CAR_Public/150220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 37


                             Headlines

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Faces Junk Fax Class Action
AMERICAN LIFECARE: Class Cert. Ruling in "Thibodeaux" Case Upheld
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brescia" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Doe" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Giotta" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hood" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Maric" Suit in KY. Over Alleged Data Breach
BABIES R US: Faces Suit Over Baby Cache Dresser Deaths
BAYER AG: Lawyers Joust to Take Lead Blood Thinner Cases
BLOOMBERG LP: Court Orders E. Micheal to File Amended Complaint

CAAVERI ENTERPRISE: Recalls MD Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
CIGNA CORP: Not Entitled to Coverage for Class Action Liability
CORRECTIONS CORP: Class Cert. Motions in Faircloth Case Denied
COSTA CROCIERE: Costa Concordia Captain Gets 16-Year Sentence
DENTAL RESOURCE: Summons Service Tolled to March 17 in TCPA Suit

DESOTO GATHERING: Smith Case to Return to Faulkner County Court
DINING CONCEPTS: "Lynch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DIVERSIFIED ROOFING: Mich. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ELITE BUSINESS: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims
FAIRWAY AMERICA: "Paulson" Case Dismissed with Prejudice

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 121 MKT SUVs Due to Non-Compliance
FORT COLLINS: Faces "Landow" Suit Over Panhandling Ordinance
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kessenger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
HINES NUT: Recalls Walnut Halves & Pieces Due to Salmonella

HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection
HYDRO AUTOMOTIVE: UAW Class Action Settlement Gets Court Approval
IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
IMAX CHICAGO: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of "Redman" Suit

HEALTH NET: Judge Wants ERISA Class Counsel to Repay $246,224
JAGUAR: Recalls XK Model Due to Non-Compliance
KRAFT FOODS: Beyond Systems Can't Sue Over Solicited Spam Emails
LAND ROVER: Recalls Certain Range Rover Models
LINKEDIN CORP: Nears Privacy Class Action Settlement

M-I LLC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Syed" Suit Moved to Oct. 9
MACHINERY AUCTIONEERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: NY Appeals Court Tosses "Pena" Action
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Obtains Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
MIRKA ABRASIVES: Expands Recall of CEROS

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Fights $50MM Fee Demand in Athletes' Suit
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued in D. Minn. Over Injuries Caused by Hockey
NISSAN: Recalls 52,312 Units of Rogue SUVs
NISSAN: Recalls 15,972 SUVs Over Hood Release Cable Assembly
NOBLE AMERICAS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Employees Plan

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Distressed Mortgage Services Fees
PACCAR: Recalls Two 2015 Peterbilt 389 Trucks
PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Houser" Suit Says
PARIS MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Garcia" Suit Says
PELICAN BAY: Inmate Must Explain Why Case Should Not be Dismissed

PET INTERNATIONAL: Recall Beef Pet Treat Due to Salmonella
PHARMERICA INC: Protective Order Issued in "Walder" Suit
PHELAN HALLINAN: Court Reopens "McLaughlin" Case
PIONEER CORPORATION: Response to JLK Action Due March 2
PVH CORP: Bid for Leave to File Reconsideration Motion Denied

QUALCOMM: Faces $975-Mil. Fine in China Over Anti-Monopoly Claim
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Can't Escape Mortgage Claims, Court Rules
RG HOSPITALITY: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $3.6-Bil. Buyout
RODALE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Privacy Action

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Mediation in Calif. Suit Continued to April
SEPHORA CANADA: Recalls Sephora Collection False Eyelashes Glue
SERRA MEDICAL: "Kastiro" Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. California
SOUTH CAROLINA: "Baccus" Suit Recommended for Dismissal
SUNFOOD OF EL CAJON: Recalls Organic Sacha Inchi Powder

T-MOBILE USA: Sued in W.D. Washington Over ASD Medical Coverage
TAKATA CORP: "Archer" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: "Takeda" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
TAKATA CORP: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Defective Air Bag Lawsuits Consolidated

TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Farrel" Suit Over Product Misbranding
TARGET CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Meta" Class Action
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Violation of FCPA
TEXAS: E.D. Tex. Court Denies Class Cert. of "Fountain" Suit
TRUEBLUE INC: Court Tosses Arbitration Bid in "Joseph" Case

TUFFY'S PET: Recalls Nustrica Dry Dog Food Due to Salmonella
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Irell to Defend "Safe Rides Fee" Class Actions
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Magistrate Judge Awards $3,200 in Atty. Fees
WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Keller" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Texas
WYNDHAM VACATION: Defendants' Modified Notice to Class Gets OK


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11MM Verdict in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal from $25-Mil. Fibro Verdicts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Paasch" Claim vs. Crane Co. Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Insurs $81.1MM Fibro Settlement Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $614-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $147MM Insurance Reimbursement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Has 5,600 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Records $73MM Maremont Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Has $46-Mil. Maremont Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had 2,900 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Reports $48MM AM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Reports $11MM AM Fibro Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Has $500-Mil. Fibro Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Records $605-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Has $278MM Deal to Pay Grinnell Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Denied in Re Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Motion in Limine in "Smith" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feb. 19 Conference Set in "Schwartz" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bids to Junk "McCrossin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Worker's Compensation Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Aurora's Bid to Junk "Hockler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court Remands "Hendricks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Green" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Get Summary Judgment in "Franklin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statute of Limitations Bars Fed-Mogul Trust Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Fibro Claims vs. 3 Cos. Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Aarons" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Cos. Obtains Dismissal of 146 Del. PI Suits


                            *********


AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Faces Junk Fax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that the American
Association for Justice has a problem that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce is trying to fix.

The problem involves the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Chamber has long argued the law has allowed abusive litigation
against companies.  The trial lawyers' group, which supports the
statute, now finds itself defending a federal class action brought
under the law by some of its members.

Bryan Quigley, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform, which is lobbying for changes to the telemarketing
law, said the American Association for Justice (AAJ) now knows
what life is like for businesses that face lawsuits under the
statute.

"The plaintiffs' lawyer lobby has finally found a lawsuit they
believe is frivolous," he said in an email.  "Perhaps now they can
sympathize with what many companies face every day by being sued
despite having done everything possible to comply with the law."
Michelle Kimmel, an AAJ spokeswoman, said her group doesn't back
the U.S. Chamber's bid to make it harder for consumers to sue
under the statute, notwithstanding the lawsuit.

"As with all cases, the merits of this case will be decided by the
court," she said in a written statement.  "We believe that we have
always been in compliance with the [statute], and we fully support
consumers' rights to hold businesses accountable for unsolicited
spam."

The 1991 act was intended to stop abusive telemarketing and bars
businesses from using "automatic telephone dialing systems" to
call consumers and from sending telemarketing "junk faxes" without
giving them chances to opt out.

Miami lawyer Timothy Blake, an AAJ member for more than three
decades, filed the class action against the group and J.L. Barnes
Insurance Agency Inc. in November, alleging they marketed health
insurance through a fax without an opt-out notice.  The AAJ and
the insurance company have contested the claim.

Last month, the AAJ asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to dismiss or stay the litigation until the
Federal Communications Commission decides whether it will give the
group a retroactive waiver of the opt-out obligation.

The FCC ruled in October that all telemarketing through faxes must
include an opt-out message, clarifying that solicited, and not
just unsolicited, fax advertisements need the language.  But the
agency allowed organizations to file petitions seeking retroactive
waivers.

Ballard Spahr partner Daniel McKenna -- mckennad@ballardspahr.com
-- and of counsel Kim Phan -- phank@ballardspahr.com -- in
November submitted a petition for a waiver on behalf of AAJ.

Lawyers for the group and the insurance brokerage in the Florida
case wrote in a January court filing that the chances the FCC will
grant the waiver are "virtually certain since the FCC invited the
petitions for the sole purpose of granting waivers similar to
those it granted the original petitioners" -- that is, the parties
who first asked the agency for clarification about the opt-out
notice.  Miami lawyer Aaron Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com --
of Podhurst Orseck submitted the filing for AAJ and the insurance
brokerage.

"To proceed with litigation at this time would not only create the
potential of inconsistent rulings in TCPA cases and risk wasting
the time and resources of the court and parties, it would also be
highly prejudicial to defendants and provide no benefit to
plaintiff," the lawyers wrote.

Mr. Blake has disagreed, and his lawyers told the court last week
in a filing that the AAJ and J.L. Barnes have "no basis" for a
dismissal or a stay.  Shawn Heller, a founding member of the
Social Justice Law Collective in Washington, submitted that
filing.

"These arguments are premised on the fallacy that plaintiff's
claims will be moot if the FCC grants defendants a limited
retroactive waiver from the TCPA's opt-out notice requirements, as
the relate to fax advertisements sent with express prior
permission or invitation," Mr. Blake's lawyers wrote.  "However,
defendants' mootness argument is wholly reliant on their false
assertion that plaintiff consented to receive defendants' fax
advertisement, and is undermined because lack of consent is not an
element that plaintiff need prove or plead; in the event that
defendants receive a waiver, consent would be, at most, an
affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of
proof, warranting discovery and litigation, not a stay."

Meanwhile, the Chamber and other business groups have asked the
FCC to "clarify and modernize" Telephone Consumer Protection Act
rules that they blame for "compliance-minded organizations . . .
being dragged into court and strong-armed into large settlements
on an almost daily basis."  In a filing with the agency last week,
the organizations wrote that the law doesn't envision today's
digital communications.

"There is, unfortunately, a tsunami of class action TCPA lawsuits
driven not by aggrieved consumers, but by opportunistic
plaintiffs' firms taking advantage of uncertainty in the law to
rake in attorney fees," the business groups wrote.

Coral Gables, Fla., lawyer Richard Bennett of Bennett & Bennett,
who also represents Blake, said that characterization doesn't
apply to the plaintiffs firms in this case.

"TCPA provides a right to bring private litigation to enforce the
act, and sets forth penalties for each violation as a way to deter
fax blasters who do not include opt out information," Mr. Bennett
said in an email.  "Class lawsuits are not unusual in TCPA junk-
fax actions, and plaintiffs are always represented by counsel in
federal court."


AMERICAN LIFECARE: Class Cert. Ruling in "Thibodeaux" Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kerry Thibodeaux filed a lawsuit against American Lifecare,
Inc. (ALC) for statutory penalties under La.R.S. 40:2203.1(G). Dr.
Thibodeaux sought to have the suit certified for management as a
class pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art 591, et seq.  ALC appealed
the decision of the trial court certifying a class in the matter.

Judge Billy Howard Ezell of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Third Circuit, held that the Court found no manifest error in the
trial court's factual findings and no abuse of its discretion in
the certification of the class for this suit. The judgment of the
trial court is hence, affirmed, and costs of the appeal are
assessed against ALC.

The case is KERRY THIBODEAUX, M.D. (APMC), v. AMERICAN LIFECARE,
INC., NO. CA 14-931.

A copy of the Court's February 11, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/SCd0pufrom Leagle.com.


COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Kerry Thibodeaux, M.D. (APMC):

   John S. Bradford, Esq.
   William B. Monk, Esq.
   Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P.
   One Lakeshore Plaza, 4thy Floor
   Lake Charles, LA 70601
   Telephone: (337) 436-9491
   E-mail: jsbradford@ssvcs.com
           wbmonk@ssvcs.com

           - and -

   Patrick C. Morrow, Esq.
   James P. Ryan, Esq.
   Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett
   324 West Landry Street
   Opelousas, LA 70570-5120
   Telephone: (337) 948-4483
   E-mail: PatM@mmrblaw.com
           JamesR@mmrblaw.com

           - and -

   Thomas A. Filo, Esq.
   Somer G. Brown, Esq.
   Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C.
   723 Broad Street
   Lake Charles, LA 70601
   Telephone: (337) 436-6611


   Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
   Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
   Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
   Nicole A. Ieyoub-Murray, Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Telephone: (504) 525-8100
   E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
           smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
           amurray@murray-lawfirm.com


COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: American Lifecare, Inc.:

   Errol J. King, Esq.
   Craig L. Caesar, Esq.
   John B. Davis, Esq.
   Andrew C. Kolb, Esq.
   M. Levy Leatherman, Esq.
   Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
   450 Laurel Street, 20th Floor
   Baton Rouge, LA 70801
   Telephone: (225) 381-7000
   E-mail: eking@bakerdonelson.com
           ccaesar@bakerdonelson.com
           jbdavis@bakerdonelson.com
           akolb@bakerdonelson.com
           lleatherman@bakerdonelson.com

           - and -

   Michael R. D. Adams, Esq.
   Winston G. Decuir, Jr., Esq.
   Decuir, Clark & Adams, LLP
   732 North Boulevard
   Baton Rouge, LA 70802
   Telephone: (225) 346-8716


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brescia" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Brescia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00203 (S.D. Ind., February 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
patient's personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Danyel Struble, Esq.
      THE CROSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Historic Riley-Jones House
      315 East Charles Street
      Muncie, IN 47305
      Telephone: (765) 747-1953
      Facsimile: (765) 747-1991
      E-mail: dstruble@thecrosslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
      ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
      320 S. Boston Ave., Suite 1130
      Tulsa, OK 74103
      Telephone: (918) 588-3400
      E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Doe" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00934 (C.D. Cal., February 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com

         - and -


      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
      E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
              c.marker@rlollp.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Giotta" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loralee Giotta v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00618
(N.D. Cal., February 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      Joseph N. Kravec Jr., Esq.
      Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
              jkravec@fdpklaw.com
              wlison@fdpklaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hood" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aswad Hood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00918 (C.D. Cal.,
February 9, 2015),  is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C Girard, Esq.
      Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
      Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq.
      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              smg@girardgibbs.com
              stevelopez@classlawgroup.com
              ehg@girardgibbs.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Maric" Suit in KY. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alenka Maric, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00134 (W.D.
Ky., February 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily Faith, Esq.
      BERNHEIM AND DOLINSKY, PLLC
      455 South 4th Street #1400
      Louisville, KY 40202-2508
      Telephone: 502-625-1212
      Facsimile: 502-625-1720
      E-mail: EFaith@kyinjurylawfirm.com

         - and -

      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS &LEHRMAN, P.L.
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
              mark@pathtojustice.com
              seth@pathtojustice.com


BABIES R US: Faces Suit Over Baby Cache Dresser Deaths
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mandak, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
dresser that fell on two toddler sisters, killing them, had been
sold without a strap designed to keep it from tipping over,
according to a lawsuit filed against the retailer that sold it and
the company that manufactured it.

The lawsuit was filed in Beaver County against Babies R Us and
Baby Cache Inc. on behalf of 3-year-old Ryeley Beatty and her
2-year-old sister, Brooklyn.  The lawsuit contends their mother
bought the Baby Cache dresser from a Babies R Us store in
Cranberry, about 20 miles north of Pittsburgh, in 2010.  The
dresser fell on the girls in their Aliquippa home July 4.

Beaver County District Attorney Anthony Berosh charged their
father, David Beatty Jr., with involuntary manslaughter after a
coroner ruled the two died of asphyxiation because the 124-pound
dresser kept the 30-pound girls from breathing.

A judge last month dismissed that charge against Mr. Beatty,
agreeing with his defense attorney that the 29-year-old man didn't
realize the girls were in a potentially fatal situation when he
saw them both sitting on the open bottom dresser drawer and didn't
immediately respond when he heard the dresser crash.  Mr. Beatty,
who was going to the bathroom at the time, has acknowledged
waiting about 10 minutes to check on the girls, police said.

The lawsuit doesn't mention the criminal accusations, however, and
focuses on the dresser's being sold without a strap to attach it
to a wall.  The lawsuit said the store advertised and sold the
dresser as a discounted "floor model" that "lacked appropriate
labels, warnings or instructions, and anchoring devices."

According to the lawsuit, dressers are supposed to comply with
American Society for Testing and Materials standards.  Among other
things, they require dressers to remain upright when a drawer is
opened and 50 pounds is applied to the front, simulating a
climbing child.  The lawsuit indicates ASTM standards also require
either an anchoring strap or labels warning of the tip-over
hazard.

Kathleen Waugh, vice president of corporate communications for
Toys R Us, the retailer's parent company, said on Feb. 10 the
company doesn't comment on litigation.  Officials with Baby Cache
Inc. of Piscataway, New Jersey, didn't return messages seeking
comment on a copy of the lawsuit emailed to them by The Associated
Press.

The Feb. 2 lawsuit was first reported on Feb. 9 by the Beaver
County Times.  It seeks unspecified damages to cover the dead
girls' lifetime earnings, pain and suffering, and funeral
expenses, among other claims.

The district attorney's office has appealed to the Superior Court,
hoping to reverse the judge's ruling dismissing the manslaughter
charge against David Beatty.

Mr. Beatty and his wife are still awaiting trial on child
endangerment charges stemming from squalid conditions police
allegedly found in their home when investigating the girls'
deaths, including trash, dirty diapers, and dog and human waste
strewn about the house.


BAYER AG: Lawyers Joust to Take Lead Blood Thinner Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
federal multidistrict litigation against Bayer AG and Johnson &
Johnson over the blood thinner Xarelto is beginning to take shape
in Louisiana, where plaintiffs lawyers are gunning for a reprise
of a $650 million settlement with Boehringer Ingelheim over a
similar drug.  But for now the plaintiffs are still jousting over
who will take the lead.

Two months after hundreds of Xarelto failure-to-warn lawsuits were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New
Orleans, packs of plaintiffs lawyers are scrambling to land roles
spearheading the litigation.  In recent weeks more than 50 of them
-- including Michael London of Douglas & London, Louisiana lawyer
Daniel Becnel, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein's Wendy
Fleishman, Roger Denton of Schlichter Bogard & Denton and Mark
Samson of Keller Rohrback -- have asked to serve on or head up the
plaintiffs steering committee. (On Jan. 20, Fallon appointed New
Orleans-based lawyers Gerald Meunier of Gainsburgh, Benjamin,
David, Meunier & Warshauer and Leonard Davis of Herman, Herman &
Katz to serve as the plaintiffs' liaison counsel.)

Things appear to be more settled on the defense side.  On Feb. 3
Judge Fallon appointed colead counsel at Kaye Scholer and Drinker
Biddle & Reath to represent the drug companies.  Drinker Biddle's
Susan Sharko -- Susan.Sharko@dbr.com -- is taking the lead for
J&J, while Steven Glickstein -- steven.glickstein@kayescholer.com
-- of Kaye Scholer represents Bayer.

Bayer manufactures Xarelto, and J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit
markets the drug in the U.S.  The plaintiffs allege that the
companies failed to adequately warn patients about adverse side
effects of taking Xarelto that can include severe bleeding.
Similar suits in state court were consolidated into a mass tort in
Philadelphia last month.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had pressed the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the federal cases before
U.S District Judge David Herndon in East St. Louis, Ill., who
presided over similar cases against Boehringer over its blood
thinner Pradaxa and signed off on a $650 million settlement last
May. Defense counsel for Bayer and J&J argued that the cases
shouldn't be lumped together at all.

While Pradaxa and Xarelto work differently, both are blood
thinners marketed as alternatives to warfarin, a long-used
medication for people with risks of blood clots or stroke.

Bayer and J&J have strongly denied the suits' allegations, and
they've blasted the plaintiffs' attempts to draw a connection
between Xarelto and Pradaxa.  In an Oct. 31 court filing, Bayer
said that the Xarelto suits resulted mainly from "aggressive
marketing tactics" by plaintiffs lawyers in the wake of their
"massive payday" in the Pradaxa litigation, as opposed to
deficiencies in Xarelto's safety warnings.


BLOOMBERG LP: Court Orders E. Micheal to File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Michael, a former employee in the Analytics Department at
Bloomberg L.P. ("Bloomberg"), brings a civil action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Proceeding under a pseudonym, plaintiff alleges that Bloomberg
failed to pay proper overtime premiums to workers in its Analytics
Department, and seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory relief under the
FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff has filed suit on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated.

Plaintiff has two motions pending before the court. First,
plaintiff moved for a protective order and leave from the court to
proceed under the pseudonym "Eric Michael."  While plaintiff is
willing to provide his real name to Bloomberg, he refuses to do so
absent an agreement from Bloomberg to keep his name confidential.
Should the court grant plaintiff's request to proceed
pseudonymously, plaintiff additionally asks that: (1) plaintiffs
identity be filed under seal with the court; (2) plaintiffs name,
address, and other identifying information be supplied to
Bloomberg; and (3) Bloomberg be directed not to disclose
plaintiffs identity or make negative public remarks concerning
plaintiff.

Second, plaintiff moved the court to approve its proposed
collective action notice, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of
the FLSA. In his motion to approve the collective action notice,
plaintiff seeks the court's authorization (1) to issue plaintiff's
proposed notice to all potential class members, (2) to issue
plaintiffs proposed reminder mailing to all potential class
members, and (3) to issue plaintiffs proposed Consent to Sue form.
Plaintiff also seeks a court order requiring Bloomberg to post the
collective action notice in the workplace of potential class
members, and to provide contact information, including social
security numbers, for all persons employed by defendants in the
Analytics Department since September 21, 2009.

In an opinion entered February 11, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/lh1KPcfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Thomas P. Griesa denied the plaintiff's motion for a protective
order and leave from the court to proceed under a pseudonym.
Plaintiff's motion to approve the collective action notice is
stayed until plaintiff files a second amended complaint
identifying the plaintiff by name.

The Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint
identifying the plaintiff by name within 30 days of the date of
the opinion. Should plaintiff not file a second amended complaint
identifying plaintiff by name before this deadline, the court will
dismiss the FAC without prejudice.

The case is ERIC MICHAEL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, NO.
14-CV-2657 (TPG), (S.D. N.Y.).

Eric Michael, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Artemio Guerra, Catholic
Migration Office & Dan Charles Getman -- dgetman@getmansweeney.com
-- Law Office of Dan Getman.

Bloomberg, L.P., Defendant, represented by Deirdre Norton Hykal --
dhykal@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP & Thomas H
Golden -- tgolden@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.


CAAVERI ENTERPRISE: Recalls MD Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Caaveri Enterprise Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9607

Affected products: 375 g. MD Sinhalese Pickle with all codes where
mustard is not declared on the label


CIGNA CORP: Not Entitled to Coverage for Class Action Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the state Superior Court has upheld a ruling that Cigna Corp. is
not entitled to coverage for liability arising from a class action
brought by former and current employees alleging the company
misled them about their retirement benefits.

A three-judge panel in Cigna v. Executive Risk Indemnity affirmed
a Philadelphia judge's holding that Cigna was not allowed coverage
in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action
against it because of a fraudulent acts exclusion in Cigna's
policy with its insurers.

Both the panel and the trial judge, Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas Judge Albert J. Snite Jr., pointed to federal trial and
appellate court rulings in the underlying class action, Amara v.
Cigna, that Cigna was liable for misleading conduct.

The national class-action case in Amara was initiated by employees
of Cigna seeking payment of benefits relating to Cigna's changes
of its retirement plan in 1998.

According to Senior Judge William H. Platt, who wrote the Superior
Court's opinion, "In addition to an unequivocal finding of fraud
in the Amara litigation, we observe that appellant's conduct,
including affirmative efforts at concealment and intentionally
misleading representations that the benefits under the previous
plan would not be disturbed, would clearly qualify as fraudulent
under Pennsylvania law."

In 1998, Cigna converted its retirement plan from a defined
benefit plan to a cash balance model.  According to Judge Platt,
the plan was presented to employees as an improvement.

However, Judge Platt said under certain circumstances, employees'
benefits or accruals would "wear away," being reduced or frozen.

"To avoid an anticipated employee backlash at the wear-away
phenomenon (and the possible reduction in retirement benefits),
appellant withheld or declined to provide documentation which
would have confirmed the risk of reduced benefits," Judge Platt
said.

The underlying class action was brought by plan participants in
2001 on behalf of roughly 27,000 employees, according to
Judge Platt.

U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the District of
Connecticut ruled that Cigna had committed fraud by misleading
participants about the retirement plan, a ruling that was upheld
on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Cigna, whose primary policy was handled by Lloyd's of London,
filed a complaint against Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. and Nutmeg
Insurance Co. seeking coverage under the fiduciary liability
provisions of the policy for the claims made against it in the
class action, Judge Platt said.  Judge Snite, however, dismissed
Cigna's complaint.

"The Lloyd's insurance policy, which defendants followed, excludes
coverage resulting from deliberately fraudulent acts by an
assured," Judge Snite had said in his opinion.  "The district
court's opinion was a final judgment that Cigna's actions were
fraud, and therefore the deliberately fraudulent acts exclusion in
the defendants' insurance policies applies."

On appeal, Cigna claimed that Judge Snite incorrectly applied the
fraudulent acts exclusion and also erroneously held the federal
courts' judgment in Amara was final and therefore sufficient to
effectuate application of the exclusion.

According to Judge Platt, Cigna claimed the policy covers its
conduct as a "wrongful act," defined in the policy as a misleading
statement, act or omission.

Judge Platt said the wrongful act provision does not negate the
fraudulent acts exclusion.

"To the contrary, the plain meaning of the policy is that the
fraudulent or criminal act exclusion operates as an exception to
the more general wrongful acts coverage provision.  We read the
insurance policy in its entirety, not piecemeal, 'giving effect to
all of its provisions,'" Judge Platt said.

As for the second question raised by Cigna, Judge Platt said the
federal courts' holdings were final.

"On the issue of finality, we note that under Pennsylvania law,
the federal courts' finding of fraud would clearly constitute a
final judgment.  'What effect a civil appeal has on an otherwise
final judgment has been answered.  A judgment is deemed final for
purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel unless or until it
is reversed on appeal,'" Judge Platt said.

Francis J. Deasey -- fjdeasey@dmvlawfirm.com -- of Deasey, Mahoney
& Valentini in Philadelphia represented Cigna and did not return a
call seeking comment.

Daniel J. Layden -- dlayden@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin & Schiller, an attorney for the insurers, declined to
comment.


CORRECTIONS CORP: Class Cert. Motions in Faircloth Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RICK RAEMISCH, EXECUTVE
DIRECTOR OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVE HENNIGER, CEO
OF CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-CV-00464-REB-KLM, (D. Col.) is before the court on these
motions filed by the plaintiff: (1) Motion for Leave To File
Amended Complaint filed August 22, 2014; (2) Motion To Strike 1st
Amended Complaint for Leave To Correct the Deficiencies in the
Complaint to Re-File filed November 17, 2014; (3) Petition To
Strike Previous Amended Complaint and Leave To Amend Prisoner
Complaint and Jury Demand filed December 11, 2014; (4) Petition To
Strike Previous Amendment of Complaint and for Leave To File
Amended Complaint filed December 12, 2014; and (5) Petition for
Leave To Add Named Parties To Party List filed December 12, 2014;
and (6) Petition for Leave To Re-File Amended Complaint and
motions Filed on December 8, 9, and 10th , 2014, in Order To
Comply with Court's Piecemeal Rule That Requires Filings To Be
Sent Together at One Time  filed December 17, 2014.

On December 19, 2014, District Judge Robert E. Blackburn entered
an order suspending the response deadlines for the defendants to
respond to several motions filed by the plaintiff.

In an order dated February 11, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/t62N92from Leagle.com, Judge Blackburn denied
each of the motions listed above. However, he granted "permission
for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint which complies with
the requirements specified in this order, which requirements are
designed to ensure compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8."

The plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 4, 2015,
which complies with the requirements specified, he said.

"In view of both the intent to file an amended complaint expressed
repeatedly by Mr. Faircloth and this order, I deny as moot the two
pending motions to dismiss," Judge Blackburn added.  "In addition,
I deny the motions for class certification filed by Mr. Faircloth.
Given the inadequate proposed amended complaints tendered by Mr.
Faircloth, there is no basis to find that the claims of Mr.
Faircloth are typical of the claims of his proposed class.
Further, on the current record, there is no basis to find that Mr.
Faircloth, as a representative party, can fairly and adequately
represent the claims of his proposed class. These considerations
are among the most basic requirements for class certification."

James Faircloth, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Corrections Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by
Andrew David Ringel -- ringela@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC
& Susan F. Fisher -- fishers@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC.

Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by
Jacob D. Massee, Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Rick Raemisch, Exec. Dir. of CDOC, Defendant, represented by Jacob
D. Massee, Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Rick (I) Raemisch, in his individual capacity, Defendant,
represented by Jacob D. Massee, Colorado Attorney General's
Office.

Dave Henninger, CEO of CCA, Defendant, represented by Andrew David
Ringel, Hall & Evans, LLC & Susan F. Fisher, Hall & Evans, LLC.

Dave (I) Henninger, in his individual capacity, Defendant,
represented by Andrew David Ringel, Hall & Evans, LLC.


COSTA CROCIERE: Costa Concordia Captain Gets 16-Year Sentence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frances D'Emilio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
court convicted the Costa Concordia's commander of the
manslaughter deaths of 32 people in the cruise liner's capsizing
off the Italian coast and sentenced him on Feb. 11 to some 16
years in prison, blaming him for causing the 2012 shipwreck and
for doing what sea captains should never do -- abandoning ship
while passengers and crew were still aboard.

Francesco Schettino's total prison term broke down this way: 10
years for the deaths of 32 passengers and crew members; five years
for causing the shipwreck when he steered too close to Giglio
Island, smashing into a rocky reef, one year for abandoning the
luxury vessel when hundreds of people were still aboard, and one
month for giving false information to maritime authorities about
the gravity of the Concordia's collision, which prosecutors said
delayed the arrival of help.

The punishment, handed down by a three-judge panel, was 10 years
short of what prosecutors had sought, and left some survivors and
victims' relatives wondering if justice was done.

"Thirty-two dead.  That's about six months for every person who
died," said Anne Decre, a Frenchwoman who managed to get aboard a
lifeboat before the Concordia's listing made it impossible to
lower other lifeboats.  Referring to the 16-year prison term, she
was one of only a handful of survivors who came to court to hear
the verdict.

She is pressing for better safety standards for cruise ships, and
like other survivors, recalled how many passengers hadn't received
emergency drill practice after starting the Mediterranean cruise.

Keven Rebello's brother, Russel Rebello, was a ship waiter who
stayed aboard to lower the last of the lifeboats.  His body was
found only after the Costa Concordia was towed away from Giglio
Island after the ship was set upright in a spectacular
engineering,

"What's important is not to forget this affair.  Instead, if
Schettino ends up in prison, after a while everyone will forget
about him, just like they will forget about the victims," Mr.
Rebello was quoted as saying by the Italian news agency ANSA.

Refusing to comment on the sentence itself, Mr. Rebello added:
"What matters is that this tragedy serves to make the (cruise)
companies and commanders do what's needed so (the tragedy) doesn't
repeat itself."

Judge Giovanni Puliatti took more than a half-hour to read out all
the names, one by one, of the survivors and dead, upon whose
behalf civil suits were filed for damages from Costa Crociere Spa.

The total of all damages and court costs of the lawyers who
brought the suits, was not immediately available.  But most awards
totaled tens of thousands of euros (dollars), far more than the
11,000 euros Costa paid to survivors who declined to press civil
suits.

Mr. Schettino chose not to come to court for the verdict.  Judge
Puliatti rejected the prosecutor's request for the defendant's
immediate arrest.  The judge noted that Mr. Schettino still had
two levels of appeals to exhaust under Italian law before he
must begin serving his sentence.

As they left the court, Mr. Schettino's lawyers said they hadn't
yet spoken to him by phone.

Just before deliberations began, Mr. Schettino made a last-minute
appeal to the court, claiming he was being "sacrificed" to
safeguard the economic interests of his employer. He then broke
down in sobs.

The reef gashed the hull, seawater rushed in, and the Concordia
listed badly, finally ending up on its side outside Giglio's port.
Autopsies determined that victims drowned aboard ship or in the
sea after either falling or jumping off the ship during a chaotic,
delayed evacuation.

"My head was sacrificed to serve economic interests," the 54-year-
old Neapolitan seaman told the court.

Lawyers for many of the survivors and victims' families have
attached civil suits to the criminal trial to press the court to
order Costa Crociere SpA, the Italian cruise company, to pay hefty
damages.  Their lawyers lamented to the court that no one from the
cruise company's upper echelons was put on trial.

Four Concordia crew members and Costa's land-based crisis
coordinator were allowed to plea bargain. None is serving prison
time.

Costa Crociere's lawyer at the trial, Marco De Luca, rejected the
assertion that the company bore any blame in the shipwreck, and
called the verdict "balanced."

Cruise travel has been a growing part of tourism, one of Italy's
main industries.  Costa Crociere SpA has been a big customer of an
Italian state-controlled shipbuilder.

Trial testimony and evidence highlighted several mistakes and
shortcomings that the defense -- and plaintiffs' lawyers --
contended were beyond Mr. Schettino's control.  A helmsman botched
Mr. Schettino's orders immediately before and after the collision,
and some crew members weren't fluent in English or in Italian, the
working language of the ship.

An emergency generator failed after the crash, and water-tight
compartment doors didn't work properly.

            Italian Captain Appeals Ahead of Verdict

Frances D'Emilio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the defense team for the Italian captain on trial for the
shipwreck of the Costa Concordia cruise liner and the deaths of 32
people on Feb. 9 appealed to the court to take into consideration
errors by other crew and malfunctioning equipment when it
determines his fate.

With a verdict expected after 18 months of trial, survivors and
victims' families already are wondering if justice will be done if
only the captain, Francesco Schettino, the sole defendant, is
convicted without any price to pay by the Italian cruise company
for errors by other employees and for malfunctioning equipment.

Defense lawyer, Donato Laino, told the court the role of other
crew should be kept in mind when deciding Mr. Schettino's fate.

"We're all in the same boat, so to say," he said.

Mr. Schettino is accused of causing the shipwreck on the night of
Jan. 13, 2012, when he steered too close to a tiny Tuscan island,
smashing into a granite reef that sliced open the hull, sending
seawater rushing in.  He is also charged with multiple
manslaughter and injury, and of abandoning the luxury liner when
many of the 4,200 passengers and crew were still aboard and
desperately trying to save themselves -- some by leaping into the
sea -- as the Concordia was capsizing.

Survivors, shivering as they staggered ashore on Giglio Island,
were startled to see the captain, already safe on land, "without
even getting his feet wet," as Prosecutor Alessandro Leopizzi put
it in his closing arguments.

The cruise company, Costa Crociere SpA, has put the blame squarely
on Mr. Schettino.

Mr. Schettino's lawyers asked the court in the Tuscan town of
Grosseto to acquit him of abandoning ship.  Mr. Schettino has
repeatedly denied the accusation, saying he was thrown off as the
ship capsized.  They also argued he was innocent of manslaughter,
insisting no one died in the impact because of problems with other
crew and equipment.  They appealed for leniency should he be
convicted of causing the shipwreck.

Another defense lawyer, Domenico Pepe, challenged prosecution
contentions that Mr. Schettino should have immediately dropped
anchor and ordered all to abandon ship.  Had anchor been lowered,
the lawyer claimed, the Concordia would have quickly sunk --
instead of eventually coming to rest, on its side, on a rocky
seabed outside the port -- and thousands would have perished.

"Like a good sailor, he read the wind and went ahead," Mr. Pepe
said.  Mr. Schettino was following a mariner's adage that "the
ship is the best lifeboat," the lawyer argued.

But Cesare Bulgheroni, a lawyer who represents a Greek couple who
survived and the estate of a German woman who didn't, said:
"Something is missing in this trial of Mr. Schettino.

"It is incomplete because, in our view, other responsibilities,
beyond his, emerged," Mr. Bulgheroni said.

He and other lawyers for survivors, contend that Costa Crociere's
board of directors should be equally responsible as Mr. Schettino
might be.  They cite these examples that emerged in testimony.

An emergency diesel generator didn't work; elevators didn't shut
down for safety reasons during the disaster; some crew didn't
speak Italian, the ship's working language, and others barely
spoke English.  The Indonesian-born helmsman botched a last-minute
maneuver ordered by Mr. Schettino because he apparently didn't
understand the command, as testimony revealed during the 19-month-
long trial.

Costa Crociere's lawyer at the trial, Marco De Luca, has scoffed
at the demand for punitive damages. He asserted recently in public
comments that it's "not in the least bit possible . . . that Costa
Crociere in some measure could have been able to prevent a
disaster of this kind."

In 2013, a judge in Tuscany fined the company 1 million euros
(then $1.3 million).  Costa had asked for a plea bargain deal to
respond to administration sanctions, which, under Italian law, are
given for companies whose employees commit crimes.

Five Costa Crociere employees were allowed to enter plea bargains
in exchange for lenient sentences. None of them is serving prison
time.  They include the helmsman and the company's land-based
crisis coordinator, who, prosecutors said, downplayed the
emergency's severity.

Prosecutors have asked the court to convict Mr. Schettino and
sentence him to more than 26 years in prison.

"Whether it is 26, 20, 10, to us it doesn't matter," another
lawyer for plaintiffs, Massimiliano Gabrielli, argued in court.
He added: "For this trial to have really served a purpose . . .
Costa Crociere must be made to pay."


DENTAL RESOURCE: Summons Service Tolled to March 17 in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Neuer, a Kansas orthodontist, filed a class action complaint
alleging that defendants Dental Resource Systems, Inc., and three
individuals violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
transmitting an unsolicited advertisement to his business fax
machine.  Along with his TCPA claim, the plaintiff asserts state
law claims of conversion, invasion of privacy, and negligence.
The Plaintiff asks the court designate the case as a class action,
seeks damages for the TCPA violations, and requests a preliminary
and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from transmitting
unsolicited facsimile advertisements.

At the Plaintiff's behest, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphrey of
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
extended the time to obtain service on defendants John Harris,
Mark Montgomery and Richard Amy to March 27, 2015.

The case is ERIC NEUER, Plaintiff, v. DENTAL RESOURCE SYSTEMS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-2319-CM (D. Kan.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Humphrey's memorandum and order dated
Jan. 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4eDUxvfrom
Leagle.com.

Eric Neuer, Plaintiff, represented by Noah K. Wood, Wood Law Firm,
LLC & Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Wood Law Firm, LLC.

Dental Resource Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by James K.
Borcia, Tressler LLP & Joseph A. Gagnon, Gagnon Law Firm, LLC.


DESOTO GATHERING: Smith Case to Return to Faulkner County Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in WILLIAM E. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DESOTO
GATHERING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:13-CV-00626-BRW,
(E.D. Ark.) removed the action, asserting federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act. The class-action portions of
the case were severed in an order entered on February 12, 2015.
Plaintiffs are all Arkansas residents, and Defendants are all
Arkansas citizens for jurisdictional purposes (or were when the
case was removed).

Accordingly, District Judge Billy Roy Wilson held that federal
jurisdiction no longer exists over the case, and directed the
Clerk of the Court to remand the case to the Circuit Court of
Faulkner County, Arkansas.

A copy of Judge Wilson's order is available at http://is.gd/rJoy24
from Leagle.com.

William E Smith, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton --
jholton@dchlaw.com -- Deal Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P.
McGartland -- firm@attorneysmb.com -- McGartland Law Firm PLLC &
Timothy R. Holton -- THolton@dchlaw.com -- Deal Cooper Holton
PLLC.

William Smith, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Margaret Smith, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Lindell Southerland, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton,
Deal Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law
Firm PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Claudia Southerland, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton,
Deal Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law
Firm PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Casey Chastain, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Nita Chastain, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Thomas Whitehurst, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Jenny Whitehurst, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Holton, Deal
Cooper Holton PLLC, Michael P. McGartland, McGartland Law Firm
PLLC & Timothy R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC.

Desoto Gathering Company LLC, Defendant, represented by G. Alan
Perkins -- alan@ppgmrlaw.com -- Perkins Peiserich Greathouse
Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann -- jeff@ppgmrlaw.com --
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue --
kim@ppgmrlaw.com -- Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin,
Michael D. Morfey -- michaelmorfey@andrewskurth.com -- Andrews
Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe -- micheleblythe@andrewskurth.com --
Andrews Kurth LLP & Julie DeWoody Greathouse -- julie@ppgmrlaw.com
-- Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin.

Southwestern Midstream Services Company, Defendant, represented by
G. Alan Perkins, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin,
Jeffrey Martin Swann, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin,
Kimberly Logue, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin,
Michael D. Morfey, Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe, Andrews
Kurth LLP & Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse
Morgan Rankin.

Seeco Inc, Defendant, represented by G. Alan Perkins, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Michael D. Morfey, Andrews
Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe, Andrews Kurth LLP & Julie DeWoody
Greathouse, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin.

Seeco Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by G. Alan Perkins,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin & Michael D. Morfey,
Andrews Kurth LLP.

Seeco Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Alan Perkins, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Michael D. Morfey, Andrews
Kurth LLP & Michele R. Blythe, Andrews Kurth LLP.

Seeco Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by G. Alan Perkins,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue,
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Michael D. Morfey,
Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe, Andrews Kurth LLP, Julie
DeWoody Greathouse, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, G.
Alan Perkins, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey
Martin Swann, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly
Logue, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Michael D.
Morfey, Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe, Andrews Kurth LLP &
Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan
Rankin.

Seeco Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Alan Perkins, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Jeffrey Martin Swann, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Kimberly Logue, Perkins
Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Michael D. Morfey, Andrews
Kurth LLP & Michele R. Blythe, Andrews Kurth LLP.


DINING CONCEPTS: "Lynch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briana Lynch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dining Concepts Group, LLC d/b/a Wicked Tuna and John
Does 1- 10, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-00580 (D.S.C., February
9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Murrells Inlet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E MILLER LAW OFFICE
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED ROOFING: Mich. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bright v. Diversified Roofing and Repair, Inc. and Stanley
Tupacz, Case No. 5:15-cv-10527 (E.D. Mich., February 10, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Diversified Roofing and Repair, Inc. provides services for both
residential and commercial roofing needs, including installations,
replacements, and repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd St., Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

         - and -

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
      One Towne Square
      Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 936-2138
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com


ELITE BUSINESS: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
New United, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Elite
Business Finance, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01250
(N.D. Ill., February 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Elite Business Finance, LLC is an equipment financing company with
its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


FAIRWAY AMERICA: "Paulson" Case Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN PAULSON, Plaintiff, v. FAIRWAY AMERICA CORP., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-1544-CL, (D. Ore.) centers on the non-
judicial foreclosure of real property Paulson owned in Washington
County: a historical structure called the M.E. Blanton house, and
three adjacent rental properties. Plaintiff claims Defendant FHLF,
LLC lacked standing to foreclose, failed to give him proper
notice, and committed fraud, among other claims. Plaintiff brings
claims against the attorneys who represented FHLF, LLC; the
trustee of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate; the bankruptcy judges
who presided over the bankruptcy proceedings; and judges from this
district and the Ninth Circuit who ruled against Plaintiff in
prior actions.

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation
on the case.  The Plaintiff moved to vacate the Report and
Recommendation saying he did not consent to a magistrate-judge.

Because the Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation,
District Judge Owen M. Panner reviewed the matter de novo.

In an order entered February 11, 2015, Judge Panner adopted
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation and dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  Judge Panner held that a
magistrate-judge has the authority to issue findings and
recommendations (F&R) without consent because an F&R has no effect
unless an Article III judge adopts it.

In determining that Plaintiff's claims are precluded by prior
judgments, Judge Panner took judicial notice of the docket sheets,
pleadings, briefs, orders, and other documents filed as part of
the official record in prior actions filed by or against
Plaintiff.  The Court focused on two prior actions: a 2008 action
the Plaintiff filed in the court, challenging the then-pending
foreclosure and claiming he and a class of similarly situated
persons were victims of predatory lending practices, Paulson v.
Fairway America Corp., No. 3:08-cv-982-PK, 2010 WL 5129690 (D. Or.
Dec. 10, 2010), aff'd, No. 10-36178 (9th Cir. June 28, 2011); and
the forcible entry and detainer (FED) actions filed by FHLF, LLC,
against Plaintiff in Washington County Circuit Court, FHLF, LLC v.
Paulson, Nos. C100084EV, C100085EV, C100086EV (Wash. Cnty. Cir.
Ct. May 3, 2010), appeal dismissed, A145469, A145470, A145470 (Or.
Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2011), petition for review denied, S059272 (lead
case) (Or. Sup. Ct. May 31, 2011).

"Because Plaintiff has previously raised, or could have raised,
these claims about the foreclosure in previous actions, Plaintiff
is barred from raising the claims here," ruled Judge Panner.

The Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, motion
for appointment of counsel, application for CM/ECF registration,
motion to vacate, and motion for status were denied.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/RTdO4a
from Leagle.com.

Lauren Paulson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 121 MKT SUVs Due to Non-Compliance
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 28, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Structure
Units affected:           121
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015034
TC ID number:             2015034
Manufacturer recall
number:                   15C01

Certain vehicles built without 3rd row seats fail to comply with
the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210.1 -
User-ready Tether Anchorages for Restraint Systems.  The tether
anchors are located at the base of the second row seat frames, and
are covered by a cargo management load floor system.  The cargo
management load floor system is not marked with pictograms
identifying the location of the tether anchors, which is contrary
to the requirements of the standard.  Correction: Dealers will
replace the cargo management load floor with one that has the
required identification symbol.

Affected products: 2013 LINCOLN MKT


FORT COLLINS: Faces "Landow" Suit Over Panhandling Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Landow, Jeffrey Alan, Susan Wymer, Lawrence Beall,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Greenpeace, Inc., Nancy York v. City of Fort Collins, Case No.
1:15-cv-00281 (D. Colo., February 10, 2015), arises out of the
City's Panhandling Ordinance that stops poor persons from asking
for charity on the sidewalks, streets, and other public places in
the city.

City of Fort Collins is a municipal corporation incorporated in
the State of Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hugh Q. Gottschalk, Esq.
      Thomas A. Olsen, Esq.
      Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP
      370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
      Denver, CO 80202-5647
      Telephone: 303.244.1800
      Facsimile: 303.244.1879
      E-mail: gottschalk@wtotrial.com
              olsen@wtotrial.com

         - and -

      Mark Silverstein, Esq.
      Rebecca T. Wallace, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO
      303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 350
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: 720.402.3114
      Facsimile: 303.777.1773
      E-mail: msilverstein@aclu-co.org
              rtwallace@aclu-co.org


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kessenger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Kessenger v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00977-UA
(S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015) arises out of a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on September 3, 2013, while the Plaintiff
was driving his 2010 Cadillac CTS east on US Highway 258 in
Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Mr. Kessenger, a resident of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida,
was struck by a vehicle that failed to stop for the red light and
came to an uncontrolled stop.  He alleges that his airbags failed
to deploy causing severe injuries and damages.

Based in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors LLC is a citizen of
Delaware and Michigan, and does business in all 50 states,
including the states of Florida and North Carolina.  GM, through
its various entities, designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, and other brand
automobiles in North Carolina, elsewhere in the United States, and
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy M. Carter, Esq.
          SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 610
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 276-7680
          Facsimile: (214) 276-7699
          E-mail: acarter@sgpb.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., General
Nutrition Corporation, General Nutrition Centers, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-00561 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling of its herbal dietary
supplements.

The Defendants are Pennsylvania-based commercial enterprises
focused on the retail sale of health and nutrition related
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile:  (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard R. Barrett,Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 380-5018
      Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Toll Free: (877) 816-4443
      Facsimile:  (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
      SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
      Rogers, AR 72758
      Telephone: (479) 250-4764
      Facsimile: (479) 845-2198

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222


HINES NUT: Recalls Walnut Halves & Pieces Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hines Nut Company, Dallas, TX, announced a voluntary recall of
WALNUT HALVES & PIECES, Lot Number 6908. The product was sold by
GOLD STATE NUT COMPANY of Biggs, CA, and packaged by Hines Nut
Company. These nuts may be contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
those with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The product was packaged and distributed as follows:

HINES NUT BRAND

Packed in black foam trays with a Green and Gold Label
Weight of 12 or 16 ounces
Packaged between November 25 and December 5, 2014
Lot Number printed on label
Distributed in Texas
Best by dates from September 21, 2015 to October 1, 2015

HARRIS TEETER FARMERS MARKET BRAND

Packed in black foam trays with a Red and Black label
Weight of 10 ounces
Packaged December 2, 2014
Lot number printed on Nutrition Facts label on back of package
Distributed to two distribution centers in North Carolina
Best by date of September 28, 2015

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
an outside company contracted by the FDA revealed the presence of
Salmonella in a package of the product.
To date, Hines Nut Company, Inc. has not received any complaints
concerning illness on this lot number. Consumers who have
purchased any of the recalled products are urged not to eat them
and to contact Hines Nut Company for information regarding a full
refund or for disposal information.

Consumers can contact the Company at 1 800-561-6374 for
information regarding this recall. This toll-free number is
operational Monday - Friday, 7 am to 4 pm CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm433798.htm.


HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norvell Berglan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., William
C. Erbey, John P. Van Vlack, and, James E. Lauter, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00947 (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. is a residential mortgage loan
servicer incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection
-----------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., (NYSE: HSP) has announced a voluntary recall of
ketorolac tromethamine injection, USP in the United States and
Singapore due to potential particulate. The presence of
particulate has been confirmed through a customer report of
visible, floating particulate identified in glass fliptop vials.
The particulate was identified as calcium-ketorolac crystals.
Multiple lots are impacted by this recall; refer to the addendum
for product list and lot information.

If particulates are not observed prior to administration,
intramuscular (IM) or intravenous (IV) administration
theoretically could result in localized inflammation, allergic
reaction, granuloma formation or microembolic effects (IV only).
However, there is no evidence indicating that IM or IV injection
of inert particles results in harm to patients when only a small
amount over a limited period of time is administered as is the
case with ketorolac. Delay of therapy may occur due to
particulates blocking the infusion of solution or due to
observation of particulates at the point of care. However, this
delay is likely to be of negligible clinical significance as this
medication is administered by a health care provider and
remediation is readily available.

The lots were distributed from February 2013 to December 2014 in
the United States and from January 2014 to July 2014 in Singapore.
Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated
with this issue for these lots to date. Hospira has initiated an
investigation to determine the root cause and corrective and
preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lots should stop
use and distribution, and quarantine the product immediately. This
recall is being carried out to the medical facility/retail level.
Customers who have further distributed the recalled product should
notify any accounts or additional locations which may have
received the recalled product and instruct them if they have
redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations or
facilities to the medical facility/retail level. Hospira has
notified its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging
for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United
States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-345-
4680 between the hours of 8am to 5pm ET, Monday through Friday.
Customers outside the United States should work with their local
Hospira offices to return the product per the local recall
notification.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

  Hospira Contact     Contact Information    Areas of Support
  ---------------     -------------------    ----------------
Hospira Global        1-800-441-4100         To report adverse
Complaint Management  (8am-5pm CT, M-F)      events or product
          (ProductComplaintsPP@hospira.com)  complaints

Hospira Medical       1-800-615-0187         Medical inquiries
Communications        or medcom@hospira.com
                      (Available 24 hours a
                      day/7 days per week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

About Hospira

Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs
and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars.
Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely
positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and
caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com.

  Product               NDC Number      Lot*      Expiration Date
  -------               ---------       ----      ---------------
Ketorolac               0409-3795-01    25-047-DK 1JAN2015
Tromethamine Inj.,                      25-048-DK 1JAN2015
USP, 30 mg (30 mg/mL),                  26-151-DK 1FEB2015
1 mL Fill, Single-dose                  28-059-DK 1APR2015
                                        28-071-DK 1APR2015
                                        28-072-DK 1APR2015
                                        28-479-DK 1APR2015
                                        28-480-DK 1APR2015
                                        29-556-DK 1MAY2015
                                        29-557-DK 1MAY2015
                                        35-232-DK 1NOV2015
                                        35-233-DK 1NOV2015
                                        35-234-DK 1NOV2015
                                        35-501-DK 1NOV2015
                                        36-341-DK 1DEC2015
                                        36-342-DK 1DEC2015
                                        36-343-DK 1DEC2015
                                        36-353-DK 1DEC2015
                                        36-429-DK 1DEC2015
                                        36-430-DK 1DEC2015
                                        37-141-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-142-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-144-DK 1JAN2016

  Product               NDC Number      Lot*      Expiration Date
  -------               ----------      ----      ---------------
Ketorolac Tromethamine  0409-3795-01    37-145-DK 1JAN2016
Inj., USP, 30 mg                        37-353-DK 1JAN2016
(30 mg/mL), 1 mL Fill,                  38-141-DK 1FEB2016
Single-dose                             38-143-DK 1FEB2016
                                        39-014-DK 1MAR2016
                                        39-104-DK 1MAR2016
                                        40-301-DK 1APR2016
                                        40-536-DK 1APR2016
                                        40-537-DK 1APR2016
                                        40-544-DK 1APR2016
                                        40-548-DK 1APR2016
                                        41-078-DK 1MAY2016
                                        42-207-DK 1JUN2016
                                        42-253-DK 1JUN2016
                                        45-358-DK 1SEP2016
                                        45-359-DK 1SEP2016
                                        46-043-DK 1OCT2016
                                        46-044-DK 1OCT2016
                                        46-047-DK 1OCT2016

Ketorolac Tromethamine  0409-3795-49    27-101-DK 1MAR2015
Inj., USP, 30 mg                        35-229-DK 1NOV2015
(30 mg/mL), 1 mL Fill,                  36-217-DK 1DEC2015
Single-dose, NOVAPLUS(R)                36-218-DK 1DEC2015
                                        40-534-DK 1APR2016

Ketorolac Tromethamine  0409-3796-01    26-098-DK 1FEB2015
Inj., USP, 60 mg                        29-239-DK 1MAY2015
(30 mg/mL), 2 mL Fill                   29-240-DK 1MAY2015
Single-dose                             34-540-DK 1OCT2015
                                        37-037-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-038-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-147-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-148-DK 1JAN201
                                        37-228-DK 1JAN2016
                                        37-282-DK 1JAN2016
                                        41-282-DK 1MAY2016
                                        41-284-DK 1MAY2016
                                        44-076-DK 1AUG2016
                                        45-240-DK 1SEP2016
                                        46-306-DK 1OCT2016

Ketorolac Tromethamine  0409-3796-49    26-097-DK 1FEB2015
Inj., USP, 60 mg
(30 mg/mL), 2 mL Fill,
Single-dose, NOVAPLUS(R)

*Note: the lot number may be followed by additional numbers from
01 to 99


HYDRO AUTOMOTIVE: UAW Class Action Settlement Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, and its LOCAL 1402, and
RONALD CLAPP, ROBERT RIETVELD, ANN SKILES, JOHN CHESTER, and
PHILIP SULLIVAN as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYDRO AUTOMOTIVE
STRUCTURES NORTH AMERICA, INC., HYDRO. ALUMINUM ADRIAN, INC., and
HYDRO AUTOMOTIVE STRUCTURES NORTH AMERICA, INC., WELFARE. BENEFIT
PLAN FOR UNION EMPLOYEES, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:11-CV-28, NO.
1:12-CV-324, (W.D. Mich.), the Court preliminarily approved on
June 30, 2014, the parties' proposed settlement of this mandatory
class action. The parties timely filed proof of service of notice
of the proposed settlement to the individual class members, who
had an opportunity to file any objections in writing. No
objections were filed. A Fairness Hearing on the proposed
settlement took place before the Court on October 9, 2014. Before
the October 9, 2014 hearing, the parties notified the Court of a
disagreement concerning the tax consequences of settlement
payments to certain class members. At the Fairness Hearing, the
parties represented on the record in open court that the parties
viewed the Settlement Agreement as fair and desired final approval
of the Settlement Agreement regardless of how the Court eventually
ruled on the tax dispute. The Court took the proposed settlement
under advisement and invited further briefing on the tax dispute.

On February 12, 2015, District Judge Robert J. Jonker issued an
opinion concluding that the settlement in this litigation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and that the proposed Settlement
Agreement is approved.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/zhSan6
from Leagle.com.


IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Clemente, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00658
(E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IMAX CHICAGO: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of "Redman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Scott D.H. Redman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a consumer class action complaint
against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC d/b/a IMAX Navy Pier and d/b/a
Navy Pier IMAX, a Delaware limited liability company, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of
2003, amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, U.S.C. Section
1681c(g).  The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 23, 2015, Judge James
B. Zagel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, holding that whether the Defendant knew it was violating
FACTA or made a reasonable mistake when it acted is a question of
fact for a later stage of the proceedings.  Judge Zagel ruled that
the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the Defendant knew what
FACTA required and its actions in printing full card numbers was a
willful violation of FACTA.

The case is SCOTT D.H. REDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMAX CHICAGO THEATRE LLC
d/b/a IMAX Navy Pier and d/b/a Navy Pier IMAX, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, NO. 13 C 7892(N.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Zagel's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/eeVxCxfrom Leagle.com.

Scott D.H. Redman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Markoff,
Esq. -- paul@markleinlaw.com -- Markoff Leinberger LLC & Karl G.
Leinberger, Esq. -- karl@markleinlaw.com -- Markoff Leinberger
LLC.

IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
doing business as IMAX Navy Pier doing business as Navy Pier IMAX,
Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Andreozzi, Esq. --
Bradley.Andreozzi@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Emily
Tancer Broach, Esq. -- Emily.Broach@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath Llp & Justin O'Neill Kay, Esq. -- Justin.Kay@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


HEALTH NET: Judge Wants ERISA Class Counsel to Repay $246,224
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has adopted a special master's report
recommending that plaintiffs lawyers in a class action against
Health Net Inc. be ordered to repay $246,224 for failing to
properly supervise a claims administrator.

The special master, Paul Zoubek -- pzoubek@mmwr.com -- was
appointed in the wake of delays in distribution of the settlement
to class members, who filed suit over alleged underpayment of
claims for medical services.  A $215 million Employee Retirement
Income Security Act settlement was reached in 2008, but five years
later, $90 million still had not been paid to class members,
according to court documents.

Mr. Zoubek, of Montgomer, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Cherry
Hill, N.J., was asked to examine whether class counsel should be
replaced or ordered to repay any portion of the $69 million in
legal fees from the case, and whether sanctions or other
disciplinary actions were warranted against Health Net or the two
law firms representing the class, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer of
Woodbridge, N.J., and Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross of
New York.

On Feb. 5, U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg of the District of
New Jersey gave preliminary approval to a $6.25 million amendment
to the prior $215 million settlement.  On the same day, she
approved Mr. Zoubek's special master report.

Mr. Zoubek's report found that no basis existed for the
replacement of class counsel or for a so-called "clawback" of
counsel fees it received.  The report also said no disciplinary
actions or sanctions were warranted against Health Net or the two
law firms because none had demonstrated bad faith.

Mr. Zoubek's report recommended that if the amendment were
approved, the court should withhold a payment of $492,448 out of
the cash settlement fund in the case to Berdon Claims
Administration.  Half of that amount, $246,224, should instead be
charged to class counsel, with Wilentz Goldman and Pomerantz
Haudek each required to pay $126,112, Mr. Zoubeck's report said.

While the special master found no bad faith on the part of class
counsel and no special circumstances warranting reopening its fee
award under R. 60(b)(6), he did find under the court's authority
to determine whether Berdon earned payment of its fee from the
cash settlement fund that its requested fee of $1.86 million
should be reduced to $1.37 million.  The $492,448 difference
represents its billings from December 2009 to March 2010, the
period when the alleged breaches of its obligations to class
members took place.  And under the court's authority to enforce
the settlement and to remedy class counsel and Berdon's breaches
of duty to the claimants, he recommended that class counsel be
ordered to pay Berdon half of the amount held: $246,224.

While concluding that class counsel did not demonstrate bad faith,
Mr. Zoubek said they were "not sufficiently diligent in certain
respects in fulfilling their obligations under the settlement
agreement and such lack of diligence contributed in part to the
ineffective implementation of the settlement agreement."

Mr. Zoubek said class counsel failed to provide adequate
assistance to claimants who requested help executing HIPAA
authorization forms and obtaining documentation from doctors to
support claims against Health Net.  Although Berdon agreed to
handle such tasks in its engagement letter, the responsibility for
doing so lies with class counsel, and they remain responsible for
overseeing those tasks even though the task was delegated to
another party, Mr. Zoubek said.

It's unclear whether Judge Hochberg will enforce the special
master's recommendation concerning the order that class counsel
pay the $246,224.  Judge Hochberg has set a final approval hearing
on the revised settlement for March 3, and she is scheduled to
retire on March 6.

The class action was filed by Barry Epstein and Barbara Quackenbos
while they were at Sills Cummis & Gross in Newark.  In 2007, they
left to join Wilentz Goldman.  In 2013, Mr. Epstein and Ms.
Quackenbos left Wilentz Goldman to start their own Roseland, N.J.,
firm, but the Health Net case stayed with Wilentz Goldman.

Wilentz Goldman attorney Kevin Roddy said he did not believe his
firm would have to pay any part of the payment recommended by Mr.
Zoubek.  Jay Calvert -- jcalvert@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, representing Health Net, declined
to comment. Marc Gross of Pomerantz Haudek could not be reached,
and Berdon's lawyer, Thomas Quinn -- thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com
-- of the Florham Park, N.J., office of Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker, did not return a call seeking comment.


JAGUAR: Recalls XK Model Due to Non-Compliance
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 26, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           336
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015026
TC ID number:             2015026
Manufacturer recall
number:                   J049

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retro
reflective Devices.  Parking lamps may not have been programmed
properly and may fail to remain illuminated.  This could reduce
vehicle conspicuity, which could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: Dealers
will update the vehicle with the latest software.

Affected products: 2012 JAGUAR XK


KRAFT FOODS: Beyond Systems Can't Sue Over Solicited Spam Emails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a company
that intentionally solicited spam emails can't seek more than $600
million from Kraft Foods Inc. and another defendant just because
they took the bait.

In a 15-page decision, the Fourth Circuit panel concluded that
Beyond Systems Inc., represented by Steptoe & Johnson, is barred
from suing Kraft and digital marketing company Connexus Corp.
under Maryland's and California's antispam laws . The appeals
court agreed with the Maryland federal district judge who
originally tossed the case, finding that Beyond Systems "invited
its own purported injury and thus could not recover for it."

Beyond Systems had been looking to recover $1,000 apiece for more
than 600,000 emails that Kraft and Connexus allegedly sent
advertising Gevalia-brand coffee.

Beyond Systems offers "at least a modicum" of email access through
servers housed at its owner's parents' home in Maryland, Judge
James Wynn wrote for the unanimous Fourth Circuit panel.  But its
main business is "spam trap" litigation, which has accounted for
90 percent of its revenue in recent years.  To further its
litigation strategy, Beyond Systems developed websites with hidden
email addresses meant to catch the attention of "spam crawler"
programs that seek out emails to add to spam marketing lists,
according to court documents.

After Beyond Systems sued Kraft and Connexus in 2008, U.S.
District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., called for a
two-phase jury trial to determine whether Beyond Systems could be
considered an ISP and, if so, whether it's a "bona fide" Internet
provider. The jury found Beyond Systems is an ISP, but not a bona
fide one under either state law.

Following the jury's verdict, Judge Messitte ruled in August 2013
that Beyond Systems lacked standing to sue because it had
"consented to the harm" it allegedly suffered. (Judge Messitte
cited "The Godfather" in the opinion, writing that unlike other
targets of Beyond Systems' spam trap litigation, Kraft had "gone
to the mattresses" on the claims.)

The Fourth Circuit went even further than Judge Messitte on
Feb. 4, finding that Beyond Systems not only consented to
receiving the spam, but "intentionally" routed spam email to its
Maryland servers to "increase its exposure."

Steptoe's Richard Willard argued the appeal for Beyond Systems.
Paul Graham at Chicago's Roeser Bucheit & Graham argued for Kraft,
which is also represented by John Roche -- JRoche@perkinscoie.com
-- of Perkins Coie.  Ari Rothman -- anrothman@Venable.com -- of
Venable argued for codefendant Connexus.


LAND ROVER: Recalls Certain Range Rover Models
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 26, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           2838
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015029
TC ID number:             2015029
Manufacturer recall
number:                   P054

On certain vehicles, the front brake hoses may rupture.  This
could cause a loss of front brake function, causing increased
brake pedal travel and reducing braking performance.  This could
result in increased stopping distances and result in a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: Dealers
will replace the front brake hoses.

Affected products: 2006 Land Rover Range Rover


LINKEDIN CORP: Nears Privacy Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
LinkedIn Corp. say they are close to settling a proposed privacy
class action over the company's practice of sending repeated
marketing emails to users' contacts.

The suit, Perkins v. LinkedIn, 13-4303, claims LinkedIn
misappropriates the names and likenesses of its users to make it
seem they are sending the invitations to join the professional-
networking site.

The parties reported they had reached a tentative settlement in a
joint filing on Feb. 4 by LinkedIn's lawyers at Munger, Tolles &
Olson and plaintiffs counsel at Russ August & Kabat and Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Terms of the settlement were not
disclosed.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California has twice denied LinkedIn's attempts to dismiss the
lawsuit, first last June, then again in November.  Judge Koh's
June order said the persistent email campaign could harm users'
reputations by giving the impression they are the type of people
"who spam their contacts or are unable to take the hint that their
contacts do not want to join their LinkedIn network."

The proposed settlement was reached after a session with San
Francisco mediator Antonio Piazza last month, according to
Wednesday's filing.

Lieff Cabraser's Michael Sobol said he couldn't comment further
than the filing when reached by email on Feb. 5.  A LinkedIn
spokesman had no comment.

Any proposed settlement will be subject to approval by Judge Koh,
who's known to closely scrutinize class settlements.  The San Jose
judge refused to sign off on a settlement last year in the "no
poach" lawsuit between tech workers and four Silicon Valley
companies -- a move that ultimately secured an additional $90
million for the class.


M-I LLC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Syed" Suit Moved to Oct. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, approved the stipulation
extending to Oct. 9, 2015, the class and collective certification
hearing in the putative class action styled SARMAD SYED,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, doing business as M-I SWACO; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01718-AWI-MJS (E.D.
Calif.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Seng's order dated Jan.
29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JuuNnMfrom Leagle.com.

Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Jennifer L.
Connor, Esq. -- JConnor@CKSLaw.com -- COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER, San
Diego, CA, Ira Spiro, SPIRO LAW CORP., Los Angeles, California.

Jeff Holmes, BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC, Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


MACHINERY AUCTIONEERS: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Heifner v. Machinery Auctioneers of Texas, LLC and Terry
Dickerson, Case No. 5:15-cv-00106 (W.D. Tex., February 10, 2015)
seeks damages against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated
the FLSA by improperly failing to pay him overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Machinery Auctioneers of Texas, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Texas.  Machinery Auctioneers is a
company that auctions, buys, and sells machinery.  Terry Dickerson
is the founder and president of Machinery Auctioneers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: NY Appeals Court Tosses "Pena" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York
County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 27, 2014, which
granted defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Major League
Baseball and the Washington Nationals Baseball Club's motions to
dismiss the putative class action suit launched by Juan Carlos
Pena, also known as Juan Carlos Pena Batista.

The Appellate Division said the lower court properly concluded
that plaintiff's commencement of this action was an improper
collateral attack on a prior arbitration decision that plaintiff
failed to challenge in accordance with CPLR 7511. Plaintiff was
required to file a petition challenging the determination within
90 days of receipt of the arbitrator's decision in order to
challenge the arbitration clause in the Minor League Uniform
Players' Contract (see Matter of Mavica v New York City Tr. Auth.,
289 A.D.2d 86 [1st Dept. 2001]).  Similarly, in order to challenge
the arbitration clause on the ground that he was coerced into
signing the contract and agreeing to arbitration, he would have
had to file a motion to stay the arbitration (see CPLR 7503[b]).
Having failed to follow the proper procedure, plaintiff cannot now
be heard by bringing these claims in a putative plenary class
action.

A copy of the 2015 NY Slip Opinion dated February 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/N8rm4hfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate case is, JUAN CARLOS PENA, ALSO KNOWN AS JUAN CARLOS
PENA BATISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, 14171, 652848/13.

Altman & Company P.C., New York (Steven Altman of counsel), for
Pena.  The firm may be reached at:

     Steven Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & COMPANY P.C.
     260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 683-7600
     Fax: (212) 683-7655
     E-mail: SAltman@AltmanCo.net

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Adam M. Lupion of counsel) --
alupion@proskauer.com -- for Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball, respondent.

LeClair Ryan, New York (Madeleine Moise Cassetta of counsel), and
Lorenger & Carnell PLC, Alexandria, VA (Michael J. Lorenger of the
bars of the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland,
admitted pro hac vice, of counsel) for The Washington Nationals
Baseball Club, respondent.  They may be reached at:

     Madeleine Moise Cassetta, Esq.
     LECLAIR RYAN
     885 Third Avenue, Sixteenth Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Tel: 212-634-5015
     Fax: 212-986-3509
     E-mail: madeleine.cassetta@leclairryan.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Lorenger, Esq.
     LORENGER & CARNELL PLC
     651 South Washington Street
     Alexandria, VA 22314
     Tel: (703) 684-1800
     E-mail: mlorenger@lorengercarnell.com


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Obtains Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, in an order dated Jan. 27, 2015, granted defendants
Medtox Scientific, Inc., and Medtox Laboratories, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment filed in the putative class filed by Sandusky
Wellness Center, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The case is Sandusky Wellness Center LLC, a Ohio limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Medtox Scientific, Inc.,
Medtox Laboratories, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, CIVIL
NO. 12-2066(DSD/HB)(D. Minn.).  A full-text copy of Judge Doty's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/h4qmH3from Leagle.com.

Glen L. Hara, Esq. and Anderson & Wanca, Rolling Meadows, IL,
Brant D. Penney and Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, St. Paul,
MN, counsel for plaintiff.

Robert I. Steiner, Esq. and Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP, New York,
NY and Jeffrey R. Mulder, Esq. and Bassford Remele, PA,
Minneapolis, MN, counsel for defendants.


MIRKA ABRASIVES: Expands Recall of CEROS
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 27, 2015
Posting date:             January 27, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43403

Affected products: Random orbital sanders

The recall involves 125 mm (5-inch) and 150 mm (6-inch) Mirka
CEROS compact electric random orbital sanders.  The sanders are
yellow and black with the Mirka logo on the front.  A speed
control lever is on the top of the sanders and a vacuum hose
connector on the rear.  The recalled sanders came with a carrying
case, a 3.7-metre (12-foot) power cord, a DC transformer, a
wrench, a multi-hole backup pad and assorted abrasives.

The 125 mm (5-inch) sander is model CEROS 550. The 150 mm (6-inch)
sander is model CEROS 650.  Model names are on a white sticker on
the back of the sander housing beneath the hand grip.  Serial
numbers are engraved on the side of the sander housing just above
the dust shroud.

Sanders with serial numbers in these ranges are being recalled:

   Model         Serial Number Range
   -----         -------------------
   CEROS 550     345231326001 to 345231326023
   CEROS 550     345331326001 to 345331326025
   CEROS 550     347228672001 to 347228672048
   CEROS 550     349428672001 to 349428672048
   CEROS 550     401528672001 to 401528672080
   CEROS 550     402228672001 to 402228672016
   CEROS 550     403228672001 to 403228672048
   CEROS 550     404328672001 to 404328672048
   CEROS 650     344228673001 to 344228673048
   CEROS 650     344328673001 to 344328673048
   CEROS 650     346128673001 to 346128673048
   CEROS 650     347128673001 to 347128673048
   CEROS 650     401428673001 to 401428673070
   CEROS 650     401528673001 to 401528673026
   CEROS 650     403328673001 to 403328673048
   CEROS 650     404228673001 to 404228673048
   CEROS 650     404328673001 to 404328673048

The sander can short circuit, posing a fire hazard.

Mirka Abrasives has received two reports, one in Canada and one in
the United States, of electrical shorting incidents which included
the sanders sparking and smoking.  No injuries or property damage
have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these sanders.

Approximately 21 units involved in the expanded serial number
ranges were sold in Canada and approximately 219 units were sold
in the United States.

Affected products were manufactured in Finland and sold from
November 2013 to December 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     KWH Mirka
                    Jeppo
                    Finland

Customers should immediately stop using the recalled sanders and
contact Mirka Abrasives for a free replacement.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Fights $50MM Fee Demand in Athletes' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the NCAA
has a big problem with the bill plaintiffs lawyers have drawn up
for last year's win in a landmark antitrust suit on behalf of
student athletes.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is fighting the
demand for $50 million in fees and costs, claiming $8 million is
more reasonable for a "limited success" that gave players the
right to share in licensing revenue but awarded no damages against
the organization.

Moreover, the NCAA's lawyers at Schiff Hardin argue in a brief
that the plaintiffs team led by Hausfeld is seeking fees for its
work litigating unsuccessful claims and grossly overstaffed the
case with lawyers from nearly three dozen firms, Class counsel
"impermissibly syndicated the case for its own financial gain with
an unwieldy network of at least 34 firms," the lawyers wrote.
"Many of them did very little work and added very little of
substance, but padded the lodestar by billing thousands of hours
of useless time."

Following a 2014 bench trial, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken
ruled the NCAA must allow colleges to pay athletes up to $5,000 a
year in licensing revenue for television and video game contracts.
She also ordered the NCAA to increase men's football and
basketball scholarships by about $3,000 a year.

The NCAA has appealed Judge Wilken's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral arguments are set for
March 17.

In its October fee motion, Hausfeld lawyers called the verdict
"groundbreaking," and said it represented the first time college
athletes could be compensated for the use of their likenesses.
The outcome could net athletes tens of millions of dollars each
season, the plaintiffs team argued.  The road to trial was risky
and involved 10 motions to dismiss, 76 depositions, discovery
feuds, extensive summary-judgment filings, and more than a year of
class-certification briefing and proceedings, they wrote.

But the NCAA contends the litigation didn't provide major benefits
to the class.  "Plaintiffs' goals in this lawsuit far exceeded
their actual success," the Schiff Hardin attorneys wrote in a
motion opposing the fees.

Plaintiffs lawyers initially sought damages, unlimited
compensation for licensing and third-party endorsement deals.
Their fees should be reduced for their failure to meet those
goals, according to the NCAA's brief.

Plaintiffs lawyers also billed for hours spent litigating claims
that went nowhere, according to the filing.  The original
complaint that would become O'Bannon v. NCAA was filed in 2009 and
sought relief for former student athletes who had been prevented
from licensing their likenesses after they stopped playing college
sports.  Those plaintiffs were replaced with a set of current
student athletes in 2013, which the NCAA's lawyers say was "long
after plaintiffs' counsel supposedly incurred most of the fees
they now demand."

The NCAA team further faulted plaintiffs lawyers for recording
their hours incorrectly and billing for impermissible work such as
time spent on mock trials and media interactions.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued in D. Minn. Over Injuries Caused by Hockey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Adams, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. National Hockey League, Case No. 0:15-cv-
00472 (D. Minn., February 9, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for taking no steps to protect and educate its players
or take insufficient steps to make players aware of the real risks
of playing in the National Hockey League, which resulted in years
of countless sustained head trauma and injuries by NHL players.

National Hockey League is an unincorporated association consisting
of separately-owned professional hockey teams that operate out of
many different cities and states within the United States and
Canada, which maintains its offices at 1185 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York, 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
      Michael Pearson, Esq.
      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
              mpearson@pswlaw.com
              dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

          - and -

      Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
      GIRARDI | KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      E-mail: glippsmith@girardikeese.com

         - and -

      Howard F. Silber, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD F. SILBER
      2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 706-8510
      Facsimile: (818) 706-8516.


NISSAN: Recalls 52,312 Units of Rogue SUVs
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 26, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           52312
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015030
TC ID number:             2015030
Manufacturer recall
number:                   S35

On certain vehicles, wiring harness connector could corrode due to
exposure to snow/water containing road salt.  This could result in
an electrical short causing damage to the connector and increasing
the risk of a fire causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will add a waterproof seal, inspect the harness connector
and replace as necessary.

Affected products: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Nissan Rogue


NISSAN: Recalls 15,972 SUVs Over Hood Release Cable Assembly
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 26, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           15972
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015031
TC ID number:             2015031
Manufacturer recall
number:                   L50 / R52

On certain vehicles the hood release cable assembly may have been
installed incorrectly, preventing the latching claw from fully
engaging.  This could cause the secondary latch to remain in the
open position and allow the hood to open suddenly while driving if
the primary hood latch was not engaged properly or accidentally
released.  This could compromise the driver's ability to see the
road and its users, as well as cause damage to the windshield,
which could result in a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.  Correction: Dealers will adjust the angle of the hood
release mechanism to provide additional length to the release
cable.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model             Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----             ----------------------
   NISSAN        PATHFINDER        2013, 2014, 2014
   INFINITI      JX35              2013, 2014
   INFINITI      QX60              2014


NOBLE AMERICAS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Employees Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Radevska, Ali Rock, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Noble Americas Energy Solutions, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00271 (S.D. Cal., February 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to adequately inform
the Plaintiffs and Class members that medical coverage and
benefits under the Noble Americas' Cigna Health Care Open Access
Plus Plan would be affected after the acquisition of Citizens
Financial Group, Inc. by Noble Americas Energy Solutions, LLC.

Noble Americas Energy Solutions, LLC is an energy retailer
offering commercial and industrial businesses energy commodity
products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew B. Butler, Esq.
      Michael G. Olinik, Esq.
      THE BUTLER FIRM
      402 West Broadway, 4th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3127
      E-mail: mbutler@butler-firm.com
              molinik@butler-firm.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Distressed Mortgage Services Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor P. Giotta and Loralee Giotta, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00620 (N.D. Cal., February 9, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' unfair and unlawful schemes charge
borrowers for marked-up and duplicative Distressed Mortgage
Services at artificially and unreasonably high prices.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation that provides
of residential and commercial mortgage loan servicing, special
servicing and asset management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Yunker, Esq.
      YUNKER & SCHNEIDER
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-5500
      Facsimile: (619) 233-5535
      E-mail: sfy@yslaw.com

         - and -

      James M. Pietz, Esq.
      PIETZ LAW OFFICE
      429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1710
      Allegheny Building
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 288-4333
      Facsimile: 1-866-633-1820
      E-mail: jpietz@pietzlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph N. Kravec Jr., Esq.
      Wyatt A. Lison , Esq.
      FEINSTEIN, DOYLE, PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
              wlison@fdpklaw.com


PACCAR: Recalls Two 2015 Peterbilt 389 Trucks
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 26, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015032
TC ID number:             2015032
Manufacturer recall
number:                   115A

On certain vehicles equipped with Electronic Stability Control
(ESC), the steering wheel assembly contains an incorrect horn
contact plate.  The contact plate could damage the ESC sensor
mounted below the steering wheel due to insufficient clearance.
This could result in a malfunction of the Electronic Stability
Control system, which could increase the risk of a crash causing
Injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: Dealers will
replace the steering wheel horn contact plate and ESC sensor.

Affected products: 2015 Peterbilt 389


PARAMOUNT EQUITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Houser" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Houser, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC, a California
limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00225 (D. Ariz.,
February 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of
consumers nationwide.

Paramount Equity Mortgage, LLC is a residential mortgage company
located at 8781 Sierra College Boulevard, Roseville, California
95661.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, Esq.
      LEVENBAUM TRACHTENBERG, PLC
      362 North 3rd Avenue
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 271-0183
      Facsimile: (602) 271-4018
      E-mail: gt@ltinjurylaw.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com


PARIS MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Garcia" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emir Carolina Garcia v. Paris Maintenance, Paris Maintenance &
Management Co., Inc., Metro Medical Maintenance, Metro Fire Safety
Guards, Inc., Metro Events Planning Corp., Thomas Parissidi, and
Charles Loiodice a/k/a Charlie Paris, Case No. 2:15-cv-00663
(E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial cleaning and maintenance
business providing cleaning and maintenance work in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PELICAN BAY: Inmate Must Explain Why Case Should Not be Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case JUAN ANGEL MARTINEZ, JR., Plaintiff, v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-0556 RS (PR),
(N.D. Cal.) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.  Mr. Martinez
filed this federal civil rights action in which he alleges that
his continued confinement in Pelican Bay State Prison's Secured
Housing Unit (SHU) violates his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. He asks for injunctive and equitable relief, and
money damages. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and a
reply to plaintiff's opposition. In the reply, defendants raise a
significant issue, specifically whether plaintiff's action,
insofar as it asks for injunctive and equitable relief, must be
dismissed because he is a member of a pending class action brought
by Pelican Bay prisoners housed in SHU, namely Ashker v. Brown,
N.D. Cal. No. C 09-5796.

Ashker created two classes of plaintiffs. First, there is a "Due
Process Class" consisting of "all inmates who are assigned to an
indeterminate term at the Pelican Bay SHU on the basis of gang
validation, under the policies and procedures in place as of
September 10, 2012."  Second, there is an "Eighth Amendment Class"
of "all inmates who are now, or will be in the future, assigned to
the Pelican Bay SHU for a period of more than ten continuous
years."

According to District Judge Richard Seeborg, the Plaintiff appears
to be in both classes. He belongs to the first because he is
housed in Pelican Bay's SHU on the basis of gang validation. He
belongs to the second because he is now or will in the future be
assigned to the SHU for ten continuous years. As of the date of
his 2013 amended complaint, he had been housed in the SHU for over
9 years, and it appears that he will be there for more than 10
continuous years. Also, a review of the operative complaints in
Ashker and in the instant matter shows that the documents are
strikingly similar. Large sections of plaintiff's complaint match
the Ashker complaint word-for-word.

Judge Seeborg held that an individual suit for injunctive and
equitable relief from allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions
may be dismissed when it duplicates an existing class action's
allegations and prayer for relief.

"Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment claims for injunctive and equitable
relief should not be dismissed owing to his being a member of the
two Ashker classes," ruled Judge Seeborg.  "Plaintiff shall file
his response on or before April 1, 2015. No extensions of time
will be granted. If plaintiff fails to file an appropriate
response on or before April 1, 2015, the entire action will be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure
to prosecute."

"Defendants are asked to file a response to plaintiff's response
to the order to show cause. Such response shall be filed within 45
days after the filing of plaintiff's response. Defendants may wish
to address whether the current action should be stayed pending
resolution of Ashker, which is set for trial in December 2015.
Because plaintiff's response to this order will affect the future
of this case, the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss and
plaintiff's motion to compel will have to be addressed at a later
time. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiff's
motion to compel are denied without prejudice," Judge Seeborg
added in his February 11, 2015 order to show cause, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/vdWLRmfrom Leagle.com

Juan Angel Martinez, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin,
California Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

Matthew Cate, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin,
California Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

Anthony Chaus, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin,
California Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

S. Burris, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

G.D. Lewis, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

P.T. Smith, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

D. Jacquez, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

K. Getz, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

M. Townsend, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

D. Bradbury, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

K.L. McGuyer, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin,
California Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment
of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

K.J. Allen, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

D. Foston, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

A. Quinones, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.

J. McMillan, Defendant, represented by Adriano Hrvatin, California
Department of Justice & James Jin-Woo Jirn, Deparment of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General.


PET INTERNATIONAL: Recall Beef Pet Treat Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Pet International of Miami, Florida is recalling 1500 units of 6"
Beef Trachea Pet Treat because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals (i.e.
dogs) eating the products and there is risk to humans from
handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not
thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the
products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Dogs with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets (i.e. dogs)
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect
other animals or humans. If your dog has consumed the recalled
product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The 6" Beef Trachea Pet Treat was distributed to retail stores in
the following Cities: Conifer, and Lakewood in Colorado.

If you have this product, use gloves and put in a double bag and
throw it away as soon as possible. Do not touch the product in any
way, and if you do, it's recommended you must wash your hands
immediately with an antibacterial soap.

The potentially affected product will pertain to a particular lot
number, and are specific to a particular size of the pouch it's
sold in. Anyone having these products should verify the following:

Brand: Buster's Natural Pet Supply,
Lot Code: 8501450,
Size: 6" Beef Trachea/ 12 Pack Plastic Pouch,
UPC Code: 8501450

No illnesses have been reported to date. We are still warning
consumers that if any of the above information is on the package
you have, do not feed it to any animals at all. It may be
hazardous and should be disposed of immediately.

The recall was as the result of a routine sampling program by the
Colorado Department of Agriculture and analyzed by FDA, obtained
from Buster's Natural Pet Supply in Conifer, CO. and found to be
positive for Salmonella. The product sampled had a Buster's Label
on it, but was manufactured by Pet International. Buster's Natural
Pet Supply recalled the entire product from the two stores that
the distributor sells it. The Pet International Inc. continues
their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased 6" Beef Trachea with Buster's Natural
Pet Supply Label on it and are wishing to be refunded because of
the recall, can take the product back to where bought it from,
with receipt. A special form will be provided to be filled out as
well. Both the form and the receipt are needed for the refund.

Consumers with any questions about the recall product may contact
the company at by phone at (305) 591-3338 Monday through Friday
9:00am too 5:00pm EST or via e-mail at sergioh@petint.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm433996.htm.


PHARMERICA INC: Protective Order Issued in "Walder" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California signed off a stipulated
protective order in the class action styled CLARENCE WALDER and
SHEILA WALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHARMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC. d/b/a FACTORY MOTOR PARTS, a
Minnesota corporation Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-5554 FMO
(FFM)(C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Judge Olguin's
order dated Jan. 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4GLQiG
from Leagle.com.

Clarence Walder, an individual on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Janelle C Carney, Law Office
of Joseph Antonelli, Jason T Hatcher, Law Office of Joseph
Antonelli, Joseph Antonelli, Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Kevin
Mahoney, Mahoney Law Group APC, Nicholas D Poper, Mahoney Law
Group APC & Sam K Kim, Mahoney Law Group APC.

Sheila Walder, an individual on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Janelle C Carney, Law Office
of Joseph Antonelli, Jason T Hatcher, Law Office of Joseph
Antonelli, Joseph Antonelli, Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Kevin
Mahoney, Mahoney Law Group APC, Nicholas D Poper, Mahoney Law
Group APC & Sam K Kim, Mahoney Law Group APC.

PharMerica Corporation, a Kentucky Corporation Erroneously Sued As
Pharmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Cannon Terry,
Esq. -- jennifer.terry@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox & Mark Reed
Phillips, Esq. -- jonathan.phillips@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP.


PHELAN HALLINAN: Court Reopens "McLaughlin" Case
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cathy Bissoon issued an order on February 11, 2015,
in the case captioned TIMOTHY McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. PHELAN
HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-
1406, (W.D. Penn.) holding that since defendants' petition for
certiorari has been denied, plaintiff's motion to lift the stay
and reopen this case is granted.  "Moreover, having carefully
reviewed the parties' submissions regarding Plaintiff's class
allegations, the Court is constrained to hold that, for the time
being, those claims may proceed," concluded Judge Bissoon.

According to the ruling, with respect to the class-claims,
Plaintiff counsel's approach seems, through the Court's neutral
observation, to have been a carefully orchestrated strategy of
"rope-a-dope."  Nevertheless, there are insufficient grounds for
the Court affirmatively to hold that the class claims have been
waived through Plaintiff's litigation conduct, nor may the Court
afford "law-of-the-case" treatment to Judge Lancaster's apparent,
and seemingly understandable, disinclination to afford class
treatment under the circumstances presented.

"Thus, despite this case's having been litigated for over four
years on an individualized basis, to summary judgment in some
respects, and after a merits appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
Court currently has no sustainable basis for disallowing
Plaintiff's class action allegations. Accordingly, the Court will
hold a status conference to schedule appropriate deadlines.
Before so proceeding, however, the Court will order the parties to
engage in settlement negotiations. Both sides have expressed their
amenability to this approach, and, now that the contours of this
litigation, moving forward, have become clearer, it would seem
that an amicable resolution may be most beneficial," Judge Bissoon
said.

The Court ordered the parties to submit a "Stipulation Selecting
ADR Process." The mode of ADR will be mediation, and if the
parties are unable to agree on a mediator, the Court will select
one for them. Persons with full settlement authority (including
insurance companies), must be personally present at the mediation,
and telephone participation will not be permitted. A person with
full settlement authority is not someone who is required to
consult with other individuals, by telephone or otherwise, to
obtain approval for any proposed settlement term or amount. The
mediation will take place within 45 days of the entry of an order
appointing the mediator.

If settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, counsel promptly
shall so advise Chambers, and the Court will enter an order
scheduling the status conference, Judge Bissoon added.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/KpI2oLfrom
Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Manogue --
dmanogue@ssem.com -- Specter Specter Evans & Manoque, P.C., John
C. Evans -- jce@ssem.com -- Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, Trent
A. Echard -- techard@smgglaw.com -- Strassburger McKenna Gutnick &
Gefsky, E. J. Strassburger -- ejstrass@smgglaw.com --
Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick & Gefsky & Harry F. Kunselman --
hkunselman@smgglaw.com -- Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick & Gefsky.

PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
J. Bart -- jbart@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. &
Daniel S. Bernheim -- dbernheim@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman &
Spitzer.

LAWRENCE T. PHELAN, Defendant, represented by Jonathan J. Bart,
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. & Daniel S. Bernheim, Wilentz
Goldman & Spitzer.

FRANCIS S. HALLINAN, Defendant, represented by Jonathan J. Bart,
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. & Daniel S. Bernheim, Wilentz
Goldman & Spitzer.

DANIEL G. SCHMIEG, Defendant, represented by Jonathan J. Bart,
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. & Daniel S. Bernheim, Wilentz
Goldman & Spitzer.

ROSEMARIE DIAMOND, Defendant, represented by Jonathan J. Bart,
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. & Daniel S. Bernheim, Wilentz
Goldman & Spitzer.


PIONEER CORPORATION: Response to JLK Action Due March 2
-------------------------------------------------------
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed on August 26, 2010, a
consolidated complaint in a multi-district litigation against a
number of defendants, in In re Optical Disk Drive Products
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:10-MD-2143-RS (the "ODD
Litigation").  Since that time, the ODD Litigation has proceeded.

On August 18, 2014, DPPs filed a separate class action complaint
against defendants Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer High Fidelity
Taiwan Co., Ltd., Pioneer North America, Inc., and Pioneer
Electronics (USA) Inc. (together, "Pioneer") relating to the same
claims set forth in the ODD Litigation, in JLK Systems Group,
Inc., et al. v. Pioneer Corporation., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
03748-LB (the "JLK Action").

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered an order on August 25, 2014, deeming the JLK
Action related to the ODD Litigation and transferring the JLK
Action to the Court.

On September 2, 2014, Pioneer North America, Inc. and Pioneer
Electronics (USA) Inc., were served with process in the JLK Action
and their response to the JLK Action complaint is currently due on
or before March 2, 2015.

Pioneer and DPPs have been meeting and conferring on several
topics, such as the completion of service of process,
consolidation and discovery.

On February 12, 2015, District Judge Richard Seeborg signed a
stipulation and order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/drxxK9from Leagle.com, regarding service of process,
consolidation and discovery, which provides that:

1. With respect to service of process, as authorized by Pioneer,
undersigned counsel for Pioneer agree to accept service of the JLK
Action complaint and the parties agree that Pioneer's response to
the JLK Action complaint will be due on or before March 2, 2015.

2. With respect to consolidation, the JLK Action will be fully
consolidated with, and Pioneer will be a defendant in, the ODD
Litigation, with the following agreements between Pioneer and
DPPs: (i) all filings including and/or relevant to Pioneer will be
filed in the ODD Litigation, rather than the JLK Action; (ii)
consolidation of the JLK Action with the ODD Litigation will not
prevent Pioneer from seeking extensions of time to complete
discovery, file summary judgment, prepare for trial or complete
other work in the ODD Litigation due to their late entry into this
matter, and DPPs will meet and confer in good faith with Pioneer
regarding such extensions; and (iii) by agreeing to consolidation,
Pioneer is not waiving any defenses, claims or arguments that
Pioneer could otherwise assert in the separate JLK action.

3. With respect to discovery, Pioneer and DPPs agree that any
discovery served on Pioneer by DPPs will be initially limited to
the set of five Pioneer custodians previously agreed to by Pioneer
and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The case is IN RE: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION This Document Relates to: 3:14-cv-03748, JLK SYSTEMS
GROUP, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. PIONEER CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:10-MD-2143-RS, (N.D. Cal.)

Jeffrey A. LeVee -- jlevee@jonesday.com -- Eric P. Enson --
epenson@jonesday.com -- Kathleen P. Wallace --
kwallace@jonesday.com -- Rachel H. Zernik -- rzernik@jonesday.com
-- JONES DAY, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants PIONEER
CORPORATION, PIONEER HIGH FIDELITY TAIWAN CO., LTD., PIONEER NORTH
AMERICA, INC. AND PIONEER ELECTRONICS (USA) INC.

Cadio Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Executive Committee, For,
DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS.


PVH CORP: Bid for Leave to File Reconsideration Motion Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration in JESSIE CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. PVH
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.13-CV-01797-LHK, (N.D.
Cal.).  Proposed intervenors Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wigg
sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
November 20, 2014 Order denying Proposed Intervenors' motion to
intervene in the instant putative class action lawsuit.

In sum, ruled Judge Koh, the "critical facts" that Proposed
Intervenors argue were not presented to this Court were all
presented and argued in Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene.
Accordingly, Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated that "a
material difference in fact . . . exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order,"
or that there is "a material difference in fact . . . from that
which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order."

A copy of the Court's February 11, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Yto3Dyfrom Leagle.com.

Jessie Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Daniel Hyo-
Shik Chang -- dchang@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C.
& William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

PVH Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Dean Hansell -- dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Asheley Greshaune Dean -- asheley.dean@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan and Hartson LLP, Michelle Lynn Roberts --
michelle.roberts@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Rachel
A Patta -- rachel.patta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

PVH Retail Stores, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dean Hansell,
Hogan Lovells US LLP & Michelle Lynn Roberts, Hogan Lovells US
LLP.

Tommy Hilfiger Retail, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dean
Hansell, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Michelle Lynn Roberts, Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Melissa Wiggs, Movant, represented by Ronald H Bae --
rbae@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Aequitas Law Group, Joseph Cho --
jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Aequitas Law Group & Olivia D
Scharrer, Aequitas Law Group.

Jodi Scott-George, Movant, represented by Ronald H Bae, Aequitas
Law Group, Joseph Cho, Aequitas Law Group & Olivia D Scharrer,
Aequitas Law Group.

Jeffrey Lapan, Interested Party, represented by Edward Joseph
Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm.

Ashwin Chandra, Interested Party, represented by Edward Joseph
Wynne, Wynne Law Firm.


QUALCOMM: Faces $975-Mil. Fine in China Over Anti-Monopoly Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe McDonald, writing for The Associated Press, reports that China
has fined chipmaker Qualcomm 6 billion yuan ($975 million) in the
biggest of a wave of anti-monopoly penalties that have rattled
foreign companies.

Beijing is investigating foreign automakers, technology suppliers
and other companies in what appears to be an effort to force down
prices.  Business groups say the secretive way the investigations
are conducted is alienating companies but regulators deny they are
treated unfairly.

China is the world's biggest manufacturer of mobile phones and
other wireless devices   Its government has complained about the
high cost of licenses for foreign technology.

Qualcomm, one of the biggest makers of chips used in mobile
phones, said on Feb. 9 it also agreed to change some of its
practices for licensing technology to Chinese companies.

Regulators said last year they were investigating whether Qualcomm
and another company, InterDigital Inc., of Wilmington, Delaware,
abused their dominant market position by charging excessive fees
for technology.

San Diego-based Qualcomm said it is disappointed with the findings
by the Chinese Cabinet's National Development and Reform
Commission, but will not contest the matter.  The fine was the
highest announced to date by Chinese authorities against a foreign
company.

The Qualcomm penalty was twice the size of the 3 billion yuan
($492 million) fine imposed on GlaxoSmithKline, a British
pharmaceutical company, in September in a bribery case.  Among
changes agreed to by Qualcomm, it will offer licenses to its
current 3G and 4G Chinese patents separately from licenses to its
other patents.  It also will give existing licensees in China an
opportunity to adopt the new terms for sales of branded devices
for use in China going back to Jan. 1.

"We are pleased that the investigation has concluded and believe
that our licensing business is now well positioned to fully
participate in China's rapidly accelerating adoption of our 3G/4G
technology," said Derek Aberle, president of Qualcomm, in a
statement.

Qualcomm makes most of its profit from licensing fees paid by
companies that use its chips.  China accounts for about half the
company's revenue.

Business groups welcomed the enactment of China's anti-monopoly
law in 2008 as a step toward clarifying operating conditions.
Since then, they have said it is enforced more actively against
foreign companies than against local rivals.  That has fueled
sentiment among foreign companies that they are less welcome in
China.

Almost half of companies that responded to a survey by the
American Chamber of Commerce in China in September said they
believed they were targeted for "selective and subjective
enforcement" of anti-monopoly, food safety and other rules.  The
chamber warned China risked damaging its status as an attractive
place to invest.

Business groups complain Chinese regulators pressure foreign
companies to attend regulatory proceedings without bringing
lawyers and to refrain from challenging penalties.

Last year, 12 Japanese auto parts suppliers were fined a total of
$202 million after regulators said they colluded to raise prices.
Audi and Chrysler were fined for enforcing minimum prices dealers
could charge for vehicles and service.  A regulator cited by state
media said Daimler AG's Mercedes Benz unit violated the law but no
penalty was announced.

Among technology companies, the government is looking into
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system and how it handles
compatibility, bundling and publication of documentation.

In 2013, five foreign dairy companies and one from Hong Kong were
fined for enforcing minimum prices for distributors.

Qualcomm said on Feb. 9 the fine will reduce its earnings for the
fiscal year ending Sept. 27.

Qualcomm Inc. now forecasts earnings per share between $3.56 and
$3.76, down from its previous estimate of $4.04 to $4.34.  But its
adjusted earnings, which exclude charges related to the
settlement, are now expected to range from $4.85 to $5.05 per
share, up from its prior range of $4.75 to $5.05 per share, partly
due to higher revenue.

For investors, the Chinese ruling resolves significant uncertainty
about the future of Qualcomm's business in China.  Its stock added
$1.93, or almost 3 percent, to $69.04 in after-hours trading.  It
had ended regular trading up 76 cents to $67.11.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Can't Escape Mortgage Claims, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan moved a step closer
to forcing a potential payout from banks that partnered with
defunct mortgage lender Residential Capital LLC before the
financial crisis.

Whether the banks will eventually be forced to pay is still
uncertain.  But a judge in Manhattan ruled on Feb. 3 that UBS Real
Estate Securities Inc., SunTrust Mortgage Inc., Summit Financial
Mortgage LLC and Capital One Financial's GreenPoint Mortgage
Funding Inc. can't escape claims that they duped ResCap into
buying shoddy loans that ResCap packaged into residential
mortgage-backed securities.

The decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn marks a victory
for ResCap's liquidation trust and its lawyers at Quinn Emanuel,
which sued a dozen banks two years ago over loans with an original
face value of more than $1.5 billion.  The suits, some of which
are pending in Minnesota federal district court, accuse the
defendants of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages they sold
to ResCap, leaving the company holding the bag when securities
backed by the loans tanked in value in the subprime meltdown.

ResCap reached an $8.7 billion global settlement with RMBS
investors in May 2012 as a key part of its plan to exit
Chapter 11.  A judge approved the bankruptcy plan in December
2013.

In urging Judge Glenn to dismiss the cases, lawyers for the banks
argued that the ResCap trust didn't have standing to sue.  For
one, they pointed to the timing of the lawsuits, asserting that
ResCap's liquidation trust couldn't pursue claims originally filed
by ResCap itself.  SunTrust, along with GreenPoint and Summit,
also argued that the trust lacked standing because ResCap had
assigned its rights in the loans to third parties.

The judge wasn't persuaded, ruling on Feb. 3 that the defendants'
standing arguments either failed outright or required additional
fact-finding.

Judge Glenn did throw the banks a bone when he barred ResCap's
breach of contract claims related to loans purchased before
May 14, 2006.  But even that portion of the decision didn't go
fully in the banks' favor.  While Judge Glenn found that a six-
year statute of limitations applied, the banks' primary argument
was that the applicable statute of limitations was three years.
That would have created a May 14, 2009, starting date for ResCap's
contract claims, cutting off most of those claims because ResCap
bought virtually all the mortgages at issue before that date,
according to the decision.

The defendants are represented by Scott Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom (for UBS); John Doherty -- john.doherty@alston.com -- of
Alston & Bird (for SunTrust); and James Murphy --
jmurphy@mmlawus.com -- of Murphy & McGonigle (for GreenPoint and
Summit).  The defense lawyers didn't immediately return calls
seeking comment.

Quinn Emanuel's Peter Calamari -- petercalamari@quinnemanuel.com
-- who represents the ResCap trust along with partner
David Elsberg -- davidelsberg@quinnemanuel.com -- said he was
pleased with the ruling and eager to move forward with the cases.


RG HOSPITALITY: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose M. Jaramillo, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. R.G., Hospitality, LLC,
d/b/a Carlucci Rosemont, and Graziano Berto, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01255 (N.D. Ill., February 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Carlucci restaurant located at 6111
North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over $3.6-Bil. Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that two
plaintiffs firms have sued the board of Riverbed Technology Inc.
in the Northern District of California over a $3.6 billion buyout
that they say shortchanges shareholders.

Riverbed, a San Francisco-based supplier of networking hardware,
announced in December that it would be acquired by private-equity
firm Thoma Bravo LLC for $21 a share.

"The board is well aware that the proposed consideration
undervalues the company," states the complaint filed on Feb. 5 by
Robbins Arroyo and Bottini & Bottini.

The company's management and members of the board held a block of
shares worth nearly $115 million and had personal financial
motives for accepting the deal terms, the suit alleges.

"With over $100 million on the line," the lawyers wrote, "it is
unsurprising that the individual defendants would favor a sale."
Riverbed was represented in the transaction by Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati; Kirkland & Ellis provided counsel to Thoma
Bravo.

At the time, Riverbed chairman and CEO Jerry Kennelly called the
deal "a winning proposition for all of our stakeholders."

Mr. Kennelly said in a prepared statement that the board accepted
Thoma Bravo's offer after "a thorough strategic review" and that
the transaction would provide shareholders with "significant and
immediate cash value."

The suit claims that 10 months earlier, Riverbed had rejected the
same offer from hedge-fund Elliott Associates as too low.  Thoma
Bravo and Elliott Associates are longtime partners, and the
plaintiffs claim that after the Elliott offer was rejected,
Elliott, which holds about 10% of Riverbed's outstanding shares,
began pushing for the sale to Thoma Bravo.

According to plaintiffs lawyers, the hedge fund habitually
acquires a position in a publicly traded company only to push the
company to sell, and then cash out.

Shareholder suits have become commonplace, even inevitable, in the
wake of large deals.  According to a 2014 report from Cornerstone
Research, more than 94 percent of M&A transactions valued more
than $100 million in 2013 triggered shareholder litigation.

Another suit challenging the merger was filed in December in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

At the same time Riverbed's board approved the sale to Thoma
Bravo, it enacted two new bylaws.  The first stipulates suits
against the company must be filed in Delaware, and the second
states plaintiffs who sue the company are liable for the fees and
costs of the litigation.

Plaintiffs lawyers challenge both bylaws, which they call "illegal
and inequitable."


RODALE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Privacy Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Coulter-Owens filed a class action complaint against Rodale
Inc. alleging that it sold the personal reading information of
Michigan consumers who subscribed to Rodale publications, in
violation of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA).

Rodale is a magazine publishing company with various publications.
Ms. Coulter-Owens is a Michigan resident who subscribes to
Rodale's Prevention magazine.  She says Rodale sold personal
reading information -- information that identifies the
subscriber's name, address, demographics, and reading
subscriptions.

Rodale denies all allegations and moved to dismiss Coulter-Owens'
Complaint.

In an order dated February 11, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/x4yuPvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Victoria A.
Roberts granted in part and denied in part Rodale's motion to
dismiss. The Court granted Rodale's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Coulter-
Owen's Breach of Contract Claim; but denies the motion in all
other respects based on lack of standing and unjust enrichment.

The case is ROSE COULTER-OWENS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated. Plaintiff, v. RODALE, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation. Defendant, CASE NO. 14-12688, (E.D.
Mich.).

Rose Coulter-Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia Elaine Hwang
-- ahwang@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ari J. Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Henry M. Scharg --
hmsattyatlaw@aol.com -- John Charles Ochoa, Edelson PC & James
Dominick Larry -- nlarry@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.

Rodale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony T. Eliseuson --
anthony.eliseuson@snrdenton.com -- SNR Denton US LLP, Carol G.
Schley -- cschley@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PLC, Kristen C.
Rodriguez -- kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
Natalie J. Spears -- natalie.spears@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP
& Peter B. Kupelian -- pbk@kompc.com -- Clark Hill PLC.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Mediation in Calif. Suit Continued to April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California approved a stipulation continuing
to April 15, 2015, the mediation in the class action styled MORRIS
BICKLEY, MICHAEL D. PATTON, RAYMOND GREWE, DENNIS VANHORN, and
DOUGLAS PUMROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:08-CV-05806-JSW (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Court-approved stipulation dated Jan. 28,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/DdrKaQfrom Leagle.com.

MARLIN & SALTZMAN, Stanley D Saltzman, Esq., Louis M. Marlin,
Esq., Marcus J. Bradley, Esq., Christina A. Humphrey, Esq., Agoura
Hills, California, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W.
Berman, Esq., Lee M. Gordon, Esq., Pasadena, California, Paul T.
Cullen, Esq., THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC, Agoura Hills, California,
Peter M. Hart, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART, Los Angeles,
California, Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON,
Los Angeles, California, Eric Honig, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC
HONIG, Marina del Rey, California, Steve W. Berman, Esq., HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, Washington, William Rehwald,
Esq., Lawrence Glasner, Esq., Daniel Chaleff, Esq., REHWALD
GLASNER & CHALEFF, Woodland Hills, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs and Putative Class.

MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane, Esq., Michael D. Mandel, Esq.,
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq., John A. Van Hook, Esq., Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS,
INC.


SEPHORA CANADA: Recalls Sephora Collection False Eyelashes Glue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 27, 2015
Posting date:             January 27, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Cosmetics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43489

Affected products: Sephora Collection False Eyelashes Glue

The recall involves eyelash glue sold in certain Sephora
Collection (SC) false eyelashes kits or kits that contain false
eyelashes.  The glue comes in a small tube.

The kits that contain the affected glue are:

   Product name                         SKU        UPC
SC Irresistible Lash                    1601061    0400016010619
SC Day Lash                             1601079    0400016010794
SC Flutter Lash                         1508746    0400015087469
SC Mink Lash                            1504836    0400015048361
SC Flair Lash                           1504844    0400015048446
SC Astonish Lash                        1504851    0400015048514
SC Celebrity Lash                       1504869    0400015048699
SC Showstopper Lash                     1508753    0400015087537
SC Regal Lash                           1508761    0400015087612
SC Mainstay Lash                        1508779    0400015087797
SC Fringe Lash                          1504901    0400015049016
SC Individual False Lash                1512912    0400015129121
SC Paparazzi Lash                       1504877    0400015048774
SC False Eyelash 3 Wink                 1265511    3378872052784
SC Cabaret                              1408442    0400014084421
SC Mysterious                           1408459    0400014084599
SC Cabaret Lash                         1504885    0400015048859
SC New Heights False Lash Kit           1601103    0400016011036
SC Luxe False Lash Set                  1626613    0400016266139
SC Dramatic Performance Lash Kit        1601095    0400016010954
SC On the Fringe Lace Lashes            1504828    0400015048286
SC False Eyelashes 2 Mink               1265602    3378872052777
SC Lash Papparazzi                      1408434    040001484346
SC Fringe Benefits Lashes               1482371    0400014823716
SC Pantone Prismat Glit False           1481209    0400014812093
SC Individual Lashes                    1340538    040001345388
SC Celebrity Lash Trio                  1663616    0400016636161
SC Day Night Glam Lashes                1543057    0400015430579
SC Lashes - Black Glitter               1550870    0400015508704
SC Lashes - Silver Glitter              1550888    0400015508889
SC Flirt It Lash Duo                    699975     0400006999757
SC Film Noir Fake Eyelashes             1171297    0400011712976
SC False Eyelash 1 Showstopper          1265586    3378872052760
SFK14 Glitz & Glam
(many products in the kit, including
one set of lashes and glue)             1647213    0812738013913
SFK14 Superstarts
(many products in the kit, including
one set of lashes and glue)             1647197    0812738013760

The glue used in the kits with false eyelashes contain methyl
methacrylate, which is prohibited in cosmetics in Canada on the
basis of safety concerns due to strong adhesion properties,
potential allergic reactions and skin irritation.

Sephora Canada has received one consumer report of strong adhesion
to eyelashes related to the use of the glue.  Health Canada has
not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related
to the use of the affected products.

Approximately 107,000 units of the recalled cosmetic products were
sold to Canadians.

The recalled cosmetics were sold from 2010 to January 2015 at
Sephora retail stores across Canada.  The eyelash glue were
manufactured in South Korea.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Do Yoon Industrial Co., Ltd.
                    I-chon City
                    South Korea

   Distributor      Sephora Canada
                    600 de Maisonneuve Ouest, 24th Floor
                      Suite 2400
                    Montreal H3A 3J2
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cosmetics.


SERRA MEDICAL: "Kastiro" Suit Moved From E.D. to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kastiro, et al. v. Serra Medical
Transportation Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02784, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).  The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00622-JSC to the proceeding.

The case is a class and collective action for relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
and intentional misclassification of its drivers as "independent
contractors."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
          Eric Trabucco, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: stanm@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  hectorm@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  mpalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  jsutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  etrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: "Baccus" Suit Recommended for Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
John Baccus, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
seeking declaratory relief, class action certification,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages for alleged violations
of his constitutional rights.

In a report and recommendation dated Jan. 7, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Bristow Marchant of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina recommended that the case be dismissed, without
prejudice, for the failure of the Plaintiff to comply with the
Court's Order to properly prosecute his claims.

The case is John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus, Plaintiff,
v. Brian Sterling; Tamara Conwell; Nancy C. Merchant; S. Duffy; T.
Landreth; Larry Cartledge; Florence Mauney; Steven S. Claytor; C.
Early; John Does; Jane Does; Nikki R. Haley; Hugh Leatherman; and
Daniel J. Crooks, III, Defendants, C/A NO. 9:14-429-DCN-BM
(D.S.C.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Marchant's decision is
available at http://is.gd/iSwiShfrom Leagle.com.

John Roosevelt Baccus, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


SUNFOOD OF EL CAJON: Recalls Organic Sacha Inchi Powder
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunfood of El Cajon, CA is recalling Organic Sacha Inchi Powder,
because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Staphylococcus enterotoxin. The presence of Staphylococcus
enterotoxins may be injurious to health and may result in
staphylococcal food poisoning. Nausea, vomiting, retching,
abdominal cramping, and prostration may occur. In more severe
cases there may be headache, muscle cramping, and transient
changes in blood pressure and pulse.

Organic Sacha Inchi Powder was distributed nationwide in retail
stores and through mail orders.

This product is packaged in 8oz white poly bags with lot number
141027 Expiration date 9/30/2016 and UPC Code 803813-28444 1.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
was done and revealed the possibility of Staphylococcus
enterotoxin in the above noted lot number.

Sunfood has ceased the production and distribution of the product
as FDA and Sunfood continue their investigation as to what caused
the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the affected lot of Organic Sacha
Inchi Powder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
refund. Consumers with questions may contact Sunfood at 1-800-
RAWFOOD 8am - 5pm PDT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434010.htm.


T-MOBILE USA: Sued in W.D. Washington Over ASD Medical Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A.D., by and through his parents and guardians, E.D. and H.D.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and
on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and United
Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00180 (W.D. Wash.,
February 9, 2015), seeks to end the Defendants practice of
excluding coverage of medically necessary Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) therapy to treat autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan is an employee welfare
benefit plan provides health benefits for T-Mobile employees and
their dependents.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is one of the largest providers of wireless
voice and data communications services in the US.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Charles D. Sirianni, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-0303
      Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
              ehamburger@sylaw.com
              csirianni@sylaw.com


TAKATA CORP: "Archer" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Timothy Archer v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08447, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-20525-FAM to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Defendants TK Holdings Inc. and Highland Industries, Inc. are
represented by:

          William W. Oxley, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFF
          777 S Figueroa Street, 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          E-mail: woxley@orrick.com

Defendant American Honda Motor Co. Inc. is represented by:

          Catherine Valerio Barrad, Esq.
          SIDLEY & AUSTIN
          555 W 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: cbarrad@sidley.com


TAKATA CORP: "Takeda" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Takeda, et al. v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08324, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
20508-FAM to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-
md-02599-FAM.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris,
resulting in injury or even death.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants
became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their
knowledge from safety regulators and the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fernandes, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, PC
          15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: dfernandes@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Katherine R. Ryan, Esq.
          Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq.
          Martis Alex, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: egottlieb@labaton.com
                  gasciolla@labaton.com
                  kryan@labaton.com
                  lsucharow@labaton.com
                  malex@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com
                  rvandermeulen@labaton.com

Defendants TK Holdings Inc. and Highland Industries, Inc., are
represented by:

          William W. Oxley, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFF
          777 S Figueroa Street, 32nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          E-mail: woxley@orrick.com

Defendants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC
and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, are represented by:

          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH, LLP
          221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com

Defendants Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc.
are represented by:

          Paul Riehle, Esq.
          SEDGWICK, LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 781-7900
          E-mail: paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------
Automotive Dismantlers And Recyclers Association, Inc. d/b/a
Automotive Recyclers Association, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-20520 (S.D. Fla., February 10, 2015), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle
occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
      Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              eciolko@ktmc.com
              pmuhic@ktmc.com
              ebarlieb@ktmc.com


TAKATA CORP: Defective Air Bag Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawsuits filed around the U.S. seeking damages for allegedly
defective auto air bags made by Japan's Takata Corp. have been
consolidated before a Miami federal judge.

A federal panel on multidistrict litigation decided on Feb. 5 to
combine the cases for pretrial rulings before U.S. District Judge
Federico Moreno, a former chief judge in the southern Florida
district who has served on the federal bench since 1990.

More than 70 potential class-action lawsuits have been filed
claiming the air bags are defective because they can explode and
cause injury or death with flying debris.  At least five deaths
have been linked to Takata air bags.

"This litigation is nationwide in scope," U.S. District Judge
Sarah Vance, chief federal judge in New Orleans, said in the
panel's ruling.

Most of the lawsuits claim unspecified economic damages stemming
from the lost value of the vehicles containing the air bags.  None
of the current cases seek damages for personal injury, but some
could be added later, according to the panel's order. Nine are
currently pending around the country.

If the lawsuits go to trial, they would be sent back to the
districts in which they were originally filed.  There is no
estimate on the total potential damages faced by Takata.

Attorney Peter Prieto of Miami's Podhurst Orseck law firm, who
filed one of the first Takata lawsuits in the nation, said
consolidation "will ensure that all of these cases move forward
efficiently and expeditiously."  He called Moreno a judge with
"significant experience in complex litigation."

A key legal question is whether Takata knew of the defect but did
not disclose that knowledge to regulators, according to court
papers.  The company has said it is still trying to identify the
cause.

The lawsuits also name several major automakers, including Honda
Motor Co., BMW of North America, Ford Motor Co. Nissan North
America Inc., Subaru of America and Toyota Motor Sales USA.

About 12 million vehicles in the U.S. and about 19 million
globally have been recalled because of problems with Takata air
bags.  Millions more vehicles have been recalled because of
unrelated air bag problems, such as inadvertent inflation while
vehicles are running but not involved in an accident.

Takata announced last week it is projecting a $264 million loss
for the fiscal period ending in March, worse than the previous
forecast of a $214 million loss.

There are more than 30 million Takata air bags in the U.S. and 100
million worldwide.  The company controls about 20 percent of the
world's air bag and seat belt market.


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Farrel" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Farrell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00635 (N.D. Cal., February
10, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading
representation of its Up & Up Herbal Products that they contain
the herb referenced in the title of the product, when in fact,
they do not contain the ingredients listed on the label and
instead contain undisclosed and potentially harmful filler
ingredients.

Target Corporation owns and operates a retailing company with its
principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing
business in the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Tran Nguyen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 4th Ave., Ste. 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in "Meta" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER META, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4: 14 CV 0832, (N.D. Ohio) is before the
Court on two motions: (1) Defendant Target Corporation's Partial
Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Defendant Nice-Pak Products, Inc.'s
Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts (1)-(5).

The Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint contains these 11
Counts:

(1) Count I: Tortious Breach of Warranty (All Defendants);
(2) Count II: Negligent Design (All Defendants);
(3) Count III: Negligent Failure to Warn (All Defendants);
(4) Count IV: Negligent Misrepresentation (All Defendants);
(5) Count V: Fraud (All Defendants);
(6) Count VI: Defective Design/Formation: Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Section 2307.75 (All Defendants);
(7) Count VII: Product Defect due to Inadequate Warning or
Instruction; Ohio Rev. Code Ann Section 2307.76 (All Defendants);
(8) Count VIII: Product Defect due to Nonconformance with
Representations: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 2307.77 (All
Defendants);
(9) Count IX: Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability;
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 1302.27 (Target);
(10) Count X: Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301 et seq. (Target); and
(11) Count XI: Unjust Enrichment (Target)

In a memorandum opinion and order dated February 11, 2015, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/kNHELTfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Donald C. Nugent granted in part and denied in part
Target's motion as well as Nice-Pak's motion.

According to Judge Nugent, "Nice-Pak has not met its burden under
Rule 12(b)(7). Although Nice-Pak explains that Rockline is
involved with the green-packaged wipes, Nice-Pak does not explain
the reason why Rockline is necessary, whether the Court has
jurisdiction over Rockline, the nature of Rockline's unprotected
interests and the possibility that Rockline will suffer injury,
and whether the parties before the Court will be disadvantaged by
Rockline's absence. Accordingly, Nice-Pak's request for dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(7) is denied."

Moreover, Counts I through III of the Amended Class Action
Complaint are abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act and are
dismissed. Count IV for negligent misrepresentation is dismissed
because such a claim is not available under the facts as pled. All
other counts of the Amended Class Action Complaint remain, he
added.

Christopher Meta, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan K. Tycko,
Tycko & Zavareei, Lorenzo B. Cellini, Tycko & Zavareei, Stuart E.
Scott, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Daniel Frech, Spangenberg,
Shibley & Liber & Dennis R. Lansdowne, Spangenberg, Shibley &
Liber.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christina J.
Marshall -- cmarshall@sutter-law.com -- Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion
& Farchi, Denise A. Dickerson -- ddickerson@sutter-law.com --
Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchone & Theresa M. Bratton --
tbratton@sutter-law.com -- Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchone.

Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by C. Richard
McDonald, Sr. -- rmcdonald@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young, Paul
D. Eklund -- peklund@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young, Richard M.
Garner -- rgarner@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young & Matthew P.
Baringer -- mbaringer@davisyoung.com -- Davis & Young.


TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Violation of FCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Terminix International Company, L.P., and The
Servicemaster Company, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00619 (N.D. Cal.,
February 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide proper notices and disclosures that they may procure
consumer reports about their applicants and employees in violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Terminix International Company, L.P. is the largest pest control
company in the world, operating in 45 states in the United States
and 14 countries around the globe.

Servicemaster Company, LLC is the parent company of Terminix
International Company, L.P. with its corporate headquarters
located at 860 Ridge Lake Boulevard, Memphis, TN 38120.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew James O'Connor, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
      402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: matt@pattersonlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


TEXAS: E.D. Tex. Court Denies Class Cert. of "Fountain" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Schneider of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, adopted the the report
of a magistrate judge denying class certification of the action
filed by Freddie Fountain alleging violations of his
constitutional rights during his confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division.

The case is FREDDIE FOUNTAIN v. RICK THALER, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION
NO. 6:13CV958 (E.D. Tex.)  A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's
memorandum dated Jan. 28, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/ExObE4from Leagle.com.

Freddie Fountain, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Mary Lane, Defendant, represented by John David Luningham, Esq. --
dluningham@watsoncaraway.com -- Watson Caraway Midkiff &
Luningham, LLP.

Amicus Curiae - Office of the Attorney General, Amicus,
represented by Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Office of the Attorney
General-Law Enforcement Defense Div.


TRUEBLUE INC: Court Tosses Arbitration Bid in "Joseph" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle denied defendant's motion to
compel arbitration and stay litigation in DANIEL JOSEPH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUEBLUE, INC., d/b/a LABOR READY, INC.,
and TRUEBLUE, INC., Washington corporations, Defendant, CASE NO.
C14-5963 BHS, (W.D. Wash.).

TrueBlue initially requested a stay pending arbitration of the
claims in this case.  Mr. Joseph failed to respond to the specific
issue of a stay. TrueBlue argued that the Court should stay claims
against it, while Mr. Joseph arbitrates his claims against Labor
Ready.

According to Judge Settle's February 11, 2015 ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/HzkVb3from Leagle.com,
"without further explanation, it is unclear whether Mr. Joseph is
pursuing a different action against Labor Ready that is currently
in arbitration. Joseph does assert that the other signatory to the
contract, Labor Ready Midwest, Inc., is not a party to this
lawsuit.  Thus, TrueBlue's request is confusing, and the Court
declines to currently stay any claim in this matter."

Daniel Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC,
Keith J Keogh -- Keith@Keoghlaw.com. -- KEOGH LAW, LTD & Michael
Hilicki -- MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com -- KEOGH LAW, LTD.

TrueBlue Inc, Defendant, represented by Amelia D Winchester --
amelia.winchester@tklaw.com -- THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP, David R
Ongaro -- David.Ongaro@tklaw.com -- THOMPSON & KNIGHT & Michael E
McAleenan -- mmc@smithalling.com -- SMITH ALLING, PS.

Labor Ready Inc, Defendant, represented by Amelia D Winchester,
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP, David R Ongaro, THOMPSON & KNIGHT & Michael
E McAleenan, SMITH ALLING, PS.


TUFFY'S PET: Recalls Nustrica Dry Dog Food Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuffy's Pet Foods, Inc. of Perham, MN is voluntarily recalling
specific lots of 4 lb. bags of Nutrisca Chicken and Chick Pea
Recipe Dry Dog Food because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella. Tuffy's manufactured the product for
Nutrisca.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor
themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and
fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments,
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product
should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella
infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea,
fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite,
fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can
be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has
consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please
contact your veterinarian.  No Salmonella-related illnesses in
people or animals have been reported to date in association with
these products.

The recalled product was distributed in the 4 lb. bags nationwide
to distributors, brokers, retail stores, and internet retailers.
The recalled product is limited to Nutrisca Chicken and Chick Pea
Recipe Dry Dog Food in 4 lb. bag sizes, bearing UPC Code "8 84244
12495 7" (found on lower back of the bag). Products included in
the recall are identified by the below first 5 digits of the Lot
Code (found on upper back of the bag) and "Best by Dates" (found
on upper back of the bag). No other bag sizes or other Nutrisca
dog food, cat food, biscuits/treats, supplements or other
products, are affected by this announcement.

First five digits of Lot Codes:
4G29P, 4G31P, 4H01P, 4H04P, 4H05P, 4H06P

Best By Dates:
Jul 28 16, Jul 30 16, Jul 31 16, Aug 03 16, Aug 04 16, Aug 05 16

The recall was initiated after a routine sampling program by the
Ohio Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of Salmonella
in one 4 lb. bag of product. The company is coordinating this
voluntary recall with the FDA, and is issuing the recall action
out of an abundance of caution.

Consumers who purchased the 4 lb. bags of the dry dog food product
subject to the voluntary recall (as identified above) should stop
using the product, discard it in a safe manner (example, a
securely covered trash receptacle), and contact Nutrisca at the
number below for further information.

For consumer information or questions regarding this voluntary
recall, please contact Nutrisca at 1-888-559-8833.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Irell to Defend "Safe Rides Fee" Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports Uber Technologies
Inc. has added Irell & Manella to the growing list of law firms in
proposed class actions targeting the transportation company's
business practices.

A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- and Andra Greene --
agreene@irell.com -- both partners in Irell's Newport Beach
office, entered appearances last week on behalf of Uber in a spate
of suits targeting Uber's $1 "Safe Rides Fee." According to one
lawsuit filed on Dec. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Uber charges the fee and touts
its "industry leading" background checks despite the fact that its
"safety measures are woefully inadequate."

The suit is among at least three proposed class actions filed in
California state and federal courts in the wake of a similar
consumer protection suit filed by the San Francisco and Los
Angeles district attorneys' offices in early December.  Uber has
tapped Clarence Dyer & Cohen's Nanci Clarence --
nclarence@clarencedyer.com -- to handle the district attorneys'
action, which is pending in San Francisco Superior Court.

The company's "Safe Rides Fee" isn't the only Uber policy that's
been targeted by plaintiffs lawyers and creating work for the
California defense bar.  Fenwick & West's Laurence Pulgram
represents the company in a proposed class action in San Francisco
Superior Court challenging its $4 surcharge for some trips to and
from San Francisco International Airport. (Fenwick has also been
regular deal counsel for the company.)

In the Northern District of California, Littler Mendelson
represents Uber in a discrimination class action filed on behalf
of blind passengers who claim Uber drivers have refused to pick up
customers with service dogs.  Also in the Northern District,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represents the company in a wage-and-hour
suit filed by drivers who seek to be classified as employees
rather than independent contractors under California law.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Magistrate Judge Awards $3,200 in Atty. Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 2014, the parties in DAVID BERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02628-JSW (KAW), (N.D. Cal.) submitted
a joint discovery letter brief concerning Plaintiffs' request to
recover attorneys' fees for travel taken to depose Defendant Urban
Outfitters Wholesale, Inc.'s 30(b)(6) witness, who did not appear
at the duly noticed deposition. Defendant agreed to pay
Plaintiffs' travel costs, but refused to pay attorneys' fees
incurred for two days of missed work.

On January 15, 2015, the Court held a hearing, and after
consideration of the joint letter and the parties' arguments, it
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of attorney's fees.

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered the Defendant to pay
Aparajit Bhowmik fees for one eight-hour day, which is $3,200.00
within 30 days, unless the parties agree otherwise.

With regards the Plaintiffs' claim to have incurred $1,100 in
attorneys' fees in preparing the joint letter, the Court declined
to award fees in connection with this dispute, because the parties
engaged in a meet and confer process, which resulted in Defendant
paying Plaintiffs' expenses. Simply seeking court intervention
does not warrant an additional fee award, Magistrate Judge
Westmore held.

Similarly, the Court declined to award Defendant any fees in
relation to the preparation of the joint letter.

A copy of the Court's February 11, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/B5Zzy6from Leagle.com.

Lead Plaintiff David Berry, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria
Marie Witte -- alexandria.witte@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Nathan Thomas Lowery --
Nathan.Lowery@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez
-- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Arnab
Banerjee -- abanerjee@initiativelegal.com -- Initiative Legal
Group APC.

Alexander Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte,
Capstone Law APC, Melissa Grant, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez,
Capstone Law APC & Arnab Banerjee, Initiative Legal Group APC.

Shakora Abdulhaqq, Plaintiff, represented by Arby Aiwazian --
arby@LFJPC.com -- The Aiwazian Law Firm, Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- The Aiwazian Law Firm & Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Mercy Connor, Plaintiff, represented by Arby Aiwazian, The
Aiwazian Law Firm, Edwin Aiwazian, The Aiwazian Law Firm & Jill
Jessica Parker, Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Jasmin Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte,
Capstone Law APC, Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com --
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle Roald Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman B.
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
& Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Zayda Santizo, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte,
Capstone Law APC & Ari Emanuel Moss -- ari@arimoss.com -- Law
Offices of Ari Moss.

Flor Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Courtland Wayne Creekmore --
courtland@westonfirm.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Scott
Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC &
Stephen Noel Ilg -- silg@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates,
APC.

Kyle Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte,
Capstone Law APC, Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Norman B. Blumenthal, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Ruchira
Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl
D. Orr -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Jaime
Danielle Walter -- Jaime.Walter@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Reath
LLP, Thomas J Barton -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle
Reath LLP & William Robert Horwitz -- William.Horwitz@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP.

Urban Outfitters, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jaime Danielle Walter, Drinker Biddle Reath LLP.

Urban Outfitters West, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jaime
Danielle Walter, Drinker Biddle Reath LLP.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Keller" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Keller, et al. v. Weatherford
International, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01615, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston).  The Texas District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00378 to the proceeding.

Weatherford did not pay the Plaintiffs and the Classes overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek, according to
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
          Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and -

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 344-6690
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Hentosz, Esq.
          Robert W. Pritchard, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          EQT Plaza, 26th Floor
          625 Liberty Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7676
          Facsimile: (412) 456-2377
          E-mail: bhentosz@littler.com
                  rpritchard@littler.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Defendants' Modified Notice to Class Gets OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE PIERCE and MICHAEL PIERCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS,
INC., and WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., Defendants, NO. 3:13-
CV-641-PLR-CCS, (E.D. Tenn.) is before the court on a Motion to
Adopt Defendants' Version of the Notice to the Class and to
Include Opt-In Survey with the Court-Supervised Notice to Opt-In
Plaintiffs, filed by Defendants.

In a memorandum and order entered February 11, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/eschgEfrom Leagle.com,
Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., granted in part and
denied in part Wyndham's Motion to Adopt Defendants' Version of
the Notice to the Class and to Include Opt-In Survey with the
Court-Supervised Notice to Opt-In Plaintiffs.

Similarly, the parties' competing proposals for the notice of suit
and opt-in form are accepted in part and rejected in part, Mag.
Judge Shirley added.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to modify its proposed
notice and opt-in form in a manner consistent with the rulings and
file a copy of the same in the record, simply for the Court and
opposing counsel's edification, within seven days.  Plaintiffs'
counsel must mail the notice and opt-in forms to potential
plaintiffs as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11MM Verdict in PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. plans to pursue an appeal from an $11 million verdict
entered in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lloyd Garvin,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26,
2015.

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 filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except
that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award of $2.5
million and exemplary damages award of $3.5 million. The Company
plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from an order in the asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Richard DeLisle remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

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 manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal from $25-Mil. Fibro Verdicts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. plans to pursue appeals from a $25 million verdict
entered in two asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

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 were denied,
except that the court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million,
and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. The Company plans to
pursue appeals if necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Paasch" Claim vs. Crane Co. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related claim filed by Frank Paasch against Crane Co.
was dismissed, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January
26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 26, 2015.

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

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Insurs $81.1MM Fibro Settlement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s gross asbestos settlement and defense costs was $81.1
million, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26,
2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2015.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $81.1 million, $90.8
million and $96.1 million, respectively. In contrast to the
recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the
current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and
receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months
or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter.
Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all
releases and other required documentation are received by the
Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense
costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December
31, 2014, totaled $61.3 million.

The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and
cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., has resolved approximately 107,000 asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26,
2015.

Cumulatively through December 31, 2014, the Company has resolved
(by settlement or dismissal) approximately 107,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims.  The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $425
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300 respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $614-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., recorded a liability of $614 million to cover the
estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently
asserted through 2021, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 26, 2015.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management
believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various
factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to
provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,
the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years
beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
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. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system. Management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability
estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate
is warranted.

With the assistance of HR&A, 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
December 31, 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 December 31, 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 $614 million as of December 31, 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 December 31, 2014 was $79
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 manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $147MM Insurance Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., records a $147 million asset representing the Company's
probable insurance reimbursement for asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

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. With the agreements, 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 noted 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 $147 million as of December 31, 2014.

The Company reviews the aforementioned 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, for the reasons cited.

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 manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. 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 consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Has 5,600 Pending Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had
approximately 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 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 5,600 and
5,700 pending asbestos-related claims at December 31, 2014 and
September 30, 2014, respectively. Although Maremont has been named
in these cases, 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Records $73MM Maremont Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation,
recognized liability of $73 million for pending and future
asbestos claims over the next ten years, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014.

Maremont engages Bates White LLC, 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
prepares these cost estimates annually in September. Although it
is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of
various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would
be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of
the cost 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 may 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. Management recognized a
liability of $73 million as of December 31, 2014 and September 30,
2014 for pending and future claims over the next ten years. 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 claim 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.

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 will decline 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 plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

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. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Has $46-Mil. Maremont Receivable
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Maremont
Corporation, has $46 million insurance receivable related to
asbestos-related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The
insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is
$46 million and $49 million as of December 31, 2014, and September
30, 2014, 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. 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 forecasted 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 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. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Inc. Had 2,900 Pending Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary ArvinMeritor, Inc.,
had approximately 2,900 pending active asbestos claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 28,
2014.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), 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 at the time
of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997.
Rockwell had approximately 2,900 and 2,800 pending active asbestos
claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many other
companies, as defendants at December 31, 2014 and September 30,
2014, 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.

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. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Reports $48MM AM Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., recognized a $48 million ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM)
liability for the pending and future claims over the next ten
years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 28, 2014.

The Company engages 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 prepares these cost estimates annually in September.
As of September 30, 2014, 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. Management recognized a liability for the pending and
future claims over the next ten years of $48 million as of
December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014. 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 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 will decline 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.

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. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Reports $11MM AM Fibro Receivable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported $11 million insurance receivable related
to ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s (AM) asbestos-related liabilities,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 28, 2014.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $11 million as of each of December 31, 2014, and September 30,
2014. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $8
million as of each of December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014
that 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 insurance
arrangement. 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. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Corp. Has $500-Mil. Fibro Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation's total net asbestos reserves was $500
million at December 31, 2014, according to the Company's Form 8-K
dated January 29, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015.

On January 29, 2015, The Chubb Corporation (Chubb) issued a press
release announcing its financial results for the quarter and year
ended December 31, 2014. On January 29, 2015, Chubb also posted on
its website at www.chubb.com the Supplementary Investor
Information Report (SIIR) relating to its 2014 fourth quarter and
year-end results and The Chubb Corporation 2014 Update on Asbestos
Reserves (Asbestos Report).

According to the Company's 2014 Asbestos Report, at December 31,
2014, the Company's total net asbestos reserves was $500 million.

A copy of the Company's 2014 Update on Asbestos Reserves filing is
available at http://is.gd/ucalxC

The Chubb Corporation (Chubb) is a holding company for several,
separately organized, property and casualty insurance companies
referred to informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
(the P&C Group). The P&C Group provides property and casualty
insurance to businesses and individuals worldwide. The P&C Group
is divided into three business units: Chubb Personal Insurance,
Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty Insurance. Chubb
Commercial Insurance offers a range of commercial insurance
products, including coverage for multiple peril, casualty,
workers' compensation and property and marine. Chubb Specialty
Insurance offers a variety of professional liability products for
privately and publicly owned companies, financial institutions,
professional firms, healthcare and not-for-profit organizations.
Chubb Specialty Insurance also includes its surety business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Records $605-Mil. Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC's estimated net asbestos-related liability
is $605 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 26, 2014.

As of December 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net liability,
including Yarway, recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet is $605 million. The net liability is comprised of a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $850 million, of which $353 million is recorded in Accrued and
other current liabilities, and $497 million is recorded in Other
liabilities. The Company also maintains separate insurance
recovery related assets of $245 million, of which $22 million is
recorded in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, and $223
million is recorded in Other assets. Insurance recovery related
assets include $22 million of cash which has been designated as
restricted. The Company believes that its asbestos related
liabilities and insurance related assets as of December 26, 2014
are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 26, 2014, the
Company's estimated net liability, including Yarway, of $608
million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related
defense costs of $853 million, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $245 million.

On April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 11") in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
("Bankruptcy Court"). As a result of this filing, the continuation
or commencement of asbestos-related litigation against Yarway has
been enjoined by the automatic stay imposed by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code. Yarway's goal has been to negotiate, obtain approval of, and
consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes a trust to
fairly and equitably value and pay current and future Yarway
asbestos claims, and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by
the Company and/or its subsidiaries, provides permanent injunctive
relief protecting the Company, each of its current and former
affiliates and various other parties (the "Company Protected
Parties") from any further asbestos claims based on products
manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. On October 9,
2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with Yarway,
the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants ("ACC") appointed in
the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of current Yarway
asbestos claimants, and the Future Claimants Representative
("FCR") appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the
representative of future Yarway asbestos claimants, to fund a
section 524(g) trust for the resolution and payment of current and
future Yarway asbestos claims. The agreement in principle, which
will be implemented through a Chapter 11 plan for Yarway, will
resolve the potential liability of the Company Protected Parties
for pending and future derivative personal injury claims related
to exposure to asbestos-containing products that were allegedly
manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by Yarway ("Yarway Asbestos
Claims"). Under the Chapter 11 plan, an asbestos settlement trust
(the "Yarway Trust") that conforms to the provisions of Section
524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the
effective date of the Chapter 11 plan, the Company and Yarway will
contribute to the Yarway Trust a total of $325 million in cash
("Settlement Consideration"), which includes approximately $100
million relating to the settlement of intercompany amounts
allegedly due to Yarway. In exchange for the Settlement
Consideration, each of the Company Protected Parties will receive
the benefit of a release from Yarway and an injunction under
section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code permanently enjoining the
assertion of Yarway Asbestos Claims against those Parties. The
agreement in principle is subject, among other things, to the
negotiation and filing of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for
Yarway incorporating the terms of such agreement (the "Plan"),
acceptance of the Plan by at least 75% of Yarway's current
asbestos claimants voting on such Plan, confirmation of the Plan
by the Bankruptcy Court and approval of the injunction in favor of
the Company Protected Parties by the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware ("District Court"). On the effective
date of the Plan, which is anticipated to occur in the second half
of fiscal 2015, the Company and Yarway will pay the Settlement
Consideration and Yarway Asbestos Claims against the Company
Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. Yarway is
anticipated to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Yarway
Trust and, accordingly, would no longer be owned by or be part of
a consolidated group with the Company. Unless extended by a
further agreement, the agreement in principle will expire if the
order confirming the Plan and implementing the injunction has not
been entered or affirmed by the District Court by June 30, 2015,
or if the effective date of the Plan has not occurred by September
15, 2016. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle, the
Company recorded a charge of $225 million in Selling, general and
administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of
Operations during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2014.

As a result of filing the voluntary bankruptcy petition during the
third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected
loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway
Chapter 11 filing, which continues to represent the Company's best
estimate of its loss.

Tyco International PLC (Tyco), formerly Tyco International Ltd.,
is engaged in providing security products and services, fire
detection and suppression products and services, as well as life
safety products. The Company operates through three segments. The
North America Installation & Services and Rest of World
Installation & Services segments design, sell, install, service
and monitor electronic security systems and fire detection and
suppression systems. The Global Products segment designs,
manufactures and sells fire protection, security and life safety
products. The Company offers its products and services under
various brands, including Tyco, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul,
Simplex, Scott, and ADT (in jurisdictions outside of North
America). It serves the commercial, industrial, retail,
institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-United
States residential and small business markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Has $278MM Deal to Pay Grinnell Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC has completed a series of restructuring
transactions totaling approximately $278 million, which will fund
all historic Grinnell asbestos liabilities and provide for the
efficient and streamlined management of related claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 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.

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 would be used to establish and fund a
qualified settlement fund ("QSF"), within the meaning of the
Internal Revenue Code, which would be used for the resolution
primarily of Grinnell asbestos liabilities of the Company. 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. On January 9, 2015, the Company completed a series of
restructuring transactions related to the establishment and
funding of a dedicated structure pursuant to which the Company
acquired the assets of Grinnell and transferred cash and other
assets totaling approximately $278 million (not including $22
million received by the QSF from historic third-party insurers in
settlement of coverage disputes) to the structure. As part of the
restructuring, subsidiaries in the structure assumed certain
liabilities related to historic Grinnell, Scott and Figgie
operations, including all historical Grinnell asbestos
liabilities, and such subsidiaries purchased additional insurance
by, through or from a wholly-owned subsidiary in the structure in
order to supplement and enhance existing insurance assets. The
structure and the QSF fully fund all historic Grinnell asbestos
liabilities and provide for the efficient and streamlined
management of claims related thereto.

Tyco International PLC (Tyco), formerly Tyco International Ltd.,
is engaged in providing security products and services, fire
detection and suppression products and services, as well as life
safety products. The Company operates through three segments. The
North America Installation & Services and Rest of World
Installation & Services segments design, sell, install, service
and monitor electronic security systems and fire detection and
suppression systems. The Global Products segment designs,
manufactures and sells fire protection, security and life safety
products. The Company offers its products and services under
various brands, including Tyco, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul,
Simplex, Scott, and ADT (in jurisdictions outside of North
America). It serves the commercial, industrial, retail,
institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-United
States residential and small business markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Denied in Re Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company filed an action against
defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to enforce the terms of
a reinsurance contract.  In the reinsurance contract, FFIC agreed
to reinsure Utica for a portion of an umbrella insurance policy
Utica had issued to Goulds Pumps Inc. with respect to claims
asserted against Goulds alleging asbestos-related injuries from
exposure to asbestos.

The Plaintiff alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) seeks a declaration
regarding FFIC's obligation to pay Utica.  The Defendant answered
and asserted twelve affirmative defenses and two counterclaims.
The Plaintiff answered the defendant's counterclaims.

Judge David N. Hurd of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, in a memorandum-decision and order
dated Feb. 9, 2015, denied Utica's motion for partial summary
judgment on FFIC's late notice defense and its motion for partial
summary judgment on FFIC's bad faith defense.

Judge Hurd held: "Commutations are not collateral matters and may
be used to establish prejudice under a late notice defense if a
reinsurer can demonstrate it suffered tangible economic injury
resulting from the ceding insurer's late notice. A reinsurer who
establishes such prejudice would be entitled to complete relief
from its duty to indemnify, not merely the measure of damages for
which it was harmed. Therefore, Utica's motion for partial summary
judgment on FFIC's late notice defense will be denied.
Finally, Utica's claim for indemnification from FFIC will be
barred if FFIC can show either that it was prejudiced by Utica's
failure to provide timely notice, or that Utica acted in bad faith
in failing to provide timely notice. There remain genuine issues
of material fact as to whether Utica was grossly negligent or
reckless in failing to provide prompt notice to FFIC, and summary
judgment is inappropriate. Accordingly, Utica's motion for partial
summary judgment on FFIC's bad faith defense will be denied."

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 6:09-CV-853
(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Hurd's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/KqAeTNfrom Leagle.com.

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, SYED S. AHMAD, ESQ. -- sahmad@hunton.com --
WALTER J. ANDREWS, ESQ. -- wandrews@hunton.com -- PATRICK M.
McDERMOTT, ESQ. -- mcdermottp@hunton.com -- McLean, VA, Attorneys
for Plaintiff.

WILLIAMS LOPATTO PLLC, JOHN B. WILLIAMS, ESQ. --
jbwilliams@williamslopatto.com -- MARY A. LOPATTO, ESQ. --
malopatto@williamslopatto.com -- Washington, DC, Attorneys for
Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Motion in Limine in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated
Feb. 11, 2015, denied a motion in limine filed by asbestos
plaintiff Miriam P. Smith after finding that the plaintiff
adequately may address her concerns on dose reconstruction
assessment methodologies through thorough cross examination.

The case is SMITH ET AL. v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION ET AL.,
Section: "J" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6323 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/bwDRBJfrom Leagle.com.

Miriam P. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. O'Connell,
Nemeroff Law Firm, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry, Swarr & Cannella,
LLC, Christopher B. Norris, Nemeroff Law Firm, David Ryan
Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr,
LLC, Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Philip C Hoffman,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Rick Nemeroff, Nemeroff Law Firm & Roderick
S. Marshall, Nemeroff Law Firm.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & R. Scott Masterson, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC,
John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

Ethyl Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu,
Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John
Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC,
Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feb. 19 Conference Set in "Schwartz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois set a telephonic
conference on Feb. 19, 2015, for the plaintiff in an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit to provide information of decedent
Thomas Hager's employment and asbestos exposure.  The Plaintiff
has indicated that if she cannot find a person(s) who could
provide relevant testimony, she would dismiss her lawsuit.

The case is MELISSA SCHWARTZ, public administrator of the estate
of THOMAS HAGER, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LTD., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1324-DGW-
SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the order dated Feb. 9,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/yKG5bIfrom Leagle.com.

Melissa Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt,
Napoli Bern, et al..

Stephanie Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt,
Napoli Bern, et al..

Tom Hager, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli
Bern, et al..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald W.
Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith,
Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger,
Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge
et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn
Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Allison
K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. -- khardee@polsinelli.com -
- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. -- knjones@polsinelli.com -
- Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq. -
- sean@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP,
Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog,
Crebs et al..

Crane Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP - St. Louis, MO, Justin Andrew
Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

York International Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog
Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Noel L. Smith, Jr.,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith,
Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin
J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog
Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

York International Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs
LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James
D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith,
Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin
J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Borgwagner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James
D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith,
Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin
J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Trane U.S. Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs
LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bids to Junk "McCrossin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, in an order dated Feb. 11,
2015, denied the motions for summary judgment separately filed by
Lone Star Industries, Inc., and Lockheed Shipbuilding Company in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned CONNIE M.
McCROSSIN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of JOHN L. McCROSSIN, Plaintiff, v. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DE LAVAL TURBINE,
INC.; LOCKHEED SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to PIONEER SAND & GRAVEL
COMPANY; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; and FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC., Defendants, CASE
NO. 3:14-CV-05382 (W.D. Wash.).

A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Gggxc0from Leagle.com.

Connie M. McCrossin, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER &
LADENBURG PLLC, Anna D Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC,
Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Matthew Phineas
Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael
Edward Ricketts, Esq. -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy
Glazier, Esq. -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- GLAZIER YEE, Geoff J M
Bridgman, Esq. -- gbridgman@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
PLLC, Jeffrey D Dunbar, Esq. -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC & Robert Gregory Andre, Esq. -- randre@omwlaw.com --
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Lone Star Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry)
I. Hall, Esq. -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD &
Zackary A Paal, Esq., WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G Gawlowski, Esq. -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH
COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J.
Kero, Esq. -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Melissa K
Roeder, Esq. -- mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com -- FORSBERG & UMLAUF &
William Chris Gibson, Esq. -- cgibson@forsberg-umlauf.com --
FORSBERG & UMLAUF.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Worker's Compensation Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claimant Robert Cole filed a workers' compensation claim for
occupational disease caused by exposure to asbestos.  The claim
was established, and claimant was found to have a permanent
partial disability as of November 1995; the claim was subsequently
amended to include diagnoses of chronic bronchitis and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease.  The Claimant lost no time from
work until he was permitted to voluntarily retire, in lieu of
termination for cause, at the age of 69 in November 2009, after
working for the employer for nearly 50 years.  A Workers'
Compensation Law Judge concluded that the claimant's separation
from employment was unrelated to his occupational disability, and
that claimant was not entitled to benefits subsequent to his
retirement because he had voluntarily removed himself from the
labor market.  After a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board
reversed in a split decision, the self-insured employer and its
third-party administrator sought full Board review.  The full
Board affirmed the panel's decision, prompting an appeal.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, in a memorandum and order dated Feb. 11, 2015,
affirmed.

The case is ROBERT COLE, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF N.Y., INC., et al., Appellants. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD, Respondent, 518955 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/UcgQqqfrom Leagle.com.

Cherry Edson & Kelly, LLP, Tarrytown (Ralph E. Magnetti of
counsel), for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A.
Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Aurora's Bid to Junk "Hockler" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bryan Hockler worked in the shipping industry and in
plant operations for the majority of his career, but he also spent
approximately two years during the early 1980s working as a
salvager.  As part of his duties he ripped out old valves and
pumps located in the basements of commercial buildings throughout
New York City.  In his asbestos personal injury action, Mr.
Hockler described how his work caused him to be exposed to
asbestos from external insulation associated with pumps
manufactured by Aurora Pump Company.

Aurora moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all
cross-claims asserted against it on the ground, among others, that
it had no duty to warn of the hazards associated with aftermarket
asbestos insulation applied to its pumps.  Aurora further argues
that it is entitled to summary judgment notwithstanding because
there is no evidence to show that it manufactured or supplied such
insulation and because it did not specify, recommend, or advise
its customers to insulate its products.  Aurora also questions
whether Mr. Hockler has personal knowledge regarding the asbestos-
content of the insulation he encountered.

In a decision and order dated Feb. 5, 2015, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion
holding that the evidence submitted by Aurora in support of its
position that it is not responsible for asbestos-containing
external insulation applied to its pumps has little or no bearing
on the facts and circumstances of the case.  As such, the court
found that Aurora has not prima facie eliminated all material
issues of fact in its favor.

The case is BRYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190235/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/bLYLxnfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court Remands "Hendricks" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Hendricks suffers from mesothelioma, a type of
cancer associated with asbestos exposure.  The Defendants are all
either manufacturers of asbestos products or owners of premises
where those products were stored, handled, or installed.

Plaintiff James Hendricks, Jr. and his father were both employed
by State Defendant SoCal Edison.  In the state court proceedings,
Edison argued that state workers' compensation law prevented a
claim based on any contact with asbestos fibers both during his
own time of employment.  The Plaintiffs also alleged liability
based on exposure to fibers that were carried home on his father's
clothes from Edison's power plant when Mr. Hendricks, Jr., was a
child.  The state court granted summary judgment to Edison,
focusing primarily on the secondary exposure theory.

Once Edison was no longer a party, Defendant General Electric
removed the case to the federal district court, alleging that
diversity existed because Edison was a sham defendant,
fraudulently joined to the state action.  The Plaintiffs now filed
a motion for remand, arguing that Edison was not a sham defendant
and that the Plaintiffs brought a legitimate claim against Edison,
even if it was unsuccessful in the state court.  The Plaintiffs
also argues that removal was improper because GE failed to obtain
the consent of two other Defendants, Crown Cork and Soco-West.

In an order dated Feb. 10, 2015, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted the motion to remand finding that joinder of
SoCal Edison was not fraudulent, and because GE has not sought
unanimous joinder of all the remaining defendants in its removal.

The case is JAMES HENDRICKS, JR., and ROBERTA HENDRICKS,
Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. CV 14-09360 DDP (MANX)(C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Pregerson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/N1rL8k
from Leagle.com.

James Hendricks, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Sean P Worsey, Esq.
-- sworsey@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP & William A Levin,
Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP.

Roberta Hendricks, Plaintiff, represented by Sean P Worsey, Levin
Simes LLP & William A Levin, Levin Simes LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S
Marks, Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, Sheryl
M Rosenberg, Esq. -- sheryl.rosenberg@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick
LLP & Marc Brainich, Esq. -- marc.brainich@sedgwicklaw.com --
Sedgwick LLP.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian
Daniel Lundin, Esq. -- blundin@mwe.com -- McDermott Will and Emery
LLP & Jessica Thomas, Esq. -- jjthomas@mwe.com -- McDermott Will
and Emery LLP.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Bobbie R Bailey,
Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and Berkon LLP,
Frederick W Gatt, Esq. -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and
Berkon LLP & Justin M Tafe, Esq. -- jtafe@leaderberkon.com --
Leader & Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Green" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Doyle D. Green and his wife Yvonne Green, Texas
residents, appeal from adverse summary judgments entered in favor
of several defendants in their action for damages arising from
Doyle's exposure to asbestos and subsequent diagnosis of
mesothelioma.  The trial court ruled that Texas law governs the
plaintiffs' claims against certain defendants, including
CertainTeed Corporation, Bucyrus International, Inc., Terex
Corporation, and Shell Oil Company, and applying Texas law granted
respondents' motions for summary judgment and denied the
plaintiffs' motions for a new trial contesting two of the summary
judgment rulings.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, concluded that the trial court correctly applied choice-of-
law principles to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims and
did not err in any of the rulings challenged on appeal.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's
ruling.

The case is DOYLE D. GREEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO.
A134983 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion dated
Feb. 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/3gxoZAfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Get Summary Judgment in "Franklin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Karen Owen Bowdre of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, granted the motions for summary judgment separately
filed by defendants Honeywell International Inc., Carlisle
Companies Incorporated and Caterpillar Incorporated in the
asbestos case captioned Donna FRANKLIN, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ray Franklin, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-
CV-0888-KOB (N.D. Ala.).

In support of the summary judgment awards, Judge Bowdre ruled that
the Plaintiff provided no evidence that decedent Ray Franklin
worked in the vicinity of asbestos-containing Carlisle products,
Honeywell/Bendix products, and Caterpillar products.

A full-text copy of Judge Bowdre's memorandum opinion dated Feb.
10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7dLH8afrom Leagle.com.

Donna Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Steve R Morris, MORRIS
LAW OFFICE & Thomas J Knight, HUBBARD & KNIGHT.

Caterpillar Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Deirdre C
Mcglinchey, Esq. -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com -- MCGLINCHEY
STAFFORD, Delmar E Buck, III, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ PC & William L Waudby, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jenelle
R Evans, BALCH & BINGHAM LLP & S Allen Baker, Jr, BALCH & BINGHAM
LLP.

Honeywell International, Defendant, represented by Frank E
Lankford, Jr, HUIE FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART LLP & Stewart W McCloud,
HUIE FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statute of Limitations Bars Fed-Mogul Trust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellee T&N Limited was an asbestos manufacturer that faced
significant liability after the deadly qualities of its product
became clear.  Like many other asbestos manufacturers, it chose to
address this liability through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization plan.  T&N's Plan, among other things, created the
Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.  The Plan
transferred to the Trust certain of T&N's assets and rights, with
which the Trust was to pay asbestos claims brought by persons who
could have sued T&N but for its bankruptcy.  While bankruptcy
reorganization plans typically discharge all of a reorganizing
company's liability upon plan confirmation, the Plan provided that
T&N's asbestos liability would continue post-confirmation, and
that the Trust would bring asbestos suits against T&N as the agent
of the actual claimants.  The purpose of this provision was to
allow the Trust to take advantage of a particular T&N insurance
policy.

In a lawsuit filed in 2011, the Trust brought an asbestos claim
that had accrued roughly a decade earlier.  When T&N raised a
statute of limitations defense, the Trust argued that the
reorganization Plan allows it to bring the asbestos claims (and
any other asbestos claims that had not become stale prior to T&N's
filing for bankruptcy protection) whenever it wishes to do so
until all of the proceeds of T&N's insurance policy are exhausted.
The district court disagreed.

Having reviewed the Plan documents and relevant provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Trust's suit on
statute of limitations grounds.

The appeals case is NORA M. BARRAFORD, individually and as
executrix of the estate of Daniel M. Barraford, by her agent THE
FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Plaintiff,
Appellant, KATHERINE LYDON, individually and as executrix of the
estate of John T. Lydon, Jr., Plaintiff, v. T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N
PLC, f/k/a Turner & Newell Plc, f/k/a Turner & Newell Limited; TAF
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a Turners Asbestos Fibres Limited,
f/k/a Raw Asbestos Distributors Limited, Defendants, Appellees,
NO. 14-1281 (1st Cir.).  A full-text copy of the opinion dated
Feb. 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/WyvnW1from
Leagle.com.

Richard Levin, Esq. -- rlevin@cravath.com -- with whom Rowan D.
Wilson, Esq. -- rwilson@cravath.com -- and Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP were on brief, for appellants.

Mark A. Perry, Esq. -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- with whom Scott P.
Martin, Esq. -- smartin@gibsondunn.com -- Lindsay S. See, Esq. --
lsee@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Bruce F.
Smith, Esq. -- bsmith@jagersmith.com -- Steven C. Reingold, Esq. -
- sreingold@jagersmith.com -- Timothy J. Durken, Esq. --
tdurken@jagersmith.com -- and Jager Smith P.C. were on brief, for
appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Fibro Claims vs. 3 Cos. Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Alexander, as the personal representative of the estate of
Richard F. Alexander and Donna E. Alexander, appeals from orders
dismissing his claims against Auer Steel & Heating Company,
Milwaukee Stove & Furnace Supply Company, and CertainTeed
Corporation.  Alexander brought claims against the defendants for
negligence, strict products liability, and wrongful death, based
upon allegations that Richard Alexander "was exposed to dust or
fibers emanating from the asbestos products ... designed, sold,
manufactured, distributed, packaged, removed, installed, released
in the air, or otherwise placed into commerce by the[]
defendants," and that the exposure caused Richard to develop the
malignant mesothelioma that caused his death.  The circuit court
dismissed the claims with respect to all of the three defendants
on their individual motions for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, in an opinion dated
Feb. 10, 2015, affirmed, concluding that a reasonable jury could
not infer from the undisputed facts that any of the individual
defendants exposed Richard to asbestos.

The case is TODD A. ALEXANDER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF RICHARD F. ALEXANDER AND DONNA E. ALEXANDER, RICHARD'S
WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. AUER STEEL & HEATING CO., WEST
BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., AS INSURER TO AUER STEEL & HEATING
SUPPLY CO., MILWAUKEE STOVE & FURNACE SUPPLY COMPANY AND
CERTAINTEED CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, L & S. INSULATION CO.,
INC., DEFENDANT, APPEAL NO. 2014AP335 (Wis. App.).  A full-text
copy the Decision is available at http://is.gd/RxUr0ffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Aarons" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Joseph Aarons, et al., to the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans after determining that
the defendants have not met the burden of proving that there is no
possibility that the plaintiffs would be able to establish a cause
of action under the Jones Act.

The case is JOSEPH AARONS et al., v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY et al.,
Section: "G"(1), CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 14-601 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Brown's order and reasons dated Feb. 11, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/LOOcy2from Leagle.com.

Joseph Aarons, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. MacFetters, Law
Office of Maria B. de Gracia, Timothy J. Young, Young Firm &
Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Enoch D. Boothe, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. MacFetters,
Law Office of Maria B. de Gracia, Timothy J. Young, Young Firm &
Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Hilton Boothe, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. MacFetters, Law
Office of Maria B. de Gracia, Timothy J. Young, Young Firm &
Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Jesse Sheppard, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. MacFetters, Law
Office of Maria B. de Gracia, Timothy J. Young, Young Firm &
Vallie Schwartz Dugas, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by David C. L. Gibbons,
Jr., Al M. Thompson, Jr., LLC.

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F.
Drew, Adams & Reese, LLP & Christine S. Fortunato, Adams & Reese,
LLP.

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Richard P. Sulzer, Sulzer & Williams, LLC, Christina L. Falco,
Sulzer & Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV, Sulzer &
Williams, LLC.

Coastal Chemical Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by Campbell
Edington Wallace, Frilot L.L.C., Allen Joseph Krouse, III, Frilot
L.L.C., Caroline C. Boling, Frilot L.L.C., Krystle Ferbos, Frilot
L.L.C. & Thomas Louis Colletta, Jr., Thomas L. Colletta, Jr.,
Attorney at Law.

Freeport McMoRan Energy LLC, Defendant, represented by Scott C.
Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Hunter
A. Chauvin, Liskow & Lewis, Joseph I. Giarrusso, III, Liskow &
Lewis, Sherman Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel,
Liskow & Lewis.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet,
Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean
Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto
Miyagi, Kean Miller, Carol L. Galloway, Kean Miller, Gregory M.
Anding, Kean Miller, Janice M. Culotta, Kean Miller LLP, Robert E.
Dille, Kean Miller & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller.

Coastal of Abbeville, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by J. Isaac
Funderburk, Funderburk & Herpin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Cos. Obtains Dismissal of 146 Del. PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
County, granted Dana Companies' motion to dismiss a multi-case
asbestos litigation based on lack of personal jurisdiction, after
holding that (i) Dana Companies was formed under Virginia Law,
which expressly treats limited liability companies and members of
LLCs as separate entities, and (ii) as established in Ali v.
Beachcraft Corp., the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil and the Court has not
been presented with any evidence that clearly shows that Dana
Companies is an alter ego or a mere instrumentality of Dana
Holdings.  The multi-case asbestos litigation involves 146
asbestos cases.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, THOMAS ANDERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DANA COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, C.A. NO. 13C-03-076
(Del. Super.).  A full-text copy of Judge Davis' decision dated
Jan. 30, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/oA7YaBfrom
Leagle.com.

A. Dale Bowers, Esquire, Kenneth L. Wan, Esquire, Law Office of A.
Dale Bowers, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Joseph Naylor, Esquire, Beth Valocchi, Esquire, Swartz Campbell,
LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Dana Companies
LLC.


                             *********

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 2015. 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  * * *