CAR_Public/150305.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 46


                             Headlines

3M COMPANY: Still Facing Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation
3M COMPANY: Parties in Environmental Case to Request Conference
3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Ceradyne Class Action Denied
ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold to SS&C for Too Little, Class Says
AES DRILLING: Faces "Campbell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ALLSTATE CORP: Class Suit Challenges Insurance Price Increase
AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Certifies Class in Human Egg Donors Suit
ANJDEV ENTREPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brock" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM BLUE: Allowed Hackers to Steal Personal Info, Suit Claims
BANK OF THE WEST: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in App Patent MDL
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 Buses Over Exhaust System Hanger Defect
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses

CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Amendment to Solitary Confinement Suit
CHEMOURS COMPANY: First Trial in Drinking Water Actions in Sept.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: DuPont to Seek Dismissal of Amended TiO2 Suit
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Suit Over Defective 160-Amp Alternators
CLEAVER-BROOKS: Judge Slashes Damages Verdict to $30 Million

COOK COUNTY, IL: Six-Figure Fine Is Unfair, Chicago Taxpayer Says
COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
CETCO ENERGY: "Vidrine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps
EPICOR SOFTWARE: Reported $0.8MM Income From Class Action Deal

FERGUSON, MO: Jails Equated to Modern-Day Prison for Debtors
FLAVOR RESTAURANT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,675 Cars Due to Steering Problem
GENWEST TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Policies
GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit by AdSense Participant
GP STRATEGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lester" Suit Says
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: "Allen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Says Expense Attributable to Class Suit Deal
HERBAL INSTINCT: Recalls Bentonite Due to High Lead Level

HILLROM CORPORATION: Recalls Viking Patient Lifts
HILTON HOTELS: Court Releases $75MM Bond in 17-Year-Old Action
HOME DEPOT: Faces Navigant Credit Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HULU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Models With Defective Electric System

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Blue Link Customers Over Subscription Fees
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Psychiatrist Testifies in Risperdal Trial
JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Due to Allergens
JOY BURGER: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KIA MOTORS: Optima Cars Have Defective Door Locks, Suit Claims

LENOVO INC: Sued Over Damages Caused by Pre-Installed Spyware
LORILLARD INC: Trial Underway in 2 Engle Progeny Cases
LORILLARD INC: Defendant in 6,228 Product Liability Cases
LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit to Appeal Judgment in "Major" Case
LORILLARD INC: 6 Product Liability Cases for Trial in 2015

LORILLARD INC: 3,792 Engle Progeny Cases Dismissed Since Jan 2010
LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases
LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 132 Engle Progeny Trials
LORILLARD INC: Severed IPIC Cases Not Subject to Trial Plan
LORILLARD INC: One Flight Attendant Case Scheduled for Trial

LORILLARD INC: Not a Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases
LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit a Defendant in 61 Filter Cases
LORILLARD INC: Supreme Court Review Sought in Antitrust Case
LORILLARD INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Entered Into MOU
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces 3rd Class Suit Over Overcharged Bills

MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 LEU Models Due to Injury Risk
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2014 CXU Models Due to Non-compliance
MAJOR LEAGUE: Court to Decide if 11 Teams Will Be Part of Suit
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
MCLACHLAN DRILLING: Faces "Stroman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upheld Sewer Service Classes Certification
METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Tea Products Due to Milk
MOLSON COORS: Named as Defendant in David Hughes Lawsuit
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Hearing on Threshold Issues Held in February
NATIONWIDE STUDENT: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Consolidation Fees

NESTLE PURINA: Faces Suit Alleging Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Admin. Services Sued Over FLSA Violations
NEW YORK: Governor Called for Patience Over Rep. Grimm Issue
NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk
NORTHERN TIER: Has Sent Spam Text Messages, "Soular" Suit Claims

OFFICE DEPOT: Being Sold to Staples for Too Little, Suit Claims
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PENNER MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patient Stretchers
PEOPLE'S STUDENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims
PERRY ELLIS: Misclassified Interns as Exempt, New York Suit Says

PETSMART INC: March 2015 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
PETSMART INC: Motions Pending in "McKee" Class Action
PETSMART INC: Deadlines in "Negrete" Action Stayed
PETSMART INC: May 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Pace" Suit
PETSMART INC: 8 Class Actions Filed Over BC Partners Transaction

PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Propofol Products
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Marshall Court Has Not Memorialized Decision
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Claims
PREIT ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Space
PREMIUM PACKING: Accused of Not Paying OT to Agricultural Workers

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RACING SERVICES: N.Dakota Must Return Money, 8th Cir. Says
RJ REYNOLDS: Settles 400 Pending Tobacco Cases for $100MM
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls INFORM HER2 DNA Probe Products
SAFEWAY INC: Court Limits Class Suit Ruling to Certain Customers

SCH CORP: 3rd Cir. Vacates District Court Ruling on NCG Deal
SESAC LLC: Judge Awards $16MM Attorney Fees in Antitrust Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued for Not Awarding Frequent Flier Passes
ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Junks Suit Arising From Data Breach
STARSHIP ENTERPRISES: "Pippin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Fleece Hooded Sweatshirts
SUNSHINE MEDICAL: Faces "Sosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TABOUN GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
TAKATA CORP: Ordered by NHSA to Preserve Air Bag Parts in Probe
TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Products Due to Milk

TJX CANADA: Recalls Korma Simmer Sauce Products Due to Peanut
TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizza Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: TPC Paid $579MM to Hawaii Action Plaintiffs
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Fla. for Employing Unlicensed Drivers
USG CORP: To Pay Up to $48MM to Resolve Wallboard Purchaser Cases

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VISION-SCIENCES: Named as Defendant in "Frustaci" Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Herbal Supplement Ads
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS: One Claim in Wage Class Action Survives

WESTERN SCOTT FETZER: Recalls Valve Pressure Regulators
WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Z. Alpha Thoracic Endo Grafts
WOLFER LANDSCAPE: "Arango" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WORLD FUEL: Motion to Bring Class Action Lawsuit Filed

* NY Attorney General Targets Herbal Supplement Manufacturers
* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk
* Waiving Second Meal Break Violates California labor Code


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Still Facing Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014, the Company
is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous
lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately
2,220 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,200
individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2013.
The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial,
including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court
at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal
finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.


3M COMPANY: Parties in Environmental Case to Request Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in an environmental
litigation will request a status conference with the Morgan County
court in the first half of 2015.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds)
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the first action, filed in the same court
in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage
on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until
the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M,
Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and
Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who
have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme
Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan
County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other
matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting
it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification
issues in the first case filed there. In May 2013, the court
stayed the case due to co-defendant Synagro's bankruptcy filing.

Pursuant to directions from the Morgan County court, on December
31, 2014, the parties reported that the Synagro Chapter 11
bankruptcy case was concluded and closed in September 2014. The
parties will request a status conference with the Morgan County
court in the first half of 2015.


3M COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss Ceradyne Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint in a class action was denied in
January 2015.

In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M, and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection
with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits were filed
in California Superior Court for Orange County, and two were filed
in the Delaware Chancery Court. The suits alleged that the
defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their
fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell Ceradyne through
an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make adequate disclosures to
Ceradyne stockholders regarding the acquisition of Ceradyne. 3M
completed its acquisition of Ceradyne in November 2012. In
November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the
California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the
Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints
without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne
shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the
California court. A final approval hearing was held in July 2013,
and the California court denied approval of the settlement.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
approval of the settlement, which motion was denied by the
California court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint, which motion was denied without prejudice
in January 2014. By stipulation in February 2014, plaintiffs
agreed to voluntarily dismiss claims against 3M and Cyborg
Acquisition Corporation without prejudice. In March 2014, the
court entered its Order dismissing 3M and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation from the action without prejudice. The lawsuit against
Ceradyne, Inc., and its directors is proceeding. These defendants
moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was
denied in January 2015.


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold to SS&C for Too Little, Class Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Advent
Software too cheaply through an unfair process to SS&C
Technologies, for $2.3 billion, or $44.25 a share, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


AES DRILLING: Faces "Campbell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Campbell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AES Drilling Fluids, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00484 (S.D.
Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a
week.

AES Drilling Fluids, LLC is a subsidiary of Canadian Energy
Services. It is one of the largest drilling fluids companies in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLSTATE CORP: Class Suit Challenges Insurance Price Increase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate sets rates for
Washington drivers "not on the risk presented by the policyholder
but rather on the policyholder's willingness to tolerate a price
increase," a class action claims in King County Court.


AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Certifies Class in Human Egg Donors Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified in part a class of egg donors who claim
the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for
Assisted Reproductive Technology fixed prices for human eggs,
reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero on Feb. 3 also denied the
plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Insoo Hyun, and
granted the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Hal
Singer.

The rulings came after a Jan. 23 hearing.

In the antitrust class action filed in 2011, lead plaintiff
Justine Levy claimed that the defendants established maximum
compensation rules in violation of the Sherman Act, "in an effort
to keep egg donor compensation artificially low and to retain more
revenue."

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's 393 member
clinics constitute 85 percent of those practicing assisted
reproductive technology in the United States, according to the
complaint.

Levy also claimed that egg donors are paid the same hourly rate as
sperm donors, though egg donation procedures are lengthy, painful
and potentially dangerous, while sperm donations are not.

Levy's complaint was merged with a similar complaint from Lindsay
Kamakahi, the case's other lead plaintiff, in a consolidated
amended complaint filed in 2012.

The plaintiffs asked that the class be defined as all women who,
from April 12, 2007 to the present, donated eggs to any SART
member clinic or assisted-reproduction egg agency that agreed to
follow the ASRM's maximum price rules.

Spero granted this request, but denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify a subclass for injunctive relief due to lack of a class
representative with standing.

Kamakahi and Levy also moved to exclude the opinion of Hyun, a
bioethicist.

The defendants submitted his report discussing principles of
medical ethics and justifying maximum compensation guidelines by
those principles.

Hyun argued that "removing any upper limits on compensation for
donors' burdens would make it very difficult to protect altruism
from being pushed entirely aside inadvertently by market forces."

The plaintiffs argued that Hyun's argument was irrelevant to
issues of class certification and that his conclusions are not
based on scientific method.

But Spero ruled that "however inartfully presented, Dr. Hyun's
report is sufficiently relevant and reliable to be admissible for
the very limited purpose for which defendants seek to use it."

The ASRM and SART moved to exclude the opinion of Singer, an
expert economist whose report addresses compensation data from a
single egg donation agency during periods when the agency agreed
to comply with maximum compensation guidelines and periods when it
did not.

They claimed that Singer's reports are "both unreliable and
irrelevant."

Spero ruled that "to the extent that Dr. Singer can model the
effects of the Guidelines only within the specific agencies that
he examined, such models are irrelevant to class certification."

Neither side could be reached for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan Dixon, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com

The Kamakahi case is captioned Lindsay Kamakahi v. American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01781-
JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ANJDEV ENTREPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Murillo Ambrosi, Lauro Benito Chillogalli, and Robelio
Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Anjdev Entreprises, Inc. d/b/a Amma, Anju Sharma, and Devendra
Sharma, Case No. 1:15-cv-01231 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an Indian restaurant located at
246 E. 51st Street, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brock" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Brock, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00289 (S.D. Ind., February 20, 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:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com
              sbartone@zlk.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Courtney Walters reports that
six Atlanta residents filed a class action against Anthem Inc. and
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia over a massive data breach that
may affect as many as 80 million of the insurer's customers.

Anthem, the parent company of co-defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield,
announced on February 4 that hackers had accessed its computer
system and made off with the account information for perhaps as
many as 80 million individuals.  The notice claimed that Blue
Cross "was the target of a very sophisticated external cyber
attack."  It later stated that the companies own associates'
personal information was also accessed during the breach.

In a complaint filed in the Atlanta Federal Court, the plaintiffs
-- Joseph D'Angelo III, Shawn Haggerty, Charity Latimer, Kurt
McLaughlin, Tamara Nedlouf and John Thomas II -- allege the
defendants failed in their duty to protect customers' personal and
financial information.

"Given that Anthem is the nation's second largest health insurer,
this breach is potentially one of the largest data breaches in the
history of the world," the plaintiffs state early on in the
complaint.  And they note, "This is not the first time that Anthem
has failed to adequately protect the personal information of its
customers."

"For example, between 2011 and 2012, Anthem illegally exposed over
30,000 customer social security numbers and ended up settling the
matter with the California Attorney General," the complaint says.
"In 2013, Defendant Anthem agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve
allegations it left the information of more than 612,000 members
available online because of inadequate safeguards."

Further, they say, "The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services said that

Defendant's security weaknesses in an online application database
left names, birthdates, addresses, telephone numbers, Social
Security numbers, and health data accessible to unauthorized
users."

The vulnerability of healthcare providers to hacking incidents is
well known, the plaintiffs say, so much so that the FBI issued an
industry-wide warning on it on April 8, 2014.

"Unfortunately, Anthem did not take such warnings seriously and
its lax data safeguards have caused damage to its customers yet
again," the plaintiffs say.

They seek actual statutory damages, restitution, and disgorgement
of funds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys
fees on claims of negligence, breach of contract, bailment and
violations of state data breach statutes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Peterman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Wilma J. Peterman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00250 (D. Conn., February 20, 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:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      David L. Belt, Esq.
      Jeffrey P. Nichols, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street
      Milford, CT 06460-0112
      Telephone: (203) 877-8000
      Facsimile: (203) 878-9800
      E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
              DBelt@hssklaw.com
              JNichols@hssklaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-1 400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
      E-mail: srosen@hfesq.com
              rharwood@hfesq.com


ANTHEM BLUE: Allowed Hackers to Steal Personal Info, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Anthem Blue Cross allowed
hackers to steal personal information from 80 million customers, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Two such class actions were filed in Los Angeles February 5 and
another in Birmingham, Ala. Federal Court, according to the
Courthouse News database.

Bloomberg News service and others reported that Anthem Blue Cross
suspects Chinese hackers were responsible.  The hackers are
believed to want the information as a back-door way to spy on U.S.
defense officials, corporations and others, according to wire
reports.

Personal information that was hacked includes names, Social
Security numbers, birth dates, results of medical tests, billing
information, lead plaintiff Samantha Kirby says in her Feb. 5
complaint.  Kirby says the Anthem detected the "massive data
breach" on January 29, and that it affects "approximately 80
million insureds."  It informed customers of the data breach on
Feb. 4.

Kirby claims that a Web site Anthem set up to explain what
happened contains only "a short and vague facts page."  She
claims, inter alia, that "Anthem does not provide any information
as to when its systems were compromised, how long third parties
had access to its systems or what measures have been taken to
prevent further breaches."  She adds: "Anthem does not definitely
state that customers banking and medical information was not
disclosed to third parties."

The enormous data breach exposes customers to identity theft,
fraud, credit card crimes, compromised banking account
information, medical fraud, damaged credit ratings and other
problems, Kirby claims.  She seeks class certification,
restitution and damages for unfair competition, privacy invasion,
negligence, conversion, and violations of medical confidentiality.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF THE WEST: Judge Denies Attorney Fees in App Patent MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the chief judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania has
denied attorney fees to a bank that had been accused of violating
another company's patent in its banking app.

Bank of the West had been one of more than 25 parties that Maxim
Integrated Products had accused of infringing on its patents --
those cases were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation that
was sent to the Western District in 2012.

They were assigned to U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer, who
recused herself the following year.  The MDL was then transferred
to U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

In 2014, Maxim entered into a licensing agreement with Fiserv
Inc., the developer of another banking app, which allowed Fiserv's
clients to use all of the patents that were involved in the MDL.
Bank of the West was one such client, as were other parties to the
MDL, according to Conti's opinion.

Bank of the West, referred to as BOTW in the opinion, filed a
motion for attorney fees arguing that its case was exceptional and
merited the award of attorney fees.

"According to BOTW, this is an exceptional case because Maxim
pursued 'objectively unreasonable' and 'substantively weak'
infringement claims 'to pressure BOTW into paying Maxim an amount
less than it would cost to try the case,'" Judge Conti said.
The judge wasn't convinced and denied the motion.

Referring to the original app that Bank of the West had used,
developed by Monitise Americas, Conti said, "BOTW argues that
Maxim's 'gamesmanship' is reflected in the fact that Maxim granted
BOTW an unsolicited covenant not to sue related to the Monitise
app only hours before BOTW's expert reports were due."

However, the judge said later, that timing could well have been a
coincidence.

Maxim executed a covenant not to sue the day after it sealed the
licensing agreement with Fiserv, according to the opinion.

"Although this date happened to coincide with BOTW's submission of
expert reports, there is no evidence to indicate that Maxim's
issuance of the covenant not to sue was based upon that deadline
instead of receipt of the executed Fiserv license agreement,"
Conti said.

The judge looked to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 opinion in
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness for the standard on
determining whether the case would qualify as being exceptional,
which would merit attorney fees.

There, the U.S. Supreme Court "held that an entitlement to fees
must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, instead of
clear and convincing evidence, and that an 'exceptional case' is
one 'that stands out from others with respect to the substantive
strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the
governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable
manner in which the case was litigated,'" Judge Conti said,
quoting from Octane Fitness.

Bank of the West argued the case was exceptional because Maxim's
allegations were weak and unreasonable, indicating that they were
meant to exact a nuisance settlement from the bank.

"Maxim notes the inherent flaw in BOTW's argument that Maxim's
infringement allegations were 'weak' and 'baseless' given that all
except one of the OPs settled their claims in these MDL
proceedings," Judge Conti said, referring to the other opposing
parties, or OPs, in the MDL.

Reviewing the claim of weakness about Maxim's allegations, Conti
said, "The best argument that BOTW can make is that although Maxim
asserted patent infringement claims with respect to BOTW's current
Fiserv app that were strong enough to justify a license," since
Fiserv signed a license agreement with Maxim, "Maxim's claims
based upon BOTW's discontinued Monitise app were so weak that the
entire case became exceptional."

"Once the issue is properly framed, the court's holding with
respect to whether this is an exceptional case becomes readily
apparent," the judge said, later ruling that this is not an
exceptional case that would warrant an award of attorney fees.
Before finishing, though, Judge Conti addressed the merit-based
arguments advanced by Bank of the West, but stressed the case was
resolved at the end of fact discovery, before any dispositive
pretrial motions had been handled.

"As Maxim correctly notes, this MDL patent litigation, which at
one time involved more than 25 OPs, has, with the exception of one
party, been settled by way of license agreements," Judge Conti
said.  "These agreements cannot be ignored by this court, and are
at least some objective indication that Maxim's infringement
position may have had some overall merit.  Although BOTW argues
that these licenses were extorted from the OPs in order to avoid
protracted or expensive patent litigation, there is no proof of
this allegation."

Robin McGrath -- robinmcgrath@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings
in Atlanta represented Bank of the West and couldn't be reached
for comment.

Matthew Powers -- matthew.powers@tensegritylawgroup.com -- of
Tensegrity Law Group in Redwood Shores, Calif., represented Maxim
and couldn't be reached for comment.


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 Buses Over Exhaust System Hanger Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Emissions
Units affected: 54
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015050
TC ID number: 2015050
Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C

On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail,
possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur,
the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a
risk to motorists and bystanders. Correction: Dealers will provide
new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables.

Affected products:

   Make      Mode                      Model year(s) affected
   ----      ----                      ----------------------
BLUE BIRD  ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                                       2014, 2015, 2016

BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Emissions
Units affected: 54
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015051
TC ID number: 2015051
Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C

On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail,
possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur,
the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a
risk to motorists and bystanders. Correction: Dealers will provide
new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables.

Affected products:

   Make      Mode                      Model year(s) affected
   ----      ----                      ----------------------
BLUE BIRD  ALL AMERICAN SCHOOL BUS   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                                       2014, 2015, 2016

CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Amendment to Solitary Confinement Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge tentatively granted a motion by the Center for
Constitutional Rights to file a supplementary complaint to its
class action on behalf of hundreds of prisoners in prolonged
solitary confinement at California's Pelican Bay prison, reports
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service.

The May 2012 lawsuit claims that prolonged solitary confinement in
state prisons Security Housing Units violates Eighth Amendment
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, and that the
prisons' lack of meaningful review for such placement violates
Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process.

The Center for Constitutional Rights defined prolonged solitary
confinement as lasting more than 10 years.

CCR president Jules Lobel said in the February 12 hearing that 240
Pelican Bay prisoners fall into this category.  Lobel asked U.S.
District Judge Claudia Wilken for permission to amend the
complaint to add a class of prisoners recently transferred under
the state's Step Down Program from solitary confinement at Pelican
Bay to solitary confinement at the state prison at Tehachapi.

Adriano Hrvatin, of the state's justice department, represented
the prison.  He argued that the CCR's proposed class definition
did not meet requirements of commonality and typicality, since
"inmates are going to fall in and out of the class with the
passage of time."

Lobel responded that though prolonged solitary confinement is not
always a permanent state, it "causes lasting, permanent damage to
the person," and there must be a "procedural mechanism" to make
prisoners' claims heard, even if they are transferred or released.

He also argued that the class representatives, once designated,
should be allowed to continue to represent the class even if they
cease to be one of the class's members.

Wilken responded that attorneys in similar past situations have
simply found new class representatives.  Wilken proposed that the
trial be bifurcated -- a trial in December to determine whether
the Pelican Bay prisoners' confinement was cruel and unusual, and
if it was found to be so, the CCR would then file the
supplementary complaint.

The CCR intends to file for summary judgment on July 2.

Pelican Bay is a "supermax" prison in Crescent City.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: First Trial in Drinking Water Actions in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, LLC (A Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company) said in an exhibit to its AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 12, 2015, that the first trial in the drinking water
actions is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in
November 2015.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).
The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up
to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible
class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated
with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012,
Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to
fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.
The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations.
Under the program, notice has been given and the registration
process, as well as eligibility screening, to participate in
diagnostic testing has begun. At each of September 30, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, no money has been disbursed from the fund.
In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. Class members began filings
lawsuits alleging such claims in 2012. At September 30, 2014,
there were approximately 2,545 lawsuits filed in various federal
and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about
2,460 and 2520, respectively over December 31, 2013 and 2012.

In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014
and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be
served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL). The majority of the lawsuits allege personal
injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease
from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 18 lawsuits
alleging wrongful death.

In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were
selected for individual trial. The first trial is scheduled
to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015.
Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: DuPont to Seek Dismissal of Amended TiO2 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, LLC (A Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company) said in an exhibit to its AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 12, 2015, that DuPont will seek dismissal of the
Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the Titanium Dioxide
Antitrust Litigation.

In February 2010, two suits were filed in Maryland federal
district court alleging conspiracy among DuPont, of which
Chemours, prior to the distribution, is a subsidiary, Huntsman
International LLC (Huntsman), Kronos Worldwide Inc. (Kronos),
Millennium Inorganics Chemicals Inc. (Millennium) and others to
fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between March 2002
and the present. The cases were subsequently consolidated and in
August 2012, the court certified a class consisting of U.S.
customers that have directly purchased titanium dioxide since
February 1, 2003.

During the third quarter 2013, DuPont and plaintiffs agreed to
settle this matter, subject to court approval. In connection
therewith, Chemours has recorded charges of $72 million, within
cost of goods sold, at December 31, 2013. The settlement
explicitly acknowledges that DuPont denies all allegations and
does not admit liability. The court entered the order granting
final approval to the settlement on December 13, 2013. The
settlement was paid in January 2014.

In November 2013, Valspar, which opted out of the class action
settlement, filed suit in federal court in Minnesota against
DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium making substantially
similar claims to those made in the class action. The lawsuit was
moved to Delaware federal court on DuPont's motion.

In March 2013, a purported class action was filed against DuPont,
Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of "indirect purchasers"
from more than 30 states that purchased products containing
titanium dioxide. The settlement cannot be used to establish
liability in the indirect purchaser case. In September 2014, the
Court dismissed most of the claims in the original complaint. The
plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, limiting the purported
class to indirect purchasers of architectural coating products
containing titanium dioxide from 21 states.

DuPont denies all allegations and will again seek dismissal of the
Amended Complaint.  Chemours, through DuPont, denies these
allegations and is defending itself vigorously against the Valspar
and indirect purchaser claims. While management believes a loss
related to either matter is reasonably possible, any such loss
would be immaterial.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Suit Over Defective 160-Amp Alternators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chrysler, Dodge and Jeeps in
model 2011-14 years may have defective 160-amp alternators that
cause them to shut down and catch fire, a class action claims in
California Superior Court.


CLEAVER-BROOKS: Judge Slashes Damages Verdict to $30 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
judge in a special Manhattan court deeply slashed a jury's damages
verdict in multi-plaintiff asbestos litigation, awarding almost
$30 million after jurors said the plaintiffs were entitled to $190
million.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden, sitting in the
New York City Asbestos Litigation part, refused to disturb the
liability verdict against the two boiler companies, but reduced
the damages award in the consolidated action by more than 80
percent on Feb. 5.

When jurors reached the verdict after an 11-week trial, the
plaintiffs' attorneys at Weitz & Luxenberg called it the largest-
ever asbestos verdict in New York.

But Justice Madden, although giving "great deference" to the
jury's verdicts, "conclude[d] that in each of these five cases,
the jury's verdict as to damages deviate from reasonable
compensation" In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, 190200/12.
Madden said she would order a new trial on damages unless the
plaintiffs notified her they accepted the reduced awards.

The five plaintiffs, Robert Brunck, Cesar Serna, Raymond Vincent,
Santos Assenzio and Paul Levy worked as steamfitters, plumbers and
construction workers in the New York City area.  They all
developed mesothelioma; three died before trial.  They sued
manufacturers Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks, claiming the men were
exposed to asbestos when using equipment made by the defendants.
The men said they suffered periods of exposure in the 1960s and
1970s, though a few said they exposed before and after those
dates.

The men argued the companies were liable based on a failure to
warn about the dangers of asbestos.  Two of the men sued both
companies and the other three either sued Cleaver-Brooks or
Burnham.  Justice Madden consolidated the cases in April 2013.

The men also sued other companies, which settled before trial.
Jurors found the defendants liable and also returned verdicts of
recklessness.  The jury allocated fault between Cleaver-Brooks,
Burnham and other entities.

The jury awards for the individual plaintiffs ranged between $20
million and $60 million.

The defendants argued the verdict should be set aside because the
plaintiffs failed to show that exposure from asbestos in
defendant-manufactured boilers caused the mesothelioma or other
asbestos-related diseases.  They also complained the cases were
improperly consolidated.

The defendants asked, among other things, for reduced verdict or a
new damages trial.

In her 64-page decision, Justice Madden declined to overrule jury
findings on matters like product exposure.

For instance, Cleaver-Brooks argued that the boilers which
plaintiff Assenzio said were made by Cleaver-Brooks did not
describe the defendant's boilers.

In support, they noted testimony from John Tornetta, a corporate
representative who said the boilers did not fit the description.
But Madden said Cleaver-Brooks did not support Mr. Tornetta's
testimony with catalogs or records.  It was "significant" that
Mr. Tornetta had "no personal knowledge of Cleaver-Brooks products
during the relevant time period."

Justice Madden said "considering the evidence as a whole, there is
no basis to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the
evidence, as the evidence did not preponderate in favor of
Cleaver-Brooks such that the verdict 'could not have been reached
on any fair interpretation of the evidence."

Justice Madden said she did not abuse her discretion by
consolidating the cases.  "Common issues of law and fact
predominated" and the joinder did not harm the defendants or
deprive them of a fair trial, she said.  She observed that
appellate decisions in recent years have upheld remitted awards in
mesothelioma cases ranging from $3 million to $18 million.

Among the "most instructive" were remitted verdicts for decedents
in a separate case, Ronald Dummitt and Dave John Konstantin.

Justice Madden noted that Konstantin had a remitted award of $4.5
million for 33 months of past pain and suffering and $3.5 million
for future pain and suffering of 18 months.

Mr. Dummitt had a sustained award of $5.5 million for past pain
and suffering of 27 months and $2.5 million for six months of
future pain and suffering, she said.

Justice Madden then downgraded the awards for the five plaintiffs
in the current case.  For instance, the jury awarded Mr. Assenzio
$20 million for past pain and suffering.  He died in March 2013 at
age 83.

Justice Madden said Mr. Assenzio suffered for about 20 months, as
measured from the onset of his first serious symptoms.  She said
$5.5 million was reasonable compensation for Mr. Assenzio,
considering the bone and liver cancer he endured, as well as the
awards for Konstantin and Dummitt.

The jury also gave Mr. Assenzio $10 million for loss of services,
but Madden slashed it to $500,000.  She noted another asbestos
case where a loss of consortium award was reduced from $1.67
million to $260,000.

Joseph Welter -- jwelter@goldbergsegalla.com -- a partner at
Goldberg Segalla who is not involved in the case but does handle
asbestos defense litigation, observed that Madden applied the
analysis used by the First Department in the Konstantin and
Dummitt cases.

Her ruling was "certainly a step in the right direction, bringing
the numbers closer to what the First Department said were the
upper end of reasonable compensation."

But those appellate rulings in Konstantin and Dummitt's case are
on appeal before the state Court of Appeals, he said. "Right now,
we're in flux and one battle is what the upper end" of
mesothelioma awards will be in the New York City region.

A Weitz & Luxenberg spokesperson said in a statement, "While we're
disappointed with the amount of the remittiturs, we respect the
court's ruling. We're discussing with our clients on how to
proceed."

Alani Golanski appeared for Weitz & Luxenberg.

George Carpinello -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- a partner at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner and Teresa Monroe, counsel, are the post-trial
and appeals counsel for Burnham.  "We are gratified what we
thought was a clearly unreasonable verdict was reduced.  We think
it should be reduced more.  But we are obviously pleased the
verdict was dramatically reduced," Mr. Carpinello said in an
interview.

He said he was "disappointed" the judge did not agree with the
defense on other matters common in asbestos litigation, such as
questions about causation, standards of recklessness, fault
allocation and consolidation.  He said he was discussing with his
client whether to pursue an appeal.

Cleaver-Brooks was represented post-trial by E. Leo Milonas --
eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- and David Keyko --
david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- partners at Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman, and Kerry Brennan, then with the firm.  Suzanne
Halbardier -- SHalbardier@bmmfirm.com -- and Shawnette Fluitt --
SFluitt@bmmfirm.com -- of Barry, McTiernan & Moore also appeared
for Cleaver-Brooks.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Six-Figure Fine Is Unfair, Chicago Taxpayer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A man caught claiming homestead tax-exemptions on 10 Chicago
properties says in court that the law subjecting him to a six-
figure fine is unfair, reports Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

The class action Daniel Cuevas filed Feb. 10 in Cook County
Circuit Court takes aim at a statute that took effect in 2013,
which allows the local assessor to "recover taxes reduced by
exemptions for those persons claiming them on properties other
than their principal place of residence."

Cuevas says he received a notice of intent to record tax liens in
2014 on 10 Chicago properties he owns besides his residence, in
the amount of $142,576.60, regarding erroneous homestead
exemptions taken between 2006 and 2012.

An administrative law judge found him liable for the taxes in
December, according to the complaint.

Cuevas challenges these interest and penalty charges, and the
assessor's "retroactive application" of them, saying they violate
uniform taxation and due process under state and federal law.  He
says Cook County would previously waive its right to lien
properties or delinquent taxes if the taxpayer made a timely
payment of the erroneously assessed taxes.

Saying that the new law is unfair, Cuevas says it penalizes
taxpayers "for not policing their own payments of taxes when the
tax bills previously did not provide plaintiff and the class
notice of the amount received from exemptions."

He also points to counties that the act excludes based on
population and an amnesty period that applies only to those who
have less than three violations.  People who sold property with
erroneous exemptions prior to the act's passage meanwhile are "off
the hook," the complaint states.

Cuevas says the assessor "exceeded its authority" in charging
penalties prior to the effective date of the statute, which "does
not contain explicit language for it to apply retroactively."

The act furthermore "does not allow for easy interpretation," and
"it is not fair to shift the burden of assigning the
qualifications for exemptions to the layman," according to the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY LTD.
          100 N La Salle St., # 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950

               - and -

          Marshal Perry Morris, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF MARSHAL PERRY MORRIS, LLC
          2519 Live Oak Lane
          Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
          Telephone: (847) 634-2211


COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that beginning on May
30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, directors and certain officers at the time of the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of
securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and seeking
unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases were
consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff. On
October 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend them. The Company currently has no other
outstanding material litigation," the Company said.


CETCO ENERGY: "Vidrine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Vidrine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cetco Energy Services Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00092 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cetco Energy Services Company, LLC is an oilfield services company
with locations throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43739

Recalled Products: A) Maquet CARDIOSAVE Hybrid Intra-Aortic
Balloon Pump (IABP)

Since the commencement of commercialization of the CARDIOSAVE
Hybrid Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (JABP) in December 2011, Maquet
has received thirteen (13) power supply complaints that were
determined to be related to suboptimal thermal management. It is
important to note that none of the thirteen complaints identified
any adverse patient events. Suboptimal thermal management of the
power supply may result in the power supply not providing the
correct output voltage to the CARDIOSAVE Hybrid JSBP console, and
the inability to charge the batteries. Failure to provide the
correct output voltage to the console will result in the unit not
functioning from AC power, even when plugged into an active
electrical outlet. Should a power supply malfunction occur, an on
screen message will alert the healthcare provider that the
CARDIOSAVE Hybrid JABP unit is operating on battery power.

Affected products: A) Maquet CARDIOSAVE Hybrid Intra-Aortic
                   Balloon Pump (IABP)
Lot or serial number: CA216325I2
                      CA221162L2
                      CA221164L2
                      CA222640A3
                    CA237421K3
Model or catalog number: 0998-00-0800-XX
Manufacturer: Datascope Corp.
              1300 Macarthur Blvd.
              Mahwah, 07430, New Jersey
              UNITED STATES


EPICOR SOFTWARE: Reported $0.8MM Income From Class Action Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Other
income, net was $0.3 million for the three months ended December
31, 2014 compared to $1.0 million for the three months ended
December 31, 2013. Other income, net for the three months ended
December 31, 2014 consisted primarily of $0.8 million related to a
class action legal settlement, $0.4 million of interest income and
$0.2 million of gains on marketable securities, partially offset
by $1.1 million of foreign exchange losses. Other income, net for
the three months ended December 31, 2013 consisted primarily of
$0.7 million of foreign exchange gains as well as $0.2 million of
gains on marketable securities and $0.1 million of interest
income.


FERGUSON, MO: Jails Equated to Modern-Day Prison for Debtors
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
jails in Ferguson, Mo., and nearby Jennings are little more than
modern-day debtors' prisons for people so poor they can't afford
to pay traffic tickets, 15 people claim in two federal class
actions against the cities.

Lead plaintiff Keilee Fant sued Ferguson with 10 other named
plaintiffs. Fant also is a plaintiff in lead plaintiff Samantha
Jenkins' lawsuit against Jennings.

The plaintiffs call themselves "impoverished people" in both
February 8 complaints.  They claim they were jailed because they
could not pay fines for traffic violations and other minor
offenses.

"Although the plaintiffs pleaded that they were unable to pay due
to their poverty, each was held in jail indefinitely and none was
afforded a lawyer or the inquiry into their ability to pay that
the United States Constitution requires," the complaints state.
"Instead, they were threatened, abused, and left to languish in
confinement at the mercy of local officials until their frightened
family members could produce enough cash to buy their freedom or
until city jail officials decided, days or weeks later, to let
them out for free."

The plaintiffs say they languished in deplorable conditions inside
the jails.  "They are kept in overcrowded cells; they are denied
toothbrushes, toothpaste, and soap; they are subjected to the
constant stench of excrement and refuse in their congested cells;
they are surrounded by walls smeared with mucus and blood; they
are kept in the same clothes for days and weeks without access to
laundry or clean underwear; they step on top of other inmates,
whose bodies cover nearly the entire uncleaned cell floor, in
order to access a single shared toilet that the city does not
clean; they develop untreated illnesses and infections in open
wounds that spread to other inmates; they endure days and weeks
without being allowed to use the moldy shower; their filthy bodies
huddle in cold temperatures with a single thin blanket even as
they beg guards for warm blankets; they are not given adequate
hygiene products for menstruation; they are routinely denied vital
medical care and prescription medication, even when their families
beg to be allowed to bring medication to the jail; they are
provided food so insufficient and lacking in nutrition that
inmates lose significant amounts of weight; they suffer from
dehydration out of fear of drinking foul smelling water that comes
from an apparatus on top of the toilet; and they must listen to
the screams of other inmates languishing from unattended medical
issues as they sit in their cells without access to books, legal
materials, television, or natural light," the complaints state.
"Perhaps worst of all, they do not know when they will be allowed
to leave."

Conditions in the Jennings jail are so bad that when groups of
inmates are brought to court, courtroom staff "often walks down
the hallway spraying Fabreze because the stench emanating from the
inmates is unbearable," according to the 62-page complaint against
Jennings.

The plaintiffs claim that Ferguson issues more arrest warrants per
capita than any Missouri city with more than 10,000 residents.  In
2014, Ferguson issued an average of more than 3.6 arrest warrants
per household and almost 2.2 arrest warrants for every adult, in
cases mostly involving unpaid traffic tickets, according to the
55-page complaint.

The plaintiffs say that if the rest of the St. Louis metropolitan
area generated revenue from its courts at the rate Ferguson does,
it would have made $1.3 billion in the past five years.

The plaintiffs claim Jennings issued an average of more than 2.1
arrest warrants per household and almost 1.4 arrest warrants for
every adult in 2014, mostly for unpaid traffic tickets.  They say
that if the rest of the St. Louis metropolitan area generated
revenue from its courts at the rate Jennings does, it would have
made $670 million in the past five years.

The plaintiffs claim that the cities' practices "devastated the
city's poor, trapping them for years in a cycle of increased fees,
debts, extortion, and cruel jailings.  The families of indigent
people borrow money to buy their loved ones out of jail at rates
set arbitrarily by jail officials, only for them later to owe more
money . . . from increased fees and surcharges.  Thousands of
people like the plaintiffs take money from their disability checks
or sacrifice money that is desperately needed by their families
for food, diapers, clothing, rent, and utilities to pay ever
increasing court fines, fees, costs, and surcharges."

The plaintiffs claim the cycle of court-imposed poverty lasts
weeks, months and even years.

Complaints about municipal court abuses became an underlying theme
during the protests sparked by the shooting death of Michael Brown
on Aug. 9, 2014.  Many protesters claimed that excessive charges
and fees imposed by municipal courts in the area created a cycle
of poverty and lack of opportunity.

Ferguson denied it.

"We believe this lawsuit is disturbing because it contains
allegations that are not based on objective facts," Ferguson Mayor
James Knowles III said in a statement February 9.  "It is our hope
that the suit will be handled according to the rule of law and the
rules of procedure in the federal courts, and not through the
media."

Knowles said in the statement that since Aug. 19, 2010, Ferguson
jail police requires that no prisoner be held for more than 72
hours; that the jail and holding facility be kept in a sanitary
condition with adequate air circulation; that detainees have
access to a toilet, wash basin and drinking water; that fire
retardant bedding be provided to all detainees so long as the
detainee is not suicidal; and that the facility be cleaned on a
daily basis when occupied.

The statement added that the Ferguson Police Department has
undergone a $4.5 million renovation between April 2013 and January
2015, which included improvements to the jail.

The city of Jennings had no comment.

The complaints propose two classes -- a declaratory and injunctive
class and a damages class.  The declaratory and injunctive class
consists of all people who owe or who or will incur debts from
Ferguson and Jennings from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges from
cases prosecuted by the cities.  The damages class consists of all
people who, from Feb. 8, 2010 until the present, were held in jail
by the defendants because of nonpayment of a monetary sum required
by the defendants.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, stating
that the defendants' practices are unconstitutional and a ruling
prohibiting those practices.

The lawsuits were filed by Alec Karakatsanis with Equal Justice
Under Law in Washington D.C. in conjunction with the St. Louis-
based ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit group, and by St. Louis
University School of Law.

Ferguson and Jennings are working-class suburbs in north St. Louis
County, about 10 miles northwest of the St. Louis city limits.

Ferguson, which has become the epicenter of nationwide anti-police
demonstrations since the Brown shooting, has a median household
income of $36,121, which is 20 percent below the statewide median
of $45,321, according to city-data.com.  Almost 65 percent of
Ferguson's population is African-American.

Jennings has a median household income of $30,273, which is 33
percent below the statewide median.  Almost 87 percent of
Jennings' population is African-American.


FLAVOR RESTAURANT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley M. Moore, Derrick L. Burns, Demarcus Brydie, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, v. Flavor Restaurant, Inc., Rochelle Kemp, and James
Kemp, Case No. 1:15-cv-01566 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5091 Sauk
Trail, Richton Park, IL 60471.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,675 Cars Due to Steering Problem
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Steering
Units affected: 9675
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015048TC
ID number: 2015048
Manufacturer recall number: 14772

Certain vehicles equipped with electric power steering may
experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur
at any time while driving. If the power steering assist is lost, a
message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a chime
sounds to inform the driver. Steering control can be maintained,
as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but will
require greater driver effort. The sudden change in steering may
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the torque sensor
assembly with a redesigned one. Note: This recall is an expansion
of recalls 2012-331 and 2014-104. Vehicles having already been
repaired under the previous campaigns do not require re-
inspection.

Affected products:

  Make        Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----          ----------------------
  CHEVROLET   MALIBU         2006
  CHEVROLET   MALIBU MAXX    2006
  PONTIAC     G6             2006


GENWEST TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Consumer Report Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Paramo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Genwest Transportation, LLC, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00293 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2015), arises out of
the Defendants' unlawful policies and procedures by which it
obtains and uses consumer reports of applicants seeking employment
but fails to provide applicants with the statutorily required
disclosures.

Genwest Transportation, LLC manages and operates a transportation
company in Santa Ana, California, and conduct business throughout
the Western and Central United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
      Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
      Shane C. Stafford, Esq.
      SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
      19200 Von Karman Avenue Suite 400
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Telephone: (949) 622-5444
      Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
      E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com
              rshanberg@ssbfirm.com
              sstafford@ssfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers accusing Google Inc. of illegally monopolizing the mobile
search sector hit a roadblock on Feb. 20, when a federal judge
tossed a proposed class action against the company.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District
of California ruled that the lawyers had failed to show how
consumers were harmed by Google's agreements with makers of
Android smartphones to make its product their default search
option.

"There are no facts alleged to indicate that defendant's conduct
has prevented consumers from freely choosing among search products
or prevented competitors from innovating," she wrote in a Feb. 20
order granting Google's motion to dismiss.

Judge Freeman will allow plaintiffs lawyers to file an amended
complaint and suggested they might have an easier time making a
case for injunctive relief than for monetary damages.

The ruling is a win for Google's lawyers with Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius and Williams & Connolly, who had argued consumers weren't
prevented from switching to another search engine.

Plaintiffs lawyers led by Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, who sued the company in May, claimed Google's monopoly
drove up prices of smartphones that use the Android operating
system, and reduced the search capability of those phones.  Google
struck deals with smartphone manufacturers that allowed them to
preload devices with a suite of popular Google-owned apps,
including Google Maps and YouTube, in exchange for making Google
the default search engine.

Plaintiffs lawyers argued that the arrangement prevented competing
search engines from paying for default status, which would have
resulted in cost savings for consumers.

Judge Freeman ruled that link between Google's conduct and
consumers' wallets is too fuzzy.  She likened the theory to one
rejected by the Southern District of California in Lorenzo v.
Qualcomm, where plaintiffs were at least three levels removed from
the alleged anticompetitive practices of a cell phone chip
manufacturer.

Judge Freeman also shot down Berman's argument that Google's
monopoly limits consumer choice and prevents competing search
engines from getting better, calling the assertion "entirely too
conclusory and speculative."

Judge Freeman wrote that "accepting plaintiffs' argument would
permit any consumer of Internet search to have standing to sue for
injunctive relief, as the proposed class of Android OS device
consumers is no different from the Apple device user or the
computer search user when it comes to innovation and choice in the
market for Internet search products."

Judge Freeman dismissed additional claims under the Clayton and
Cartwright acts without leave to amend, ruling those laws do not
cover markets for intangible commodities, such as software.

Judge Freeman also dismissed claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, but gave the lawyers a second chance to plead the
claims using a named plaintiff from California.


GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit by AdSense Participant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge February 12 dismissed without prejudice a class
action accusing Google of denying payment to Web site owners, who
participate in its AdSense revenue-sharing program.

U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman dismissed claims that included
breach of contract, bad faith, unjust enrichment and unfair
competition.

Free Range Content filed the class action in May 2014, claiming
Google runs its AdSense program in a way that pays Web site owners
nothing.

But Judge Freeman said Free Range will have to "plead additional
facts demonstrating defendant's alleged bad faith beyond that of
simply exercising a contractual right to terminate accounts and
withhold payment."

Free Range also must demonstrate that it did not waive its right
to payment by not disputing Google's payment withholding, as
required by the AdSense terms of service, the judge wrote.

Free Range, of San Francisco, claimed that Google intentionally
closes AdSense accounts to deny full payment to Web site owners.
Account terminations can cost Web site owners and publishers
anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to tens of thousands of
dollars each year in lost revenue, according to the complaint.

In its motion to dismiss, Google said it had every right to close
Free Range's AdSense account and that the company's complaint
would "turn contract law on its head."

"After enjoying the benefits of participating in the AdSense
program for a year-and-a-half, plaintiff, by its own admission,
breached several explicit terms of that contract," Google said in
its motion to dismiss.

"Google then did exactly what it said it would do in the contract
-- it closed plaintiff's AdSense account, did not make a payment
to plaintiff that, pursuant to numerous contract provisions,
plaintiff had no right to receive, and refunded the withheld
payment (along with Google's revenue share) to advertisers."

Google AdSense pays Web site owners and publishers a percentage of
revenue from ads that appear while people browse their sites.
When visitors view the ads or click on them, Google is supposed to
pay the Web site owners a portion of revenue from those ads.

Freeman gave Free Range until March 5 to file an amended
complaint.


GP STRATEGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lester" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Lester, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees v. GP Strategies Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00488 (D. Md., February 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to properly compensate its
employees for all wages due and owing.

GP Strategies Corporation is a global performance improvement
provider of sales and technical training, E-learning solutions,
management consulting and engineering services headquartered in
Columbia, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Judd Garrett Millman, Esq.
      LUCHANSKY LAW
      606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 522-1020
      Facsimile: (410) 521-1021
      E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com


HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: "Allen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Selma Allen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Habitat for Humanity Sarasota, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00111 (M.D.
Fla., February 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Habitat for Humanity Sarasota, Inc. is a Non-Profit Corporation
that provides a 0% interest home mortgage to qualified Sarasota
families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4223 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Says Expense Attributable to Class Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 12, 2015, that fourth quarter 2014 net income of $12.0
million was $1.2 million lower than the linked quarter and $0.2
million lower than the same quarter of 2013. Compared to the
linked quarter of 2014, the $1.2 million net income decline was
primarily driven by the following on an after-tax basis:

   * $1 million higher noninterest expense largely attributable to
the settlement of a purported class action lawsuit related to
overdraft fees on debit card transactions and costs related to the
strategic designation of a new corporate campus in Honolulu;

   * $1 million higher provision for loan losses related to loan
growth in the quarter; and

   * $1 million of higher net interest income primarily due to
loan growth.

In the exhibit, the Company reported 2014 year-end consolidated
earnings.  A copy of the exhibit is available at
http://is.gd/ICWCMm


HERBAL INSTINCT: Recalls Bentonite Due to High Lead Level
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Posting date: February 24, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43781

Recalled Products: Bentonite

Reason: Lead levels are higher than the daily recommended dosage.

Depth of distribution: Retail

Affected products: Bentonite
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   NPN 80043197
                   Dosage form: Capsule
                   Strength: Bentonite 400.0 mg
                   Lot or serial number: 133301MNT

Recalling Firm: Herbal Instinct
                503 Mercy St., Selkirk,
                R1A 2B3, Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Herbal Instinct
                                503 Mercy St., Selkirk
                                R1A 2B3, Manitoba
                                CANADA


HILLROM CORPORATION: Recalls Viking Patient Lifts
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:
January 30, 2015
Posting date: February 16, 2015
Type of communication:
Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43699

A) Viking M Patient Lift

B) Viking XL Patient Lift

C) Viking L Patient Lift

When doing a patient transfer, the lift arm unexpectedly dropped.

Affected products:

A) Viking M Patient Lift
   Lot serial number: Not applicable
   Model or catalog number: 2040005, 2040015, 2040035
   Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation
                 1069 State Route 46 East
                 Batesville 47006
                 UNITED STATES

B) Viking XL Patient Lift
   Lot or serial number: Not applicable
   Model or catalog number: 2040003
   Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation
                 1069 State Route 46 East
                 Batesville 47006
                 UNITED STATES

C) Viking L Patient Lift
   Lot or serial number: Not applicable
   Model or catalog number: 2040004
   Manufacturer: Hillrom Corporation
                 1069 State Route 46 East
                 Batesville 47006
                 UNITED STATES


HILTON HOTELS: Court Releases $75MM Bond in 17-Year-Old Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton has made enough progress toward the court-ordered reform of
its retirement plan to warrant the release of a $75 million bond,
a federal judge ruled, a signal that the nearly 17-year-old class
action may wind down this month, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse
News Service.

After determining that the hotel giant had illegally back-loaded
its retirement plan and failed to credit certain years of service,
a Washington, D.C., federal judge ordered Hilton in 2011 to fix
its plan, increase benefits, and award back payments to some
22,000 current and former employees.

Hilton appealed to the D.C. Circuit, securing a stay of the lower
court's order with a $75 million supersedeas bond.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the ruling in 2012, and a year later
awarded class counsel 15 percent of the $140 million judgment.

With her jurisdiction in the case set to end on Feb. 23, U.S.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed February 4 that
Hilton could release the bond.

Though the plaintiffs objected that Hilton had not done enough to
comply with judgment, Hilton noted that about 11,000 class members
have received $33 million from it to date.

Roughly 20,000 class members also received a notice of increased
benefits, and Hilton has paid class counsel $21.7 million in fees,
the hotel giant told the court.

Meanwhile lead plaintiff Jamal Kifafi, a Hilton employee who first
noticed problems with the company's retirement plan and inspired
the class action in 1998, received a $50,000 incentive award.

While the plaintiffs argued that $33 million was "substantially
lower than the $75.8 million in judgment liabilities Hilton
estimated it would incur in the first year of implementing the
judgment," Judge Kollar-Kotelly declined to measure Hilton's
compliance "based on how close defendants have come to paying out
$75.8 or $87 million or any other estimated amount in judgment
liabilities because these amounts were clearly and simply
estimates."

Noting that the "provision of retirement benefits is a constantly
evolving process," the judge found no "systemic problems or
failures" with Hiton's compliance thus far, and ordered release of
the supersedeas bond.

"Defendants are generally taking reasonable steps to ensure that
the most class members receive their benefits while also
protecting privacy concerns and ensuring that benefits are
actually dispersed to the proper payee," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

The case is Jamal J. Kifafi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et
al., Case No. 98-1517 (CKK), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Navigant Credit Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navigant Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00065
(D.R.I., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing customers' financial and personal
data.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Pellegrino, Esq.
      Steven E. Snow, Esq.
      PARTRIDGE, SNOW & HAHN LLP
      40 Westminster Street, Suite 1100
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 861-8200
      Facsimile: (401) 861-8210
      E-mail: djp@psh.com
              ses@psh.com


HULU LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Video streaming
service Hulu LLC has had a tough time shaking a privacy suit that
invokes a 1980s law aimed more at rental storefronts like
Blockbuster than the current generation of entertainment
technology.

Last week, lawyers at Covington & Burling and O'Melveny & Myers
were set to attempt to strike a final blow to the 2011 case.  The
question they're asking a judge to decide touches on issues like
browser cookies, data-acquisitive social-networking websites and
other elements of the online world not yet imagined when the Video
Privacy Protection Act was passed in 1988.

Hulu's lawyers claim plaintiffs can't show the company knew that
placing a Facebook "Like" button on its video streaming pages
would convey back information on users' viewing habits to the
social-networking site.  Plaintiffs -- represented by Parisi &
Havens, Strange & Carpenter and KamberLaw -- say there's evidence,
including email exchanges, that prove otherwise.

Litigating the VPPA has proven to be frustrating so far for both
defendants and plaintiffs.  But although plaintiffs lawyers have
had a tough time getting claims to stick against modern web
streaming companies, the law's penalties of $2,500 per violation
have kept them rolling the dice.

"When [Congress] passed the VPPA, online tracking didn't exist and
online streaming didn't exist," said Venkat Balasubramani, a
lawyer at Internet and media boutique Focal in Seattle who writes
about VPPA issues for the Technology and Marketing Law Blog.  "I
think the arguments on both sides are credible and I don't think
the statute lends an easy answer," he said.

Passed by Congress in 1988 after a Washington newspaper published
the rental history of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, the
VPPA makes it illegal to hand over "video tape rental or sale
records."

Though the past few years have seen a wave of suits filed under
the statute in the Northern District of California, most of the
litigation has sputtered.  Earlier this month, plaintiffs in
proposed privacy class actions against Netflix Inc. and Sony
Computer Entertainment America LLC, both knocked out in the early
stages, tried to persuade a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit panel to revive their claims.

Reed Smith's Lisa Kim -- lkim@reedsmith.com -- called the VPPA an
"idiosyncrasy."  Members of Congress who passed it likely had no
concept of the technologies to which it would apply and the scale
of the potential damage awards it could create in the context of a
class action, she said.

"Fortunately for the companies and unfortunately for the
plaintiffs, no cases are really leaning in their favor," said
Ms. Kim, a senior associate in the firm's Los Angeles office.

In the Hulu case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the
Northern District of California has grappled with how to apply the
outdated law to the company's services, hunting in a ruling last
April for ways to analogize Hulu's alleged conduct to the world of
videotapes and paper records.

Early on Judge Beeler sided with plaintiffs in In re Hulu Privacy
Litigation, 11-3764, that the company was a "video tape service
provider" as defined by the VPPA and that the video privacy law
did not demand a showing of actual harm for an award of statutory
damages.  Following those setbacks, Hulu bulked up its defense
team, adding Covington as co-counsel with O'Melveny.

Judge Beeler has since sided with Hulu on some issues, first
knocking out claims related to the company's sharing of anonymized
data with a metrics firm that tracked general viewing habits.  In
June, Judge Beeler went on to deny plaintiffs' first bid for class
certification, concluding it would be too difficult to determine
who should recover damages.  At $2,500 per claimant, Beeler found
the potential award "wildly disproportionate to any adverse
effects the class members suffered, and it shocks the conscience."

With class certification sidelined for now, Hulu's lawyers have
taken aim at the plaintiffs lone remaining claim, arguing that
Hulu did not knowingly transmit Facebook users' IDs and viewing
choices back to Facebook.  A hearing on the motion for summary
judgment was scheduled for Feb. 19.

According to plaintiffs, when Hulu installed the Facebook "Like"
button on its viewing pages in 2010, the move resulted in the
transmissions of unique user IDs, which were embedded in
Facebook's browser cookie, and the title of videos, which at the
time were spelled out in Hulu watch page URLs.

Hulu's lawyers claim the company isn't liable because it didn't
know what was happening.  "The evidence demonstrates that Hulu did
not know that Facebook's c_user cookies were transmitting Facebook
User IDs to Facebook or what Facebook did, if anything, with these
transmissions," Hulu's lawyers write.

They contend the plaintiffs are conflating Hulu's decision to add
the "Like" button to viewing pages with Facebook's tracking of its
user's web activity.

Plaintiffs argue that internal Hulu records show that the company
knew that the "Like" Button identified users to Facebook.

"Hulu's internal documents, which it dismisses with no analysis,
provide at least circumstantial evidence that Hulu knew that it
was transmitting personally identifying information," they write.
Not surprisingly, the sides also differ on what it means under the
statute to "knowingly" disclose personally identifiable
information.  Hulu argues the language means it must have "actual
knowledge" of a disclosure to violate the law.  The plaintiffs
claim actual knowledge is not a requirement, and that they "need
only demonstrate that Hulu voluntarily provided user-specific
information and videos watched."

Just what amounts to a "knowing" disclosure is "one of the more
interesting and live VPPA issues" playing out in the courts today,
Mr. Balasubramani says.  Just one district court decision so far
addresses the issue.  The case, Mollett v. Netflix, was argued
before the Ninth Circuit.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Models With Defective Electric System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai 2010-13 models have a
defective electric system which can make it shut down, a class
action claims in California Superior Court.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Blue Link Customers Over Subscription Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Hyundai did not inform customers that if they let their Blue
Link Telematics (GPS) System paid subscription lapse, it would
cost them $500 to replace or restart it.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Psychiatrist Testifies in Risperdal Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a pediatric psychiatrist testified in the Risperdal trial Feb. 13
that the drug was the best option for treating the plaintiff's
autism-related outbursts and that the risks of gynecomastia were
adequately stated in the drug's warning label.

Dr. Adelaide Robb of the Children's National Medical Center
testified on behalf of defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals at the
end of the trial's third week.  The plaintiffs in the case, Austin
Pledger and his mother, claimed that Risperdal caused elevated
levels of the hormone prolactin in Pledger's system, leading to
gynecomastia.  Gynecomastia is a condition that causes males to
grow female breast tissue.

Dr. Robb told the court that she and her colleagues at the
hospital frequently conduct clinical trials for drugs, including a
trial for Risperdal.

Janssen's counsel, Diane Sullivan of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, asked
Dr. Robb why Pledger's doctor prescribed Risperdal.

Dr. Robb replied that Pledger was hitting himself, acting out in
class, and striking and pinching his classmates; some of the
behavioral traits of autistic children.

Ms. Sullivan also asked if there was any association between
autism and weight gain.  Dr. Robb responded that autistic children
generally eat high-calorie foods that can cause weight gain, as
well as tending to be less physically active than other children
their age as they do not function well in sports or team settings.

Dr. Robb then talked about a 2002 study on Risperdal funded by the
federal government and conducted at Yale and Johns Hopkins
universities.  In that study, half the patients were given
Risperdal and the others a placebo.

"What they found is the behavior got a lot better in the kids
taking the real medicine than with the sugar pill," Dr. Robb said.
She went on to explain that other drugs were not good options for
Pledger because of the increased weight gain and the requirement
of frequent blood monitoring.

Ms. Sullivan asked Dr. Robb whether she had to take risk
information from the adult section of the drug's label prior to
2006, when Risperdal was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for use in children.

As a prescribing child psychiatrist, Dr. Robb said, she would have
discussions with parents about the drug's possible side effects.
Dr. Robb said she would also inform parents that she did not know
if those side effects could occur in children.

Ms. Sullivan asked Dr. Robb if Janssen provided adequate
information in the label about the potential for prolactin level
increases.

Dr. Robb said yes: "It was in the label."

"Did Risperdal work for Mr. Pledger?" Ms. Sullivan asked.
The lead plaintiffs attorney, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter,
objected.

Presiding Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy I.
Djerassi sustained the objection, reasoning, "It's a decision for
this jury whether or not it worked."

Ms. Sullivan rephrased, asking if Risperdal worked in terms of
easing Pledger's behavioral symptoms. Robb said based on Pledger's
doctor's and teacher's reports, it did.

The discussion returned to weight gain with Ms. Sullivan asking
how much extra weight children could gain on Risperdal.

Dr. Robb replied that most children could gain up to an extra
eight or nine pounds on top of their normal weight gain while on
the drug. Sullivan then asked what caused Pledger to gain weight.

"He was already overweight," Dr. Robb said, noting that Pledger
did gain weight from the drug, but did so also because of poor
diet and lack of exercise.  However, Dr. Robb added that for a
time while Pledger was on Risperdal, with a healthier diet and
running on a treadmill, Pledger lost some weight.

"What happened when he stopped taking Risperdal?" Ms. Sullivan
asked.

"His behavior deteriorated," Dr. Robb said, adding that Pledger
had to transfer from school to home instruction because of his
symptoms.

"Do you agree with the decision to prescribe Risperdal?"
Ms. Sullivan asked.  Dr. Robb said yes.

On cross-examination, Mr. Kline asked Dr. Robb if there was
information in the 2002 Risperdal label that wasn't in the 2006
label.  Dr. Robb agreed that there wasn't.

Mr. Kline added that in 2002, the label said the rate of
gynecomastia from Risperdal was 2.3 percent, or "rare," which in
the clinical sense means less than one in 1,000.

Mr. Kline said based on additional Janssen studies the rate of
"symptoms hypothetically attributable to prolactin," or SHAP, was
5.1 percent.

He further claimed that Dr. Robb knew this information during the
clinical trials, and although the information was published in a
psychiatric journal, a doctor like Pledger's neurologist would not
have access to that information.

"The fact of the matter is nothing like the real rate of
gynecomastia would be known to a treating child neurologist" who
wasn't reading the psychiatric literature, Kline said.
Robb said Pledger's doctor could have always attended seminars
where the subject was discussed.

Mr. Kline asked Dr. Robb if she would agree that, if a risk is at
least 23 times that which is printed in the label, a doctor is not
fully informed.

"I think we can agree that the rate in children is different than
the rate in adults," Dr. Robb replied.


JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Sausage Products Due to Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: JB's Sausage Maker Supplies Ltd.
Distribution: Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9583


JOY BURGER: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Villarreal and Roly Soto, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Joy Burger Bar, Inc. d/b/a Joy
Burger Bar, Roy Ben Jacob, Tomer Tavokoli, Elizabeth Green, and
Rohamim Kohan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01232 (S.D.N.Y., February 20,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant located at 361
61 Avenue, New York, NY 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


KIA MOTORS: Optima Cars Have Defective Door Locks, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kia Optimas in model year
2001-06 have defective door locks that sometimes make it necessary
for front-seat occupants to crawl over to the back seat to get
out, a class action claims in California Federal Court.


LENOVO INC: Sued Over Damages Caused by Pre-Installed Spyware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica N. Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Superfish,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00368 (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with
pre-installed harmful and offensive spyware and malware.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which,
through its subsidiaries including Lenovo, designs, develops,
manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers,
smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and
smart televisions.

Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company
that develops various advertising-supported software products
based on a visual search engine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (858) 485-6535
      Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
              natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com

         - and -

      Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq.
      SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC
      601 3rd Street
      Coronado, CA 92118
      Telephone: (619) 865-7986
      E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com

         - and -

      E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
      ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 531-8700
      Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
      E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com


LORILLARD INC: Trial Underway in 2 Engle Progeny Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
trial was underway in two Engle Progeny Cases in which Lorillard
Tobacco is a defendant: Caprio v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
et al. (State Court, Broward County, Florida) and Landau v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court, Middle District,
Jacksonville, Florida). Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in
either of these trials.

As of February 6, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc. are
defendants in Engle Progeny Cases that have been placed on courts'
2015 trial calendars or in which specific trial dates have been
set. Trial schedules are subject to change and it is not possible
to predict how many of the Engle Progeny Cases pending against
Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. will be tried in 2015. It
also is not possible to predict whether some courts will implement
procedures that consolidate multiple Engle Progeny Cases for
trial.

The case of Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. (Circuit
Court, Dade County, Florida, filed May 5, 1994) was certified as a
class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of
Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical
conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. The case was
tried between 1998 and 2000 in a multi-phase trial that resulted
in verdicts in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme
Court issued a ruling that, among other things, determined that
the case could not proceed further as a class action. In February
2008, the trial court entered an order on remand from the Florida
Supreme Court that formally decertified the class.

The 2006 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in Engle also
permitted members of the Engle class to file individual claims,
including claims for punitive damages. The Florida Supreme Court
held that these individual plaintiffs are entitled to rely on a
number of the jury's findings in favor of the plaintiffs in the
first phase of the Engle trial. These findings included that
smoking cigarettes causes a number of diseases; that cigarettes
are addictive or dependence-producing; and that the defendants,
including Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard, Inc., were negligent,
breached express and implied warranties, placed cigarettes on the
market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, and
concealed or conspired to conceal the risks of smoking. Lorillard
Tobacco is a defendant in approximately 3,611 cases pending in
various state and federal courts in Florida that were filed by
members of the Engle class (the "Engle Progeny Cases"), including
633 cases in which Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant. Lorillard,
Inc. is a defendant in one Engle Progeny case in which Lorillard
Tobacco is not a defendant.


LORILLARD INC: Defendant in 6,228 Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
7,209 product liability cases are pending against cigarette
manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in 6,228 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-
defendant in 636 pending cases, and is a defendant in one case in
which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. A total of 3,612 of
these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases. In addition to the product
liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in some instances,
Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases and Tobacco-
Related Antitrust Cases.

Pending cases against Lorillard are those in which Lorillard
Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. have been joined to the litigation by
either receipt of service of process, or execution of a waiver
thereof, and a dismissal order has not been entered with respect
to Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. Certain Flight Attendant
Cases that were dismissed for administrative reasons, but which
may be reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement in Broin v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. have been included in the
count of pending cases. The table lists the number of certain
tobacco-related cases pending against Lorillard as of the date
listed:

                                 Total Number of  Cases
                                 Pending against Lorillard as
   Type of Case                  of February 6, 2015
   ------------                  ----------------------------
Conventional Product Liability
Cases                                         22
Engle Progeny Cases                         3,612
West Virginia Individual
Personal Injury Cases                         38
Flight Attendant Cases                      2,555
Class Action Case                               1
Reimbursement Case                              1
Filter Cases                                   62
Tobacco-Related Antitrust Case                  1

Conventional Product Liability Cases. Conventional Product
Liability Cases are brought by individuals who allege cancer or
other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by using
smokeless tobacco products, by addiction to tobacco, or by
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in each of the Conventional Product Liability cases
listed, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in three of the
Conventional Product Liability Cases.

Engle Progeny Cases. Engle Progeny Cases are brought by
individuals who purport to be members of the decertified Engle
class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts.
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 3,611 of the Engle Progeny
Cases listed.  Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in 633 Engle
Progeny Cases, and is a defendant in one case in which Lorillard
Tobacco is not a defendant. The time period for filing Engle
Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional cases may
be filed. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on behalf of
multiple class members. Some of the courts hearing the cases filed
by multiple class members have severed these suits into separate
individual cases. It is possible the remaining suits filed by
multiple class members may also be severed into separate
individual cases.

West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. In a 1999
administrative order, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
transferred to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel a group of
cases brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health
effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using
smokeless tobacco products (the "West Virginia Individual Personal
Injury Cases"). The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from
smoking cigarettes were consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs'
claims alleging injury from the use of other tobacco products were
severed from the consolidated cigarette claims and have not been
consolidated for trial. The time for filing a case that could be
consolidated for trial with the West Virginia Individual Personal
Injury Cases expired in 2000. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in
each of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases listed.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the West Virginia
Individual Personal Injury Cases. After the consolidated Phase I
trial in 2013, judgment was entered for the defendants on all but
one of the plaintiffs' claims. That judgment was affirmed by the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 2014. Lorillard Tobacco
is not presently identified as a defendant against which the
plaintiffs in any West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Case
can proceed to a Phase II trial on causation and damages.

Flight Attendant Cases. Flight Attendant Cases are brought by non-
smoking flight attendants alleging injury from exposure to
environmental smoke in the cabins of aircraft. Plaintiffs in these
cases may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior
to January 15, 1997. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of
the Flight Attendant Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is not a
defendant in any of the Flight Attendant Cases. The time for
filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional
cases in this category may be filed.

Class Action Cases. Class Action Cases are purported to be brought
on behalf of large numbers of individuals for damages allegedly
caused by smoking. Lorillard Tobacco but not Lorillard, Inc. is a
defendant in the Class Action Case listed. Neither Lorillard
Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in additional Class
Action Cases that are pending against other cigarette
manufacturers, including approximately 16 "lights" Class Action
Cases and one Class Action Case seeking a court- supervised
medical monitoring program.

Reimbursement Cases. Reimbursement Cases are brought by or on
behalf of entities seeking equitable relief and reimbursement of
expenses incurred in providing health care to individuals who
allegedly were injured by smoking. Plaintiffs in these cases have
included the U.S. federal government, U.S. state and local
governments, foreign governmental entities, hospitals or hospital
districts, American Indian tribes, labor unions, private companies
and private citizens. Included in this category is the suit filed
by the federal government, United States of America v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc., et al., ("Philip Morris"), that sought to
recover profits earned by the defendants and other equitable
relief. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the case, and
Lorillard, Inc. is not a party to this case. In August 2006, the
trial court issued its final judgment and remedial order and
granted injunctive and other equitable relief. The final judgment
did not award monetary damages. In May 2009, the final judgment
was largely affirmed by an appellate court. In June 2010, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied review of the case. Some aspects of the
relief granted in the 2006 remedial order are still being
litigated and have not yet been implemented.

Filter Cases. Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including
former employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek
damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in
61 of the 62 Filter Cases listed. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-
defendant in two of the 61 Filter Cases that are pending against
Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one
additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a
defendant.

Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. In 2000 and 2001, a number of
cases were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including
Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the
price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust
and unfair business practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class
certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes
directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette
manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one Tobacco-
Related Antitrust Case. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this
case. All of the other cases have been either successfully
defended or voluntarily dismissed.


LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit to Appeal Judgment in "Major" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco
noticed an appeal to the California Second District Court of
Appeal from the final judgment awarding compensatory damages and
the order granting in part trial court costs and pre-judgment
interest in the case Major v. R.J. Reynolds. Plaintiff has also
noticed an appeal from the order denying in part pre-judgment
interest.

On July 30, 2014, a verdict was returned in Major v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County), a case in which plaintiff alleged that the smoker's
injuries were caused by asbestos fiber and tobacco smoke
inhalation. Lorillard Tobacco was the sole defendant at trial. The
jury awarded plaintiff $2,736,700 in economic compensatory damages
and $15,000,000 in non-economic compensatory damages, for a total
compensatory damages award of $17,736,700. Punitive damages were
not at issue in this trial. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault
for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 17% to Lorillard Tobacco,
and 33% to exposure to cigarettes manufactured by companies other
than Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that exposure to asbestos
was not a substantial factor in the smoker's injuries.

On August 25, 2014, the Court entered judgment awarding plaintiff
$2,550,000 in non-economic damages (which represents Lorillard
Tobacco's 17% share as found by the jury) and the amount of
$1,368,350 in economic damages (under California law, Lorillard
Tobacco is responsible for the amount of economic damages that the
jury found was the fault of anyone other than plaintiff, not just
its 17% share), for a total award against Lorillard Tobacco of
$3,918,350.

On September 17, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a motion for a new
trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which
the Court denied on October 28, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for
trial court costs and pre-judgment interest on the damages award,
determining that pre-judgment interest accrued over an
approximately five year period, excluding an approximately six
year period during which the case was dismissed prior to re-
filing.

On November 26, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal to the
California Second District Court of Appeal from the final judgment
awarding compensatory damages and the order granting in part trial
court costs and pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff has also noticed
an appeal from the order denying in part pre-judgment interest.


LORILLARD INC: 6 Product Liability Cases for Trial in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
there were six conventional product liability cases scheduled for
trial in 2015. As of February 6, 2015, neither Lorillard Tobacco
nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in any of these cases. Trial
dates are subject to change.

Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in eleven
Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette
manufacturers, in addition to the Major case. Lorillard Tobacco
was the only defendant in one of these eleven trials, Evans v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company (Superior Court, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts). Lorillard Tobacco paid $79 million in compensatory
damages and interest to fully satisfy the Evans judgment in
October 2013.

Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in
the ten other trials since January 1, 2010. Juries found in favor
of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in four of
these trials and also awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages in
one of these trials. Defendants appealed the verdicts in three of
these trials. The verdict in the first case was affirmed on appeal
in July 2013; judgment was satisfied and this case is concluded.

As of February 6, 2015 the appeal in the second case remains
pending. In September 2013, an agreement was reached between the
parties in the third case and no further appellate review will be
taken. Satisfaction of judgment has been filed and this case is
concluded. The verdict in the fourth case was affirmed on appeal
in January 2015, and the defendant has satisfied the judgment. The
plaintiff in another case was awarded $25 million in punitive
damages in a retrial ordered by an appellate court in which the
jury was permitted to consider only the amount of punitive damages
to award. Defendant's appeal of the judgment in this case remains
pending. Juries found in favor of the defendants in the five other
trials. Three of these five cases have concluded. Plaintiffs in
two of the cases did not pursue appeals. Plaintiff in the third
case noticed an appeal, which was affirmed in February 2013, and
then did not seek any further review. Plaintiff in the fourth case
filed a notice of appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court from the
order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial and that appeal
remains pending. Plaintiff in the fifth case noticed an appeal and
the appellate court reversed the defense verdict and ordered the
case returned to the trial court for a new trial.

In rulings addressing cases tried in earlier years, some appellate
courts have reversed verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs
in whole or in part, while other judgments that awarded damages to
smokers have been affirmed on appeal. Manufacturers have exhausted
their appeals and have been required to pay damages to plaintiffs
in sixteen individual cases since 2001. Punitive damages were paid
to the smokers in six of these cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco
nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to any of these matters.


LORILLARD INC: 3,792 Engle Progeny Cases Dismissed Since Jan 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that since January 2010 and
through February 6, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida has dismissed a total of approximately
3,792 Engle Progeny cases.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., which had been certified as a
class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of
Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical
conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a
three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded compensatory damages to
three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive
damages to the certified class. In its 2006 decision, the Florida
Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award, determined that
the case could not proceed further as a class action and ordered
decertification of the class. The Florida Supreme Court also
reinstated the compensatory damages awards to two of the three
individuals whose claims were heard during the first phase of the
Engle trial. These two awards totaled $7 million, and both
verdicts were paid in February 2008. Lorillard Tobacco's payment
to these two individuals, including interest, totaled
approximately $3 million.

The Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling also permitted Engle class
members to file individual actions, including claims for punitive
damages. The court further held that these individuals are
entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor of
the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. The time
period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and
no additional cases may be filed. In 2009, the Florida Supreme
Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for
purported class members to file an additional lawsuit.

Engle Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and
federal courts. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders
severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate
actions. In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that
severed the claims of approximately 4,400 Engle Progeny
plaintiffs, initially asserted in a small number of multi-
plaintiff actions, into separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses
or children of alleged former class members have also brought
derivative claims. In 2011, approximately 500 cases that were
among the 4,400 cases severed into separate lawsuits in 2009,
filed by family members of alleged former class members, were
combined with the cases filed by the smoker from which the family
members' claims purportedly derived.

On August 1, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of
Massachusetts took over responsibility for the Engle cases in the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Judge Young
issued an order that day that called for three groups of cases to
be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 50
cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2014, approximately 107
cases to be made trial ready by May 2014, and approximately 120
cases to be made trial ready by September 2, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an
additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the
following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial ready
by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready
by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be made trial
ready by July 1, 2015.

On June 23, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an
additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the
following schedule: approximately 146 cases to be made trial ready
by January 4, 2016, approximately 144 cases to be made trial ready
by May 1, 2016, and approximately 139 cases to be made trial ready
by September 1, 2016.

On November 4, 2014, 27 additional remaining cases were given
September 1, 2016 trial readiness dates.

Since the issuance of these orders, 543 of the cases to be
prepared for trial have been dismissed in their entirety, and
Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from an additional 77 cases
involving other defendants. These cases have been voluntarily
dismissed, resolved, or involuntarily dismissed for lack of
prosecution or failure to comply with court orders.

On October 31, 2014, the Court assigned a magistrate judge with
the responsibility of exploring the possibility of a global
settlement of the remaining federal Engle Progeny Cases. The
magistrate judge has the authority to hold hearings and conduct
mediation sessions, however, the magistrate judge's orders will
not alter the current case management scheduling orders.

Since January 2010 and through February 6, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a
total of approximately 3,792 cases. In some instances, the
plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed also were pursuing cases
pending in other courts. In other instances, the attorneys who
represented the plaintiffs asked the court to enter dismissal
orders because they were no longer able to contact their clients.

In January 2013, the Court granted a motion by defendants and
dismissed approximately 520 cases in which the plaintiffs were
deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of these 520 cases to the United
States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit. In June 2013, the
Court dismissed an additional approximately 440 cases for a
variety of reasons. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
approximately 70 of these cases, in which the plaintiffs were
deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed or
where the cases were barred by the statute of limitations. The
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the appeals from
the January and June orders dismissing these groups of federal
cases.

On September 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeal for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals in these consolidated
appeals. On July 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from
an order dismissing 14 cases for failure to produce signed
authorizations, and that appeal remained pending, as of February
6, 2015. Other courts, including state courts, have entered orders
dismissing additional cases.


LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
verdicts had been returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases in which
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant
in one of these 21 cases at the time of verdict. Juries awarded
compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in sixteen of these cases.
In four of the sixteen cases in which juries awarded compensatory
damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive damages from Lorillard
Tobacco. In another case, the court entered an order following
trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory damages.

The 21 cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant are listed
in the order in which the verdicts were returned:

* In Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), a
jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including
Lorillard Tobacco, in October 2010. Plaintiff in Rohr did not
pursue an appeal and the case is concluded.

* In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth
Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3
million in punitive damages in March 2011. The jury apportioned
35% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 65%
to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial
court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff
$3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive
damages plus the applicable statutory rates of annual interest. In
December 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed
the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of the appellate court
opinion was denied in February 2013. In March 2013, Lorillard
Tobacco filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking
review of the appellate court decision. On February 13, 2014, the
Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. In
March 2014, Lorillard Tobacco amended the bond necessary to
maintain a stay on payment of the final judgment. On March 28,
2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the United States
Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and
requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same
manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before
the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. The
trial court announced on June 25, 2014 that it had granted
Lorillard Tobacco's motion to determine the applicable rates of
post-judgment interest that were in dispute. On June 27, 2014,
Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $17,500,197 to satisfy the
final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
post-judgment interest. On July 25, 2014, the court entered an
order confirming satisfaction of judgment. On July 28, 2014,
plaintiff appealed the order determining the rate of post-judgment
interest payable on the final judgment, and that appeal remained
pending as of February 6, 2015. The Florida First District Court
of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for
intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees, ruling that the
trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the trial
court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the
trial court granted plaintiff's motion for entitlement to trial
court attorneys' costs and fees and also determined that plaintiff
was entitled to intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees. As
of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not determined the amount
of trial court or intermediate appellate court fees to award. On
February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court provisionally granted
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in connection with the
appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, in the amount of $2,500,
conditioned on the trial court's determination of entitlement.

* In Tullo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4.5 million in compensatory
damages, in April 2011. The jury assessed 45% of the fault to the
smoker, 5% to Lorillard Tobacco and 50% to other defendants. The
jury did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court
entered a final judgment that awarded plaintiff $225,000 in
compensatory damages from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual
interest. On October 16, 2013, defendants noticed an appeal from
the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
In August 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
affirmed the final judgment. Defendants filed a notice with the
Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court
decision. On March 10, 2014, the trial court entered an order
confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment
awarding compensatory damages and post-judgment interest for an
amount totaling approximately $263,400. On March 18, 2014,
Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of their
petition seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court and the Court
entered an order dismissing the petition for review as to
Lorillard Tobacco on May 21, 2014. The Florida Supreme Court
declined to accept review of the petition as to the other
defendants. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover trial or
appellate fees from Lorillard Tobacco. As of February 6, 2015, the
trial court had not determined the amount of trial or appellate
court costs to award.

* In Sulcer v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), in April 2011,
the jury awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiff
and it assessed 95% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker with 5% allocated to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury did not
award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a final
judgment that incorporated the jury's determination of the
parties' fault and awarded plaintiff $11,250 in compensatory
damages. Lorillard Tobacco paid approximately $246,000 to resolve
the verdict, costs and fees, as well as all post-trial motions and
any potential appeal by the plaintiff. Following this payment,
Sulcer was concluded.

* In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury
awarded the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory
damages and awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of
companionship in May 2011. The jury assessed 70% of the
responsibility for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to
R.J. Reynolds and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury did not award
punitive damages to the plaintiff. The final judgment entered by
the trial court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff
a total of $109,298 from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual
interest. In June 2012, an agreement was reached between the
parties as to the amount of trial court costs and attorneys' fees
incurred, should the judgment be upheld on appeal, and plaintiff's
motion for costs and attorneys' fees was withdrawn. In November
2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the
judgment awarding compensatory damages and ordered the case
returned to the trial court for a new trial. In January 2013, the
appellate court denied a motion filed by the plaintiff for
rehearing of the decision reversing the judgment. Both the
plaintiff and defendants filed notices with the Florida Supreme
Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On February
14, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of
this case. As of February 6, 2015, a new trial date had not been
set.

* In Weingart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), in
July 2011, the jury determined that the decedent did not sustain
any compensatory damages from the defendants, including Lorillard
Tobacco, and it returned a verdict for the defendants that
punitive damages were not warranted. The jury assessed 91% of the
fault for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 3% to Lorillard
Tobacco and 3% to each of the other two defendants. Following
trial, the court granted in part a motion filed by the plaintiff
to award damages and it awarded plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory
damages. The court entered a final judgment that applied the
jury's comparative fault determinations to the court's award of
compensatory damages. The final judgment awarded plaintiff $4,500
from Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants noticed an appeal to the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal from the order that
awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff and amended their
notice of appeal to address the final judgment. On February 13,
2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the
final judgment awarding compensatory damages. Defendants filed a
notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of this
decision. In March 2012, the trial court entered a judgment
against the defendants for costs with Lorillard Tobacco's share
amounting to $43,081 plus 4.75% annual interest. Defendants
noticed an appeal from this costs judgment. In June 2013, all
defendants satisfied both the final judgment awarding compensatory
damages and the costs judgment, with Lorillard Tobacco's share
amounting to approximately $50,000. Defendants' petition for
Florida Supreme Court review and the appeal from the costs
judgment have been dismissed. This case is concluded.

* In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), in
November 2011, the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in
compensatory damages and assessed 60% of the responsibility for
the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco
and 20% to R.J. Reynolds. The jury returned a verdict for the
defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. In
March 2012, the court entered a final judgment against defendants
in the amount of $1,000,000, jointly and severally, plus 4.75%
annual interest, declining to apply the jury's comparative fault
findings to causes of action alleging intentional conduct. On June
24, 2013, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the
final judgment. Defendants' motion for rehearing of this decision
with the Florida First District Court of Appeal was denied in
August 2013. The Florida Supreme Court declined review of the
intermediate appellate court decision in January 2014. On March
28, 2014, defendants filed a petition with the United States
Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and
requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same
manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before
the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. On June
19, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $1,659,674 to
satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory damages plus post
judgment interest, trial level attorneys' fees and costs, and
Florida Supreme Court fees. The Court entered an order confirming
satisfaction of judgment on July 24, 2014. In June 2013, the First
District Court of Appeal determined that plaintiff was entitled to
attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to the First
District Court of Appeal and directed the trial court to determine
the amount. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not
determined the amount.

* In Alexander v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff $20,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages in February and March 2012.
Lorillard Tobacco is the only defendant in this case. The jury
apportioned 20% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker and 80% to Lorillard Tobacco. In March 2012, the court
entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determination to the court's award of compensatory damages,
awarding the plaintiff $16,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In May
2012, the court granted a motion by Lorillard Tobacco to lower the
amount of compensatory damages and reduced the amount awarded to
$10,000,000 from Lorillard Tobacco. Other post-trial motions
challenging the verdict were denied. The court entered an amended
final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determination to the court's award of compensatory damages,
awarding the plaintiff $8,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff
post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the
compensatory and punitive damages. Lorillard Tobacco noticed an
appeal from the amended final judgment to the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal. On September 4, 2013, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal affirmed the amended final judgment.
Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of this decision with the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal was denied in October 2013.
Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court
seeking review of the intermediate appellate court decision in
November 2013, and this petition was denied on September 9, 2014.
On September 23, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of
$38,960,916 to resolve all damages, costs and fees and post-
judgment interest. Plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on
September 29, 2014 and the Court confirmed satisfaction of
judgment on October 3, 2014. This case is concluded.

* In Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and a daughter of the decedent a total of
$20,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2012. The jury
apportioned 20.5% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to R.J. Reynolds, 25% to Philip Morris, 18% to
Lorillard Tobacco, and 9.5% to Liggett. The jury awarded
$12,600,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and
$42,250,000 from the other defendants, for a total punitive
damages award of $54,850,000. In August 2012, the court granted a
post-trial motion by the defendants and lowered the compensatory
damages award to $16,100,000. The court also ruled that the jury's
finding on the smoker's percentage of comparative fault would not
be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the
jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging
intentional conduct. In August 2012, the court entered final
judgment against defendants in the amount of $16,100,000 in
compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $54,850,000
($12,600,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages. The
court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a
statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages, which
totaled approximately $2.0 million as of February 6, 2015 based on
the jury-apportioned fault for Lorillard Tobacco. The final
judgment also granted plaintiff's application for trial court
costs and attorneys' fees, but as of February 6, 2015, the trial
court had not awarded an amount. Defendants have noticed an appeal
from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in
connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of February
6, 2015, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not ruled
on this motion.

* In Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total
of $3,230,000 in compensatory damages in February 2013. The jury
apportioned 31% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 60% to R.J. Reynolds and 9% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury
found that punitive damages against Lorillard Tobacco were not
warranted and awarded $12,362,042 in punitive damages from R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Court granted a post-trial motion by
R.J. Reynolds for a directed verdict on punitive damages and, as a
result, the jury's punitive damages award was set aside. The Court
denied a motion filed by the plaintiff to reconsider the directed
verdict. At a post-trial hearing, the plaintiff waived entitlement
to the jury's loss of services award which amounted to $280,000 of
the total compensatory damages award. In May 2013, the court
entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determinations and awarded plaintiff and the estate of the
decedent $2,035,500 in compensatory damages ($265,500 from
Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Plaintiff
and defendants have both appealed the final judgment to the
Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff also filed a
motion for entitlement to trial attorneys' fees and costs. As of
February 6, 2015, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On
May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Second
District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection
with the appeal to the Second District. As of February 6, 2015,
the Florida Second District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this
motion.

* In Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total
of $2,055,050 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury
apportioned 40% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 30% to R.J. Reynolds, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 10% to
Liggett. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted
against any of the defendants. On May 6, 2013, the Court entered
final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,233,030
($411,010 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus 4.75% annual interest. On
July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion for a new trial based on the plaintiff's improper arguments
during closing. This order effectively vacated the final judgment.
Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the order granting the
motion for new trial to the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal.

* In LaMotte v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in May 2013. The
Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants in May
2013. Plaintiff has agreed to waive any post-trial or appellate
review of the verdict and judgment, and defendants have agreed not
to seek to recover costs or fees. This case is concluded.

* In Ruffo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff $1,500,000 in compensatory damages in May
2013. The jury apportioned 85% of the fault for the smoker's
injuries to the smoker, 12% to Philip Morris, and 3% to Lorillard
Tobacco. Defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict
were denied. On October 4, 2013, the Court entered a final
judgment against defendants that applied the jury's comparative
fault determinations and awarded plaintiff $225,000 in
compensatory damages ($45,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus the
statutory rate of interest. Defendants noticed an appeal from the
final judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. On
May 12, 2014, the trial court entered an order confirming that
Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory
damages and post-judgment interest for an amount totaling $46,857.
On May 9, 2014, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal entered
an order recognizing Lorillard Tobacco's voluntary dismissal of
their appeal to the final judgment. On November 19, 2014 the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment
as to Philip Morris. Plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court
seeking entitlement to attorneys' costs and fees. In April 2014,
the trial court denied this motion. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal from the
order denying attorneys' fees and costs. On November 19, 2014, the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's
order denying attorneys' fees and costs. This case is concluded.

* In Gafney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $5,800,000 in compensatory
damages in September 2013. The jury apportioned 34% of the fault
for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 33% to R.J. Reynolds, and
33% to Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. was also a defendant in
this trial but damages and comparative fault were not assessed
separately for Lorillard, Inc. Because the jury found in favor of
the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the
plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On September 26,
2013, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's
comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total
of $3,828,000 in compensatory damages ($1,914,000 from Lorillard
Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants' post-
trial motions challenging the verdict were denied in November
2013. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff has filed a
motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' fees
and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not ruled
on this motion. On January 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion with
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys'
fees in connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of
February 6, 2015, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had
not ruled on this motion.

* In Jacobson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Southern District, Miami, Florida), the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants on October 29, 2013. The Court
entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on October 30,
2013. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied in
January 2014. On February 10, 2014, the Court entered an order
granting Lorillard's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Lorillard has agreed not to enforce its right to fees and costs in
exchange for plaintiff's agreement not to pursue an appeal of the
verdict. This case is concluded.

* In Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.
(Federal Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida) the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on November 15,
2013. The Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants
on November 20, 2013. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied
on April 25, 2014. On June 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal from the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. On December 3, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal from the final judgment, ruling that
the filing date was past the deadline to appeal.

* In Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages on May 15,
2014. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's
injuries to the smoker, 25% to R.J. Reynolds, 15% to Philip
Morris, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury awarded $500,000 in
punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $2,000,000 from the
other defendants for a total punitive damages award of $2,500,000.
The Court ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's
percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the
compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the
plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. On June 11,
2014, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants in the
amount of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and
severally, and $2,500,000 ($500,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in
punitive damages, plus the statutory rate of interest. The Court
denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On
October 10, 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the
final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
final judgment also granted plaintiff entitlement to trial court
costs, but as of February 6, 2015, the trial court had not awarded
an amount. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and prevailing
party costs was denied.

* In Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on July 31, 2014,
the jury found that one of the smoker's alleged Engle qualifying
diseases did not manifest prior to the cut-off period for
membership in the Engle class, and that the smoker's other alleged
Engle qualifying disease was not caused by the smoker's addiction
to cigarettes containing nicotine. However, the jury awarded
compensatory damages on plaintiff's survival and wrongful death
claims in the total amount of $1,726,650. The jury apportioned 60%
of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 15% to
Philip Morris, 15% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco,
in connection with plaintiff's survival claims. The jury
apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 10% to Philip Morris, 10% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to
Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's wrongful death
claims. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the
claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not
entitled to punitive damages. On August 13, 2014, defendants filed
a motion for entry of judgment in favor of all defendants, arguing
that the jury's findings establish that the smoker was not an
Engle class member. On December 17, 2014, the Court denied
defendants' motion. On December 18, 2014, the Court entered final
judgment, awarding $1,726,650 in compensatory damages in a lump
sum against all defendants. The jury's comparative fault
determinations were not applied despite the jury's finding in
favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional
conduct. On January 15, 2015, defendants filed additional post-
trial motions challenging the verdict and the final judgment.
Plaintiff does not oppose applying the jury's comparative fault
determinations to the final judgment. As of February 6, 2015, the
Court had not ruled on these motions. On January 2, 2015 the
plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which
defendants have opposed. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not
ruled on this motion.

* In Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff a total of $3,123,437 in compensatory
damages on August 28, 2014. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault
for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 14.5% to Lorillard
Tobacco, 14.5% to R.J. Reynolds, and 1% to Liggett. Because the
jury found in favor of the defendants on the claims alleging
intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive
damages. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the
verdict and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the issue
of entitlement to punitive damages. On December 18, 2014, the
Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative
fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $937,031
in compensatory damages ($452,898 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus
the statutory rate of interest. On January 27, 2015, the Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion for a new trial based
on improper jury selection procedures, which effectively vacates
the final judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing on
February 4, 2015.

* In Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of
$1,371,549 in compensatory damages on October 10, 2014. The jury
apportioned 63% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to Philip Morris, 7% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 3% to
R.J. Reynolds. The jury found that punitive damages were not
warranted against any of the defendants. The Court denied
defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On
November 6, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that applied
the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff
and a son of the decedent a total of $507,473 in compensatory
damages ($96,008 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate
of interest. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final
judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On
November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and costs. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on this
motion.

* In Perrotto v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4,087,339 in compensatory
damages on November 21, 2014. The jury apportioned 49% of the
fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to Philip
Morris, 20% to R.J. Reynolds, 6% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 0% to
Liggett. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the
claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not
entitled to punitive damages. On December 4, 2014, the Court
entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total of $2,084,545 in
compensatory damages ($245,240 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the
statutory rate of interest. Defendants have filed post-trial
motions challenging the verdict, and the plaintiff has filed a
post-trial motion seeking a new trial on entitlement to punitive
damages. Plaintiff also filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs. As of February 6, 2015, the Court had not ruled on these
motions. On December 31, 2014, the plaintiff filed a petition with
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking to disqualify
the trial judge from further consideration of this case.


LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 132 Engle Progeny Trials
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
verdicts have been returned in 132 Engle Progeny trials since the
Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that permitted
members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits in which
neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant at
trial. Juries awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages in
44 of the trials. In 43 of those 44 trials, the amount of punitive
damages awarded has totaled approximately $862.1 million and
ranged from $20,000 to $244 million. In July 2014, punitive
damages of $23.6 billion were awarded in one of these cases. In
that case, the Court granted in part a post-trial motion filed by
the defendant and reduced the punitive damages to approximately
$17 million. As of February 6, 2015, this award was subject to
challenge through post-trial motions and the appellate process. In
36 of the trials, juries' awards were limited to compensatory
damages. In the 52 remaining trials, juries found in favor of the
defendants. Post-trial motions challenging the verdicts in some
cases and appeals from final judgments in some cases are pending
before various Florida circuit and intermediate appellate courts.

As of February 6, 2015, one verdict in favor of the defendants and
four verdicts in favor of the plaintiff have been reversed on
appeal and returned to the trial court for a new trial on all
issues. In ten cases, the appellate courts have ruled that the
issue of damages awarded must be revisited by the trial court.
Motions for rehearing of these appellate court rulings are pending
in some cases.

In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay
of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in
Engle Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount
of security for individual Engle Progeny Cases to vary within
prescribed limits based on the number of adverse judgments that
are pending on appeal at a given time. The required security
decreases as the number of appeals increases to ensure that the
total security posted or deposited does not exceed $200 million in
the aggregate. This amended statute applies to all judgments
entered on or after June 16, 2009. The plaintiffs in some cases
challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. These
motions were denied, withdrawn or declared moot. In January 2012,
the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review one of the orders
denying a challenge to the amended statute. In August 2012, the
Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the
defendant had satisfied the judgment.


LORILLARD INC: Severed IPIC Cases Not Subject to Trial Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
the severed West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases and the
Severed IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan.

The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the "IPIC
Cases") were brought by individuals who alleged cancer or other
health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or
using smokeless tobacco products. In September 2000, there were
approximately 1,250 IPIC Cases, and Lorillard Tobacco was named in
all but a few of them. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in any
of the IPIC Cases. Plaintiffs in most of the IPIC Cases alleged
injuries from smoking cigarettes, and the claims alleging injury
from smoking cigarettes were consolidated for a multi-phase trial.
The order that consolidated those claims for trial limited the
consolidation to cases that were filed by September 2000.
Approximately 645 IPIC Cases were dismissed in their entirety
before trial. Lorillard Tobacco was dismissed from approximately
565 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit
evidence that they used a Lorillard Tobacco product. At the time
the Phase I trial began, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 31
of the then-pending IPIC Cases.

The first phase of the consolidated trial began April 15, 2013,
and ended with a Phase I verdict returned by the jury on May 15,
2013. In its verdict, the jury found against plaintiffs on their
claims for design defect, negligent design, failure to warn,
intentional concealment and breach of express warranty. The jury
found for plaintiffs on their claim that all ventilated filter
cigarettes manufactured and sold by the defendants between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective because of a failure to instruct,
but found that defendants' conduct was not willful or wanton. In
pleadings filed before trial, no plaintiff in an IPIC Case that
was part of the Phase I trial claimed to have smoked a ventilated
filter cigarette manufactured and sold by Lorillard Tobacco
between 1964 and July 1, 1969.

On September 16, 2013, the court entered a judgment on the jury's
Phase I verdict and entered a separate order denying the parties'
post-trial motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the judgment on September 24, 2013. In a telephone conference on
October 7, 2013 (memorialized in an order entered October 28,
2013), the court informed the parties that, on its own authority,
it was vacating the September 16, 2013 judgment and order. On
October 28, 2013, the court entered a new judgment and order. The
judgment recited that: 1) ventilated filter cigarettes the
defendants manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969,
were found to be defective due to a failure to instruct consumers
as to their use; 2) all other cigarettes manufactured and sold by
defendants were not found to be defective; 3) defendants' conduct
did not justify an award of punitive damages; 4) the claims of the
individual plaintiffs remain to be decided consistent with the
Phase I verdict, and 5) there is no just reason for delay in
permitting any appellate rights of the parties to be perfected as
to the verdict rendered and this order. The order: 1) denied the
parties' post-trial motions; 2) entered final judgments against
the plaintiffs in the approximately 645 IPIC Cases that were
dismissed before trial; and 3) stated that those dismissal orders
are now final and available for the proper application of the
appellate process.

On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment and order in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia. The defendants did not file a separate notice of appeal.
On April 2, 2014, plaintiffs perfected their appeal by filing
their brief and appendix. Defendants filed their brief on June 16,
2014. Plaintiffs served their reply brief on July 2, 2014.

On November 3, 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued a Memorandum Decision affirming the Phase I judgment and
order. On November 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
rehearing asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on one of the
six grounds the plaintiffs had raised on appeal. The defendants
filed their opposition on December 10, 2014. On January 8, 2015,
the Supreme Court of Appeals refused the petition for rehearing,
and on January 15, 2015, the Court issued its mandate.

On December 17, 2014, in response to a request from the Mass
Litigation Panel, the defendants identified the 30 IPIC Cases that
they believe could be eligible to proceed to a Phase II trial on
causation and damages in the remaining failure to instruct claim.
The defendants did not identify Lorillard as a defendant against
which the plaintiffs in those cases could proceed in a Phase II
trial.  None of the plaintiffs in the IPIC Cases included in the
Phase I trial asserted that he or she smoked a Lorillard
ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant time period.

The trial court severed from the consolidated proceedings those
claims in the IPIC Cases that alleged injury from the use of
tobacco products other than cigarettes, including smokeless
tobacco and cigars (the "Severed IPIC Claims"). The Severed IPIC
Claims involve 30 plaintiffs. Twenty-eight of these plaintiffs
have asserted both claims alleging that their injuries were caused
by smoking cigarettes as well as claims alleging that their
injuries were caused by using other tobacco products. The former
claims were included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases,
while the latter claims are included in the Severed IPIC Claims.

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of the Severed IPIC
Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Severed
IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs alleged only that their injuries were
caused by using tobacco products other than cigarettes, and no
part of their cases was included in the consolidated trial of the
IPIC Cases (the "Severed IPIC Cases"). Neither Lorillard Tobacco
nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the Severed IPIC Cases.
As of February 6, 2015, the Severed IPIC Claims and the Severed
IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan. None of the Severed
IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for trial as
of February 6, 2015.


LORILLARD INC: One Flight Attendant Case Scheduled for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that one of the Flight
Attendant Cases was scheduled for trial as of February 6, 2015.

Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the
defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These
suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf
of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement agreement, among other
things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these
individual suits. These individuals may not seek punitive damages
for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. The period for
filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional
cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court
further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants
have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven
cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case
has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The six
remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are
concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5
million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to
$500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

As of February 6, 2015, one of the Flight Attendant Cases was
scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Not a Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that neither Lorillard
Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the approximately 16
class action cases in which plaintiffs' claims are based on the
allegedly fraudulent marketing of "light" or "ultra-light"
cigarettes. Classes have been certified in some of these cases.

In one of these cases, Craft v. Philip Morris USA (Circuit Court,
City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 29, 2000), trial began
in September 2011. In November 2011, the court ordered a mistrial
when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The retrial of this
case commenced January 8, 2014, but was postponed until February
22, 2015. In another of the "lights" Class Action Cases, Good v.
Altria Group, Inc., et al. , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
December 2008 that neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act nor the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of
cigarettes' tar and nicotine disclosures preempts (or bars) some
of plaintiffs' claims.

In 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated various federal court "lights" Class Action Cases
pending against Philip Morris USA or Altria Group and transferred
those cases to the U.S. District Court of Maine (the "MDL cases").
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed
in four of the MDL Cases, and a federal appellate court declined
to review the class certification order. Following the appellate
court's ruling, plaintiffs dismissed thirteen of the MDL Cases,
including Good v. Altria Group, Inc., et al.

In April, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order transferring the four MDL cases that remained
pending to the courts in which each originated. These four cases
have since been dismissed. On September 23, 2013, in the "Lights"
Class Action Case Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et
al. (Superior Court, San Diego County, California), the Court
issued a Statement of Decision that granted judgment in favor of
the defendant. The Court held that the defendant misrepresented
the health benefits of its "light" cigarette but that plaintiffs
were not entitled to restitution or injunctive relief. Final
judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on October 15,
2013.

In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the final
judgment, and the appeal remains pending.

On April 29, 2014, in the "lights" Class Action Case Price, et al
v. Philip Morris Incorporated (Circuit Court, Madison County,
Illinois), the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of
Illinois reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition
for relief from judgment and reinstated a 2003 verdict awarding
damages. The defendant in this case filed a petition for leave to
appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois and on September 24, 2014,
the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.


LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit a Defendant in 61 Filter Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 6, 2015,
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of February 6, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco.

Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $38.1 million in
settlements to finally resolve 147 claims. Since January 1, 2012,
verdicts have been returned in the following three Filter Cases:
McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose
Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson
County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al.,
tried in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., tried in
the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between
P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the
manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is
required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees,
expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging
injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that
contained the filter material. In McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco
Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit
Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky in 2012, the
Kentucky Supreme Court is still considering plaintiff's motion for
discretionary review. The jury in the McGuire case returned a
verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the
Court entered final judgment in May 2012.

On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the
final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth &
Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's
petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for
discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard
Tobacco filed its responsive brief on May 30, 2014. On October 4,
2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered
final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the
California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District
entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final judgment
pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal of the
cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs abandoned
their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the appeal was
dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case
found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence
and strict liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is
responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on
November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on
November 18, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its initial brief on
January 6, 2015. As of February 6, 2015, 23 Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts' trial
calendars. Trial dates are subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Supreme Court Review Sought in Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the
indirect purchaser antitrust suits filed a petition for review by
the Kansas Supreme Court.

Approximately 30 antitrust suits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state and
federal courts against cigarette manufacturers. The suits all
alleged that the defendants entered into agreements to fix the
wholesale prices of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust
laws which permit indirect purchasers, such as retailers and
consumers, to sue under price fixing or consumer fraud statutes.
More than 20 states permit such suits. Lorillard Tobacco was a
defendant in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases.
Lorillard, Inc. was not named as a defendant in any of these
cases. Four indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida, New
Mexico and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those
states. All other actions, except for a state court action in
Kansas, were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the
courts.

In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In November 2010,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs
filed a cross motion for summary judgment in July 2011. In March
2012, the District Court of Seward County granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas suit.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied. On July 18,
2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the State of Kansas. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was
completed and argument in the Court of Appeals was held on
December 11, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the suit. The plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the Kansas
Supreme Court on August 18, 2014. Defendants filed a response on
August 29, 2014, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
September 11, 2014.


LORILLARD INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Entered Into MOU
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants in the
merger-related litigation entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions.

On July 15, 2014, the Company, Reynolds American Inc., a North
Carolina corporation ("RAI"), and Lantern Acquisition Co., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI ("Merger
Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of RAI. At the effective time of the Merger, each
share of Company common stock (other than treasury stock held by
the Company or owned by a subsidiary of the Company, RAI or Merger
Sub and shares owned by shareholders of the Company who have
properly made and not withdrawn a demand for appraisal rights)
will be converted into the right to receive a unit consisting of
(i) $50.50 per share in cash and (ii) 0.2909 fully paid and non-
assessable shares of common stock of RAI.

On January 28, 2015, the Company's shareholders adopted the Merger
Agreement, and RAI's shareholders approved the issuance of RAI
common stock in the Merger. The transaction remains subject to
regulatory approval and the additional customary closing
conditions contained in the Merger Agreement. Although no
assurance can be given if and when the transaction will be
completed because it remains subject to regulatory approval and
other customary closing conditions, the transaction is expected to
close in the first half of 2015.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, on July 15, 2014, RAI and
Lignum-2, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco
Group PLC ("Imperial"), which subsequently changed its name to ITG
Brands, LLC ("Imperial Sub"), entered into an asset purchase
agreement, pursuant to which Imperial Sub has agreed to purchase,
immediately following the completion of the Merger, the Kool,
Salem, Winston, Maverick and blu eCigs brands and certain other
assets for a total consideration of $7.1 billion in cash (subject
to certain adjustments).

Also, on July 15, 2014, in connection with the asset purchase, the
Company and Imperial Sub entered into a Transfer Agreement,
pursuant to which Imperial Sub agreed to acquire certain assets
owned by the Company, including its manufacturing and R&D
facilities in Greensboro, N.C., and approximately 2,900 employees.
On January 28, 2015, the shareholders of Imperial approved the
asset purchase.

The Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, RAI
and British American Tobacco p.l.c. have been named as defendants
in putative class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery by shareholders of the Company challenging the proposed
merger with RAI (the "Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
of the Company by authorizing the proposed merger of the Company
with RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the Company's board of directors.

On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation
of the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation , C.A. No. 9904-CB and appointment of
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion to expedite. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in
support of their motion for a preliminary injunction on January 9,
2015.

The Company and RAI believe that these lawsuits are without merit;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on January 15, 2015, the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Delaware Actions. In
consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the
Delaware Actions agreed, among other things, that the Company and
RAI would make certain supplemental disclosures to their joint
proxy statement/prospectus dated December 22, 2014, all of which
are set forth in a subsequent filing.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of settlement
to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable.
The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be of no force and effect. The outcome of
this litigation will not, in the opinion of management, materially
affect Lorillard's results of operations or equity.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces 3rd Class Suit Over Overcharged Bills
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that
the city of Los Angeles has been hit with another class action
lawsuit claiming it overcharged thousands of customers by
estimating meter readings after the botched roll out of its new
billing system.

Customer Hayley Fontaine filed the complaint against the city and
the L.A. Department of Water and Power on February 5.  The
plaintiff claims the department ignored state and municipal laws
by imposing rate hikes on customers based on inaccurate readings,
and threatened to cut off customers' electricity and water if they
did not pay the bills.

The latest complaint follows a January state court class action
which made similar allegations against the department.  In
December, two other plaintiffs also filed a lawsuit over excessive
billing, the Los Angeles Times reported last month.

Fontaine estimates several thousand customers have been affected.

As the largest municipal utility provider in the nation, the
Department of Water and Power serves more than 3.8 million people
and employs 8,800 workers.

"Despite its size and vast workforce," over the last year the
department has failed to bill customers accurately for their water
and electricity use, according to the Feb. 5 lawsuit.

In response, the department said teething problems with the new
billing system rolled out in September 2013 caused the
overcharges.

"Early on in our billing system roll out, the system did estimate
some bills," the department says on its Web site.  "Estimated
bills found not to be accurate were canceled and we re-billed
those customers according to the physical meter data.  We have
been very forthright about the problems with our new customer
billing system and we have taken significant steps to fix them."

Under city and state laws, Fontaine says, the department should
invoice customers and read meters every billing period.

"Instead, defendants either sent no bill for the services used, or
guessed what the meter readings might look like or billed based on
those estimates until months in the future when they read the
customers' meters and then sent one huge bill several billing
cycles later," the lawsuit says.

"To make matters worse," the complaint adds, customers were placed
in "more expensive" tiers in the department's rates system.

There is no way for customers to appeal the charges, leaving them
with no choice but to "set up a payment plan to pay the excessive
and exorbitant charges," Fontaine says.

"Defendants have also threatened to shut off plaintiff and the
class members' electricity and water -- their basic needs to
sustain life -- if they do not pay LADWP's excessive charges," the
17-page filing states.

In a report, the department blamed the botched roll out on an
"inadequate" project management team.

The vendor hired to implement the new system,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, also "lacked the necessary experience to
manage a task of such complexity," the department said.

"This gap, combined with the lack of November 18, 2014 effective
project management from the department, resulted in critical
missed deadlines and frequent warning signs that were ignored,"
the department said.

According to the utility provider its customer service
representatives were unprepared for the volume of inquires after
the new system was put in place.

It says it has since hired 200 customer service representatives
and meter readers, and decreased estimated bills from 21 percent
to 5 percent.

Fontaine seeks a declaration that the city and department are
violating its rules, codes and laws. She also wants the court to
enjoin the defendants from billing customers at the more expensive
rates.

The Plaintiff's attorney did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 LEU Models Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 56
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015045TC
ID number: 2015045
Manufacturer recall number: SC0388

On certain vehicles, the door latches may fail and prevent the
driver and/or passenger from opening the door from inside the cab.
If this were to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be
able to quickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could
increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace
affected door latches.

Affected products:

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  MACK      LEU        2015


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 2014 CXU Models Due to Non-compliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015044TC
ID number: 2015044
Manufacturer recall number: SC0389

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. These
vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity,
which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate
the brakes during repetitive brake applications. This may result
in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle
crash. Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to
increase air reservoir capacity.

Affected products:

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  MACK      CXU         2014


MAJOR LEAGUE: Court to Decide if 11 Teams Will Be Part of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge heard arguments in February on whether 11 Major
League Baseball teams should be part of a class action accusing
the league of underpaying minor league players, reports Arvin
Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

The hearing stems from a February 2014 lawsuit from lead plaintiff
Aaron Senne, who played for the Miami Marlins organization from
2010 to 2013.  Senne claims that Major League Baseball violates
state and federal laws by paying players very low wages, often
less than $7,500 for an entire season.

Many amateurs receive small signing bonuses, of around $2,500, but
by agreeing to a uniform player contract are bound to an MLB team
for seven years.  That team can assign the player's rights to any
other team or terminate the agreement for any reason.

Since players can't leave voluntarily to play for another team,
they have little contractual mobility, Senne says.

A consolidated complaint names all 30 MLB clubs as defendants, as
well as the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball dba Major
League Baseball, and Commissioner Bud Selig.

In November 2104, 10 teams filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
against them, because their minor league players don't play games
in California.  The Baltimore Orioles filed a similar, separate
motion to dismiss, also on jurisdictional grounds.

The other 10 teams are the Atlanta Braves, the Boston Red Sox, the
Chicago White Sox, the Cleveland Indians, the Detroit Tigers, the
New York Yankees, the Philadelphia Phillies, the Pittsburgh
Pirates, the Tampa Bay Rays and the Washington Nationals.

They claim that their limited contacts with California "do not
come remotely close to satisfying" the court's standard for
personal jurisdiction.

"The moving defendants cannot be said to have approximated a
physical presence in California . . . simply because they play a
handful of Major League Baseball games in California during the
baseball season or because a small fraction of their individual
employees are based in or travel to California," the teams say in
their motion to dismiss.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elise Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has
granted final approval of the settlement in a securities class
action.

The Company said, "From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013,
four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against us and certain of our current and former officers. These
actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013),
Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686
(S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April
11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints
alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding our financial performance and business prospects and
overstated our reported revenue. The complaints purported to
assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of
all persons who purchased our common stock between April 28, 2011
and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints sought unspecified
monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs."

On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff
and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order
consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint
which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to
March 19, 2013.

"In response, we and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 5,
2014, the court granted us motion to dismiss but granted the lead
plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, adding an additional claim
under Section 10(b) alleging that the defendants were involved in
a scheme to violate federal securities laws. We and individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 10, 2014," the Company
said.

On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3
million. On November 3, 2014, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. At a hearing on February 5, 2015, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.

"Based on this settlement, we have an accrued liability recorded
of $3.3 million, which is included in "accounts payable and
accrued liabilities," as of December 31, 2014. As our insurance
carrier would cover this potential settlement, we have a
corresponding receivable from our insurance carrier recorded in
the amount of $3.3 million, which is included in "trade and other
accounts receivable," as of December 31, 2014," the Company said.


MCLACHLAN DRILLING: Faces "Stroman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Stroman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. McLachlan Drilling Company, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00237 (W.D. Pa., February 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

McLachlan Drilling Company I headquartered in Evart, Michigan and
a provider of services to the liquid-solid separation industry
used for petroleum drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 South 8th Street, 4600 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 338-1919
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com


MEL HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Upheld Sewer Service Classes Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debt collectors must face a class action by more than 100,000
people decrying their business model as a "sewer service," the 2nd
Circuit said February 10, touching on but not dictating the reach
of federal anti-racketeering law, reports Adam Klasfeld at
Courthouse News Service.

Bronx resident Monique Sykes brought the class action four years
ago, alleging that a debt-buying company, a law firm, a process-
service company and others conspired to hoodwink debtors and New
York administrative law judges.

Buying debt for pennies on the dollar, the companies failed to
serve a complaint on the debtors and then filed false affidavits
claiming that the notice has been served, according to the
lawsuit.

Sykes said judges awarded tens of thousands of judgments on this
basis, violating the RICO statute, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and New York General Business Law.  She wants tens
of thousands of defaulted cases reopened en masse.

Mel S. Harris Associates LLC and its co-defendants have attacked
the lawsuit so far mostly on procedural grounds, arguing that
litigation on these issues would be better served under different
statutes in New York state court.

Affirming a federal judge's certification of two classes in 2013,
the 2nd Circuit ruled 2-1 on February 10 that the debt collectors
cannot demand that "their alleged widespread fraudulent behavior
be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion."

"In the first place, there is no basis to assert that plaintiffs'
claims even could be heard as a class in the New York City civil
court," Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the majority.  "These
courts have jurisdiction only over those actions in which the
value of the controversy is $25,000 or less."

Judge Guido Calabresi joined in the 66-page majority opinion.

"While individual plaintiffs might seek to bring their actions in
such a court based on this amount-in-controversy limitation, there
is no basis to conclude that plaintiffs could proceed as a class
there," the opinion states.

Dissenting Judge Dennis Jacobs agreed on this point but added that
"class litigation is not an end in itself."

"It is simply a 'device to vindicate the rights of individuals
class members,'" he wrote.

Believing New York court to be "superior in every way," Jacobs
called the Sykes case "class litigation for the sake of nothing
but class litigation."

Jacobs concluded his scathing dissent with a prediction.
"Certification of this misbegotten class will generate grinding of
gears and spinning of wheels for years to come, notwithstanding an
effective, superior, and immediately available remedy in state
court," he wrote.

Court watchers also have followed the Sykes case as a key
battleground in an arcane controversy over the reach of federal
anti-racketeering law.

Miguel Estrada, a Washington-based partner for Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, representing the debt collector Leucadia National Corp.,
wrote a brief arguing that the RICO statute does not allow a judge
to issue the injunction the debtors wanted.

This position directly contradicted that of Gibson Dunn's other
client Chevron, which won an injunction under the RICO statute
last year blocking a $9.5 billion verdict against the company in
Ecuador.

No matter which side the 2nd Circuit took on this controversy, one
of Gibson Dunn's client would have lost.

To the likely relief of both of Gibson Dunn's clients, the 2nd
Circuit majority declined to resolve this issue until the District
Court decides it.

The case is Monique Sykes, et al. v. Mel S. Harris & Associates,
LLC, et al., Case No. 13-2742-cv, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Tea Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: The Metropolitan Tea Company Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9611

Affected products:

  Brand name      Common name       Size       Code(s) on product
  ---------       -----------       ----       UPC
                                               ---
None - Selected   Forest Flavored   0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Black Tea        2 kg,      milk is not
Metropolitan Tea                    16 kg      declared on the
Company Black                                  label.
                                               7 71541 44027 2,
                                               7 71541 34027 5,
                                               7 71541 64027 6

None - Selected    Pecan Tart      0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Flavored        2 kg,       milk is not
Metropolitan Tea   Black Tea       16 kg       declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 44132 3,
                                               7 71541 34132 6,
                                               7 71541 64132 7

None - Selected    French Vanilla  0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Pu-Erh Flavored  2 kg       milk is not
Metropolitan Tea   Pu-Erh Tea                  declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 54046 0,
                                               7 71541 94046 8

None - Selected    Night of the    0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Iguana          2 kg,       milk is not
Metropolitan Tea   Chocolate       16 kg       declared on the
Company            Chai Tea                    label.
                                               7 71541 52127 8,
                                               7 71541 92127 6,
                                               7 71541 62127 5

None - Selected    White Chocolate 0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Mousse Flavored 2 kg,       milk is not
Metropolitan Tea   Black Tea       16 kg       declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 44139 2,
                                               7 71541 34139 5,
                                               7 71541 64139 6

None - Selected    Strawberry      0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Daiquiri        2 kg,       sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Flavored Black  16 kg       declared on the
Company            Tea                         label.
                                               7 71541 44143 9,
                                               7 71541 34143 2,
                                               7 71541 64143 3

None - Selected    Hawaiian Colada 0.5 kg,     All codes where
and packed by The  Flavored        2 kg,       sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Rooibos Tea     16 kg       declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 43030 3,
                                               7 71541 93030 8,
                                               7 71541 63030 7
None - Selected    Island Coconut   0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Flavored         2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Black Tea        16 kg      declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 44105 7,
                                               7 71541 34105 0,
                                               7 71541 64105 1
None - Selected    Caramel Flavored 0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Black Tea        2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea                    16 kg      declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 44104 0,
                                               7 71541 34104 3,

None - Selected    Caramel Cherry   0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Cheesecake       2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Flavored Black   16 kg      declared on the
Company            Tea                         label.
                                               7 71541 44087 6,
                                               7 71541 34087 9,
                                               7 71541 64087 0

None - Selected    Ethiopian Mocha  0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Pu-Erh Flavored  2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Pu-Erh Tea       16 kg      declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 54170 2,
                                               7 71541 94170 0

None - Selected    White Swiss      0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Truffle Rooibos  2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Flavored Rooibos 16 kg      declared on the
Company            Tea                         label.
                                               7 71541 43153 9,
                                               7 71541 33153 2,
                                               7 71541 63153 3

None - Selected    Pina Colada      0.5 kg,    All codes where
and packed by The  Flavored Black   2 kg,      sulphites are not
Metropolitan Tea   Tea              16 kg      declared on the
Company                                        label.
                                               7 71541 44030 2,
                                               7 71541 34030 5,
                                               7 71541 64030 6


MOLSON COORS: Named as Defendant in David Hughes Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a notice of
action captioned David Hughes and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor
Control Board of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of
Canada LP, Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-
14-518059-00CP was filed on December 12, 2014, in Ontario, Canada.
Brewers' Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners, including Molson
Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario
("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action.

The plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned
and operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement
to fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market
to the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek
to have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all
Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things,
damages in the amount of Canadian Dollar ("CAD") 1.4 billion.

"Although we are at an early stage of the proceedings, we note
that The Beer Store operates according to the rules established by
the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and distribution of
beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are
independently set by each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a
weekly basis. Accordingly, we intend to vigorously assert and
defend our rights in this lawsuit," the Company said.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Hearing on Threshold Issues Held in February
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2015, for the quarterly report ended December 31, 2014, that a
hearing on the threshold issues related to the General Motors
Vehicle Recalls was set for February 17, 2015.

In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM
disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled
approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or
to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and
had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address
certain electrical and other safety concerns, including
approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition
keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles
to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall.

Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were
manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date,
the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of
Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed.

In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM
also disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, 108 putative class
actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic
losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles
covered by those recalls. Certain of these 108 cases concern the
Ignition Switch Recall, or the Ignition Switch Actions, certain
other cases concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall,
or the Other Economic Loss Actions, and yet other cases concern
both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls.

In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of January 30, 2015, 104
putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various
federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages
for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from
accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of
the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM, or the
Personal Injury Actions.

Since June 2014, 156 Ignition Switch Actions, Other Economic Loss
Actions and Personal Injury Actions (collectively, the Recall-
Related Actions) have been transferred to the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York, or the MDL
Court, and have been consolidated into a single case, case number
14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding. On October 14, 2014, the
plaintiffs in certain Recall-Related Actions filed two amended and
consolidated complaints in the MDL Proceeding that concern
vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Recall-Related
Actions that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior
to the Closing Date, except for Personal Injury Actions related to
accidents that occurred after the Closing Date (collectively, the
"Subject Recall-Related Actions"). In that respect, beginning on
April 21, 2014, New GM filed a series of motions with the
Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related
Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on
July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability
and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents
prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general
unsecured claims).

Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of scheduling orders, which identified a number of "threshold
issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including whether
plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in
connection with the Sale Order, whether any or all of the claims
asserted in the Subject Recall-Related Actions are claims against
Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and whether any such claims against
Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot.
The scheduling orders also established a briefing schedule on
those "threshold issues," which has now been completed. A hearing
on the threshold issues was set for February 17, 2015.

The GUC Trust has appeared as a party in interest with respect to
New GM's motions to enforce the Sale Order and has filed briefs in
opposition thereto. The GUC Trust intends to vigorously defend its
position that none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject
Recall-Related Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or
the GUC Trust. If, however, New GM is successful in enjoining any
of the Subject Recall-Related Actions or certain claims asserted
therein, plaintiffs in such Subject Recall-Related Actions could
seek permission from the Bankruptcy Court to assert claims against
the GUC Trust.


NATIONWIDE STUDENT: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Consolidation Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action claims that Nationwide Student Relief
charges people $39 per month for its debt consolidation services,
after customers tell them to stop, reports Courthouse News
Service.


NESTLE PURINA: Faces Suit Alleging Beneful Dog Food Kills Pets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Purina's Beneful dog food has killed or sickened thousands
of dogs, a class action claims in California Federal Court,
reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Frank Lucido claims defendant Nestle Purina Petcare
Company has received more than 3,000 online complaints about dogs
becoming ill or dying after eating Beneful in the past four years.
He blames the problems on the presence of propylene glycol, an
automotive antifreeze component, and grains with fungus that
produce mycotoxins.

Nestle Purina has sold Beneful since 2001.

"The dogs show consistent symptoms, including stomach and related
internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting,
diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloat, and kidney
failure," according to the complaint.

Lucido claims that after he bought his first bag of Beneful, one
of his three dogs died, another became "violently ill," and the
other has been "unwell . . . and is currently undergoing medical
testing."

Dozer, the dog that died, was found to have signs of internal
bleeding and lesions on his liver, according to the complaint.

Lucido seeks punitive damages for breach of warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, strict products liability, consumer law
violations, unfair competition and false advertising.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO, & KOPCZYNSKI
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Admin. Services Sued Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Riggas and Rafila Stoi, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The State of New Hampshire,
Department of Administrative Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-00061
(D.N.H., February 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The State of New Hampshire, Department of Administrative Services,
is an executive agency of the State of New Hampshire located at 25
Capitol Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Kevin Leonard, Esq.
      DOUGLAS LEONARD & GARVEY PC
      14 South St, Ste 5
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 224-1988
      E-mail: kleonard@nhlawoffice.com


NEW YORK: Governor Called for Patience Over Rep. Grimm Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Convening a special election to replace the disgraced U.S. Rep.
Michael Grimm is my call to make, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told
a federal judge, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service.

The argument comes in response to a class action filed in the
first week of February by voters who say they are being
disenfranchised and lack representation in Congress after Grimm
tendered his resignation to Speaker of the House John Boehner on
the heels of pleading guilty to a federal tax-evasion charge.

In papers filed in the second week of February, Cuomo's attorneys
say the governor has discretion on when to issue a proclamation
for the special election that would, under state law, trigger a
special election no more than 80 days later.

"The New York state Legislature has not mandated any time period
within which the Governor must call a special election," Attorney
John Schwartz wrote for New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman.

In fact, the state says, the governor recently said that he's in
the process of deciding when to call for a special election.

"Failing to call for a special election within the arbitrary 30-
day deadline proposed by plaintiffs is simply not the same thing
as refusing to call for such an election altogether," according to
the February 12 memorandum.

Grimm's guilty plea involved underreported earnings and hiring
illegal immigrants at a Manhattan health-food restaurant he once
owned.

The lawsuit by eight Staten Island and Brooklyn residents claims
that Cuomo failed to uphold his duties to call for a special
election within 30 days of the congressman's resignation.

Grimm, a former FBI agent, Marine and businessman, at first
vehemently denied the counts against him, then recanted, copped
guilty and ultimately resigned.

The case is Rosie Rossito-Canty, et al. v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00568-JBW-RML, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.


NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire 2013 Models Due to Safety Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motor home
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 5
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015049TC
ID number: 2015049

On certain vehicles, the castle nuts for the steering linkage ball
joint fasteners, which mount to the bell cranks, may have been
improperly tightened during assembly. If the castle nuts were to
come completely loose, the steering linkage may separate from the
bell cranks without warning. This could result in a loss of
steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the
castle nuts, and if necessary, tighten them to the proper
specification.

Affected products:

  Make      Models                        Model year(s) affected
  ---       ------                        ----------------------
NEWMAR      KING AIRE CLASS A MOTORHOME   2013


NORTHERN TIER: Has Sent Spam Text Messages, "Soular" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Soular, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northern Tier Energy, LP, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-
00556 (D. Minn., February 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of sending spam text messages to the Plaintiff's and
Class members' cellular telephones.

Northern Tier Energy, LP owns and operates a total of 164
convenience stores under their Super America brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
      J. Gordon Rudd Jr., Esq.
      June Pineda Hoidal, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
              gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
              june.hoidal@zimmreed.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Being Sold to Staples for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Office
Depot too cheaply through an unjust process to Staples, for $6.3
billion, or $7.25 in cash and 0.2188 shares in Staples for each
Office Depot share, a class action claims in Delaware Chancery
Court.


PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Phillips, Jr., Paul Dillion Luna, Jr. and Jeff Walls,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00242 (E.D.
Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC owns and operates a drilling
facility located in Tyler, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


PENNER MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patient Stretchers
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:RA-43837

Recalled products: Patient Stretcher/Transfer Lift System

The device manual was updated with an additional warning
statement. Hospitals advised to never allow the resident to sit on
either wing, only squarely on the center section of the stretcher
lift.

Affected products: A. Patient Stretcher/Transfer Lift System
Lot or serial number: More than 10 lots, please contact the
                      manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 391000-1
                         392000-1
Manufacturer: Penner Manufacturing, Inc.
              102 Grant Street
              Aurora 68818, Nebraska
              UNITED STATES


PEOPLE'S STUDENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. People's Student Loan Relief Center, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01234 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

People's Student Loan Relief Center provides document processing
services that helps consumers find appropriate Department of
Education (DOE) programs and then compiles, processes and submits
to the DOE all of the required documentation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


PERRY ELLIS: Misclassified Interns as Exempt, New York Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Perry Ellis Menswear
misclassified interns as exempt from minimum wage law since 2009,
a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


PETSMART INC: March 2015 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
a hearing on the final approval of the settlement in the case
Moore, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., is scheduled for March
2015.

The Company said, "In May 2012, we were named as a defendant in
Moore, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a discrimination and
wage-and-hour lawsuit, which was originally filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. PetSmart
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint brings both individual and
class action claims, first alleging that PetSmart failed to engage
in the interactive process and failed to accommodate the
disabilities of four current and former named associates. The
complaint also alleges on behalf of current and former hourly
store associates that PetSmart failed to provide pay for all hours
worked (including overtime pay for service performed in excess of
40 hours per week), failed to properly reimburse associates for
business expenses, failed to properly calculate and pay vacation,
failed to provide suitable seating, and failed to provide timely
and uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory and civil penalties, and other
relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief."

"In January 2014, the parties entered a proposed settlement
agreement to resolve this matter in line with reserves that were
established for this case in the first and second quarters of
2013. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was
filed on January 31, 2014. In March 2014, the court heard oral
arguments on the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement. In May 2014, the court approved the motion. Notices
were mailed to potential class members in November 2014. In
November 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation regarding
modifications to the settlement agreement which included among
other things, an additional class representative, Jeanette
Negrete, who has a related case pending, and her counsel as
additional class counsel. A hearing on the final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for March 2015."


PETSMART INC: Motions Pending in "McKee" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
in the case McKee, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., the Company's motion
for summary judgment, the plaintiffs' motion for final
certification, and the Company's motion for decertification are
fully briefed and remain pending.

The Company said, "In September 2012, a former associate named us
as a defendant in McKee, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., which is
currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware. The class action seeks to assert a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action on behalf of PetSmart's operations
managers nationwide. The complaint alleges that PetSmart has
misclassified operations managers as exempt and as a result failed
to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification in September 2013, which was granted. The court
conditionally certified a collective action consisting of all
current and former operations managers employed by PetSmart at any
time in the preceding three-year period. Notices were sent to
potential class members in February 2014, and the 60-day period
within which recipients may consent to join the lawsuit closed in
April 2014. Several individuals joined the case as party-
plaintiffs. Discovery is closed."

"On November 17, 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment. On
November 20, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final
certification and we filed a motion for decertification. All three
motions are fully briefed and remain pending."


PETSMART INC: Deadlines in "Negrete" Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
all deadlines in the Negrete action have been stayed until the
case management conference scheduled in February 2015.

The Company said, "in September 2012, a former groomer filed a
lawsuit against us captioned Negrete, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc. in
the California Superior Court for the County of Shasta. The
plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and former
California groomers, alleging that PetSmart failed to provide pay
for all hours worked, failed to properly reimburse associates for
business expenses, failed to provide proper wage statements,
failed to properly calculate and pay vacation, and failed to
provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory and civil penalties,
and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive
relief."

"On June 14, 2013, we removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California and subsequently filed a
motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. On November 1, 2013, the court
deemed the Negrete and the Moore actions related and the Negrete
action was reassigned to the same judge overseeing the Moore
action. All deadlines have been stayed until the case management
conference, which is currently scheduled for February 2015."


PETSMART INC: May 4 Final Approval Hearing in "Pace" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
a final approval and fairness hearing of the settlement in the
case Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. is scheduled for May 4, 2015.

On February 20, 2013, a former groomer in California filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange captioned Pace v. PetSmart, Inc.  PetSmart removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiff sought to certify a class of all former PetSmart
employees in California since February 20, 2010, who were not paid
all wages owed within 72 hours of their separations. The plaintiff
challenges PetSmart's use of pay cards for separation payments and
seeks waiting time penalties, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
The plaintiff also asserts claims under California's Private
Attorney General Act as well as individual claims for wrongful
termination and disability discrimination.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January
31, 2014, and a hearing was held in March 2014. In June 2014, the
court granted the motion in part and certified a class of
associates from February 2010 to the present who elected to
receive their pay through check or direct deposit but received
their final wages in a pay card kit. The court declined to certify
the larger proposed class of associates who were purportedly paid
wages more than 72 hours after their last date of employment.
Notices were mailed to potential class members in July 2014. In
December 2014, the parties entered a settlement agreement to
resolve this matter in line with previously established reserves.
The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on
January 12, 2015 and the court granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement on January 14, 2015. Notices are
expected to be mailed to potential class members in February 2015.
A final approval and fairness hearing is scheduled for May 4,
2015.


PETSMART INC: 8 Class Actions Filed Over BC Partners Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that
following the December 14, 2014 announcement that PetSmart entered
into an agreement to be acquired by a consortium led by BC
Partners, eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the transaction. The cases
are captioned Soffer v. Lenhardt, et al., C.A. No. 10482-VCN,
Sharkey v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10496-VCN, Lipovich v.
PetSmart, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10504-VCN, Wayne County
Employees' Retirement System v. BC Partners, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 10514-VCN, City of Atlanta Firefighters Pension Plan v.
Lenhardt et al., C.A. No. 10527-VCN, Levine v. PetSmart et al.,
C.A. No. 10516-VCN, Seawell et al. v. PetSmart Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 10541-VCN, and Mardossian v. PetSmart et al., No. 10607-VCN.
PetSmart is a named defendant in six of the eight lawsuits. The
complaints generally allege, among other things, that the PetSmart
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the transaction at an inadequate price and through an inadequate
process and by agreeing to deal terms that allegedly prevent a
superior offer for PetSmart. The complaints also allege that
PetSmart and/or some or all of the other entity defendants aided
and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of duty. The
complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the transaction or
to rescind the transaction if consummated and attorney's fees and
other costs.


PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Propofol Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Posting date: February 2, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43615
Recalled Products: PMS-Propofol

Reason: This lot is being recalled due to an out-of specification
result on the globule size test.

Depth of distribution: Retailers and Healthcare Professionals

Affected products: PMS-Propofol
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 02244379
                   Dosage form: Emulsion
                   Strength: Propofol - 10 mg/mL
                   Lot or serial number: A040877

Recalling Firm: Pharmascience Inc.
                6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100
                Montreal, H4P 2T4, Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Pharmascience Inc.
                                6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100
                                Montreal, H4P 2T4, Quebec
                                CANADA


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Marshall Court Has Not Memorialized Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the Marshall
Court has not memorialized its decision in writing related to the
Grower Claims and Proceedings.

The Company said, "On June 1, 2009, approximately 555 former and
current independent contract broiler growers, their spouses and
poultry farms filed an adversary proceeding against us in the
Bankruptcy Court styled "Shelia Adams, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation." In the adversary proceeding, the plaintiffs assert
claims against us for: (i) violations of Sections 202(a), (b) and
(e), 7 US C. Sec.  192 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921
(the "PSA"); (ii) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(iii) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("DTPA"); (iv) promissory estoppel; (v) simple fraud; and (vi)
fraud by nondisclosure. The case relates to our Farmerville,
Louisiana; Nacogdoches, Texas; and the El Dorado, De Queen and
Batesville, Arkansas complexes.

"The plaintiffs also filed a motion to withdraw the reference of
the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the U.S.
District for the Eastern Court of Texas ("Marshall Court"). The
motion was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas-Fort Worth Division (the "Fort Worth Court").
The Bankruptcy Court recommended the reference be withdrawn, but
that the Fort Worth Court retain venue over the action to ensure
against forum shopping. The Fort Worth Court granted the motion to
withdraw the reference. We filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims. The Fort Worth Court granted in part and
denied in part our motion, dismissing the following claims and
ordering the plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their lawsuit
and re-plead their claims with further specificity or the claims
would be dismissed with prejudice: (i) intentional infliction of
emotional distress; (ii) promissory estoppel; (iii) simple fraud
and fraudulent nondisclosure; and (iv) DTPA claims with respect to
growers from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend on October 7, 2009. Plaintiffs'
motion for leave was granted and the plaintiffs filed their
Amended Complaint on December 7, 2009. Subsequent to the Fort
Worth Court granting in part and denying in part our motion to
dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer venue of the
proceeding from the Fort Worth Court to the Marshall Court. We
filed a response to the motion, but the motion to transfer was
granted on December 17, 2009. On December 29, 2009, we filed our
answer to plaintiffs' Amended Complaint with the Marshall Court. A
bench trial commenced on June 16, 2011. The trial concluded as to
the El Dorado growers on August 25, 2011.

On September 30, 2011, the Marshall Court issued its Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law and Judgment finding in favor of the
Company on each of the grower claims with exception of claims
under 7 U.S.C. Sec. 192(e), and awarding damages to plaintiffs in
the aggregate of approximately $25.8 million. Afterward, the
Company filed post-judgment motions attacking the trial court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, on December 28,
2011, were granted in part and resulted in a reduction of the
damages award from $25.8 million to $25.6 million. On January 19,
2012, the Company appealed the findings of fact and conclusions of
law and decision concerning the post-judgment motions to the
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument
occurred on December 3, 2012. On August 27, 2013, the Fifth
Circuit reversed the judgment, and entered a judgment in favor of
the Company. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition for rehearing
en banc. Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied on October
15, 2013.

On January 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to
accept their case for review. Plaintiff's petition for a Writ of
Certiorari was denied on February 24, 2014. The Fifth Circuit's
decision and prior favorable trial court rulings regarding the El
Dorado growers' claims suggest that the likelihood of any recovery
by growers remaining in the case is too remote to maintain the
previously-recorded loss accrual. Therefore, the Company reversed
the accrual on September 1, 2013.

"As for the remaining chicken grower claims, the bench trial
relating to the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the
Farmerville, Louisiana complex began on July 16, 2012. That bench
trial concluded on August 2, 2012, but the Marshall Court
postponed its ruling until the appeals process regarding the
allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The
bench trial relating to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from
the Nacogdoches, Texas complex began on September 12, 2012, but
was also postponed until the appeals process regarding the
allegations asserted by the El Dorado growers was exhausted. The
remaining bench trial for the plaintiffs from the De Queen and
Batesville, Arkansas complexes was scheduled for October 29, 2012,
but that trial date was canceled. Following the denial by the
Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Certiorari
related to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs from the El
Dorado, Arkansas complex, the Marshall Court requested briefing on
the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the Farmerville,
Louisiana complex and scheduled trial proceedings for allegations
asserted by the plaintiffs from the Nacogdoches complex on August
25, 2014 and allegations asserted by the plaintiffs from the De
Queen and Batesville, Arkansas complexes on October 27, 2014.
Prior to commencing the trial proceedings on the allegations
asserted by the plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville,
Arkansas complexes, the Marshall Court announced it would enter
judgment in PPC's favor on all remaining federal causes of action,
and plaintiffs from the De Queen and Batesville complexes were
given additional time to brief Arkansas state law claims. The
court-imposed deadline passed with no briefs filed by plaintiffs.
At this time, the Marshall Court has not memorialized its decision
in writing."


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2014, that the parties in
the ERISA Claims and Proceedings are awaiting a decision on the
motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Marshall Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken
Pilgrim, Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar, our Compensation Committee and other
unnamed defendants (the "Patterson action"). On January 2, 2009, a
nearly identical suit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in the same
court against the same defendants (the "Smalls action"). The
complaints in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 US
C. Sec.  1132, alleged that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as
administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan
(the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and
Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos Plan") (collectively, the "Plans")
by failing to sell the common stock held by the Plans before it
declined in value in late 2008. Patterson and Smalls further
alleged that they purported to represent a class of all persons or
entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at
any time between May 5, 2008 through the present and whose
accounts held our common stock or units in our common stock. Both
complaints sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the
Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution
in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and
the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each
of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants."

"On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls and Patterson actions. On August 12, 2009, the Court
ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption
"In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No.
2:08-cv-472-TJW."

"Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint
("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010. The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez,
S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller,
James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard
A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A.
Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride
Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn
Boyden, and "John Does 1-10." The Amended Complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between
January 29, 2008 through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class
period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's
common stock.

"Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos
Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the
Company's common stock during the alleged class period. The
Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were
"appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of
the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed. Further, the Amended
Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries
for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiffs seek actual damages
in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan attributable
to the decline in the value of the common stock held by the Plans,
to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as
benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged diminution in
value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for equitable
restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a
declaration that each of the defendants have breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's participants.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 3, 2010. On August 29, 2012, the Magistrate judge issued a
Report and Recommendation to deny the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on grounds that the complaint included too
many exhibits. Defendants filed objections with the District
Court, and on October 29, 2012, the District Court adopted the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and entered an order
denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. On November 11, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The motion is
fully briefed and was argued to the Court on February 28, 2013.
The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.


PREIT ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Space
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Preit Associates, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00233
(W.D. Pa., February 19, 2015), arises out of the excessive slopes
in the Defendant's parking spaces and adjacent access aisles that
makes them inaccessible to, and not independently usable by
individuals who use wheelchairs.

Preit Associates, LP owns and operates a retail shopping malls and
power centers in Philadelphia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: www.carlsonlynch.com
              bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
              bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com


PREMIUM PACKING: Accused of Not Paying OT to Agricultural Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salinas-based Premium Packing stiffed agricultural workers for
overtime and violated a host of other labor laws for more than a
decade, workers claim in a class action in Monterey County Court,
reports Courthouse News Service.


PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Professional Directional, Ltd., Case No. 4:15-cv-00473
(S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single work week.

Professional Directional, Ltd. is an oilfield service company with
significant operations in every major United States shale basin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RACING SERVICES: N.Dakota Must Return Money, 8th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The state of North Dakota, the North Dakota Racing Commission, and
three special funds administered by the commission took an appeal
from a district court decision reversing the bankruptcy court's
grant of summary judgment to the state against PW Enterprises,
Inc. (PWE), the largest non-governmental creditor of Racing
Services, Inc. (RSI), formerly a state-licensed horse racing
simulcast service provider.

After RSI filed bankruptcy, PWE derivatively brought the suit on
behalf of all creditors to recover the money the state collected
from RSI as taxes on parimutuel account wagering.

On appeal, the district court concluded "[t]he money collected
from RSI in the form of taxes on account wagering must be returned
to the bankruptcy estate" because North Dakota law did not
authorize the state "to collect taxes on account wagering during
the time period in question."

In a Feb. 20, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/yiMNjSfrom
Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court and remanded to the
bankruptcy court for the calculation of the amount of unauthorized
taxes the state must return to the bankruptcy estate.

The appeals case is In re: Racing Services, Inc. Debtor. PW
Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation Appellee v. State of North
Dakota, a governmental entity; North Dakota Racing Commission, a
regulatory agency; North Dakota Breeders Fund, a special fund;
North Dakota Purse Fund, a special fund; North Dakota Promotions
Fund, a special fund Appellants, Case No. 14-1077.

Racing Services filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. D. Del. 04-_____) on Feb. 3, 2004.  On Feb. 12, 2004, the
case was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of North Dakota (Bankr. N.Dak. Case No. 04-30236).  On June 15,
2004, RSI's bankruptcy case was converted from Chapter 11 to
Chapter 7, and Kip Kaler was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee.


RJ REYNOLDS: Settles 400 Pending Tobacco Cases for $100MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that  a
$100 million settlement has been reached between three major
tobacco companies and hundreds of people who sued them for
smoking-related deaths and illnesses in Florida federal court.

The tentative agreement announced on Feb. 25 involves R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco
Co.  The deal resolves about 400 cases pending before a federal
judge in Jacksonville, Florida, but does not affect thousands of
other lawsuits pending in Florida state courts.

"With respect to the cases pending in state court, we will
continue to defend them vigorously, which includes appealing
adverse verdicts," said Jeff Raborn, vice president and assistant
general counsel for R.J. Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.

The lawsuits stemmed from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision,
known as Engle v. Liggett Group, which threw out a $145 billion
class-action verdict against cigarette makers.

That decision let stand findings that the companies knowingly sold
dangerous products and hid smoking hazards, meaning future juries
could consider that as proven fact.  But the ruling also required
smokers and their families to pursue individual wrongful death and
personal injury lawsuits based on cigarette use.

The settlement on Feb. 25, which requires final approval from a
federal judge, would end the federal cases that would have taken
years had they gone to trial.

"Whenever people are suffering, we always welcome serious, fair
offers that may more quickly resolve their claims and help them
move on with their lives as best they can," said Joe Rice, co-
founder of the South Carolina-based Motley Rice law firm and a
chief negotiator for the plaintiffs.

Under the deal, R.J. Reynolds and Richmond, Virginia-based Philip
Morris would each pay $42.5 million and Lorillard, based in
Greensboro, North Carolina, would contribute $15 million.  Each
individual plaintiff who agrees to the settlement can share in the
funds, but any that do not may negotiate further.  The goal,
Mr. Rice said, is for full participation.

"We've committed to try to get 100 percent of the cases resolved,
and if we don't we'll go back to the table," he said.

The settlement does not affect those federal cases that have
already been tried or are on appeal.  It will use a model formula
based on past trials and rulings to determine how much money each
plaintiff could receive, subject to approval by U.S. District
Judge William G. Young.

Still, the companies and plaintiff lawyers were optimistic the
federal lawsuits are near an end.

"We are pleased to have these federal Engle cases behind us," said
Ronald Milstein, Lorillard's executive vice president and general
counsel.

"This settlement will provide immediate compensation to our
clients, many of whom are very elderly," said attorney Robert J.
Nelson of the San Francisco-based Lief Cabraser law firm.


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls INFORM HER2 DNA Probe Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Hospitals, General Public, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number:RA-43833

Recalled products: INFORM HER2 DNA Probe

The method sheet (Version E) of the INFORM HER2 DNA probe was
missing from the Ventana website under the Canada section, as
indicated on the reagent kit.

Affected products:

A. INFORM HER2 DNA Probe
Lot or serial number: All lots

Model or catalog number: 780-4332
Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GmbH
              Sandhofer Strasse 116
              Mannheim, 68305
              GERMANY


SAFEWAY INC: Court Limits Class Suit Ruling to Certain Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action ruling against Safeway applies only to customers
who registered on the grocery chain's Web site as of 2006, a
federal judge said February 12, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse
News Service.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar amended his partial summary judgment
in a case accusing the company of marking up prices for home-
delivered groceries purchased online.  The amendment was in
response to a motion to reconsider Safeway filed after the
original partial summary judgment was granted on Dec. 10, 2014.

Lead plaintiff Michael Rodman claimed that Safeway's terms of
agreement for online purchases said that customers will pay the
same prices as in a brick and mortar store.  But he claimed that
the company overcharged by at least 10 percent for most home-
delivered items.

Tigar sided with Rodman in December, ruling the company breached
its contract.

But Safeway argued that the judge's order erroneously stated that
it had breached its contract with all the class members.  Safeway
said the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment referred only to
a contract on Safeway's Web site posted in 2006.

While Rodman did submit versions of the contract that Safeway
posted before 2006, they "were not placed before the court by
plaintiff's initial motion for summary judgment and defendant thus
did not have sufficient notice that plaintiff sought summary
judgment that Safeway breached the contract with class members who
registered prior to 2006," Tigar ruled.

He also granted Safeway's claim regarding damages. Though the
initial summary judgment concluded that the "aggregate amount of
the online mark-up" was the appropriate measure of damages, the
plaintiff did not adequately argue that point.

"Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment did not make any
argument as to why the aggregate amount was the appropriate
measure of damages, beyond the conclusory statement that
'Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recovery the full
aggregate amount of the charged markup by Safeway,'" the judge
wrote.

The plaintiffs may still seek summary judgment on the measure and
amount of damages in the future.


SCH CORP: 3rd Cir. Vacates District Court Ruling on NCG Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for the second
time, addressed an appeal filed by the "CFI Claimants" with
respect to post-confirmation bankruptcy proceedings arising out of
the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Debtors SCH Corp., American
Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., and ACCS Corp.

The District Court had affirmed the order of the Bankruptcy Court
granting the motion filed by appellee Carl Singley, the Debtors'
disbursing agent, litigation designee, and responsible officer, to
approve the settlement he reached with the plan funder, National
Corrective Group, Inc. (NCG).

On review, the Third Circuit held that the purported settlement
really constituted a plan modification governed by 11 U.S.C. Sec.
1127.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit held that it will vacate the
District Court's order and remand with instructions for the
District Court to vacate the Bankruptcy Court's order and to
direct the Bankruptcy Court to consider the purported settlement
as a request for a plan modification pursuant to Sec. 1127.

The case is In re: SCH CORP., et al., Debtors. v. CFI CLASS ACTION
CLAIMANTS, Appellant, Case No. 14-2888.

A copy of the Third Circuit's Feb. 24, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/7fH8GSfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellant:

     Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
     Howard I. Langer, Esq.
     LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER
     1717, Arch Street, Suite 4130
     The Bell Atlantic Tower
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

          - and -

     Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
     LOIZIDES
     1225, King Street, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
             hlanger@langergrogan.com

Counsel for Appellee:

     Thomas H. Kovach, Esq.
     Anthony M. Saccullo, Esq.
     A.M. Saccullo Legal
     27, Crimson King Drive
     Bear, DE 19701
     E-mail: ams@saccullolegal.com

          - and -

     John D. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq.
     CIARDI, CIARDI & ASTIN
     1204 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801


SESAC LLC: Judge Awards $16MM Attorney Fees in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
when Weil, Gotshal & Manges litigators get tapped for an antitrust
class action, you can usually assume the firm is playing defense.
But a bit of role-reversal paid off for Weil last week, when a
judge awarded the firm $16 million in class counsel fees and
signed off on a $58.5 million settlement it negotiated with the
performance rights organization SESAC LLC.

On Feb. 18 U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan
granted final approval to the settlement, which resolves claims
that Weil brought on behalf of a group of network television
affiliates.  The deal caps more than five years of litigation over
claims that SESAC violated federal antitrust law through its
practice of issuing blanket, all-or-nothing copyright licenses to
local stations.

Judge Engelmayer awarded Weil a little more than $16.1 million, or
about 27 percent of the entire settlement amount, to cover legal
fees and expenses it racked up as counsel for the plaintiffs.

Local TV stations that want to air syndicated shows, commercials
and sporting events typically negotiate licenses with performing
rights organizations like SESAC.  Weil's team, including Steven
Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com -- and R. Bruce Rich --
bruce.rich@weil.com -- alleged that SESAC made all-or-nothing
licenses the only viable choice for local TV broadcasters,
allowing it to jack up prices and force the stations to pay for
music they'd never actually use.

SESAC was originally represented in the case by lawyers from
Jenner & Block but later turned to Joseph Hage Aaronson.  After
losing a bid to dismiss the case in 2010, SESAC moved for summary
judgment in 2013, arguing that the stations lacked sufficient
evidence in support of their antitrust claims.

Judge Engelmayer, who inherited the case in September 2011, denied
the summary judgment bid, though he did agree to narrow the scope
of the case.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued for Not Awarding Frequent Flier Passes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action claims that Southwest Airlines fails to award
frequent flier program companion passes by applying points to the
incorrect year, reports that David Lee, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Cory Couch, of Arizona, sued the Dallas-based airline in Federal
Court on Feb. 2.  He claims the terms of Southwest's Rapid Rewards
program "state repeatedly" that points for the companion passes
are earned on Southwest-branded credit card purchases made during
the calendar year.

Couch claims the airline does not disclose that points earned on
purchases after the close of a customer's December billing cycle
are actually applied to the next calendar year.  Couch says that
his December billing cycle ended on Dec. 8, 2014.

Southwest's companion pass is a coveted perk for frequent fliers,
as it allows a designated companion to fly for free for a full
year as long as the primary flier purchases a ticket for each
flight taken.

"Plaintiff and other class members rushed to complete purchases
using the Rapid Rewards credit cards on the mistaken belief that
the points from such purchases would count, for companion pass
purposes, for the calendar year in which the purchases were made,"
the 25-page complaint states.

"Southwest denies companion passes to members who have made
purchases sufficient to earn the required 110,000 points during
the calendar year.  Hundreds if not thousands of members have been
wrongfully denied their companion passes despite spending the
required sums on purchases."

For each dollar spent on the Southwest-branded credit cards, one
point is awarded.  Two points are awarded for each dollar spent
directly with the airline or with its hotel and car rental
partners.

Couch says he made more than $10,800 in additional purchases on
his Southwest Rapid Rewards credit card after Dec. 8, 2104,
believing the earned points would be credited to the 2014 calendar
year.

"At best, Southwest's Rapid Rewards Program terms are unclear and
ambiguous with respect to how points are earned and the timing of
when they are earned for the purposes of issuing companion
passes," the complaint states.  "To the extent the terms are
unclear, ambiguous, and/or susceptible to more than one reasonable
interpretation, then they must be construed against Southwest as
the drafter.  Members have no authority to negotiate any of the
program barrage of terms."

Couch claims that a program member's monthly point accumulation
tally "gives the impression" that points can be transferred
multiple times during the month.  He claims Southwest did "nothing
to indicate that the earning period has reset" on December 8, and
that points earned after that date would not count for that
calendar year.

Southwest spokesman Thais Conway said the airline is reviewing the
lawsuit.  He said the company "takes pride" in its customer
service and loyalty programs.

"Our focus on the customer has earned us multiple recognitions,
including a 2014 Freddie Award for Best Loyalty Credit Card and
Best Customer Service by InsideFlyer," Conway said February 9.

Couch seeks class certification and damages for breach of
contract, breach of the faith, promissory estoppel and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC
          404 W. 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 299-5329
          Facsimile: (512) 628-3390


ST. JOSEPH SERVICES: Court Junks Suit Arising From Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
The "heightened risk of future identity theft" is not enough to
establish standing for a woman to sue a hospital system that let
hackers compromise her private data, reports Cameron Langford at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

St. Joseph Health System, a Texas hospital and health clinic
operator, said in February 2014 that hackers had breached its
computer system two months earlier, gaining access to the private
data of 405,000 patients and employees.

Though St. Joseph said it was not aware that the breach had led to
any identity thefts, it paid for a year of credit monitoring and
identity theft protection for all the potential victims.

But St. Joseph's cleanup efforts did not allay the fears of
patient Beverly Peters. She filed a class action against St.
Joseph in March 2014.

As with all its patients, the hospital system stored Peters'
Social Security number, birth date, address, medical records and
bank account information on its computer network.

Peters claimed the hackers put her data on the Internet for third
parties to use as they pleased.

She said she tracked the hack to a fraudulent purchase on her
Discover card, an effort to gain access to her Amazon account, a
daily barrage of telephone solicitations by medical products and
service companies, and spam sent from her compromised Yahoo email
account.

St. Joseph sought to dismiss the case, claiming Peters had not
suffered an injury traceable to the data breach, and that even if
she established causation she had not proved any quantifiable
damage or loss from the hack.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt took St. Joseph's side on
February 11 and dismissed the lawsuit.  Hoyt said that Peters'
identity-theft issues had been resolved.

"Discover never charged her for the fraudulent purchase identified
in the complaint and closed her account to prevent future fraud,"
Hoyt wrote.

"Upon discovery that her Yahoo email account had been compromised,
Peters changed her password.  The complaint contains no
allegations that her email contacts continue to receive voluminous
spam email from her account since she took this proactive
measure."

Hoyt cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty
International USA. In it, reporters, attorneys and the human
rights group challenged part of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 that allows the U.S. government to
intercept communications from foreigners outside the States.

Those plaintiffs said they feared that their sources, colleagues
and clients would be targets of U.S. government surveillance, and
the threat would force them to take expensive security measures to
keep their communications private.

The Clapper plaintiffs argued: "There [was] an objectively
reasonable likelihood that their communication with their foreign
contacts will be intercepted under [FISA] at some point in the
future."

The Supreme Court tossed the case, finding the plaintiffs had not
established the threat of government surveillance was "certainly
impending."

Hoyt relied on that reasoning in rejecting Peters' claims.

"Under Clapper, Peters must at least plausibly establish a
'certainly impending' or 'substantial' risk that she will be
victimized.  The allegation that risk has been increased does not
transform that assertion into a cognizable injury," Hoyt wrote in
a 15-page order.

He dismissed Peters' federal claims with prejudice.

He dismissed her state law claims without prejudice and gave her
30 days to amend them in state court.

Peters' attorney was not immediately available to comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Webster, Esq.
          THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM
          6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 640
          Houston, TX 77036
          Telephone: (713) 396-5197

The case is Beverly T. Peters v. St. Joseph Services Corporation
d/b/a St. Joseph Health System, et al., Case No. 4:14-CV-2872, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.


STARSHIP ENTERPRISES: "Pippin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenia Pippin, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00507
(N.D. Ga., February 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Starship Enterprises of Atlanta Inc. is a Georgia Profit
Corporation that owns and operates a gift, novelty, and souvenir
shops.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, P.A
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Fleece Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2015
Posting date: February 2, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-43531

McGordon's Boys Printed Fleece Top with full zip and hood, style
KBB-1552. The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment

Health Canada has determined that drawstrings on children's upper
outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or
other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a
vehicle, the child being dragged.

Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.

Approximately 1512 Boys fleece hooded sweatshirt with full zip and
hood were sold.

The recalled products were sold from October, 2012 to January,
2015.

Manufactured in Philippines.

Distributor: Stocklots Distribution/4283147Canada Inc.
             Montreal
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood
to eliminate the hazard.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Rp7BCP


SUNSHINE MEDICAL: Faces "Sosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose M. Gonzalez Sosa, Laura Janice Cruz Melendez, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Sunshine Medical
Network II, Inc., 8th Street Medical Center, Inc., Roberto E.
Cruz, Case No. 1:15-cv-20713 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a Health Insurance company doing
business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TABOUN GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rodriguez-Martinez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Taboun Grill 2, LLC, Hershie
Weingarten, and Anat Trace, Case No. 1:15-cv-01574 (N.D. Ill.,
February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


TAKATA CORP: Ordered by NHSA to Preserve Air Bag Parts in Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that U.S. safety regulators have
ordered Japanese air bag maker Takata Corp. to preserve air bag
parts from recalled cars for government investigators and
attorneys who are suing the company.

The order issued on Feb. 25 by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration covers air bag inflator mechanisms that can explode
with too much force, spewing metal shrapnel into drivers and
passengers.  At least six people have been killed and 64 others
injured from the problem.  Ten different automakers have recalled
about 17 million cars and trucks in the U.S., and recovered
inflators have been sent to Takata.

The order stops Takata from destroying inflators except when they
are tested and requires the company to set aside 10 percent of
them for testing by plaintiffs' lawyers.  Takata also has to come
up with a plan, to be approved by the government, for gathering
and preserving the inflators.

And the company must make inflators available to the 10
automakers, who are close to hiring an outside company and a
leader for their own investigation of the air bag problems.

Takata, in a statement on Feb. 25, said it worked with NHTSA on
the evidence preservation order and will support efforts by the
agency and automakers to find the cause of the problem.
"Determining the root cause of the inflator issues has been and
remains our top priority," the statement said.

Takata uses ammonium nitrate to create a small explosion that
quickly inflates its air bags.  But government investigators say
the chemical can burn faster than designed if exposed to prolonged
airborne moisture.  That can cause it to blow apart a metal
canister meant to contain the explosion.  Automakers, Takata and
the government all want to find out just how much humidity and
time it takes to cause the problem, both of which are unknown.

So far, automakers have recalled about 22 million cars globally
due to Takata inflators.  There could be as many as 30 million
vehicles with Takata air bags across the U.S.

At least 70 lawsuits have been filed over the air bag malfunctions
in courts across the nation, according to NHTSA.

The Feb. 25 order comes less than a week after NHTSA began fining
Takata $14,000 per day for failing to cooperate fully in the
investigation, an allegation that Takata denies.  The cooperation
still isn't sufficient, the agency said, so the fines grew to
$84,000 as of Feb. 25.


TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Products Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Taste of Country
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9618
Taste of Country is recalling Taste of Country brand Chicken Pie
from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products:

  Brand name   Common name   Size      Code(s) on product    UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----      ------------------    ---
Taste of       Chicken Pie  6 X 125 g  All codes where milk  None
Country                                is not declared on the
                                       label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ZC84E4


TJX CANADA: Recalls Korma Simmer Sauce Products Due to Peanut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: TJX Canada
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9601

Affected product:

  Brand name   Common name         Size    Code(s) on product UPC
  ----------   -----------         ----    ----------------------
Masala Maza    Korma Simmer Sauce  355 ml   28614 6 48253 10101 5


TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizza Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 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: Totally Gluten Free Bakery
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9614

Affected products:

  Brand name     Common name    Size   Code(s) on product    UPC
  ----------     -----------    ----   ------------------    ---
Totally Gluten   Ham & Salami   7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Ham & Salami   10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Meat Lovers    7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Meat Lovers    10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Ham, Salami,   7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Mushroom Pizza        mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Ham, Salami,   10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Mushroom Pizza        mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Pepperoni      7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Pepperoni      10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pizza                 mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Barbecued      7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Chicken Pizza         mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Barbecued      10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Chicken Pizza         mustard is not
                                       declared on the
                                       label.

Totally Gluten   Ham,          7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pepperoni,           mustard is not
                 Gr. Pepper           declared on the
                 Pizza                label.

Totally Gluten   Ham,          10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery      Pepperoni,           mustard is not
                 Gr. Pepper           declared on the
                 Pizza                label.

Totally Gluten   Deluxe Pizza  7"     All products where    None
Free Bakery                           mustard is not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.

Totally Gluten   Deluxe Pizza  10"    All products where    None
Free Bakery                           mustard is not
                                      declared on the
                                      label.


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: TPC Paid $579MM to Hawaii Action Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a bankruptcy
court entered an order directing Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
to pay $579 million to the plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii
Actions and the Common Law Claims actions, and the Company has
made that payment.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various
state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these
suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued
a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.

After the parties reached the settlements of the Statutory and
Hawaiian Actions and the Common Law Claims (collectively "the
Settlements"), numerous proceedings took place in the bankruptcy,
district and appellate courts concerning the approval of the
Settlements and their effect on other parties. As a result of
certain rulings in those proceedings, TPC concluded that it was
not obligated to go forward with the Settlements because certain
conditions precedent to the Settlements had not been met.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
Settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the Settlements. The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and
ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. The
bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on
March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions
to the Settlements had not been met.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012
decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014,
the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district
court's decision and reinstating the bankruptcy court's January
20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus
prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014, TPC filed a Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, which was
denied on January 5, 2015. At December 31, 2014, the amount of the
Company's payment was recognized in the Company's consolidated
financial statements in the amount of $579 million, comprising the
$502 million settlement amount, plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest totaling $77 million. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing TPC to pay $579
million to the plaintiffs, and the Company has made that payment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Fla. for Employing Unlicensed Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
App-based transportation services Uber and Lyft should be fined
and not allowed to continue servicing Miami because their drivers
are unlicensed, a class claims in court, reports Kevin Lessmiller
at Courthouse News Service.

Christopher Davis, CEO of Professional Chauffeur Transportation
Services, sued Miami-Dade County, Fla., Uber Technologies Inc. and
Lyft Inc. in Miami-Dade County Court, on behalf of all for-hire
transportation companies in the county and the public at large.

He says their drivers are not in compliance with local ordinances
and regulations.  Under Miami-Dade County code, public
transportation companies need chauffeurs registrations for each
driver, licenses, vehicle inspections, liability insurance,
background checks and "adherence to established payment rates,"
according to the complaint.

"The defendants Uber and Lyft are rogue companies that are
operating 'for hire transportation services' by the use of a
telephonic app system by which they direct unlicensed drivers who
are operating their own unmarked personal vehicles to pick up
fares for delivery to specific destinations including but not
limited to the Miami International Airport and the Miami Port
Authority aka PortMiami," the lawsuit states.

Davis says Uber and Lyft are attempting to monopolize the local
market by charging less than companies like his.

"Uber and Lyft are knowingly, illegally and intentionally
violating the aforesaid ordinances and are therefore violating the
law set out by Miami-Dade County, Florida for the sole purpose of
profit, causing monetary loss (loss of legitimate fares) to the
plaintiff transportation companies which are regulated by said
ordinance and to the detriment of the unwitting riding public and
public at large," according to the complaint.

Their lower fares are an attempt to hurt competition and force
traditional chauffeurs and taxi drivers out of the market, Davis
claims.  He says an attempt to monopolize a market is against
state law.

Davis also blames the county for not enforcing its ordinances. He
alleges the county has arrested Uber and Lyft drivers in the past
but generally turns a blind eye to their services.

"The defendant county has known of the continuing illegal
violations of its code of ordinances by defendants Uber and Lyft
for some time, but has refused to enforce its code of ordinances
against said defendants, which perpetuates the criminal violations
of their drivers, the loss of revenue by the plaintiffs, and the
loss of protection to the riding public and public at large," the
complaint states.  "If defendant county enforced its codes against
defendants Uber and Lyft, their drivers will lose the fares that
said defendants provide and therefore defendants Uber and Lyft
would be out of their illegal transportation services or suffer
the consequences."

The lawsuit's class consists of licenses chauffeurs and taxi
drivers as well as the general public in Miami-Dade County.

Davis seeks a cease and desist order, restitution and punitive
damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Guralnick, Esq.
          RONALD S. GURALNICK PA
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2600
          Miami, FL 33131-2118
          Telephone: (305) 373-0066
          Facsimile: (305) 373-1387
          E-mail: rgacquit@bellsouth.net


USG CORP: To Pay Up to $48MM to Resolve Wallboard Purchaser Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that USG will pay a maximum
of $48 million to resolve U.S. direct and indirect purchaser
cases.

USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, and CGC Inc. have
been named as defendants in class action lawsuits alleging that
North American wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix the price
of wallboard sold in the United States and Canada.

The Company said, "In October 2014, we entered into a settlement
agreement in principle with the attorneys representing the direct
and indirect purchaser plaintiff classes in the U.S. wallboard
pricing lawsuits, which name USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum Company as defendants. In the first quarter of 2015, we
executed final settlement agreements. We will file the final
settlement agreements with the Court for its approval."

"Assuming the settlements are approved by the Court, USG will pay
a maximum of $48 million to resolve the U.S. direct and indirect
purchaser cases. We recorded a $48 million charge in the third
quarter of 2014 related to this settlement. If we are unable to
settle the U.S. litigation under the terms set forth in the
settlement agreements, or at all, there can be no assurance that
the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on
our business, financial condition, operating results or cash
flows.

"The settlement does not include the Canadian lawsuits to which
CGC is a party. At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not
able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible
loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe, however,
that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material effect on
our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows."


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cummins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc., George R. Aylward,
Michael A. Angerthal, Francis G. Waltman and Mark S. Flynn, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01249 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 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.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company with
an office in New York, New York that provides investment products
and solutions primarily through its subsidiary investment
managers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: eglenn@zamansky.com
              jake@zamansky.com


VISION-SCIENCES: Named as Defendant in "Frustaci" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vision-Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on January 7, 2015, in the District
Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, by a purported shareholder of Uroplasty under the
caption Joseph J. Frustaci vs. Uroplasty, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
27-cv-15-305.

The Company said, "The complaint names as defendants us,
Uroplasty, Merger Sub and the members of the Uroplasty board of
directors. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Uroplasty
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to
Uroplasty's shareholders in connection with entering into the
merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaint further
alleges that we, Uroplasty and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Uroplasty board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs. We believe that this lawsuit is
without merit and intend to contest it vigorously."


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Misleading Herbal Supplement Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens, GNC, Target and Wal-Mart misled consumers on store-
brand herbal supplements such as ginkgo biloba that do not contain
the ingredients they advertise, a federal class led by Victoria
Shahrashian alleges.

The case is Shahrashian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00978, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Sanford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00475 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Weatherford International, LLC is one of the largest oilfield
services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

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


WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS: One Claim in Wage Class Action Survives
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
dismissed with prejudice three of four claims in a class action
against a Wendy's franchise whose workers accuse it of minimum
wage violations.

Workers said in a May 2014 class action that Wendy's paid less
than minimum wage by claiming that substandard health insurance
benefits enabled it to pay $7.50 to 7.75 per hour instead of the
Nevada minimum wage of $8.25.

Many class members were parents raising young children. In an
amended complaint, the workers accused Wendy's of violating three
sections of the Nevada Constitution and a state wage law.

Wendy's sought dismissal, saying the workers did not state an
actionable claim.  U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro on
February 4 agreed with Wendy's on three of the four claims, and
dismissed them with prejudice.

But the state's Minimum Wage Amendment explicitly provides for a
private action against an employer, Navarro said, in refusing to
dismiss that element.

Wendy's of Las Vegas owns 31 franchise and non-franchise fast-food
restaurants in Clark County.

State voters in 2006 amended the Nevada Constitution to establish
a minimum wage of $8.25 per hour for employers who do not provide
qualifying health insurance benefits.  The minimum wage is $7.25
per hour for those who do.

The plaintiffs claim that Wendy's of Las Vegas falsely claims the
health-insurance benefits underwritten by Aetna comply with the
state law defining acceptable health insurance benefits to qualify
for the lower state minimum wage.  They say the amount they have
to spend on health insurance premiums exceeds what state law
allows. The workers say their health insurance premiums are much
higher than the state's qualifying threshold and do not provide
coverage for deductible health care costs.

The Nevada Constitution allows employers to qualify for the
reduced minimum wage only when the cost of premiums for health
insurance benefits equals no more than 10 percent of workers'
annual gross taxable income.  The benefits also must pay for
health care costs that employees can deduct on their federal
income tax returns.

The case is Latonya Tyus, et al. v. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00729-GMN-VCF, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.


WESTERN SCOTT FETZER: Recalls Valve Pressure Regulators
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 31, 2015
Posting date: February 2, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43563

Recalled Products: OxyTOTE Style Valve Integrated Pressure
Regulators

Western decided to initiate this recall based on reports of
ignition events involving OxyTOTE valve integrated pressure
regulators (VIPRs) and the subsequent investigations into those
events. Based on the investigations, Western has become aware of
the possibility of ignition and rupture (i.e., explosion) of the
compressed gas oxygen cylinder, which can cause serious injury
and/or death.

Affected products: OxyTOTE Style Valve Integrated Pressure
Regulators
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: MNR-600
                         MNS-603
                         MTR-500
                         MTR-700
                         MTS-501
                         MTS-502
                         MTS-503
Manufacturer: Western / Scott Fetzer Co.
              875 Bassett RD.,
              Westlake, 44145, Ohio
              UNITED STATES


WILLIAM COOK: Recalls Z. Alpha Thoracic Endo Grafts
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-43811

Recalled products:  Z.Alpha T. Endo Graft proximal component
                    Z.Alpha thor.endo.graft proximal tapered
                    Zenith Alpha thor.endo.graft distal
                    component

Field safety notice advising users of updates to the IFU that are
being made to emphasize best practices in response to a few recent
findings of distal Type I endoleak, migration and aneurysm growth
during on-going longer term follow up of patients enrolled in the
multi-national clinical investigation of the device.

Affected products:

A. Z.Alpha T. Endo Graft proximal component
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact
                         manufacturer.
Manufacturer:  William Cook Europe APS
               Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632
               DENMARK

B. Z.Alpha thor. endo. graft proximal tapered
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact
                          manufacturer.
Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS
                Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632
                DENMARK

C. Zenith Alpha thor.endo.graft distal component
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: More than 10 numbers, contact
                          manufacturer.
Manufacturer: William Cook Europe APS
              Sandet 6, Bjaeverskov 4632
              DENMARK


WOLFER LANDSCAPE: "Arango" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Arango v. Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Sean A. Wolfer, Case No. 0:15-cv-60362 (S.D.
Fla., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping service compant with
its main place of business located in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 374-6974
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


WORLD FUEL: Motion to Bring Class Action Lawsuit Filed
------------------------------------------------------
World Fuel Services Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion was
filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of a
class-action lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs against the Company, certain of its
subsidiaries, along with a number of other third parties.

The Company, on behalf of DPTS Marketing LLC ("DPM"), a crude oil
marketing joint venture in which the Company owned a 50%
membership interest, purchased crude oil from various producers in
the Bakken region of North Dakota. Dakota Petroleum Transport
Solutions, LLC ("DPTS"), a crude oil transloading joint venture in
which the Company also owned a 50% membership interest, arranged
for the transloading of the crude oil for DPM into tank cars at
the joint venture's facility in New Town, North Dakota.  The
Company leased the tank cars used in the transloading from a
number of third party lessors and subleased these tank cars to
DPM.

The Company, on behalf of DPM, contracted with Canadian Pacific
Railway ("CPR") for the transportation of the tank cars and the
crude oil from New Town, North Dakota to a customer in New
Brunswick, Canada. CPR subcontracted a portion of that route to
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA"). On July 6, 2013, the
freight train operated by MMA with tank cars carrying
approximately 50,000 barrels of the crude oil derailed in Lac-
M‚gantic, Quebec. The derailment resulted in significant loss of
life, damage to the environment from spilled crude oil and
extensive property damage.

The Company said, "various lawsuits have been filed against us and
other third parties related to the Lac-Megantic incident.  In
2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along with a
number of third parties, including MMA and certain of its
affiliates, as well as several manufacturers and lessors of tank
cars, were named as defendants in twenty complaints filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaints generally
allege wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for
the proper and safe transportation of crude oil and seek economic
and compensatory damages, as well as costs. The actions were
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (the "IL District Court") and subsequently
reassigned to a single judge in the IL District Court (other than
one action that was remanded to state court prior to reassignment
and another that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs)."

"The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to have these actions
remanded to state court. We filed a motion in the United States
District Court for the District of Maine (the "ME District
Court"), where MMA's bankruptcy is pending, to transfer all of
these actions to that court. On March 21, 2014, the ME District
Court granted the transfer motion.  On April 4, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
granting the transfer motion and a motion requesting the ME
District Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the
cases.  The motion for reconsideration was denied and the motion
for abstention remains pending. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a notice stating their intention to appeal the order
granting the transfer motion to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On June 17, 2014, the ME District Court entered a
consent order staying proceedings in the transferred cases pending
the appeal.  On November 11, 2014, the Bankruptcy Trustee and
plaintiffs moved to amend the consent order staying proceedings in
the transferred cases to allow plaintiffs to file additional cases
in other jurisdictions.  We and other parties opposed this motion
which is currently pending before the court.  We believe the
plaintiffs' claims against us, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM
and DPTS are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
such claims and pursue any and all defenses available.

"In 2013, we, certain of our subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS, along
with a number of other third parties, including CPR, MMA and
certain of its affiliates, several manufacturers and lessors of
tank cars, as well as the intended purchaser and certain suppliers
of the crude oil, were named as defendants in a motion filed in
Quebec Superior Court to authorize the bringing of a class-action
lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as costs.

"The motion generally alleges wrongful death and negligence in the
failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation of crude
oil. We believe these claims against us, certain of our
subsidiaries, DPM and DPTS are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any and all
defenses available."


* NY Attorney General Targets Herbal Supplement Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Esch, writing for The Associated Press, reports that, after
ordering four major retailers to pull store-brand herbal
supplements off their shelves following DNA tests that found
little or none of the listed herbs, New York's attorney general is
targeting manufacturers of the popular products.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters on Feb. 23 to four
manufacturers, in Long Island, California and Utah, demanding
detailed ingredient and quality control information on every
herbal supplement they sell in New York state.  The companies'
products include the store-brand supplements Mr. Schneiderman
ordered off the shelves at Walmart, Walgreen's, Target and GNC
stores in New York state.

Letters were sent to Pharmavite LLC, of Mission Hills, California,
maker of the Nature Made brand; NBTV Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York,
maker of Sundown Naturals, Nature's Bounty, Vitamin World and
other brands; Nature's Way Products Inc. of Lehi, Utah, maker of
Nature's Way brand; and Nutraceutical Corp. of Park City, Utah,
maker of Herbs for Kids and other brands.

None of the companies initially responded to requests for comment.

"The scientific community, public health officials, and others
have raised serious doubt about the steps taken to ensure the
safety and efficacy of the herbal dietary supplements taken daily
by millions of Americans," Mr. Schneiderman said in his letter.
"As part of a broader investigation, NYAG is reviewing the
sufficiency of the measures manufacturers and retailers are taking
to independently assess the validity of their representations and
advertising in connection with the sale of herbal supplements."

Earlier in February, Mr. Schneiderman announced that DNA barcoding
tests commissioned by his office on six popular herbal supplements
found that of hundreds of bottles tested, 4 out of 5 contained
none of the herbs listed on the labels.  The supplements included
ginseng, touted as an energy booster; Echinacea, marketed as a
cold remedy; St. John's Wort, used for depression; and ginkgo
biloba, used for memory problems.

Consumer groups focused on exposing fraud in the supplement
industry criticized Mr. Schneiderman's use of DNA tests without
additional chemical analysis, saying many products that use
extracts of a plant's active ingredients would not test positive
for DNA but could still be effective. The same criticism was
leveled by dietary supplement industry groups.

The information requested from the manufacturers could provide
more definitive evidence of what's really in the pills and
capsules. Among other things, Mr. Schneiderman wants documentation
of:

   -- The name, concentration, country of origin, and any
extraction method used for each component of the supplement;

   -- A description of analytic testing used to confirm the
content and quality of any ingredient as well as the finished
product;

   -- A detailed description of measures taken to ensure quality
across the supply chain from farm to factory;

   -- Testing done to substantiate label claims such as "gluten
free" or "hypoallergenic;"

   -- Copies of all documents related to adverse health
consequences, including allergic reactions.

The attorney general wants the information by March 13.

"It's important for both retailers and manufacturers to verify the
contents of the products they sell so consumers can be protected
against deceptive claims on packaging, and against potentially
dangerous reactions to undisclosed ingredients," Mr.
Schneiderman's spokesman Matt Mittenthal said.

About 65,000 dietary supplements are on the market, consumed by
more than 150 million Americans, according to a 2013 Canadian
government study.  The American Botanical Council estimates U.S.
sales of herbal supplements came to $6 billion that year.

Daniel Fabricant, executive director of the Natural Products
Association, an industry trade group, said the information
requested by Mr. Schneiderman is available to the Food and Drug
Administration when it inspects these firms.

"I don't know why the taxpayers of New York think it's a good idea
for their attorney general devote resources to something that's
already covered by the federal government," said mr. Fabricant,
former director of the division of supplement programs at the FDA.
"I can tell you, I was there, they weren't shy about taking
action."

According to the FDA website, there is no regulation that requires
a firm to disclose to FDA or consumers the information they have
about the safety or purported benefits of their dietary supplement
products. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the
ingredient list is accurate.  The FDA can take action against
supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe.

Mr. Schneiderman says lax oversight of supplements can have
serious public health consequences, noting a 2013 hepatitis
outbreak traced to a tainted diet supplement and the death of a
baby at a Connecticut hospital after doctors gave the child a
probiotic supplement later found to be contaminated with yeast.


* Transport Canada Recalls Certain Motorcycles Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Power train
Units affected: 123
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015047TC
ID number: 2015047

On certain motorcycles, the screw holding the drive sprocket onto
the output gear shaft may become loose. This could cause the rear
wheel to lockup momentarily or completely, increasing the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect the output shaft and replace if found to be
out of specification.


* Waiving Second Meal Break Violates California labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that a word
of warning to employers in the health care sector, especially to
those in California: A recent decision from the California Court
of Appeal said that the commonly followed practice of allowing
workers on 12-hour shifts or longer to waive their second meal
period is in violation of the California Labor Code.

In a recent post by Veronica Gray of Nossaman --
vgray@nossaman.com -- examining the case, she notes that three
health care workers were suing their hospital employer for labor
code violations.  Section 512(a) of the code necessitates two meal
periods for workers on shifts longer than 12 hours, but an
Industrial Welfare Commission wage order allows employees in
health care to waive one of those two periods.  The court said the
IWC order exceeded its authority and was in direct conflict with
the California Labor Code.

With the exception of the order that the hospital pay the
plaintiffs' premium wage claims, the court refused to consider
liability for violations before this decision.  Ms. Gray says that
"employers (especially those in the health care industry) should
review their meal and rest period policies."


                             *********

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  * * *