolishing or buying back
the homes.

The taskforce will report their findings in May.

"Let's not pre-empt what that cost will be," Mr Perrottet said.

"We are trying to work out, and will work out, over the course of
this process the extent of the problem.

"I think this is an issue that both NSW and the ACT have struggled
to come to grips with for some time."

Mr Fluffy's New South Wales legacy long overlooked

The extent of the problem in New South Wales has long been a
mystery.

Residents across the border were not included in the unsuccessful
mass clean-up of the substance in Canberra 20 years ago.

Some community leaders have been calling for help to find the
contaminated houses for decades, but say they have been repeatedly
ignored by successive state governments.

But the Government said it has learned from the recent experiences
in the ACT.

Mr Fluffy homes found in NSW will soon have identification tags to
prevent tradespeople from coming into contact with the asbestos.

Also, homes with the substance will not be able to be sold without
full disclosure from the owners.

But Mr Perrottet conceded that finding all the contaminated
properties could take several years.

"There's no doubt that could be the case," he said.

"But what I'm really focused on at the moment is getting the facts
on the table and that's what this taskforce in my view will
achieve."

The government has set up a website and hotline in a bid to
encourage more people with contaminated homes to come forward.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Pleads Guilty for Improper Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a developer in Sioux City,
Iowa, accused of improperly removing asbestos from a former YMCA
building has pleaded guilty.

Records show 54-year-old Larry Wolf, of Dakota City, Nebraska,
entered his plea in federal court in Sioux City on one count of
violating the work practice standards of the Clean Air Act.

Wolf was accused of improperly removing asbestos from an old YMCA
building between July 2009 and March 2011. He admitted during his
plea hearing to knowing about the asbestos ahead of removing
material from the building.

Prosecutors say Wolf also removed asbestos-containing material
wrappings from metals inside the building then sold the metals.

It's unclear when Wolf will be sentenced. He remains free on bond.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Prosecuting Council Over Town Hall Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoie O'Brien, writing for Guardian, reported that a court date has
been set for the prosecution of the council in Waltham Forest,
England, for breaching health and safety laws relating to
asbestos.

The authority has admitted it knew about the presence of the
deadly substance at the town hall in Forest Road, Walthamstow.

However, staff were not prevented from entering affected areas of
the building between 1984 and 2012, with the council claiming it
was believed the asbestos was within acceptable levels.

A survey carried out in January 2012 ahead of major works revealed
asbestos in the basement, boiler room, generator room, cable room,
print room and lobby.

Documents were also found covered with asbestos dust.

The prosecution is being brought by the Health and Safety
Executive.

An initial hearing was scheduled for September 16, but this has
now been adjourned.

The council will appear in court on January 19 at Westminster
Magistrates Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Country Lane in Dunkirk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bess Browning, writing for Kent Online, reported that police
cordoned off the area and the Ministry of Defence were called in
after munitions and asbestos were found on an English country
lane.

Officers from Swale Borough Council were alerted to the fly-
tipping in Dawes Road in Dunkirk between Faversham and Canterbury.

Around 75 munitions and a huge amount of asbestos was found slung
on the rural road.

Police taped off the area, the road was closed and experts from
the Ministry of Defence were brought in.

Police Spokesman Alice Hemmings said: "Kent Police was called on
December 17 to a report that a number of shells had been found at
the side of the road in Dawes Road, Dunkirk.

"The explosive ordnance disposal team attended and confirmed the
shells were not live devices and there was no risk to public
safety."

Experts declared the site safe and the cordon has now been
removed.

To report fly-tipping to Swale Borough Council visit:
www.swale.gov.uk/fly-tipping


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Law Nixes Deadline for Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that people exposed to asbestos now
have more time to file lawsuits over related illnesses under a
bill Gov. Pat Quinn has signed.

The Democrat made the measure law on Dec. 19.  It removes a 10-
year time limit on filing civil action related to the use of
asbestos in construction.

Asbestos was an effective and popular fireproofing material until
the 1970s. Regulators banned it because exposure to asbestos
fibers has been linked to the aggressive cancer called
mesothelioma (mess-oh-thee-lee-OH'-muh).

But the previous law prevented anyone from filing a lawsuit
against people involved in constructing buildings using asbestos
after a decade. Proponents say mesothelioma takes at least 20
years to develop.

Opponents complained the law is too broad, overly expanded
liability and would hurt business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Development to Require Fibro Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Rotenberg, writing for The Times Herald, reported that during
the eighth zoning hearing for a convenience store with gasoline
pumps in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, environmental engineer
William Schmidt described the environmental impact of a 24-hour,
seven-day convenience store operation on the 1100 block of Fayette
Street.

Schmidt, an engineer at Pennoni Associates, said a building survey
concluded building materials at the former auto dealership at 1109
Fayette St. contained asbestos that will require careful removal.

A subcontractor scanned the underground areas and did not identify
any unknown metal storage tanks. Schmidt said a Phase II
environmental study completed in October 2013 concluded from 12
soil borings that three volatile organic compounds and two metals
were found that "were above allowable limits."  He said the
contamination could be left in the ground and contained by
concrete ground coverings.

Lawyer Stephen Pollock, representing Conshohocken residents
opposed to the store, questioned Schmidt about the differences in
testing locations for a previous plan to build semidetached homes
on the parcel.

Under questioning by Pollock, Schmidt said one of the contaminated
soil samples was taken from underneath Harry Street, which is
beyond the property line of the proposed convenience store.

Borough Solicitor John DiPietro asked Schmidt if he was aware that
Harry Street was not part of the development project. Schmidt
agreed that one sample was taken under Harry Street despite the
fact the street is not part of the development application.

Board Chairman Richard Barton asked how many additional soil
borings would be taken if the property is developed as a
residential project. Schmidt said 12 additional borings would be
required for a housing project.

"We talk about environmental concerns. I have nothing against this
particular convenience store. All those cars with their engines
running cause pollution," said a Conshohocken resident. "Think
about that. Have there been any studies about that? We have a park
next door where kids play."

Last year, Provco Pineville Fayette (PPF) LP of Villanova
unsuccessfully sought zoning changes for the 1.45-acre parcel from
Conshohocken Borough Council. Local officials and a majority of
residents living around the site are opposed to the development
plans. PPF is proposing a 4,670-square-foot market at the former
1.45-acre E.F. Moore car dealership at 1109 Fayette St. The
applicant seeks variances from front-yard rules, the size and
number of signs, the presence of gasoline tanks on Fayette Street
and the design of the retail store from the Conshohocken Zoning
Hearing Board.

At the November hearing, sound engineer Dave Shropshire explained
his April 29 report found that the sound pressure levels (SPLs)
would be between the low 40s and the upper 60s, as measured in
decibels, at the proposed convenience store on Fayette Street.

"The overwhelming sound on the property were the vehicles on
Fayette Street," Shropshire said. "At the comparable site for
sound measurement (a Quick Chek in Hazlet, N.J.) the SPLs were
between 44.9 to 65.3. A morning reading was 49 to 62. The trash
area is the area that generates the highest sound levels."

Deliveries and trash collection were 57 to 75.6 decibels of
"impulse" sound, a short "bang."

"That is the worst-case scenario," he said.

Pollock questioned Shropshire about the conclusions and the
methodology of the study.

"The closest single home is 250 feet from the convenience store in
Hazlet," Shropshire said. "The site plan for Conshohocken has the
proposed building blocking a direct line of sight to the nearest
neighbor.

"The primary source of high sound would be trash collection, then
delivery trucks, then cars entering and exiting." he said.
"Ambient sound comes from trucks and cars on Poole Avenue."

Geologist Brian FitzPatrick, president of Synergy Environmental
Inc. of Royersford, said construction of underground storage tanks
has progressed over the years and additional regulations have been
imposed to prevent accidental spills. Double walls for tanks,
remote sensors, "sheer" valves on the above-ground pumps and
cutoff valves on rubber hoses are now standard protection for new
gasoline tank installations.

"New construction has to have complete containment," FitzPatrick
said. "Automatic tank gauges are fed by several sensors.
Installers have to pass tests to make the tank installations."

FitzPatrick said the developer's plan had four 15,000-gallon tanks
with 10 pumping stations.

The next zoning hearing on the convenience store will be held at 7
p.m. Jan. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tobacco Co. Settles Fibro, Dividends Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marion Dakers, writing for The Telegraph, reported that British
American Tobacco has paid $575 million (GBP367 million) to settle
a legal case relating to asbestos claims and disputed dividends in
the 1980s.

The FTSE 100 tobacco producer said its Canadian subsidiary,
Imperial Tobacco Canada, had settled the litigation brought by
Flintkote, a US firm that formerly produced products containing
asbestos.

Flintkote was part of a firm that was later absorbed into what
eventually became Imperial Tobacco Canada. The US company started
a lawsuit in 2006 to recover dividends from 1986 and 1987 that
were paid out during some of this corporate consolidation.

Flintkote also wanted Imperial Tobacco Canada to take on some of
its asbestos liabilities.

Used in roofing and insulation in the last century, asbestos
fibres have been found to cause several diseases including
mesothelioma, a form of cancer. More than 2,500 people a year die
from mesothelioma in the UK, according to government statistics,
and claims from those affected have been passing through the
courts since the 1970s.

"The settlement agreement now provides closure on a legacy file,
allowing Imperial Tobacco to focus on its current business by
finally and completely resolving the existing Flintkote litigation
and obtaining protections from potential future litigation related
to Flintkote," said BAT in a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found on Rottnest Island
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Kember, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the
discovery of asbestos near vacation bungalows on Rottnest Island,
an idyllic Western Australian tourist destination, and the local
government's claim that the substance is "low risk" has raised red
flags among activists, members of the medical community and other
lawmakers.

Dr. Michael Gannon, president of the Australian Medical
Association (WA), said Rottnest Island authorities downplayed the
severity of the asbestos health threat.

"It's not zero risk, and it's time for the Rottnest Island
Authority to have a look at this accommodation and try to make it
zero risk," media reports show.

President of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia Robert
Vojakovic referred to officials' response about asbestos on the
island as "patchwork" to save money.

Fremantle MP Simone McGurk, whose district includes Rottnest
Island, told Australian media the public deserves to know "where
that material came from, what was the source of that material, and
if there is risk that any other broken material could be buried on
the island and then possibly arrive during storm activity."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral linked to the
development of malignant mesothelioma, an often terminal cancer
that affects the lining of the lungs, heart and abdominal cavity.

How Was Asbestos Found on Rottnest Island?

Rottnest Island (also known as Rotto) is renowned for its
beautiful scenery and stunning coastline. It's one of Australia's
hottest tourist destinations. A recent survey of the top 10
destinations in Australia listed Rottnest Island as the top
vacation spot.

Donovan Pryor, a building company owner staying in one of the
Rottnest bungalows, alerted officials in September that he
suspected there was blue asbestos -- the most toxic form of the
mineral -- on the grounds outside the vacation units.

Officials immediately fenced off the area and tested the
substance. Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) Acting Chief Executive
Greg Ellson later confirmed it was white asbestos, and it posed
little threat to island visitors or residents.

"White asbestos is very low risk, the material was intact and non-
friable [difficult to break down] and was of very low risk to
anyone staying in the units or passing by," Ellson said, according
to Australian media reports.

But the National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessments
Scheme (NICNAS), Australia's regulatory agency, disagrees with
Ellson's statements about white asbestos, also known as
chrysotile.

"Breathing in chrysotile dust causes lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis," the NICNAS website shows. "There may be no immediate
signs of ill health from breathing in fibers of chrysotile.
However, the damage caused to the lung can be fatal many years
later."

The agency also adds "there may be no safe exposure level for
chrysotile, so all exposure should be avoided."

Discovery of Asbestos Is Not an Isolated Incident

In May 2013, a six-year-old girl vacationing with her family on
Rottnest Island brought home a chunk of asbestos after collecting
shells, rocks and other items from the tourist hot spot.

"It's made me really anxious about letting my children frolic
around and do what kids do, which is explore and pick up shells
and things," the girl's mother told The Western Australian. "If
there's a danger of them picking up asbestos, it ruins the family
holiday."

An RIA spokesperson at the time told the news agency that rain or
a ground disturbance unearthed the asbestos, which could have been
debris from a 2005 roof replacement.

Australia's History with Asbestos

Asbestos was extensively used in the building and textile
industries in Australia between the 1950s and 1980s. Many parts of
Australia were also mining towns, including Wittenoom, one of the
continent's worst industrial disaster sites.

Many homes and business built with materials containing asbestos
are still standing today across Australia.

Recently, officials discovered homes in Canberra still contained
remnants of Mr. Fluffy, an insulation material composed of deadly
asbestos. Although government efforts in the 1980s tried to
eliminate the insulation from thousands of homes, many homeowners
still are finding the material in their residences.

The Australian government will buy those homes from Canberra
residents and demolish them in the coming months.

Many homes in Rottnest Island also contained asbestos, especially
in the roofing materials.

According to the RIA, all asbestos currently in the buildings on
the island is inert and safe. Officials said August marked the
most recent asbestos inspection on Rottnest Island.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Group Warns of Mesothelioma Risk in Pipes
----------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma says thousands of water pipes in the U.S.
contain asbestos and EPA information indicates that these pipes
can leach asbestos into drinking water as they age.

According to the EPA, in addition to the erosion of natural
asbestos deposits, decaying water mains made of asbestos cement
are the major source of asbestos in drinking water.

To protect consumers from mesothelioma, water providers are
subject to routine monitoring to ensure that asbestos levels stay
in the safe range, but if they rise, facilities have up to 30 days
to let consumers know.

"Because asbestos is so closely linked to malignant mesothelioma,
we believe that it is important for the public, including workers
called to work on these water mains, to be aware of the potential
for asbestos contamination and to know their rights to protect
themselves," says Alex Strauss, Managing Editor of Surviving
Mesothelioma.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization estimates that
millions of miles of pipes made of asbestos cement were in
installed in the U.S. between the 1960s and the 1980s. According
to Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm, these
pipes have a lifespan of about 70 years.

To learn more about EPA guidelines for asbestos in drinking water,
including where you can go for information about the safety of
your own water supply, see Mesothelioma Risk from Aging Asbestos
Water Pipes, now available on the Surviving Mesothelioma website.

For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers
the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes,
diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving
Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer-
reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved
ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more
informed decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Urban Demolitions in Turkey Spread Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Today's Zaman, citing a report in the Taraf daily, said that as
buildings are demolished all over Istanbul in the scope of various
urban transformation projects, the proper measures are not being
taken to prevent the spread of the cancerous material asbestos.

Opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy Haluk Eyidogan,
who spoke with Taraf, submitted a parliamentary inquiry to the
Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning. According to the
response he received, the ministry is unable to obtain reliable
information from the relevant municipalities regarding buildings
with materials containing asbestos, and they are thereby unable to
take the proper measures during demolitions.

"When buildings are demolished they are sprayed with hoses, which
allows the particles to spread throughout the city," said
Eyidogan. A significant percentage of older apartment buildings in
Istanbul were built using asbestos products.

"Due to demolitions, it is unclear how much asbestos there is, to
what extent it is spreading and how it is affecting people," said
the opposition parliamentarian.

However, the solution that is currently not being carried out by
the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning is a simple one,
according to Eyidogan: "They are saying, 'How can we conduct
inspections and take the proper measures without information?'

Before a demolition, a team of experts could enter the building
and examine all of its elements. They would determine whether or
not there is asbestos, which is very easy to do. If there is,
personnel wearing special masks would remove the asbestos and it
would be transported to a waste disposal facility," said Eyidogan,
adding, however, that he was not aware of any existing facility
wherein asbestos could be safely stored.

Asbestos, which is a naturally occurring mineral substance, is
also commonly known as a harmful material that can lead to lung
cancer and other respiratory diseases in those who are exposed to
the fiber. It was used extensively as insulation material
throughout the world, although many developed countries banned it
decades ago. It was not banned in Turkey until 2010. Health
experts earlier this year claimed that 500,000 people will die of
cancer in Turkey within 30 years because of asbestos.

A variety of urban transformation projects are occurring in many
districts of Istanbul, in neighborhoods that are believed to be
risk areas especially vulnerable to damage in the event of a major
earthquake. It is generally believed that a major earthquake is
highly likely to strike Istanbul in the coming years. Authorities
believe that thousands of buildings cannot withstand the effects
of a severe earthquake. Certain laws allow buildings in
neighborhoods designated as risky areas to be demolished, even if
the owner does not consent. Critics of this practice argue that
the laws are sometimes used as a way to kick poor people out of
neighborhoods located on high-value land.


                              *********

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  * * *