CAR_Public/150327.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 62


                             Headlines

ALLIANCE WORKFORCE: Removes "Brifil" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Illegally Cancelled Life Insurance, Suit Says
APPLE INC: "No Poach" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
AR RESOURCES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Suit Claims
ARIZONA: Judge OKs Prison Health Care Class Action Settlement

ASSURED CONTRACTING: Removes "Hardy" class Suit to S.D. Florida
BAC 115 CORP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
BADIA SPICES: Recalls Badia Cumin Products Due to Peanuts
BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Class Action Over Weight-Loss Tablets
BLACK TIE: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BRM FOODS: "Farris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUFFALO, NY: Ex-Blue-Collar Employees Lose Class Action Bid
CALLFIRE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action
CCB CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending

CON-WAY INC: Disputes Class Certification in "Pina" Action
CON-WAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Granted in "Quezada" Suit
COOPER TIRE: To Defend Against Suit Over Apollo Tyres Transaction
CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CRAWFORD & CO: Says 10% of Revenues From Deepwater Settlement

DANIEL CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Set to Reply to Grocer's Item-Pricing Suit
ENERGY CORPORATION: Trial in Natural Gas Royalties Suit Begins
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Brady" Still Pending

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in "Berk" Case Agreed to Stay Lawsuit
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Bid in "Howard" Case Granted
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Revised Class Definition Not Yet Approved
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settlement in Citizens Merger Case Not Yet Final
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Denied Bid to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Suit

FORT COLLINS, CO: Council Nixes Parts of Pandhandling Ordinance
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Asks Lawyers to Prepare Questions List
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Irish Soda Bread Due to Undeclared Milk
HOMEPLUS: Class Action Mulled Over Sale of Customer Info
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringer's Irrigations

HSBC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Fees in Australia
HSBC FINANCE: Fails to Send Post-Repossession Notices, Suit Says
HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Court of Appeals Ruling in Securities Case
HSBC FINANCE: Settles Hazard Lender-Placed Insurance Claims
HSBC FINANCE: Early 2015 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Funds' Suit

HSBC FINANCE: Opt-Out Merchants Inked Deal in Credit Card Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Plaintiffs in Salveson Appealed Claims Dismissal
HSBC FINANCE: Settles Debt Cancellation Litigation
HSBC FINANCE: Settlement in TCPA Litigation Has Initial Okay
INTERSEC INTERACTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Implant Case Trial Begins in Australia
JUST ENERGY GROUP: Class Certification Granted in "Wilkins" Case
KIRKLIN LAW FIRM: Judge Dismisses Plaintiffs Lawyer's Claims

LENOVO US: Faces "Foster" Suit in W.D. Ky. Over Harmful Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Levenhagen" Suit in Ore. Over Harmful Spyware
LENOVO US: Faces "Simonoff" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
LIFE TIME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $15 Million

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flanagan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Heilman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sowizrol" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Groton" Suit Over Chinese Flooring

MASTEC INC: "O'Connor" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICHAEL KORS: Managers File Overtime Class Action in California
MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Former Students Get $11.3MM in Compensation
MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Braun" Suit Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trial in Super Bowl XLV Seating Suit Begins

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Super Bowl Tickets
NEW YORK, NY: Cops File Class Action Over Quota Punishments
OCWEN LOAN: Removes "Nemerovsky" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
PRIMAL PET: Recalls Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula

PRUDENTIAL FIN'L: Cert. Bid Okayed in Part; Expert Report Nixed
PURINA: Faces Class Action in California Over Beneful Dog Food
RAMS HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Videotape Recording
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Red-Light Camera Suits
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ROYAL BANK: SMEs File Class Action Over Alleged Conspiracy
RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SALOV: Fraud Class Action Moves Forward in California
SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Accused of Harassment & Gender Discrimination
SEI INVESTMENTS: No Schedule Yet to Respond to Ascension Case

SIRIUS XM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Elickman" Suit Claims
SO ROSE: Faces "Gabrielyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ST. BARNABAS: Faces "Khansari" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STATE FARM: Karmeier Ordered to Give Testimony
STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Wage Class Action

SUFFOLK COUNTY, MA: Immigrant Detainee Files Class Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Resolved Two Putative Class Actions
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stayed "Belton" Adversary Suit
SYNGENTA AG: Wisconsin Corn Growers File Class Action
SYRINGA MOBILE: To Pay Damages to Residents Who Lacked Water

T UP TRADING: Recalls Corn Bba Korean Snacks Due to Milk
TALLAHASSEE, FL: Commissioners OK Funding for Class Action Fees
TARGET CORP: Data Breach Costs to Reach $1 Billion
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Ohio
TEXAS BRINE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $12MM in Legal Fees

TGI FRIDAY'S: Black Workers File Discrimination Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Ensure Electronic Security
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls 16 oz. Cinnamon Almonds Due to Peanuts
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Canada Over Defective Guardrail Design
U.S. ENGINEERING: "Elsea" Case May Proceed as Class, Mo. App Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Response to Amended Yucesoy Case Due March 31
ULTRAZX LABS: Recalls Weight Loss Supplements Due to Sibutramine
UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Collects Tourism Tax, Action Claims
UNITED STATES: Deported Mexicans Can Return for Hearings
UNIVERSAL PARKING: Faces Suit Alleging Retaliation Due to Race

V2V HOLDINGS: Removes "Bair" Suit to Northern District of Georgia
VIRGINIA: Victims of Forced Sterilizations to Get Compensation
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Beal" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding

WALGREEN CO: Goldenberg Heller Files Suit Over Herbal Supplements
WELLMARK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Price-Fixing Suit
WELLPOINT INC: High Court Won't Hear Premium-Hike Class Action
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defense Must Prepare Witness in Profemur Suit


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $100-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Fibro Liability Totals $776.6MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Units Had 17,907 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Wygant" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Storey" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid to Compel Fin'l Info Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Class Cert. of PI Suit Reversed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit in Insurance Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Flips Ruling in "Calewarts" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Brown" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14-Mil. Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed


                            *********


ALLIANCE WORKFORCE: Removes "Brifil" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Brifil v. Alliance Workforce
Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CA-1202, was removed from the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsbrough County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-
cv-00573-JSM-MAP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought to recover alleged unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schuette, Esq.
          Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr MLK Jr. St. N, Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          E-mail: mschuette@sessions-law.biz
                  ashelver@johnbales.com

Defendants Alliance Workforce Solutions, LLC, Rodney Rhors and
Salvatore Nardello are represented by:

          Bonita Marie Riggens, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BONITA M. RIGGENS
          669 First Avenue N
          St Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 898-1401
          Facsimile: (727) 823-7351
          E-mail: briggenslaw@gmail.com

Defendant Cutrale Citrus Juices USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Kristyne E. Kennedy, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          1900 Summit Tower Blvd., Suite 750
          Orlando, FL 32810
          Telephone: (321) 972-0028
          Facsimile: (321) 972-0099
          E-mail: kristyne.kennedy@csklegal.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Illegally Cancelled Life Insurance, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Klaas, Frank M. Berardi, David R. Sangston, Terry G.
Mountford, Elmer H. Ceisel, all on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No.
2:15-cv-00163 (M.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, specifically by cancelling the Special Retirement Opportunity
life insurance benefits of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

Allstate Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation that is the
third largest personal lines insurer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Pearl, Esq.
      THE PEARL LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 101, 7400 Tamiami Trail N
      Naples, FL 34108
      Telephone: (239) 659-9330
      Facsimile: (239) 659-9377
      E-mail: robert@investorattorneys.com


APPLE INC: "No Poach" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge on
March 2 seemed satisfied with a proposed $415 million settlement
that would end a lawsuit in which tech workers accused Apple Inc,
Google Inc and two other Silicon Valley companies of conspiring to
hold down salaries.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, had
previously rejected an earlier $324 million deal as too low.
During a hearing on March 2, Judge Koh raised no objections about
the size of the settlement as she had at an earlier court session.

While Judge Koh did not formally rule from the bench on whether
she would preliminarily approve the new deal, she set another
hearing date for final sign off of the $415 million deal.

"We are pleased court indicated she was going to approve the
settlement," Kelly Dermody, an attorney for the workers, said
after the hearing.

The plaintiffs alleged that Apple, Google, Intel Corp and Adobe
Systems Inc agreed to avoid poaching each other's employees, thus
limiting job mobility and, as a result, keeping a lid on salaries.

The antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in 2011.  It has been
closely watched because of the possibility that big damages might
be awarded and for the opportunity to peek into the world of some
of the United States' elite tech firms.

The case was based largely on emails in which Apple co-founder
Steve Jobs, former Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt and
some of their rivals detailed plans to avoid poaching each other's
prized engineers.

Last August, Judge Koh rejected the previous $324.5 million
agreement after one of the plaintiffs objected. That worker
supports the new deal.

In rejecting the $324.5 million deal, Judge Koh repeatedly
referred to a related 2013 settlement involving the Walt Disney Co
and Intuit Inc.  Apple and Google workers got proportionally less
than Disney workers, Judge Koh wrote, even though plaintiff
lawyers had "much more leverage" against Apple and Google.

To match the earlier settlement, the deal with Apple, Google,
Intel and Adobe would need to total at least $380 million,
Judge Koh wrote.

The hiring case is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California 11-cv-2509.


AR RESOURCES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kielbasinski, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. A.R. Resources, Inc. and John and
Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D.
Pa., March 16, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig T. Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN P.C.
          30 East Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          Facsimile: (215) 540-8817
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com


ARIZONA: Judge OKs Prison Health Care Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has approved the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of 33,000
inmates in Arizona over the quality of health care in state
prisons.

State officials agreed in October to increase health care
staffing, offer cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow
requirements in treating patients with chronic diseases, and
provide more out-of-cell time to prisoners kept in isolated cells.

State officials didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing in making the
settlement.

The 2012 lawsuit alleged the failure of medical personnel at one
prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate resulted
in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant woman at
full term.  It said another inmate with a history of prostate
cancer had to wait more than two years for a biopsy.


ASSURED CONTRACTING: Removes "Hardy" class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hardy v. Assured Contracting, LLC,
et al., Case No. CACE 15-002321 04, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-60551-JEM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 392-8074
          Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
          E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


BAC 115 CORP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. BAC 115 Corp. d/b/a Augurs Well,
a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01950-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is an action for injunctive relief for
the Defendant's alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act entitling the Plaintiff to attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs.

Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental
congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida
cystica with myelomeningocele.  He is permanently disabled and is
confined to a wheelchair.

115 Corp., doing business as Augurs Well, is the operator of a bar
and dining establishment located at 115 St. Mark's Place in New
York County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BADIA SPICES: Recalls Badia Cumin Products Due to Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Badia Spices, Inc. is issuing a voluntary recall on Badia brand
ground cumin product. Peanut is an allergen that is not declared
on the product's ingredient statement. People, who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to peanut proteins, run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The recall was initiated after the firm was notified that a ground
cumin sample collected by the State of NY Department of
Agriculture and Markets Food Laboratory tested positive and had
potentially been produced with undeclared peanut protein.

The Product is packaged in plastic bottles.

Product was distributed nationwide in retail stores, commencing in
July, 2014.

This recall notice only affects the following products:

  Product Name      Package   UPC             Lot #     Best By
  and Description   Weight    ---             -----     Dates
  ---------------    ------                              -----
Badia Ground Cumin  7 oz.     033844-00002-8  117151    7/2019
Badia Ground Cumin  2 oz.     033844-00007-3  116837    7/2019
Badia Ground Cumin  16 oz.    033844-00516-0  116696    7/2019

No illnesses have been reported to date, to this firm in
connection with this voluntary recall.

The product is considered safe for consumers who do not have
peanut allergen sensitivities.

Consumers who have peanut allergen sensitivities are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 305-629-8000, 8 am to
4:30 pm EST Monday-Friday, or via email to
qualitycontrol@badiaspices.com.


BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Class Action Over Weight-Loss Tablets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Harvey, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that Basic
Research of Salt Lake City has agreed to refund $25 per box of its
weight-loss tablets purchased by consumers who become part of a
settlement of a class action lawsuit that alleged the company's
advertising slogan, "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight," was
deceptive.

But Basic Research has denied any wrongdoing and will still be
able to use the slogan under the proposed settlement of the
lawsuit brought by law firms on behalf of consumers who purchased
the weight-loss product called Akavar beginning in 2007.

The agreement follows on the heels recent decision in another set
of lawsuits in which a federal judge found that the company had a
scientific basis for the claims of its weight-loss pills, a
decision the Federal Trade Commission is seeking to appeal.

A spokesperson for Basic Research did not return an email and a
voice message about the settlement.  Jon Harper, a Salt Lake City
attorney for the consumers, also said he could not comment beyond
the language the parties had agreed to, which was that the
litigation had been resolved "on terms satisfactory to the
parties."

In 2006, the FTC fined Basic Research $3 million and entered into
an settlement in which the company agreed not to market its
weight-loss products unless its claims were backed by "competent
and reliable scientific evidence."

Within a year, it had developed Akavar and launched a nationwide
sales campaign, selling the pills in retail outlets like
Walgreens, Target, CVS, Rite-Aid, Costco, WalMart and K-Mart, as
well as directly over the web, according to court records.

Akavar was touted as a "European Weight Loss Breakthrough" even
though it was developed in Utah, lawsuits said.  It was marketed
by the Basic Research company called Dynakor -- one of a nearly a
dozen companies created by Basic Research -- through a multi-
million dollar ad campaign as a wonder pill in which the consumer
could "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight. . . . (And we
couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true!)."  Akavar "literally
causes excess fat to be pulled from bulging parts of your body,"
the campaign said, according to court records.

It sold 60 capsules for $39.99 and two bottles for $79.98 with a
third one for free, and sales brought in millions of dollars,
documents say.  Total company annual revenues were around $50
million in 2007 and 2008.

In November of 2007, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in
U.S. District Court for Utah against Basic Research on behalf of
consumers who had purchased Akavar based on the company's
advertising.  Also named were four related companies and company
principals Dennis Gay and Daniel B. Mowrey, as well as Mitchell K.
Friedlander, who is described in documents as a marketing
consultant who receives royalties for the sale of company
products.

A second proposed class action lawsuit was filed in state court in
California in late 2008.

Both actions alleged that Basic Research was deceiving consumers.
One complaint said it sought to "redress a pervasive pattern of
fraudulent, deceptive and improper advertising, sales and
marketing practices."

Both said the company lacked a scientific basis for the weight-
loss claims.  The two cases were eventually consolidated into one
action in Utah.

U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart granted class-action status to the
consolidated suits in 2010, meaning the plaintiffs could be
expanded to include all consumers who had purchased Akavar after
hearing or seeing the "Eat All You Want" advertising campaign.

The two sides reached a settlement in 2012, but Basic Research
then tried to back out, claiming agreement had not been reached on
substantial terms.  Judge Stewart refused to let the company
scuttle the agreement and Basic Research was unsuccessful in
trying to appeal his decision.

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission and Basic Research had
sued each other in 2009 in federal court in Salt Lake City over
whether the company was violating the 2006 agreement in which it
was required to have a scientific basis for the claims of its
products.

But then late last year, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided
with Basic Research.  Judge Waddoups cited four case studies done
in 2001, two of which suggested that the herbal compounds in
Akavar helped users to lose weight because it caused food and
liquids to stay longer in the stomach, making consumers feel full
longer and prompting them to eat less.

The FTC has filed a notice of appeal.

Judge Waddoups' decision is cited in the proposed settlement of
the class-action lawsuit.  Basic Research is denying any
wrongdoing or liability for Akavar and said it was settling
"solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience and inherent risk of
litigation" as well as disruption to its operations if the lawsuit
continued.


BLACK TIE: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominick Romano, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Black Tie Limousine, Inc. and Mark W. Mollica, Case No. 1:15-
cv-10767 (D. Mass., March 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Black Tie Limousine, Inc. is a limousine and car service operating
within Boston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard M. Brown, Esq.
      BARTLETT HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
      155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 422-0200
      Facsimile: (617) 896-6263
      E-mail: hmb@bostonbusinesslaw.com


BRM FOODS: "Farris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Farris, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BRM Foods, Inc., and Robert Mosesso, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00142 (E.D. Ark., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a fast food eatery company
headquartered in Searcy, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      Stephen Rauls, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
              steve@sanfordlawfirm.com


BUFFALO, NY: Ex-Blue-Collar Employees Lose Class Action Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reports that former blue-collar employees of the
City of Buffalo who retired before 2009 have lost their class-
action lawsuit to force the city to pay or reimburse them and
other similar city retirees for their Medicare Part B premiums.

The retirees contended that the city had an obligation to pay
those premiums under their union's collective-bargaining
agreements, which provided them with fully paid health insurance
until they die.

State Supreme Court Justice Patrick H. NeMoyer on Feb. 27 granted
the city's motion seeking to dismiss the suit and requesting a
declaratory judgment in the city's favor.

"It is declared that the city has no contractual obligation to pay
or reimburse the Medicare Part B premiums for plaintiffs and
similarly situated retirees," Justice NeMoyer said.

The 10 retirees, formerly members of the AFSCME Local 264
bargaining unit, filed the suit in March 2013 against the city and
Mayor Byron W. Brown on behalf of themselves and between 300 and
500 of their former colleagues, all of whom retired before Jan. 1,
2009. The suit also included the spouses of living retirees.

The suit said the plaintiffs retired with clear agreements with
the city that they were to receive lifetime health insurance
benefits "without any cost to them."

But a letter sent by health insurer BlueCross BlueShield on Aug.
1, 2008, stated that the company would begin enforcing a provision
of the policy that requires Medicare-eligible customers to enroll
in the federal program.

Medicare-eligible retirees and their eligible spouses were asked
to enroll in Medicare Part B, which requires a premium of
approximately $1,200 per person.

"The effect of this mandate is a clear diminution of the
guaranteed lifetime retiree health insurance benefit contained
within various [collective-bargaining agreements] negotiated
between the city and union," the suit said.

It said the effect of the change is that the city is no longer
paying the policy's full bill.

Collective-bargaining agreements in effect at the time the
plaintiffs retired said that upon retirement and until they die,
employees would receive the health plan in effect on the last day
of their service to the city, the suit said.

The retirees sought compensation to make up for the health
insurance payments they have made.

Joseph E. O'Donnell, the retirees' attorney, said he will discuss
the judge's ruling with his clients before deciding whether to
appeal.


CALLFIRE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CallFire, Inc., the cloud-based text and voice platform that helps
organizations communicate with their target audiences, on March 2
disclosed that it won on summary judgment in a TCPA class action
suit filed by Rinky Dink, Inc. against multiple defendants.  The
federal judge ruled that CallFire is a common carrier and
therefore not subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).  CallFire was represented in the suit by Michael Hazzard
at Arent Fox LLP, a national leader in litigation, regulatory, and
transactional counsel, and won the judgment in United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

"The TCPA was and continues to be an important and necessary piece
of legislation to protect consumers from unwanted solicitation
across multiple forms of communication, but it's not necessarily
reflective of the times," said Ron Burr, CEO and Chairman,
CallFire.  "The judgment further clarifies the importance of a
carrier designation for cloud-based telephony companies, as well
as who should be held responsible for TCPA violations.  This sets
an important precedent around TCPA liability, and allows
technology companies like CallFire and its industry counterparts
to focus on innovation rather than fighting litigation."

The United States District Court at Seattle found that CallFire is
a common carrier and not subject to liability under the TCPA or
analogous state laws when serving as a conduit for the calls its
customers initiate in case number C13-1347-JCC.

"We expect this decision to go a long way in eliminating harassing
class action litigation against common carriers like CallFire,"
said Michael Hazzard, Partner, Communications, Technology &
Mobile, Arent Fox.  "The judge in this case set a clear industry
precedent, while also enabling technology companies like CallFire
to focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs."

Rinky Dink, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint after
receiving a prerecorded call from a vendor selling credit card
processing services.  The plaintiffs claimed that CallFire
violated the TCPA and the Washington Automatic Dialing and
Announcing Device (WADAD) statute on the theory that both CallFire
and the customer using its telephone services had initiated
prerecorded calls.

The court ruled that "CallFire is a common carrier, and therefore
is not subject to liability for alleged violations of the" TCPA
because CallFire does not control the content, timing or
recipients of the messages sent by its customers.  CallFire also
successfully argued that CallFire does not "initiate" the calls
that its customers choose to transmit through CallFire's telephone
service, and therefore CallFire could not have violated either the
TCPA or WADAD.


CCB CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01354-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is
currently pending, The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's
shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund
improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is
currently pending.


CON-WAY INC: Disputes Class Certification in "Pina" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. challenged certification of the class in the "Pina"
case, and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted
by federal law and not substantiated by the facts, Con-way Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca
Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case).
The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey
County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court
of California, Northern District. On April 12, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiffs' request for class certification in the Pina
case as to a limited number of issues. The class certification
ruling does not address whether Con-way will ultimately be held
liable.

Con-way challenged the certification of the class in this case,
and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con-way has denied
any liability with respect to these claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this case. There are multiple factors
that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate the amount of
potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that
may result from this matter, including: (1) Con-way is vigorously
defending itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious
legal defenses; and (2) at this stage in the case, there are
unresolved questions of fact that could be important to the
resolution of these matters.


CON-WAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Granted in "Quezada" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. recently settled the case Jorge R. Quezada v. Con-way
Inc., dba Con-way Freight (the "Quezada" case). Notice of the
settlement was provided to class members in this case and on
January 9, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Con-way had adequately accrued for this matter, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.


COOPER TIRE: To Defend Against Suit Over Apollo Tyres Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and its officers intend to vigorously
defend the federal securities litigation related to the terminated
transaction with Apollo Tyres Ltd., Cooper said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That
lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that
the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities
laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection
with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things,
damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations
against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on
March 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. common
stock between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Corporate Resource Services investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Corporate Resource Services class action, go to the
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

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

According to the lawsuit, Corporate Resource Services issued
materially false and misleading statements to investors by failing
to disclose that its co-employer, Tri-State Employment Services,
Inc., had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability, which
would adversely impact the Company and the Company was not in
compliance with the Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo
as of November 30, 2014.  When the truth was revealed to
investors, the price of Corporate Resource Services common stock
dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 1, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CRAWFORD & CO: Says 10% of Revenues From Deepwater Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that revenues and operating
earnings from the Legal Settlement Administration operating
segment are project based and can vary significantly from period
to period depending on the timing of project engagement and the
work performed in a given period. During the year ended December
31, 2012, the Company's previously disclosed special projects, the
Deepwater Horizon class action settlement and the Gulf Coast
Claims Facility ("GCCF") projects, together accounted for more
than 10% of the Company's consolidated revenues. During the years
ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, Legal Settlement Administration
continued to derive more than 10% of its revenues from each of the
Deepwater Horizon class action settlement projects and from
another non-Gulf related class action settlement project. The
revenues from each of these projects were individually less than
10% of our consolidated revenues in each of 2014 and 2013. The
projects continue to wind down, and the Company expects these
revenues, and related operating earnings, to be at a reduced rate
in all future periods as compared to 2014.

"Results from our Legal Settlement Administration segment during
2014 continued to include activity from the Deepwater Horizon
class action settlement, as well as a number of other meaningful
class action and bankruptcy matters. However, anticipated declines
in volumes associated with these large projects negatively
impacted results in the 2014 fourth quarter. These trends are
expected to continue into 2015, although at a slower level of
decline," the Company said in an exhibit to a separate Form 8-K
filing.


DANIEL CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yennifer Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a Florida
Professional Limited Liability Company, and Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a
Texas Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00571-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
March 16, 2015) seeks relief from alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Tyler Brown, Esq.
          Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Esq.
          PARKER & DUFRESNE, PA
          8777 San Jose Blvd., Suite 301
          Jacksonville, FL 32217-4226
          Telephone: (904) 733-7766
          Facsimile: (904) 733-2919
          E-mail: abrown@jaxlawcenter.com
                  parker@jaxlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com


DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Set to Reply to Grocer's Item-Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Wolf, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that
Dutchess County was due to reply March 2, to a grocer's lawsuit
seeking to overturn the county's item-pricing law, the one that
requires for most products that each item for sale must have a
price tag on it.

Dutchess has hired the Poughkeepsie firm of McCabe & Mack for its
defense in federal District Court, venued in White Plains.  The
county seeks to have the court dismiss the suit.

The original case dates back to March 2014, but an amended
complaint was filed Dec. 1. Dutchess asked Judge Cathy Seibel for
an extra week to reply to the suit and was granted the time.

Kevin Bloom, New Windsor-based attorney for the store, said the
challenge to the law is also on behalf of all other grocers and
stores to which it applies, known as a class-action suit.

The grocer is Poughkeepsie Supermarket Corp., which does business
as Market Fresh and was formerly known as Associated Supermarket.
Dutchess had inspected the store and fined it three times for
noncompliance in 2012, the suit complaint notes. Fines totaled
$20,000 and were paid, the complaint says.

The suit claims there is "no longer any real or substantial
interest to be achieved by the county through the enforcement of
its price marking requirements" by virtue of the availability and
industry-accepted accuracy of CACOS, the item price marking
requirements of computer-assisted checkout systems.

Mr. Bloom's complaint alleges that the law "has a chilling effect
on the plaintiff's exercise of its First Amendment rights to free
speech in that a reasonable food marketing entity in plaintiff's
position would perceive the county's conduct as a threat of
further punishment if it fails to comply with the price marking
requirements."

The suit seeks to have the court declare the law unconstitutional
on two free-speech grounds: "first by compelling commercial speech
without a rational basis and second by restricting commercial
speech without directly serving any substantial interest and/or by
means that are more extensive than necessary."

The store also seeks refunds of fines and payment of its costs,
which include an estimated $45,000 a year to comply with the law.

Posner's memo in the case says, "The item pricing requirement is
one of pure disclosure and places no restriction on plaintiffs
ability to engage in transactions with its customers.  The
labeling mandate is rationally related to the need for full
disclosure of prices, to assist consumers in making informed
choices while in the aisles, and to prevent miscalculation at
checkout."

He said the suit "does not allege that the law prohibits plaintiff
from speaking or engaging in commercial transactions with is
customers, but just that it is more difficult (i.e., costs
plaintiff money)."

In August, the parties told the court they had agreed to settle
the case based on an expected amendment to the law being
considered by the county Legislature.  That didn't happen, so the
plaintiffs filed an updated complaint.


ENERGY CORPORATION: Trial in Natural Gas Royalties Suit Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for TribLive, reports that a class-action
lawsuit over natural gas royalties hinges on the question of when
the company sold the gas, an industry expert said on Feb. 27.

"The issue of when title passes will likely be the most important
aspect of this trial," said Steven Townsend of ShaleAdvice LLC.

Nine Greene County property owners claim in the lawsuit that
Energy Corporation of America improperly charged them for
transmission and marketing costs when it sold the gas extracted
from their properties to its marketing affiliate, Eastern
Marketing Corp.

The company contends it paid royalties without deductions on what
Eastern Marketing paid it, which was the price at which Eastern
Marketing sold the gas to third parties minus the transport and
marketing costs.  Consequently, Energy Corp. did not charge the
owners any transport or marketing costs.

Robert Sanders, one of the attorneys for the property owners,
declined to comment.  Lawyers for the company could not be
reached.

The amount in dispute is about $354,000 in transport costs and
$891,000 in marketing fees on gas sold between 2006 and 2012,
according to court documents.

The property owners sued the company in November 2010.  Their case
was set to go before a federal jury on March 2 with U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert Mitchell presiding.

"The jury, as it does in most civil cases, needs to follow the
money," Mr. Townsend said.

If the company pays the 12.5 percent royalties on one price and
then moves and markets the gas at a higher price, the property
owners should not be charged, he said.

"The royalty owner should be getting the benefit of the higher
sale price of the gas since they are paying for the transportation
and marketing fees that raise the price," Mr. Townsend said.

Pennsylvania has a law requiring gas royalties to be at least 12.5
percent, but beyond that, the issue is controlled by the leases
both sides signed, said Ross Pifer, a Penn State law professor and
director of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center.

"At its core, it is a contract matter," he said.

The state Supreme Court in 2010 upheld the industry practice of
using the "net-back method" of calculating royalties, which pays a
royalty based on 12.5 percent of the sale price minus 12.5 percent
of the cost of bringing the gas to market.

With the exception of the minimum royalty required by state law,
the property owner and the company could agree on any cost-sharing
plan by spelling it out in the lease.

Traditionally, the companies pay all the costs of getting the gas
out of the ground and the owners pay a share of getting the gas to
the buyer.

Other disputes over those costs have included companies trying to
deduct management fees and other indirect costs from royalties, he
said.

While the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that companies
cannot deduct any post-production cost that's not spelled out in
the lease, Pennsylvania does not have a similar ruling, he said.

Most leases in Pennsylvania don't include those details, he said.

"For the most part, they are very imprecise," Mr. Pifer said.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in
the case, Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No.021327) (filed December 2002), have filed a motion for class
certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the
outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc., NextRX LLC
f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. ("Medco") and several other pharmacy benefit management
companies by several California pharmacies as a putative class
action, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under
California law. Plaintiffs allege that ESI and the other
defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations under
California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide California clients
with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices, and
seek money damages.

In July 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of
standing. In June 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing
and remanded the case. The district court's denial of defendants'
motion to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds was
appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
class certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending
the outcome of the appeal.

In July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion
to dismiss. In June 2012, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals issued a decision certifying the question of
constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the
California Supreme Court, requesting consideration of the issue
and a ruling. In December 2013, the California Supreme Court held
that California Civil Code Section 2527 does not infringe upon
state constitutional free speech protections.

In January 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a ruling
vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to the
original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider the
federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the district
court. In March 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered
an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. Defendants' objections based on
plaintiffs' lack of standing and the unconstitutionality of the
California law due to defendants' first amendment rights have been
rejected by the courts and are not subject to further appeals.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Brady" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Express Scripts,
Inc.'s motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case
is pending since oral arguments were held in January 2012.

In re: PBM Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).  The following three cases
were transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation in August 2006: (i) Brady Enterprises,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (filed in August 2013
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania); (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama), consolidated with North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed
in October 2003); and (iii) Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al.
v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. (United States District
Court for the Northern District of California) (filed December
2005). The Brady Enterprises case was filed against Merck & Co.,
Inc. ( "Merck") and Medco. Plaintiffs moved for class
certification to represent a national class of retail pharmacies
and allege that Medco conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs. Plaintiffs allege that, through conspiracy,
Medco has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct
including, among other things, setting artificially low pharmacy
reimbursement rates. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the
Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The North Jackson Pharmacy case purports to be a class action
against ESI and Medco on behalf of independent pharmacies within
the United States. The complaint alleges that certain of ESI's and
Medco's business practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages (including treble
damages) and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification against ESI and Medco was granted in March 2006.
Following oral arguments on ESI's motion to decertify the class in
2007, the case remained dormant until April 2011, when it was
reassigned to a new judge who ordered supplemental briefing. Oral
argument of all the class certification motions was heard in
January 2012, and the court took ESI's motion under submission.

The Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy case was filed against Medco
and Merck. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies
and pharmacists that contracted with Medco and California
pharmacies that indirectly purchased prescription drugs from
Merck. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices. Relief demanded includes, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits and injunctive relief.

Currently, ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady
Enterprises case is pending since oral arguments were held in
January 2012.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in "Berk" Case Agreed to Stay Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in
the case Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts
Pharmacy, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, Case No. 0:14-cv-01008) (filed April 8, 2014), have
agreed to stay the lawsuit in favor of early investigation and
mediation.

The complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc. and Express
Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., its subsidiary, by named employee, Jason
Berk, a current Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging two
causes of action: (1) a collective action under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), for failure to pay
wages and overtime; and (2) a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
class action for breach of contract. The parties have agreed to
stay the lawsuit in favor of early investigation and mediation.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Bid in "Howard" Case Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned RANDY HOWARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS, L.P.;
FERRELLGAS, INC.; AND DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No.
2:10-CV-2555-JTM, (D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Randy Howard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sought damages against defendants Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas, Inc. for
allegedly engaging in unfair, unconscionable, deceptive,
misleading, and unlawful conduct in connection with the marketing
and sale propane and related equipment and services.

In his Order dated March 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/0QNOFD
from Leagle.com, Judge Marten granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Arbitration since Plaintiff is bound by the parties' Master
Agreement and all of its terms, including the arbitration
provision, and therefore must arbitrate his claims against
defendant.

Randy Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. --
helenz@zhlaw.com -- Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- at
Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; and Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq. --
pwedgworth@milberg.com -- Andrei V. Rado, Esq. --
arado@milberg.com -- Charles Slidders, Esq. --
cslidders@milberg.com -- Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq., at Milberg
LLP; and R. Frederick Walters, Esq. -- fwalters@wbsvlaw.com --
Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C.

Kathryn R. DeBord, Esq. -- katie.debord@bryancave.com -- Rick E.
Frawley, Esq. -- rick.frawley@kutakrock.com -- Robert M. Thompson,
Esq. -- rmthompson@bryancave.com -- Craig S. O'Dear, Esq. --
csodear@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP serve as counsel for
Ferrellgas Partners, LP.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Revised Class Definition Not Yet Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
Overdraft Litigation stipulated to a revised class definition, and
an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and FirstMerit Bank N.A..
The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed
in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded
the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in
particular with respect to the class definition.

On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for
reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On
November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those
applications.

On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of
appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they
filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the
Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The
plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio
Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014,
the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial court to
stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an
arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and is
awaiting a decision by the court.

On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class
definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an
order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settlement in Citizens Merger Case Not Yet Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the
Citizens merger litigation will not become final until an appeal
has been resolved.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. filed six purported
class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County,
Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and
FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were
consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit").
The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former
directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not
providing Citizens shareholders with all material information
related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable
relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September
20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include
certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and
agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the
court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the
settlement and has filed an appeal of the court's approval of the
settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal
has been resolved.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Denied Bid to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
CRBC 401(k) Litigation.

Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment
alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do
so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible
for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709,
asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who
held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from
April 17, 2008 to "the present." In April 2014, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Based on information currently available, consultation with
counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves,
Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims
against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of
operations for a particular period. The Corporation has not
established any reserves with respect to any of this disclosed
litigation because it is not possible to determine (i) whether a
liability has been incurred; or (ii) an estimate of the ultimate
or minimum amount of such liability.


FORT COLLINS, CO: Council Nixes Parts of Pandhandling Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coloradoan reports that Fort Collins City Council on Feb. 27 voted
unanimously to nix some aspects of the city's panhandling
ordinance in hopes of side-stepping at least part of an ACLU-filed
class action lawsuit.

Council, in a brief meeting on Feb. 27, approved an emergency
ordinance to cut some provisions of the "aggressive panhandling"
rules on the books, at least temporarily changing when, where and
from whom individuals can solicit donations.  By addressing the
contested elements, officials said they would have more time to
research the issues and consider what additional action can or
should be taken.

"This is an aggressive panhandling ordinance, or at least that's
the intent," said Coucilmember Ross Cunniff in highlighting that
the law's goal is not to curb all panhandling in the city.

The Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union on Feb. 10
sued the city on behalf of four homeless individuals on the
grounds that police were infringing upon free-speech rights by
warning individuals about solicitation or citing people for some
forms of panhandling.  The 29-page document also includes
allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have
started targeting the environmental group's canvassing procedures
in Old Town.

"The City of Fort Collins has taken a positive and welcome first
step by repealing the provisions of its panhandling ordinance that
have been challenged by the ACLU and our clients, who engage in
nonthreatening, nonaggressive requests for charity that are fully
protected by the First Amendment," ACLU of Colorado Legal Director
Mark Silverstein said in a written statement on Feb. 27.  "We hope
that the repeal means that they and all other peaceful solicitors
will no longer be targeted by Fort Collins police."

The city scheduled the Feb. 27 meeting in an effort to save time
and resources needed to fight the suit in court, officials said.
It's not yet clear what the Feb. 27 decisions could mean for the
future of the suit.

A preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for March 2 in
federal court, at which time a judge may decide whether to enjoin
the city from enforcing some parts of its panhandling ordinance
until the rest of the suit can be more deeply considered by the
court.

"If Fort Collins would agree to make the repeal permanent, we
could be well on our way to resolving this litigation and putting
it behind us," Silverstein said.

What's against the law:

Here's a breakdown of what's still illegal under the city of Fort
Collins prohibition on aggressive panhandling:

  -- Intimidating, threatening, coercive or obscene panhandling
conduct that causes the subject to reasonably fear for his or her
safety.

  -- Panhandling using fighting words.

  -- Knowingly touching or grabbing the person solicited.

  -- Panhandling in a manner that obstructs the passage or the
person or requires him or her to take evasive action to avoid
physical contact.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Asks Lawyers to Prepare Questions List
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lannom, writing for Charleston Daily, reports that a
federal judge directed attorneys to come up with a list of
questions to ask prosecutors involved in the Freedom Industries
criminal case to see if or how they were affected by the chemical
spill.

Citing a need to develop the record, U.S. District Judge Thomas
Johnston told attorneys to come up with a list of questions to ask
U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, assistant U.S. Attorney Phil Wright
and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Carol Casto, which would be
submitted to the judge under seal.

Both sides have until March 16 to submit the list of questions and
Judge Johnston will come up with his own list before an April 1
hearing on the questions.  Judge Johnston also set a deadline of
May 18 for defense attorneys to file a change of location motion
and set a hearing for June 1 to take up that motion and other
motions that could be filed.

In a Feb. 27 hearing, Judge Johnston took up motions filed by
attorneys for former Freedom executives Dennis Farrell and Gary
Southern.  Attorneys have asked to disqualify U.S. Attorney Booth
Goodwin's office from the case, arguing prosecutors were victims
of the chemical leak and thus have a conflict of interest in
prosecuting the cases against Farrell and Southern.

Judge Johnston previously took up the disqualification motion in a
January hearing but set the Feb. 27 hearing to further consider
it.  Judge Johnston also took up defense attorneys' motion to
conduct discovery, where attorneys wanted to look into how
prosecutors were affected by the leak.

Mr. Southern's attorney Mark Moore said defense attorneys are
entitled to question prosecutors on the effects from the chemical
leak on prosecutors' personal lives.

"We contend the prosecutors are victims," Mr. Moore said, arguing
that the degree to which they are victims doesn't matter.

"What we clearly have here are prosecutors who are victims and
under direct supervision by other victims," Mr. Moore later said,
arguing they had "axes to grind with Mr. Southern."

Mr. Southern, 53, of Marco Island, Fla., is charged with Clean
Water Act violations, scheming to defraud in a bankruptcy case,
scheming to defraud by wire, fraud by interstate commercial
carrier and making a false oath in a bankruptcy case.

Mr. Farrell, 58, of Charleston, faces charges including negligent
discharge of a pollutant, unlawful discharge of refuse and
negligent violation of permit condition.

Both Messrs. Southern and Farrell were present for the Feb. 27
hearing.

"They seized the opportunity to turn this into a criminal
prosecution," Mark Moore said, arguing it didn't appear there was
a lot of deliberation before prosecutors presented the case to a
Beckley grand jury.

Farrell's attorney Mike Carey said Mr. Goodwin hasn't asked and
can't require people in his office or their families not to
participate in the class action lawsuit from the leak.  He said if
prosecutors are successful in obtaining a conviction, that ends
the liability from a civil standpoint.

He also mentioned that in the civil suit, people are seeking
medical monitoring for children under 5 years old, and said it
would be unlikely that if Goodwin's staff had children in that age
range, that they would not want to take part in that medical
monitoring.

Mr. Wright said in order to get discovery for selective or
vindictive prosecution, defense attorneys need to produce evidence
to clear a "significant barrier."

"They've made the mistaken presumption that everyone suffered the
same harm," Mr. Wright said.

Mr. Wright told the judge that defense attorneys can't only
present evidence of a discriminating effect, they have to also
present evidence of a discriminatory intent.  What that means, he
said, is that they can't just show prosecutors were injured from
the leak, but they also have to show that prosecutors have some
intent to recover.

Mr. Wright said Mr. Goodwin hasn't ordered anyone to not
participate in the class action but said prosecutors don't intend
to be part of the lawsuit and have no interest in recovering from
the class action claim. He said speculative interest isn't enough
to disqualify the office.

"It appears they are trying to force us out of this case and into
a class action we don't want to be part of."

After hearing arguments, Judge Johnston said he didn't think it
was necessary to allow a civil lawsuit-style discovery to the
extent sought by the defense.

"Having said that, I have an obligation to develop the record," he
said.

Judge Johnston said ultimately, he will decide the questions asked
to prosecutors and he will submit his list to attorneys and they
will have a chance to respond to him.

"I assume no one will be particularly happy with this but . . . a
balance needs to be struck to make the record," Judge Johnston
said.


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Irish Soda Bread Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Eagle brand Irish Soda Bread, baked and sold inside Giant
Eagle supermarkets between February 24 and March 11, has been
voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared milk
allergen. This creates the potential for serious health
consequences if consumed by those with milk allergies. The product
is safe for consumption for those who do not have these allergies.

The recalled Irish Soda Bread was sold with a UPC of 20761800000
and a net weight of 16 ounces. The product was purchased by
approximately 2,000 customers in Giant Eagle and Market District
supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia.

Giant Eagle became aware of one reported case of customer illness
associated with the Irish Soda Bread product, which prompted
further investigation. The product label for the Irish Soda Bread,
which contains milk, omitted milk as an allergen. The issue has
since been resolved and all product currently on shelf is labeled
correctly. To date, the company is not aware of any additional
reported cases of customer illness.

Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle for a refund.

If you have any questions, you may call Giant Eagle Customer Care
at 1-800-553-2324 Monday through Friday 9am-9pm EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process in conjunction with ensuring that all Irish Soda Bread
product currently on shelf is labeled correctly. The consumer
recall process used purchase data and consumer phone numbers
housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage Card(R) database to alert
those households that purchased the affected product and have
updated telephone contact information in the database.


HOMEPLUS: Class Action Mulled Over Sale of Customer Info
--------------------------------------------------------
Suk Gee-hyun, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that local
consumer groups are planning to file a class action suit against
Homeplus, the South Korean supermarket chain owned by British
retail giant Tesco, for the firm's alleged illegal gathering and
selling of customer information to third parties.

Ten consumer groups affiliated with the Korea National Council of
Consumer Organizations said on March 2 they were gathering
participants in a suit to demand compensation for the retailer's
sale of their private information.

Homeplus is accused of collecting and selling customers'
information, including names, phone numbers, birthdays and details
of family members, collected through giveaway events and
membership registrations.

"We hope this lawsuit serves as an opportunity to raise the alarm
on Homeplus' illegal acts and to root out unethical practices in
the industry," the KNCCO group said in a statement.

The group's officials added that it was also seeking to file a
suit against Tesco, Homeplus' parent company, in association with
Which?, a British consumer group.

Earlier in February, prosecutors indicted six former and incumbent
Homeplus officials and two insurance firm employees for trading
the information of some 24 million customers in return for 23
billion won ($20.8 million).

"We will announce our official stance once they file the suit,"
Homeplus spokesman Kang Jong-ho said.

Separately, prosecutors are investigating two other retail giants,
E-mart and Lotte Mart, for the same charges.

The Seoul YMCA filed a suit against E-mart and Lotte Mart for
allegedly raising 6.6 billion won and 2.3 billion won,
respectively, for handing over customers' information to insurance
firms.

The group claimed the retailers gathered the information through
events requiring consumers to submit their private information,
and sold them for 2,000 won per person.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringer's Irrigations
--------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced it is initiating a voluntary
recall of one lot of Lactated Ringer's Irrigation, 3000mL (NDC
0409-7828-08, Lot 40-008-JT; Expiry 1APR2016) to the user level
(both human and veterinary) due to a confirmed customer report of
several dark, fibrous particulates floating within the solution of
the primary container. The particulate was confirmed as a common
non-toxic, non-invasive mold, Aspergillus kanagawaensis. To date,
Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated
with this issue for this lot.

A loss of sterility is a primary concern when there is a presence
of mold in a sterile, nonpyrogenic solution. If contaminated
solution is used on a patient it may cause bacteremia, sepsis,
septic shock and endocarditis, and death may result. Signs and
symptoms may include redness, pain, swelling at the site, fever,
shortness of breath, tachycardia, nausea, and vomiting. Septicemia
could lead to shock and multi-system organ failure, requiring
critical medical intervention. The mold is considered allergenic
and exposure to it may induce an allergic response or immune
response to the particulate including anaphylaxis. Delayed therapy
may occur if the particulate were to block the flow of the
solution during irrigation. However, this delay is likely to be of
short duration as the medication is administered by a healthcare
provider and remediation is readily available.

Lactated Ringers Irrigation is a sterile, nonpyrogenic solution of
electrolytes in water for injection, intended only for sterile
irrigation, washing and rinsing purposes. The product is packaged
in 3000 mL flexible container bags and sold four bags per carton
(NDC: 0409-7828-08, Lot 40-008-JT, Expiry 1APR2016). The lot was
distributed nationwide in the United States to wholesalers,
distributors, surgery centers, and hospitals from June 2014
through September 2014. Hospira has initiated an investigation to
determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution, and quarantine the product immediately.
Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who
have further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
user level (both human and veterinary). Hospira will be notifying
its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for
impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United
States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-877-907-
7037 between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm ET, Monday through Friday.
Patients should contact their physician or health care provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to using
this drug product.

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

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

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


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

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437793.htm


HSBC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Fees in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johanna McDiarmid, writing for ABC News, reports that a class
action has been launched to recover millions of dollars in credit
card late payment fees from two of Australia's largest finance
companies.

HSBC and GE Capital Finance provide finance and credit card
facilities to customers of thousands of retailers and service
providers including Buyer's Edge, Coles, JB Hi Fi, The Good Guys
and Myer.

Steven Lewis from ACA Lawyers said the action was about justice
for anyone who had to pay an unlawful late fee to these providers.

"This includes people who have been stung by balance transfer
deals and the customers of Australia's major retailers," he said.

"People are being massively ripped off because the fees do not
reflect the actual loss to the finance companies caused by a late
payment.

"We will argue this is unlawful and anyone who has paid these fees
should be able to get their money back."

GE Capital charges up to $30 in late fees depending on the credit
card, while HSBC charges a $30 fee for customers who fail to make
credit card payments on time.

Mr. Lewis said the companies were making giant profits at the cost
of the consumer.

"These finance companies are gouging consumers.  It's a rip off of
a huge scale," he said.

"The courts have previously held that the nature of these fees are
extravagant and unconscionable and they're making giant profits."

ACA Lawyers expects the class action to be worth in excess of $150
million.

Customers who have paid a late payment fee in the past six years
may be eligible to join the action.


HSBC FINANCE: Fails to Send Post-Repossession Notices, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane O'Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to HSBC
Auto Finance, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00881 (S.D. Ohio, March 11,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to send post-
repossession notices which comply with the Retail Installment
Sales Act (RISA) and the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code.

HSBC Finance Corporation is a financial services company and a
member of the British HSBC Group.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
      Michael L. Berler, Esq.
      FREDERICK & BERLER, LLC
      1370 Ontario Street, Suite 1240
      Cleveland, OH 44113-1971
      Telephone: (216) 502-1055
      Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
      E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
              mike@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq.
      P.O. Box 256
      Bluffton, OH 45817
      Telephone: (419) 529-8300
      Facsimile: (419) 529-8310
      E-mail: Greg@ReichenbachLaw.com


HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Court of Appeals Ruling in Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation awaits a Court of Appeals ruling in an
appeal related to a securities litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International, Inc. ("Household International") and certain former
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe
v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893),
filed August 19, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The complaint asserted claims under Sec. 10
and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged
that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and
misleading statements of material fact relating to Household
International's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately
led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to
accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. Ultimately, a
class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and
disposed of Household International common stock between July 30,
1999 and October 11, 2002.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in
favor of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict
were raised in post-trial briefing.

In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class
members, the court-appointed claims administrator to the district
court reported that the total number of claims that generated an
allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these
claims was approximately $2.2 billion. Defendants filed legal
challenges regarding the presumption of reliance as to the class
and compliance with the claims form requirements, which the
district court in September 2012 rejected for the most part. The
district court directed further proceedings before a court-
appointed Special Master to address certain claim submission
issues.

On October 4, 2013, the district court denied defendants'
additional post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or,
in the alternative, for a new trial, and granted plaintiffs'
motions for a partial final judgment and awarded pre-judgment
interest at the Prime Rate, compounded annually. Subsequently, on
October 17, 2013, the district court entered a partial final
judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately
$2.5 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has been
entered, there also remain approximately $625 million, prior to
imposition of pre-judgment interest, in claims that still are
subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the
district court. Defendants filed a Supersedeas Bond in the
approximate amount of the judgment in order to stay execution on
the judgment pending the appeal of the judgment to the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was
heard May 29, 2014, and the Company awaits a ruling from the Court
of Appeals.

"Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual
determination of damages, including the outcome of the appeal,
there is a wide range of possible damages. We believe we have
presented meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both
liability and damages. If the Appeals Court rejects or only
partially accepts our arguments, the amount of damages in the
action, based upon that partial final judgment, and other pending
claims and the application of pre-judgment interest on those
pending claims, may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant
amount to an amount up to or exceeding $3.6 billion. We continue
to maintain a reserve for this matter in an amount that represents
management's current estimate of probable losses," the Company
said.


HSBC FINANCE: Settles Hazard Lender-Placed Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Various U.S. HSBC defendants have agreed to settle hazard lender-
placed insurance claims on behalf of a nationwide class, HSBC
Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance
policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when
the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the
lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower.
Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are
receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and
state agencies.

Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and
insurers, including the Company's affiliates, HSBC Insurance (USA)
Inc. and HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., received subpoenas from the
New York Department of Financial Services (the "NYDFS") with
respect to lender-placed insurance activities dating back to
September 2005.

"We have and will provide documentation and information to the
NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena. Additionally, in March
2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a Civil
Investigative Demand to HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. seeking
information about lender-placed insurance activities. We continue
to be engaged with the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding
this matter," the Company said.

Several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance
were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions
against one or more of our subsidiaries: Montanez, et al. v. HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074);
West, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687);
Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. (D. Col.
No. 13-CV-00185); Hoover, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.
(N.D.N.Y. 13-CV-00149); Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.
Fla. 13-CV-21104) Ross F. Gilmour v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.
(S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:13-cv-05896-ALC) and Blackburn v. HSBC
Finance Corp., et al. (N.D. Ga. 13-CV-03714-ODE). These actions
relate primarily to industry-wide practices, and include
allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of
interest between the various entities that place the insurance,
the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating
policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self-
dealing and insufficient disclosure.

The various U.S. HSBC defendants agreed to settle hazard lender-
placed insurance claims on behalf of a nationwide class comprised
of borrowers "who, from January 1, 2005 to the present, were
charged by HSBC defendants as assureds or additional assureds
under a hazard lender placed insurance policy for residential
property."

The Southern District of Florida granted final approval of the
class settlement in the Diaz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.
Fla 13-CV-21104) action (formerly known as Lopez v. HSBC Bank,
USA, N.A., et al.) on October 29, 2014. The settlement pays claims
of class members, on a claims made basis, based on a formula, as
well as class plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of
administration, with an overall cap of $32 million for all
payments. This settlement does not include claims related to
lender-placed flood insurance, such as those asserted in the
Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D.
Pa. No. 11-CV-4074) action.

On December 11, 2014, the parties in Weller, et al. v. HSBC
Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185) reached
a settlement in principle resolving putative class action claims
regarding lender placed flood insurance. Under the agreement, HSBC
agreed to pay $1.8 million inclusive of claims, attorneys' fees
and administrative costs. This settlement is subject to court
approval.


HSBC FINANCE: Early 2015 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Funds' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on HSBC Finance Corporation's motions to dismiss a
lawsuit filed by two mutual funds has been scheduled for early
2015, HSBC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

In May 2014 HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA and HSBC Finance
Corporation, along with the other U.S. dollar Libor panel banks,
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by two mutual funds
managed by Prudential Investment Portfolios seeking unspecified
damages as a result of alleged artificial suppression of U.S.
dollar Libor rates which plaintiffs allege resulted in plaintiffs
receiving substantially less interest payments in connection with
certain transactions entered into with the defendants. This action
has been transferred and/or consolidated with a U.S. dollar Libor
Multi-District Litigation proceeding pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. HSBC and HSBC Bank
plc are defendants in that proceeding as well. The stay previously
imposed by the court on the individual actions was lifted in 2014.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. HSBC moved to
dismiss the amended complaint in November 2014. A hearing on these
motions has been scheduled for early 2015.


HSBC FINANCE: Opt-Out Merchants Inked Deal in Credit Card Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that certain groups of
opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the
defendants in the Credit Card Litigation.

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc.
("Visa") and MasterCard Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been
named as defendants in a number of consolidated merchant class
actions and individual merchant actions had been filed against
Visa and MasterCard, alleging that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the
interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the
merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the federal antitrust
laws. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). In 2011,
MasterCard, Visa, the other defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or
severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global
settlement of one or all of these actions. The district court
granted final approval of the class settlement in December 2013
and entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment
dismissing the class action shortly thereafter. Certain objecting
merchants have filed notices of appeal to the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement
during the exclusion period. To date, opt-out merchants have filed
35 opt-out suits in either state or federal court, including one,
Speedy Stop Food Stores LLC v. Visa Inc. (Tex. Dist. Ct., Victoria
City, No. 13-10-75377-A), that names certain HSBC entities as
defendants. Most of these opt-out suits have been transferred to
the consolidated multi-district litigation, MDL1720. To date,
certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement
agreements with the defendants in those actions and certain HSBC
entities that, pursuant to the MDL 1720 Sharing Agreements, are
responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement
amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.


HSBC FINANCE: Plaintiffs in Salveson Appealed Claims Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in
Salveson v. JPMorgan Chase et al. (N.D.Cal. No. 13-CV-5816)
appealed the district court's decision dismissing claims.

Salveson v. JPMorgan Chase et al. (N.D.Cal. No. 13-CV-5816) was
filed on December 16, 2013 against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North
America, HSBC Finance Corporation, and HSBC, as well as other
banks. This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint
asserts federal and California state antitrust claims on behalf of
a putative class composed of all Visa and MasterCard cardholders
in the United States. The substantive allegations regarding
defendants' conduct parallel the merchant claims in MDL 1720.
Unlike the merchant suits, however, the Salveson complaint alleges
that cardholders pay the interchange fee charged for credit card
transaction, not merchants, and that card holders were therefore
injured by the alleged anticompetitive conduct.

In March and May 2014, defendants, including the HSBC defendants,
filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern
District of New York for consolidation with MDL 1720. On November
26, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
federal antitrust claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over
the state law claim. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
decision on December 18, and defendants responded on January 15,
2015. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's decision on
January 5, 2015.


HSBC FINANCE: Settles Debt Cancellation Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that beginning in August
2011, a number of State Attorneys General filed purported class
actions against, among others, certain affiliates and/or
subsidiaries asserting claims challenging cardholders' enrollment
in debt cancellation or suspension products and various marketing
or administrative practices relating to those products. In August
2014, the HSBC defendants settled the pending cases brought by the
Hawaii, Mississippi and New Mexico State Attorneys General for a
total payment of approximately $7 million. State of Hawaii ex rel
David Louie, Attorney General v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. and HSBC
Card Services, Inc., et al. (No. 12-1-0983-04); Jim Hood, Attorney
General of the State of Mississippi, ex. rel. The State of
Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc.,
and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; State of New Mexico ex rel Gary King,
Attorney General, v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services,
Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.


HSBC FINANCE: Settlement in TCPA Litigation Has Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The court preliminarily approved a settlement in the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation against HSBC Finance
Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

Between May 2012 and January 2013, two substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against various HSBC U.S.
entities, including actions against the Company or one or more of
its subsidiaries. These two actions have been consolidated into a
single action entitled: Mills & Wilkes v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
HSBC Card Services, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. HSBC Auto
Finance, Inc. & HSBC Consumer Lending (USA), Inc., Case No.: 12-
cv-04010-MEJ (N.D. Cal.). A number of individual actions also have
been filed. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the HSBC
defendants contacted them, or the members of the class they seek
to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, without their express consent, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.
("TCPA"). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500
for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations), although
similar cases filed against other financial institutions have been
resolved for amounts significantly less than these maximum
statutory damage amounts due to, among other things, the
availability of various defenses to the claims.

By agreement of the parties, the action in the Northern District
of California was dismissed and a consolidated action entitled
Wilkins & Mills v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. & HSBC Card Services,
Inc., was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. The parties have agreed to settle the action for
approximately $40 million, subject to court approval. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement in July 2014.


INTERSEC INTERACTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Braga and Matthew Cottone v. Intersec Interactive, Inc., and
Does 1-25, Case No. 4:15-cv-01145 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Intersec Interactive, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates a pornography business in Oakland California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
      David C. Lipps, Esq.
      HOYER & ASSOCIATES
      4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94114
      Telephone: (415) 766-3539
      Facsimile: (415) 276-1738
      E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
              dlipps@hoyerlaw.com


INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan Krock, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01134 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 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.

Invensense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-
Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors, such as accelerometers,
gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
      Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
      San Diego, California 92101-3579
      Telephone: (619) 238-1333
      Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
      E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
              mlk@classactionlaw.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that
assistant store managers suing sandwich chain Jimmy John's LLC
along with several franchisees over alleged wage violations and
restrictive noncompete agreements have attempted to use a reply
brief to "surreptitiously amend" their claims, which should be
dismissed, the company told an Illinois federal court on Feb. 27.

Jimmy John's said the managers essentially conceded that their
second amended complaint was deficient by attempting to rewrite
their allegations in a response to the company's motion to dismiss
their proposed class action, and said the managers should have
known all along that they couldn't bring class claims for state
wage laws on a nationwide basis.

"Plaintiffs have chosen to assert a succession of grossly
overbroad claims only to abandon them all at the last minute,"
Jimmy John's said.  "Plaintiffs cannot amend their pleadings by
way of their response brief; so they are stuck with the overbroad,
legally deficient class claim that they pled."

The company told the court the managers brought their wage claims
under Illinois law but have now attempted to alter those claims in
the reply brief as part of a "last-ditch effort" to maintain their
class action.

Jimmy John's said the managers' decision to link their claims to
Illinois law also dooms their arguments against its noncompete
agreement, which restricts current and former employees from
working for any business that makes 10 percent of its revenue from
selling sandwiches located within three miles of a Jimmy John's
location.

The company said that even if the managers could apply Illinois
law nationwide, they can't show that Jimmy John's ever actually
intended to enforce the agreement because it provided a sworn
statement that it would not enforce the agreements against the
plaintiffs in the future.

In October, dozens of members of Congress asked the U.S.
Department of Labor and the Federal Trade Commission to
investigate the noncompete agreements.

The managers sued in July 2014 but have since filed two amended
complaints.

Jimmy John's contends that the plaintiffs attempted to further
amend their class definitions in a Feb. 14, 2015, response to the
company's motion to dismiss, which was filed in November 2014.

In their motion for class certification filed Feb. 26, the
plaintiffs asked the court to certify four classes, including one
reflecting their decision to alter a class of assistant managers
seeking back pay to include only those employed in Illinois.

On Feb. 27, Jimmy John's urged the court to hold the managers
accountable for the "overbroad, unconstitutional class claim" they
included in their complaint.

"Plaintiffs' unending revisions to their class claims merely
underscore the unmanageability of the nationwide classes that
plaintiffs seek to certify," Jimmy John's said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert M. Foote --
rmf@fmcolaw.com -- Kathleen C. Chavez -- kcc@fmcolaw.com --
Peter L. Currie and Kevin P. Noll of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil
LLC.

The franchise defendants are represented by Matthew S. Disbrow,
Gregory Andrews and Jeffrey Rudd of Jackson Lewis PC.

Jimmy John's is represented by Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Matthew J.
Gagnon, Giselle Perez de Donado and Jason J. Englund of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.

The case is Brunner et al. v. Jimmy John Liautaud et al., case
number 1:14-cv-05509, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Implant Case Trial Begins in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bibby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
recipients of a controversial metal-on-metal hip replacement
implant say they were guinea pigs for a faulty device that has
left thousands of people in constant pain and others with heavy
metal poisoning.

On the opening day of a Federal Court class action against the
company that designed the metal hips, DePuy, and the product's
distributor Johnson & Johnson, the victims of the devices demanded
that those responsible be held to account.

"A lot of these people are elderly, they're dying -- it's time for
this to be settled so they can have compensation," one member of
the class action, Janis Boys, said.

"I had nothing but pain for three years. It affected my whole life
and my relationship with family and friends.

"My surgeon said it was the Rolls-Royce of hip replacements . . .
[the companies] knew that wasn't the case."

The class action is representing 1891 people who have had DePuy
ASR hip replacement devices implanted.

However, this figure could increase as statistics maintained by
the Australian Orthopaedic Association's National Joint
Replacement Registry show that, between 2003 and 2009, more than
5000 DePuy ASR implants were surgically implanted across
Australia.

In December 2009, Johnson & Johnson withdrew the DePuy ASR hip
implants from sale in Australia.

In March 2010, Johnson & Johnson issued a Safety Alert in relation
to the DePuy ASR hip implants and in August 2010 it issued a
Hazard Alert.

In his opening address to the hearing, counsel representing the
implant recipients, John Sheahan, QC, said the devices had been "a
failure, both clinically and commercially" with devices having to
be removed at a rate of up to 39 per cent.  He said that ASR
devices had featured a special design that was initially intended
to reduce friction and wear, and increase the range of movement
for recipients.

However, the design in fact led to greater wear as the metal ball
ground against the metal socket.

Mr. Sheahan said that DePuy had not undertaken proper clinical
testing of the implant, despite the variations in the design.  He
also said that, by mid-2005, DePuy was aware of problems with the
device and the fact that these were exacerbated by the difficulty
experienced by surgeons in implanting them effectively.

He is expected to argue that, as a result of the metal ball
grinding against the metal socket, traces of the metals cobalt and
chromium were released into the blood streams of the recipients
and that, in some cases, they suffered serious infections in their
leg bones.

This forced many to have multiple revision surgeries, with some
having to have their hips replaced four or five times.

The hearing continues.


JUST ENERGY GROUP: Class Certification Granted in "Wilkins" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall denied the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment and granted the motion for class
certification in the case captioned LEVONNA WILKINS, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY
GROUP, INC., JUST ENERGY ILLINOIS CORP., COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.,
and JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 13 C 5806,
(N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiff Levonna Wilkins claimed that the defendants
misclassified her as an independent contractor and an outside
salesperson pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). She
sought for class certification.

Defendants sought for summary judgment as they contended that
Wilkins' claim is outside the ambit of the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law (IMWL) since she is an outside salesperson.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/BqkaNwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gottschall:

     1) granted Wilkins' motion for leave to submit supplemental
authority in support of her opposition to the defendants' motion
for summary judgment;

     2) denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

     3) granted Wilkins' motion to certify a class as the court
certifies a class consisting of all persons since August 14, 2010
who:

        a) were Illinois residents;

        b) were listed on their Just Energy contract as performing
services for Just Energy;

        c) were treated as independent contractors;

        d) had the job of going door-to-door for Just Energy; and

        e) were not paid minimum wage and/or overtime.

He also set the case for status hearing on April 3, 2015 at 9:30
a.m.

James J. Oh, Esq. -- joh@littler.com  -- Catherine Sarah
Lindemann, Esq. -- clindemann@littler.com  - - Jennifer L.
Schilling, Esq. -- jschilling@littler.com at Littler Mendelson,
P.C. serve as counsel for Just Energy Group, Inc.


KIRKLIN LAW FIRM: Judge Dismisses Plaintiffs Lawyer's Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a
judge in Houston has dismissed malicious prosecution and civil
conspiracy claims that Houston plaintiffs lawyer George Fleming
brought against two Houston firms and five Houston lawyers in
2014.

On Feb. 24, 234th District Judge Wesley Ward signed orders
granting "Anti-SLAPP" motions to dismiss claims Fleming filed
against the Kirklin Law Firm of Houston and Charles, Paul and
Stephen Kirklin; and claims that Fleming and Fleming & Associates
filed against Ware, Jackson, Lee & Chambers of Houston and
partners Don Jackson and Jeffrey Chambers.  Judge Ward wrote in
the order that he will consider at a later date requests for
attorney fees and sanctions.

However, also on Feb. 24, Judge Ward denied a motion filed by the
Kirklin Law Firm and the Kirklins to dismiss claims brought by
Fleming & Associates in Fleming & Associates v. Kirklin.  Fleming
& Associates is now known as Fleming, Nolen & Jez.

Fleming, founder of Fleming & Associates, provided this statement:
"I was disappointed in the court's rulings.  We will consider our
options going forward."

Chambers, who characterized Fleming's allegations as "baseless,"
said he and Jackson are pleased with Ward's rulings.

"We are very pleased," Paul Kirklin said on behalf of the Kirklin
defendants.  He is hopeful that Ward will dismiss the remaining
claims on a motion for summary judgment.

"We are feeling confident right now that the rest of the claims
will get dismissed as well before trial," Paul Kirklin said.

The defendants had filed motions asking Ward to grant the motions
to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), on
the ground that the lawsuit filed by Fleming and his firm violates
their constitutional rights.

"This lawsuit is nothing more than a strategic lawsuit against
public participation, which is exactly what the TCPA is designed
to prevent," the Ware Jackson defendants allege in their motion.
In opposition to the dismissal motions, Fleming and his firm
allege that the motions to dismiss under the TCPA lack legal
basis.

Paul Kirklin and Charles Kirklin are shareholders in the Kirklin
Law Firm, and Charles Kirklin is also a partner in Kirklin Soh.
Stephen Kirklin is a solo practitioner.

In a second amended answer filed on Jan. 19, the Kirklin
defendants deny the allegations that remain pending.

The Allegations

On Sept. 17, 2014, Fleming Nolen, formerly known as Fleming &
Associates, filed the malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy
suit, alleging that the defendants sought to "intimidate and
harass" Fleming into settling some civil suits related to fen-phen
litigation.

In a first amended petition filed on Dec. 10, 2014, Fleming Nolen
added Fleming as a plaintiff.

In a second amended petition filed on Jan. 12, Fleming and his
firm allege that the defendants made "false accusations" to
solicit Fleming & Associates' former clients to pursue civil
litigation against them "concerning settlement expenses."

In the petition, Fleming and his firm allege that the defendants
solicited a former client to file a "bogus class action" against
Fleming and Fleming & Associates, which was dismissed; filed "sham
federal charges" against Fleming, which led to an investigation by
the U.S. attorney's office that was terminated in his favor; and
filed "false charges" with the Harris County District Attorney's
Office, again causing an investigation that resulted in the
charges "being terminated in Fleming's favor."  The plaintiffs
also allege that the defendants filed "six improper, groundless
and time-barred state bar complaints" against Fleming, which,
"after an extensive investigation, have all been terminated in his
favor."

The plaintiffs sought more than $1 million in damages from the
defendants.  They allege that Fleming & Associates, on behalf of
Fleming, was forced to "expend significant sums of money on
outside counsel" to defend him from the federal and state criminal
proceedings, and before the State Bar of Texas.

In a second amended answer filed on Jan. 19, the Kirklin
defendants deny the allegations that remain pending.


LENOVO US: Faces "Foster" Suit in W.D. Ky. Over Harmful Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00203 (W.D. Ky., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled
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, 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:

      John S. Friend, Esq.
      Robert W. Bishop, Esq.
      Tyler Z. Korus, Esq.
      BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
      6520 Glenridge Park, Suite 6
      Louisville, KY 40222-9998
      Telephone: (502) 425-2600
      E-mail: louisvillelaw22@gmail.com
              firm@bishoplegal.net
              tyler@bishoplegal.net


LENOVO US: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley D. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Lenovo Group
Limited, and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01122 (N.D. Cal.,
March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling
new computers with preinstalled 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, 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:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com


LENOVO US: Faces "Levenhagen" Suit in Ore. Over Harmful Spyware
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Levenhagen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00401 (D. Ore., March 10, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with
preinstalled 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, 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:

      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      Mark A. Friel, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
              mfriel@stollberne.com

         - and -

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


LENOVO US: Faces "Simonoff" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Simonoff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Superfish,
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01125 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with
preinstalled 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, 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:

      Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
      Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
              tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Arthur Stock, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              astock@bm.net


LIFE TIME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $15 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Amy Fischbach, writing for Club Industry, reports that Life Time
Fitness, Chanhassen, MN, will pay from $10 million to $15 million
to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

About 593,000 class members contended that the company violated
the act by "blasting unsuspected individuals with text messages to
their cell phones advertising deals on enrollment fees, personal
training packages and other 'exclusive offers'," according to a
recent article on Law360.com.

According to the complaint, Life Time "has a practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to individuals' cell phones."  The
fitness company is accused of sending text messages to thousands
of cell phone numbers either simultaneously or in rapid succession
between January and April 2014.  Recipients of some of the texts
filed suit in federal courts in Illinois, Minnesota and Missouri.
In October 2014, a judicial panel consolidated the cases in
Minnesota.

TCPA and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules ban most
commercial text messages sent to a mobile phone.  The only two
exceptions are if the message is being sent for emergency purposes
or if the recipient has given consent to receive the message.

Life Time Fitness asserted that because the members gave the
company their cell phone numbers, they consented to be contacted.
After Oct. 16, 2013, however, the TCPA required companies to get
written consent to send messages.  Life Time Fitness attorneys
asserted that the "new regulation didn't apply to cancel consent
it received before the new regulation became effective."

The purpose of the TCPA, according to the complaint, is to prevent
advertisers from unfairly shifting the cost of their
advertisements to consumers.  Because the members had to pay their
wireless carriers for the messages, they originally sought a
minimum of $500 in damages.

The parties reached a settlement of less than the $500 to $1,500
that plaintiffs could have potentially received based on TCPA
rules as part of the settlement because "they would face
significant challenges if the litigation continued," according to
Law360.com.  As a result, the federal court approved Life Time's
motion to offer the class members one of three options: a free
three-month membership at Life Time Fitness Gold Club, a $250
credit to be applied to a new or existing membership, or a $100
cash award.  Life Time Fitness also will be responsible for
covering the court costs, and in turn, the plaintiffs must drop
their claims against the company.

In a fourth quarter 2014 financial call, Eric Buss, executive vice
president and CFO of Life Time, said that in the fourth quarter,
the company recognized $4.7 million in expenses related to this
class-action litigation.

"While the company denied the allegations, we agreed to settle the
matter," Buss said during the call.  "The settlement agreement is
still subject to approval from the court, but we believe the
amount recorded represents a reasonable estimate of our potential
exposure."

Equinox, New York, also faces a class action suit related to the
TCPA. That suit was filed in October 2014.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Toxic Floorings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Burns, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01222 (E.D. Pa., March 10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

       Russ M. Herman, Esq.
       Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
       Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
       HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
       820 O'Keefe Avenue
       New Orleans, LO 70113
       Telephone: (504) 581-6024
       Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
       E-mail: Rherman@hhkc.com
               Ldavis@hhkc.com
               Sherman@hhkc.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flanagan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Flanagan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01752 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818) 340-5400
      Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              bhujwala@boucher.la



LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Heilman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Heilman, Linda Heilman, Andrew Bailey, and Joanna Bailey,
individually and on behalf of their minor child (Jack), and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00414 (N.D. Ala., March 10, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
      Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              dgp@wigginschilds.com
              gwiggins@wigginschilds.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sowizrol" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Sowizrol, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al, Docket No.
1:15-cv-02145 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
      120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com
              rac@cliffordlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Groton" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Groton, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated; Roseanna Oakes, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated; Michael Oakes, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; Does I through X, inclusive;
and Roe Corporations I through X, inclusive; Case No. 2:15-cv-
00475 (D. Nev., March 16, 2015) is a consumer protection and false
advertising class action relating to a variety of Chinese-
manufactured laminate wood flooring materials.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' claims that the
Products comply with California Air Resources Board's standards
for formaldehyde emissions and "with all applicable laws, codes
and regulations" are false.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Products emit formaldehyde gas at levels that exceed the strict
limits set forth in the CARB Regulations.  They add that the
Defendants also fail to disclose the unlawful level of
formaldehyde emission to consumers.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Toano, Virginia.  Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. markets,
advertises, distributes and sells the Products to consumers
throughout Oklahoma and the United States.  Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located in Toano.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Toano.  Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, is a
Delaware Limited Liability Company also headquartered in Toano.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq.
          CALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          823 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Suite 330
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 385-3344
          Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
          E-mail: mqc@call-law.com
                  mbisson@call-law.com


MASTEC INC: "O'Connor" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Mastec, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20986 (S.D. Fla., March 11,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mastec, Inc. is an infrastructure engineering and construction
company based in Coral Gables, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 243-4295
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


MICHAEL KORS: Managers File Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a former Michael
Kors Stores Inc. employee has claimed she was denied overtime pay
and meal breaks during the two years she worked for a Michael Kors
shop in a proposed class action that was removed to California
federal court on Feb. 27.

Former shop manager Pamela Thomas-Byass filed the suit on Dec. 23
in California Superior Court, saying that while Michael Kors
classified her as a salaried worker exempt from overtime pay and
legally required meal breaks, she was a manager in name only and
had no authority, so she and other shop managers should have been
nonexempt employees.

"Shop managers had zero responsibility in determining what work
was to be done by other employees of in what time frame," the
complaint says.  "The plaintiff and all the other shop managers
were engaged in a type of work that required no exercise of
independent judgment or discretion as to any matter of
significance."

The complaint says shop managers engaged in a finite set of tasks,
including greeting and assisting customers, setting up sales racks
and displays, dealing with customer service issues, cleaning
fixtures, generating day-end sales reports and taking inventory.

"To successfully compete against other apparel companies,
Michael Kors substantially reduced its labor costs by placing the
labor burden on a smaller number of employees," the complaint
says.

Lawyers for Michael Kors requested removing the case to California
federal court, citing diversity of citizenship -- Ms. Thomas-Byass
lives in California while Michael Kors is headquartered in New
York City.

According to the suit, Michael Kors violated California labor law
by not paying Ms. Thomas-Byass overtime, not providing accurate
itemized statements with her paycheck, not reimbursing her for
Michael Kors apparel purchased as part of the uniform policy and
not paying her in full within a reasonable amount of time after
her departure.

Ms. Thomas-Byass says she worked for Michael Kors between August
2012 and June 2014, and although she was a full-time employee
scheduled to work eight-hour days, she often worked more.

In their notice of removal, lawyers for Michael Kors estimated
this amount at $47,430.  Defense attorneys estimated Ms.
Thomas-Byass' total claim at about $71,000, not including
attorneys' fees.

If certified as a class, the lawsuit would include anyone employed
by Michael Kors stores in California as shop managers and exempted
from overtime pay during the past four years.  Ms. Thomas-Byass
worked at a Michael Kors store within a Macy's department store in
San Bernadino, California.

Ms. Thomas-Byass, her lawyer and lawyers for Michael Kors could
not be immediately reached for comment on March 2.

Ms. Thomas-Byass is represented by Norman B. Blumenthal of
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Michael Kors is represented by Jill A. Porcaro and Jon D. Meer of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Thomas-Byass v. Michael Kors Stores (California) Inc.
et al, case number 5:15-cv-00369, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Case Title
Pamela Thomas-Byass v. Michael Kors Stores (California), Inc. et
al
Case Number
5:15-cv-00369

Court
California Central

Nature of Suit
Civil Rights: Jobs

Judge
Jesus G. Bernal

Date Filed
February 26, 2015

Law Firms
Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Seyfarth Shaw
Companies
Macy's Inc.
Michael Kors Holdings Ltd.


MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Former Students Get $11.3MM in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Quinn, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that
former Mountain State University students will receive a more than
$11.3 million payout from the school, which many of them sued for
not providing them a worthy education before it closed.

Three judges on a mass litigation panel, led by Circuit Judge Alan
Moats of Taylor County, met in Charleston on Feb. 26 to approve
the proposed settlement agreement, which was publicly announced in
August.

Judge Moats called what happened to the former MSU students "more
than unfortunate" and "tragic."  He thanked lawyers, mediators and
others for reaching what he called a fair conclusion to the most
complex settlement he's been involved in.

"Once Mountain State University lost that accreditation, then
everything fell apart, all the pieces came undone, and you all
have had to try to put something together again," said Judge
Moats, who heard the case with Circuit Judges Derek Swope of
Mercer County and James Mazzone of Ohio County.

Of a total settlement of more than $18.5 million, $1.5 million of
the proceeds will go to the University of Charleston for expenses
it incurred related to its takeover of MSU's campuses following
the institution's closure.

One-third of the remaining $17 million -- about $5.7 million --
will go to paying the 22 law firms that represented students, said
Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro.

Mr. Majestro, the lead lawyer for the students, said about
$360,000 of these legal fees will go to expenses such as travel
and filing fees that attorneys incurred while prosecuting the
case.  He said notices were sent out to more than 10,000 former
MSU students to make claims for the remaining $11.3 million but,
as of Feb. 20, only 1,071 had submitted claims, and the deadline
was March 1.  He expects no more than 2,000 total claims.

Former MSU students will get money based generally on how many MSU
credits they had that wouldn't transfer to another school.  An
unknown amount of federal loan money owned by the U.S. Department
of Education could still be on its way to the students, among
other payments, but MSU attorney Dusty Gwinn said on Feb. 26 he
wouldn't speculate on how much that could be.

The settlement includes an $8.5 million payment from MSU's
insurer, United Educators.  It also includes about $10 million
from the sale of MSU's Beckley campus to West Virginia University
and its Martinsburg campus to a limited liability company called
Viking Way Holdings.

UC has been graduating former MSU students under its name in
Beckley and Martinsburg since MSU folded, and it will continue
leasing the campuses until June 30.  UC has said it will seek
another Beckley location to offer academic programs in the future,
and classes at the Martinsburg campus are planned to be relocated
to the National Guard headquarters there.

UC President Ed Welch said the $1.5 million his institution will
receive from the final settlement -- in addition to a $750,000
check MSU gave to UC upon the settlement's previous "preliminary
approval" -- will still result in a loss to the university, which
in 2012 signed 25-year leases on the Beckley and Martinsburg
campuses.  Mr. Welch said the loss isn't major, but includes
administrators' time spent developing programs that UC thought it
was going continue offering at the campuses "for a very long
time."

He said MSU had settled with a few students around the time the
leases were signed, but the number of students making claims
unexpectedly "mushroomed" to a point that MSU didn't have funds to
pay them. Thus, to settle the class-action lawsuit, MSU was forced
to sell all of its assets -- including the ones that UC had
leased.

"Every possible dollar had to go into it," Mr. Welch said.

Fighting to defend UC's lease claims could've taken years of
litigation, holding up the sale of the property that benefited the
former MSU students.

"We didn't want to stand in the way of that settlement," Welch
said.

He noted that UC, in its takeover of the campuses, hired about 90
of MSU's former employees, kept its buildings in shape, leased its
equipment and has graduated more than 400 of its students --
likely reducing the number of students who filed suit or claims
against MSU.

Mr. Majestro said that, as part of the Beckley campus sale, WVU
also will take over an MSU endowment fund that has about $1
million left for providing scholarships to students.  During the
Feb. 26 hearing, the judges inquired about a claim made by a
possible donor against more than half the amount in that fund, but
MSU lawyers would not discuss the details with the Gazette.

Mr. Majestro said WVU has agreed to give those scholarships to
former MSU students first, perhaps to those who wish to continue
their higher education elsewhere.  WVU said it plans to finalize
its purchase of the Beckley campus in mid-March.

In 2012, MSU had its primary accreditation revoked by the Higher
Learning Commission -- a corporation that ensures colleges are
upholding national standards -- after years of failing to correct
major problems in leadership, program evaluations and campus
governance.  Higher education officials said it was the first time
that had happened in West Virginia history.

Hundreds of former students filed lawsuits against the university,
claiming, among other things, that they were harmed by the private
college's accreditation woes -- left with credits that wouldn't
transfer to other institutions and degrees from an unaccredited
school.

Students who attended classes on or after May 27, 2008, in nursing
or any other health sciences program -- such as pre-nursing, the
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist program and/or the
Diagnostic Medical Sonography program -- are eligible for money
from the settlement.  So are students from any other program, as
long as they didn't get a national, regional and state accredited
degree from UC or MSU before the program closed or before UC's
offer to graduate them under its name ended.

Those eligible can still submit transcripts and completed claim
forms to receive money from the settlement, but they must be
postmarked no later than March 1.

Mr. Majestro said he expects to distribute the money in about 30
to 45 days, but other uncalculated funds, like those from the
Department of Education, could require a later distribution.

Students can visit msusettlement.com for directions on filing
claims or mail their documentation to: Claims Administrator,
Smith, Cochran & Hicks, PLLC, 3510 MacCorkle Ave. SE, Charleston,
WV 25304. For more information, call 1-855-829-8121.


MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Braun" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Yoses Braun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MRS BPO LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01763 (D.N.J., March 10,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices.

MRS BPO LLC is a collection agency with a principal place of
business at 1930 Olney Ave., Cherry Hill, NJ 08003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aryeh L. Pomerantz, Esq.
      POMERANTZ & POMERANTZ, PLLC
      3 Whisper Lane.
      Suffern, NY 10901
      Telephone: (845) 547-2600
      Facsimile: (845) 547-2601
      E-mail: aryeh@pom-law.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trial in Super Bowl XLV Seating Suit Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mosier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that four
other Super Bowl champions have hoisted the Lombardi Trophy since
the Green Bay Packers won their title in 2011 at what was then
Cowboys Stadium.

But the seating scandal that marred this region's first Super Bowl
still lingers.  On March 2, a federal lawsuit over the failure to
finish installing about 1,000 temporary seats was scheduled to go
to trial in Dallas.

Attorneys representing eight ticketholders, some of whom paid
thousands of dollars but had no seat for the game, declined to
comment.

"The Plaintiffs and their counsel are busy preparing for the start
of trial on March 2 and are unavailable for comment," a
spokeswoman for lead lawyer Michael J. Avenatti said via email.

The attorneys for the National Football League could not be
reached for comment.

Various NFL executives were apologetic after the seating mess,
which was part of a Super Bowl week filled with bad weather and
high-profile glitches.

"If I could have spent time with every fan at the stadium that
day, face to face, and told them how sorry I am that we ruined
their dreams, I would have," NFL executive vice president
Eric Grubman said at the time.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to be one of the first
witnesses called by the plaintiffs' attorney, according to a news
release.

Criticism of NFL

Attorneys representing the fans, however, were critical of the
league.  They said the NFL low-balled ticketholders and didn't do
enough to reimburse them or respond to the problems.

A portion of the 15,000 temporary seats could not be completed in
time for the Feb. 6, 2011, championship, which led to a cascading
set of problems for fans and the league.  Some ticketholders
didn't have seats and stood for the game.  Others were moved to
different seats or were delayed getting into the stadium.

A few plaintiffs are suing over their seats' obstructed views.

The first lawsuit about the seating trouble was filed little more
than 48 hours after the game.  Eventually, multiple cases were
consolidated into this federal lawsuit.  A second federal lawsuit
was also filed by some of same attorneys and is pending and
includes more than 200 plaintiffs.

The NFL initially offered about 400 fans who had no seats triple
the $800 face value of their tickets and a ticket to the 2012
Super Bowl in Indianapolis.  Later, the NFL gave fans a second
option that included a free ticket to any future Super Bowl plus
roundtrip economy airfare and four nights in a hotel room.

The offer was eventually expanded to at least $5,000 in reimbursed
expenses, although that could be more if "actual substantiated
expenses" were higher.

The 2,800 people in temporary seats who were delayed getting into
the stadium or relocated were offered a refund of their tickets'
face value or a ticket to a future Super Bowl.

Those with obstructed views were not offered compensation.

Ice, snow blamed

The owner of seating contractor Seating Solutions previously said
the severe weather -- ice and snow storms -- slowed the process
and prevented workers from finishing the job.

Documents released by the city of Arlington showed that there were
problems with seating long before the storms arrived.  Some plans
didn't include enough details and weren't drawn to scale.  A top
Arlington fire official previously said he was concerned about 10
or 12 days before the Super Bowl that the temporary seating
wouldn't be completed on time.

The plaintiffs originally sought to have this certified as a
class-action lawsuit, but that was rejected by the judge. Class-
action status makes it easier in many cases for lawyers to
represent an entire class of people rather than having to sign up
everyone individually.

The Dallas Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones had initially been named
in the lawsuit but were dismissed. The Cowboys were in charge of
installing the stadium's additional seating.

An earlier lawsuit associated with the 2011 Super Bowl was settled
in March 2014.  A worker helping with the halftime show
preparations was seriously injured when ice and snow fell from the
stadium roof.

The NFL, the Cowboys and a pair of Super Bowl contractors settled
for an undisclosed amount near the end of that trial.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Super Bowl Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against the
National Football League a year after it was sued for allegedly
violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in selling Super Bowl
tickets.

Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued an order granting the NFL's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker's lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Jan. 21.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, filed in the federal court
Jan. 6, 2014, every year the NFL prints "tens of thousands of
Super Bowl tickets, yet it only allocates a meager one percent of
these tickets for release to the general public through a lottery
system, forcing all other fans into a secondary market for the
tickets where they must pay substantially more than the ticket's
face value to attend one of the most popular and iconic sporting
events of the year."

The plaintiffs argue the profits from these secondary market sales
are returned to the NFL and its franchisees in lucrative contracts
with secondary ticket buyers who must purchase large blocks of
tickets to regular season games of a franchise team to secure a
small allotment of Super Bowl tickets. They contend the secondary
market buyer then enhances their profitability by packaging their
tickets into expensive deals requiring the interested fan to
purchase extras, such as multi-night minimum stay hotel rooms,
pre-game parties and limousine services.

The practice of withholding all but one percent of its tickets to
the general public constitutes a violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, both Mr. Finkelman and Hoch-Parker argue.

On Dec. 30, 2013, Mr. Finkelman purchased two tickets to Super
Bowl XLVIII for $2,000 per ticket, which was "far in excess" of
the face value of the tickets, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Hoch-Parker considered purchasing Super Bowl tickets, but
ultimately decided not to because of the cost.

Both contend the NFL already has tax-exempt status, and its acts
and omissions allow it to gain millions of dollars in profits that
it otherwise would not have gained.

In January, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of Sheridan's
order.  They plan to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the Feb. 13 filing.

They are being represented by Bruce H. Nagel and Diane E. Sammons
-- dsammons@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice LLP.


NEW YORK, NY: Cops File Class Action Over Quota Punishments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Sauchelli, Frank Rosario and Leonard Greene, writing for New
York Post report that city cops are routinely denied overtime and
vacation, demoted to menial posts and ultimately threatened with
being fired for not making quotas, a scathing new class-action
lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit, set to be filed on March 2 in Manhattan Supreme
Court, specifically addresses minority officers allegedly being
forced to make at least one arrest and issue 20 summonses a month.

The plaintiffs claim racial discrimination is at work both because
the department is targeting minorities with the quotas -- and
because black and Hispanic officers are punished more harshly than
white cops when they fail to meet their numbers.

"At this point, you either come up with the numbers or there is
hell to pay,'' Bronx Officer Adhyl Polanco told The Post on
March 1.

Mr. Polanco is one of two plaintiffs who have already testified
against the city in the now-famous case that challenged the NYPD's
use of stop-and-frisk over discrimination issues.  The other
officer is Pedro Serrano.

Other officers have taken on the department over quotas, but Mr.
Polanco -- and Serrano's lawyer, Emeka Nwokoro -- say this is the
first quota case involving alleged racial bias.

Mr. Serrano says he protested to a superior that the Puerto Ricans
he was targeting for summonses in his South Bronx precinct
couldn't afford the fines, but was told it was OK because they
were "animals."  The suit notes he was particularly offended
because he's Puerto Rican.

And Mr. Polanco says that, after he complained about the alleged
quotas himself, he was warned, "If you think one and 20 is
breaking your balls, guess what you'll be doing.  You'll be doing
a lot more."

Another supervisor even upped the ante for him, Mr. Polanco
claims.

"Next week, [it'll be] 25 and one, 35 and one, and until you
decide to quit this job and go to work at Pizza Hut, this is what
you are going to do until then," the second supervisor said,
according to court papers.

Another plaintiff cop, Sandy Gonzalez, gripes in the suit about
allegedly being forced to work alone in a cold, dark and dangerous
area after complaining. He said he was advised that "on 128th
Street, you can write 100 'C' [criminal] summonses any day."

The fourth officer named in the suit, Ritchie Baez, says he was
punished for not meeting his quotas by being assigned to "Sky
Watch" duty, exiling him to one of the department's mounted street
"towers."

Seven NYPD traffic cops are set to file a separate class-action
federal lawsuit charging that they were denied promotions and
punished with no overtime and lost vacation in retaliation for
balking at quotas, too.


OCWEN LOAN: Removes "Nemerovsky" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nemerovsky v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 15-CA-000433, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Ft. Myers).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00171-JES-CM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Pantaleo, Esq.
          EDWARDS WILDMAN, LLP
          525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1600
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6349
          E-mail: bpantaleo@edwardswildman.com


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald J. Stefanko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Michael A.
Narachi, and Joseph P. Hagan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00549 (S.D. Cal.,
March 11, 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.

Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates
for the treatment of obesity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


PRIMAL PET: Recalls Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula
----------------------------------------------------
Primal Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling a single batch
production code of Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula 3-pound bag.
FDA tested product in response to a single consumer complaint.
Primal Pet Foods was alerted by FDA that the testing of two bags
of this lot resulted in a low thiamine level. Neither FDA nor
Primal have received any other reports concerning Thiamine in
Primal products. No other product manufactured by Primal Pet Foods
is involved in this voluntary recall.

Only the product with the following Best By date and production
code is included in the voluntary recall.  It is best to check the
production code on the back of the bag to determine if the product
has been recalled or not.

The lot involved in this voluntary recall is:

Primal Pet Foods Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula 3-pound bag
(UPC# 8 50334-00414 0) with Best By date 060815 B22

Primal takes very seriously, the need for adequate Thiamine levels
in our feline diets. We include Organic Quinoa Sprout Powder as a
natural B-Complex supplement to ensure that adequate levels of
Thiamine are met. Additionally, Thiamine occurs naturally in other
ingredients contained in our Feline Turkey Formula such as: Turkey
Muscle Meat (including heart), Turkey Liver, Organic Sunflower
Seeds, Dried Organic Kelp, Organic Collard Greens and Organic
Squash.

Consumers who still have bags of cat food from this lot should
stop feeding it to their cats and call us at (866) 566-4652 Monday
through Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm PST. Consumers with further
questions should visit our website at www.primalpetfoods.com or
call us at this same number.

Cats fed only diets low in thiamine for several weeks may be at
risk for developing a thiamine deficiency. Thiamine is essential
for cats. Symptoms of deficiency displayed by an affected cat can
be gastrointestinal or neurological in nature. Early signs of
thiamine deficiency may include decreased appetite, salivation,
vomiting, and weight loss. In advanced cases, neurologic signs can
develop, which may include ventriflexion (bending towards the
floor) of the neck, wobbly walking, circling, falling, and
seizures. If your cat has consumed the recalled lot and has these
symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. If treated promptly,
thiamine deficiency is typically reversible.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438184.htm


PRUDENTIAL FIN'L: Cert. Bid Okayed in Part; Expert Report Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey District Judge Claire C. Cecchi granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and granted the
Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Report of David M. Denmark
in the case captioned BOUDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL
FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:06-04359, (D.N.J.)

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a collective action under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated who
suffered damages as a result of the violations of the FLSA, and of
the Labor Laws of the States of California, Hawaii, Illinois,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, and as a result of other
wrongful conduct and improper labor practices allegedly committed
by Defendants.

Plaintiffs sought class certification of four state classes
comprised of insurance agents who were employed by Defendants
Prudential Financial, Inc. and the Prudential Insurance Company of
America either as Prudential Representatives or as Financial
Services Associates in the states of California, Illinois, New
York, and Pennsylvania. Defendants sought to strike the Expert
Report of David M. Denmark.

In his Opinion & Order dated February 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1wd1pafrom Leagle.com, Judge Cecchi granted the
request for class certification, in part, as to the New York and
Pennsylvania, California Deductions Subclasses and denied in part
as to the Illinois, New York, California and Pennsylvania Overtime
Classes.  The Court, meanwhile, granted the Defendants' Motion to
Strike the Expert Report of David M. Denmark.

Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. -- clowe@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP serves as counsel for Prudential Financial, Inc.


PURINA: Faces Class Action in California Over Beneful Dog Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kierra Powell, writing for Local Big 2 News, reports that a
California class action lawsuit claims Purina's Kibble Style dog
food is responsible for the death and injury of several dogs.

In the past four years, consumers have made more than 3,000 online
complaints about dogs becoming ill or dying after eating Beneful,
the lawsuit says.

According to Matt Malone, the attorney for the suit, in all of the
claims there is one common denominator:

"Across different breeds, across different ages, across different
locations, we see one common factor, that is this group of dog
food," Mr. Malone said.

According to Ashley Bloss, a West Texas dog owner, her dog Evie
suffered major health issues after eating Beneful dog food.

"She started to have seizures which was way out of the norm, she
had never had them before.  She lost control of her bladder, she
wouldn't move, she became real lethargic," Ms. Bloss said.

Ms. Bloss says shortly after the seizures started, she rushed
Evie to the vets office but they had little luck in determining
the cause of the problems.

"They didn't know what it was doing or why she got them.  So we
were pretty much left in the dark after that one," Ms. Bloss said.

To make matters worse, Ms. Bloss says her mother's dogs soon
became ill with similar symptoms, and they eventually died from
the effects.

The health problems pushed Ms. Bloss to surf the internet for
answers as to what could have caused the problems.  Then, she said
she came across different materials linking similar problems to
Beneful dog food.

"After reading so many comments it was Evie all over again, all
these people are having the exact same things happen to their
dogs," Ms. Bloss said.

The lawsuit says the common denominator in their clients sick dogs
was propylene glycol, an ingredient listed on the back of a
Beneful bag, and believed to be used in anti freeze.

Bill Salzman, director of corporate communications for Nestle
Purina PetCare, issued a statement denying the allegations in the
lawsuit.

"We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously
defend ourselves and our brand.  Beneful had two previous class
action suits filed in recent years with similar baseless
allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts," Mr. Salzman
said.

The class action lawsuit, filed February 5 in U.S. District Court
in Northern California, seeks $5 million in damages.

Although Ms. Bloss is not part of the current lawsuit, she
believes Beneful is 100 percent responsible for her dogs recent
illness.

"My fiance and I we cried for hours on end because we thought we
were gonna lose her and it was because of her food," Ms. Bloss
said.

Ms. Bloss says since changing her dogs food the seizures and other
symptoms have stopped.

However, when it comes to a final decision on the claims like
Ms. Bloss' and the thousands of others, it will be left to the
courts to decide.


RAMS HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Videotape Recording
------------------------------------------------------
NBC Washington reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against a Maryland restaurant owner after he was accused of
secretly videotaping women in the bathroom.

Kyle Muehlhauser, 37, was arrested on six counts of visual
surveillance with prurient intent.  A woman reported last May she
was inside a bathroom at the Rams Head Tavern in Savage when a
digital camera fell onto the floor.  Detectives say footage on the
camera showed a man placing the camera in the bathroom, and showed
six different women who were secretly recorded.

According to court documents, an alleged victim has filed a class
action lawsuit against Mr. Muehlhauser and Rams Head Tavern,
claiming she visited the restaurant 12 times in the 30 days prior
to the camera being discovered.

"[The victim] is appalled, disgusted, and angry that anyone would
victimize women in this perverse way, but believes that the
antidote for such abuse is to confront the victimizers and hold
them accountable," according to a release from her attorney,
Clarke F. Ahlers.

Court documents list punitive damages at $3 million.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Red-Light Camera Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Shaw, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the battle over
red-light camera fines in Jefferson Parish is headed back to
district court, after appellate judges reversed decisions throwing
out ticketed drivers' lawsuits against the parish and Redflex
Traffic Systems.

The ruling, by a 5th Circuit Court of Appeal panel, raised
questions about the parish's liability and Redflex's role in
handling violations. The court found that the trial court's
summary judgment in favor of Redflex dismissed the plaintiffs'
request for an accounting of the money collected during the
controversial program's two-year run.  Officials have said the
program collected nearly $20 million from November 2007 until
March 2010, when questions over Redflex payments to lobbyists led
officials to suspend the cameras.

Two groups sued the parish and Redflex over the program's
constitutionality in separate cases that were consolidated and
given class-action status.  In one suit, plaintiffs sought refunds
plus interest for drivers, who had paid the $110 tickets.

Appellate Judges Fredericka "Ricky" Wicker, Jude Gravois and
Robert Chaisson agreed with Jefferson Parish and Redflex that
plaintiffs' claims that the red-light camera system was
unconstitutional and illegal under state law had no merit.

Judge Henry Sullivan of the 24th Judicial District Court issued a
summary judgment in favor of the parish and Redflex in 2012.
Judge Sullivan ruled Jefferson Parish was not an appropriate
defendant in response to plaintiffs' complaints about the
program's administration and enforcement.

But the appellate judges said it could not discern whether the
parish created the program's regulations or enacted the rules and
"left it to independent entities, such as the Sheriff, Clerk of
Court, District Attorney and First and Second Parish Courts, to
set up enforcement methods.''

The judges also raised other issues, including whether alleged
violators were given proper notice of proceedings against them in
First and Second Parish Courts, and whether the district
attorney's office could prosecute the citations.  The appellate
judges also questioned whether the program could assess criminal
fines and fees in a civil proceeding.

"We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Jefferson Parish may be liable for any of these potential
failings," the appellate judges wrote.  "Jefferson Parish enacted
the law."

Regarding Redflex, the appellate panel also raised issues about
its part in setting up the program.  By issuing a summary judgment
in favor of the firm, Judge Sullivan denied the plaintiffs an
opportunity to obtain an accounting of the money collected, the
appeals court judges ruled.

"There is an unresolved genuine question of material fact as to
how much money, if any, Redflex would be due under its contract
with Jefferson Parish, if the court, in further proceedings, finds
the ATSE (Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement) illegal or
unconstitutional as applied," the judges wrote.

They added that the plaintiffs didn't have "an adequate
opportunity to respond" after the parish and the company argued
that the Sheriff's Office, and not the parish or Redflex,
"possessed and controlled" the escrow account with all the fines
and fees in dispute.

In 2012, Redflex said it was owed $7.3 million -- $4.7 million in
ticket revenue plus a $2.6 million delinquency fee that continued
to rise.

Jefferson Parish suspended enforcement of the program in January
2010, after officials raised questions over commissions Redflex
had agreed to pay local lobbyists, prompting the company to sue.

Three years later, the Parish Council voted to refund the balance
of $19.7 million drivers paid, but only after the current lawsuit
is resolved.


REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dunstan A. Weerasinghe, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau Incorporated,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01353 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


ROYAL BANK: SMEs File Class Action Over Alleged Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Broadfoot, writing for Invezz, reports that The Royal Bank
of Scotland Group Plc faces a class action lawsuit from over 250
companies, The Times has reported.  The firms have claimed that
the FTSE 100-listed lender's "turnaround" division damaged or
destroyed their businesses.

According to the newspaper, the companies, mostly small and medium
sized businesses, accuse RBS of placing them under the control of
its Global Restructuring Group (GRG) not in order to help them get
back on their feet, but to run them into the ground.  As a result
RBS was allegedly be able to obtain their assets for next to
nothing.

The Times quoted Peter Burgess, who is managing director at
Treble B Tyre Services, one of the firms taking part in the
lawsuit, as saying: "When I sold part of the business, the bank
took the proceeds of the sale and reduced our overdraft facility
. . . I thought this was just done to me and didn't understand
why. But I wasn't the only one."


RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Hugo Cruz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. RW Installation Inc., RW Glazing Inc., Robert
Wszendybyl, Marlena Stettner, Case No. 1:15-cv-20981 (S.D. Fla.,
March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a garage door installation company
that regularly transacts business within Dade County, 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


SALOV: Fraud Class Action Moves Forward in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Virginia Brown Keyder, writing for Olive Oil Times, reports that
Rohini Kumar, as readers will remember from my earlier article,
initiated a class action suit against Salov in the Northern
District Federal Court of California in July 2014 alleging that
Salov, the importer of Filippo Berio olive oil from Italy,
committed fraud by giving prominence on the label of its product
to 'Imported from Italy' while minimizing notification of the
actual origins of the oil.

The plaintiff also alleged that Salov committed fraud by
characterizing the oil as extra virgin.  This fraud entailed both
mixing 'refined' oil with what once may have been extra virgin,
the complaint alleges, and by ensuring that even it had been extra
virgin, it was degraded by the time it reached the consumer due to
the use of clear packaging.

On Feb 3, 2015, the court denied Salov's motion to dismiss
Ms. Kumar's claims, basically finding that 'the reasonable
consumer' could well have been deceived into thinking the oil was
in fact from Italian olives (in spite of the fact that Kumar
acknowledged having read the 'best by' dates positioned next to
the indication of origin) and that the claims for fraudulent
labeling of the oil as 'extra-virgin' were sufficiently
substantiated for this stage of the pleadings.

Three claims that Kumar Lacked Standing Rejected

The Court rejected Salov's argument that Ms. Kumar had no standing
to bring the action because, having become aware of the
misstatement, Ms. Kumar faced no danger of being further deceived
in the future.  District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated, "The
possibility of future injury is alleged sufficiently if the
plaintiff would encounter the same statements today and could not
be any more confident that they were true."

Salov's second claim that Kumar lacked standing to bring the
'extra-virgin' fraud claim because she failed to show that the
actual bottle of olive oil she purchased was not in fact extra-
virgin, and therefore failed to show injury in fact, was also
rejected.  The Judge stated that Kumar needed not "prove that the
particular bottle of oil she purchased had, in fact, degraded to
the point of not being extra virgin," and quoted Judge Seeborg in
a companion case to the effect that "each consumer who purchases
extra virgin olive oil, is entitled to receive oil that meets that
definition by design, not by happenstance."

Salov's third claim that Kumar lacked standing because she
purchased only one product and brings claims against a range of
products was also rejected as "a matter to be considered at the
class certification stage, not the pleading stage."

Tariff Act Claim

Salov's claim that "Kumar cannot rely on the Tariff Act as a basis
for her UCL claim because Congress has vested exclusive
enforcement authority in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
agency", was also rejected.  The Judge relied on a 2014 US Supreme
Court holding to the effect that "even if a private plaintiff is
not permitted to enforce a federal statute or regulation directly,
the federal law may form the predicate for a private right of
action under another federal or state law where the federal law
does not expressly prohibit such an action."

Insufficiency of Claim of Fraud Rejected

Finally, the Judge rejected Salov's dismissal claim that
Ms. Kumar's allegations of fraud were not sufficiently
substantiated.  She found the claims, which outline the "the who,
what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged," adequate
for this stage of the pleading.

In Salov's Favor

The Judge did, however, reject Ms. Kumar's claims for breach of
contract (finding no contract existed) and found her claim of
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing insufficiently
pleaded and therefore granted Salov's motion to dismiss these
claims.  No permission to amend these claims was granted.  Salov's
request for judicial notice of a Filippo Berio Extra Virgin Olive
Oil bottle label was granted and Salov was given until February 24
to file a response.


SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Accused of Harassment & Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Lindeman v. Samaritan Village, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01969-NRB (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is brought to vindicate the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil rights and
to redress hostile, severe, persistent, and longstanding
harassment and discrimination she experienced at her workplace
based on her gender, sexual orientation and disability.

Samaritan is a New York domestic corporation with a principal
executive office in the County of Queens in Brairwood, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal Eugene Wiesner, Esq.
          WIESNER LAW FIRM
          34 East 23rd Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 732-2225
          Facsimile: (646) 678-3532
          E-mail: nwiesner@wiesnerfirm.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: No Schedule Yet to Respond to Ascension Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The schedule for responding to the petition in the lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI Investments Company and SEI Private Trust Company and other
defendants, has not yet been established, SEI said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SEI Private
Trust Company as a defendant. Two of the other actions also name
SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in
addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport
to bring a cause of action against SEI and/or SPTC under the
Louisiana Securities Act. Two of the five actions include claims
for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly
conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted
or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit"
issued by Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court
deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion
would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class
certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the
class certification judgments.

On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a
First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they
asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims
against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013,
the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for
leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First
Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of
the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier
defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana.
SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI
filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt
the state court's order regarding class certification, which the
court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel
transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of
Texas.

On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the
Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. This case is now
pending in the Northern District of Texas, and SEI is awaiting a
ruling on its motion to dismiss.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SIRIUS XM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Elickman" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Efim Elickman, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02093 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's
unlawful telephone solicitation practices in the form of
unauthorized telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system.

Sirius XM Radio, Inc. is a nationwide provider of satellite radio
services with its principal place of business located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      161 North Clark Street, 47th Fl.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 216-5179
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com


SO ROSE: Faces "Gabrielyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspar Gabrielyan, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. S.O. Rose Apartments LLC, Village
Court Apartments LLC, Tuli Realty LLC, Sunny Doe (last name
fictitious), and Sam Doe (last name fictitious), Case No. 2:15-cv-
01771 (D.N.J., March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of residential apartment
complexes and developments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Coney Island Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ST. BARNABAS: Faces "Khansari" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryam Khansari and Maria Kumagay, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. St. Barnabas Hospital, Case No.
1:15-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

St. Barnabas hospital is a New York based hospital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-0057
      Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: fs@hachroselaw.com


STATE FARM: Karmeier Ordered to Give Testimony
----------------------------------------------
Brian Brueggemann, writing for BND.com, reports that the Illinois
Supreme Court justice from downstate has been ordered to give
sworn testimony in a lawsuit that accuses an insurance company of
secretly bankrolling his election.

Justice Lloyd Karmeier of Washington County has been ordered by
U.S. District Judge David Herndon to give sworn testimony in a
lawsuit brought by customers of State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co.

It is not common for judges to be ordered to testify in lawsuits,
especially regarding their election campaigns.

"It's very unusual," said William Schroeder, a law professor at
Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.  "It's extraordinarily
unusual."

The lawsuit in federal court in East St. Louis stems from the
Illinois Supreme Court deciding in 2005 to overturn a $1 billion
verdict against State Farm.  That verdict against State Farm was
issued in a class-action lawsuit in Williamson County.

Mr. Karmeier, a Republican, won a hard-fought, high-dollar
election in 2004 over Democrat Gordon Maag.

The plaintiff attorneys in the class-action suit had asked
Mr. Karmeier to recuse himself from participating in the Supreme
Court's consideration of the State Farm appeal.  Mr. Karmeier
denied the request, and took part in the decision to overturn the
verdict. He cast the deciding fourth vote to throw out the
verdict.

The attorneys in the federal lawsuit allege that State Farm
conspired to elect Mr. Karmeier to the high court, in an effort to
get the class-action verdict overturned.  The attorneys in the
federal suit want to question Mr. Karmeier, in a sworn deposition,
about his "recruitment and selection as an Illinois Supreme Court
candidate, his campaign and fundraising activities" and his
communications and relationships with his campaign supporters.

Judge Herndon, in his ruling, said having Mr. Karmeier give
testimony is the only way to give both sides a fair opportunity to
"explore the facts and for the public, in the face of such
allegations, to learn the truth."

He added: "Without allowing the inquiry, there will never be light
on the facts of this case ..."

Judge Herndon ordered that the plaintiff attorneys can question
Mr. Karmeier "as to his knowledge concerning all aspects of his
campaign, including his decision-making process for running in the
first place and the persons with whom he consulted to make that
decision, how the campaign was managed, how the campaign was
financed, who was involved in the decision-making and strategy of
the campaign."

Judge Herndon ordered that the plaintiff attorneys can
"exhaustively explore" Mr. Karmeier's campaign matters but cannot
question him about any of the Supreme Court's deliberations.

The federal suit alleges that State Farm funneled as much as $4
million into Mr. Karmeier's political fund and then, while the
Supreme Court appeal was pending, concealed the company's
involvement in Mr. Karmeier's campaign.

The Karmeier-Maag campaign drew more than $10 million in political
contributions.  Mr. Karmeier was supported mostly by business
interests, while Mr. Maag's money came mostly from plaintiff
attorneys and labor unions. Mr. Maag, while serving on the 5th
District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon, had issued a ruling
against State Farm in the class-action suit.

In the election in November, Mr. Karmeier narrowly won a retention
vote, giving him another 10-year term on the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff attorneys spent more than $2 million in a last-minute
campaign to get Mr. Karmeier unseated.

The federal suit, which names State Farm and others as defendants,
seeks $8 billion in damages.

The State Farm class-action involved the type of replacement parts
the company required in the repair of damaged vehicles.


STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael DeMasi, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed several claims brought by three former
Stewart's Shops employees who accused the convenience store chain
of allegedly violating wage laws, but upheld other claims,
enabling the lawsuit to proceed.

"I would classify it as another step forward," said attorney Ryan
M. Finn of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP, who is representing
the employees. "It's not a complete victory until the people in
the class get paid what they are owed from Stewart's, but I think
it's an important step along the way."

A spokeswoman for Stewart's, Maria D'Amelia, released the
following statement: "We are pleased with the judge's decision
thus far, but it is too premature to declare victory. We are
optimistic about the pending litigation.

Stewart's Shops has remained confident all along; striving to
treat and pay its partners fairly."

The Malta, New York-based chain operates 332 stores in upstate New
York and Vermont and has annual sales of $1.6 billion.  The
company was sued in January 2014 by a former employee claiming she
and other workers were not paid for all of the hours they were on
the job.  The lawsuit sought $20 million in damages and class-
action status on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who
worked for the company the previous three years.  Stewart's Shops
denied the claims, and filed a motion to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy granted part of the
dismissal motion, but denied other parts in a ruling released on
March 2.

Two former employees, Matthew Potter and Astrid Halten, joined the
original named plaintiff, Holly Gregory.

Finn said the next step will be to seek class-action status for
employees.


SUFFOLK COUNTY, MA: Immigrant Detainee Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Sacchetti, Michael Levenson and Andrea Estes, writing for
The Boston Globe, report that an immigrant detainee has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Suffolk County Sheriff's
Department, saying it pays hundreds of detainees only $1 a day to
mop floors, scrub toilets, and perform other janitorial duties at
the Boston jail.  His lawyers are seeking an estimated $4 million
in unpaid wages over the last six years.

Lawyers for Anthony Whyte, a 40-year-old detainee fighting
deportation to Jamaica, said he should be paid at least the state
minimum wage, $9 an hour, because he is in custody for alleged
civil violations and not crimes.  He voluntarily works in the
jail's immigration unit.

"We're concerned that states and private companies have started
using immigration detention as a cash cow, based on the backs of
this extremely cheap labor," said Andrew Schmidt, a Portland,
Maine, lawyer who is the lead counsel on the case.

A spokesman for Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins said
inmates and immigrant detainees are paid solely based on where
they are assigned to work.  Detainees and inmates can earn $1 a
day working indoors doing laundry or other tasks.  Convicts doing
work outside of jail, such as on a recent snow-shoveling crew, can
earn $3 a day and a reduction on their sentence, said the
spokesman.  He declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The civil lawsuit, filed Feb. 18 in Suffolk Superior Court,
accuses the Sheriff's Department of misclassifying workers as
nonemployees, failing to pay overtime, and other violations of
state law.  In interviews, the lawyers said the law often allows
criminal inmates to be paid less than the minimum wage, but civil
immigration detainees should not lose their right to the minimum
wage, even if the work is voluntary.

The lawsuit follows similar complaints in other states over
federal officials using immigrants as cheap labor while seeking to
have them expelled from the United States.  In Boston, advocates
for immigrants have raised concerns about detainee treatment for
years.  In 2009, a 49-year-old Dominican detainee at Suffolk died
after an infection ravaged his body.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which pays the Suffolk
sheriff's office about $100 a day for each immigrant housed at the
jail during the deportation process, said the dollar-a-day wage is
the going rate for its detainees in most facilities nationwide.

"The Voluntary Work Program, which allows detainees the
opportunity to feel productive and contribute to the orderly
operation of facilities, was developed in an effort to improve
detainee morale and reduce the frequency of disciplinary
incidents," Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Daniel
Modricker said in a statement.  He said the work is "completely
voluntary," does not constitute employment, and is done in
exchange for "a small stipend."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not named in the lawsuit,
and agency officials declined to comment on it.

In Bristol County, where Mr. Whyte had been detained in the past,
Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said jails have no obligation to pay
detainees and he does not.

"They don't have to do the work," he said, adding that the
detainees are already costing taxpayers to house them.  "Why would
we want to take taxpayers' money to pay you even more to do work
that somebody's going to do in there for free?"

However, Patrick Long, a co-counsel on Mr. Whyte's case in Boston,
said civil immigration detainees should not be treated the same as
criminals.

"Even if anybody in this case had committed a crime, that's not
what they're there for now," Mr. Long said.

Mr. Whyte works 20 to 30 hours a week, his lawyers said. His
duties have included handing out food trays at meal times,
cleaning bathrooms, and emptying the garbage.  Other inmates wash
laundry, buff floors, and shovel snow.

Mr. Modricker said Mr. Whyte is being deported because he is an
aggravated felon, although the specifics of his record were
unavailable.   Mr. Whyte disputes that description of his criminal
record, and is challenging his deportation in a separate federal
lawsuit.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mr. Whyte for
deportation in February 2012, and he has been detained in
Massachusetts and Alabama for more than three years, said
Hillary Cheng, another lawyer on his team who discovered
Mr. Whyte through her prior volunteer work at Suffolk University's
immigration law clinic.

Mr. Whyte's lawyers said he arrived in the United States as a
child and received a green card.  He has seven children, all US
citizens.

"Some people gripe about having to pay child support," Mr. Long
said.  "He wishes he could pay his.  But on $1 a day that's not
something you can do.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Resolved Two Putative Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Synchrony Bank (a
subsidiary of Synchrony), previously known as GE Capital Retail
Bank, is a defendant in four putative class actions alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August
22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, originally naming GECC as the defendant. In August
2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss
the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed and the
plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the
defendant. On April 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the alleged class.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank  was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On August 4,
2014, the Bank filed motions to stay and dismiss the action.

Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. On October 28, 2014, the court stayed the
action, pursuant to the parties' agreement, until a ruling on the
pending motion for class certification in the Abdeljalil action.

Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on November 4, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On
January 15, 2015, the Bank filed a motion to stay the action.

In addition to the Abdeljalil , Cowan , Pittman, and Hofer
actions, the Bank has resolved two other putative class actions
that made similar claims under the TCPA, both of which were
settled on an individual basis with the class representative.
Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate
LLC  was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014.

Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stayed "Belton" Adversary Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Court has entered an
order staying an adversary proceeding pending the appeal of an
order denying Synchrony Bank's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 30, 2014, the United States Trustee, which is part of
the Department of Justice, filed an application in In re Nyree
Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York for orders authorizing
discovery of the Bank pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure, related to an investigation of the Bank's
credit reporting. The proposed discovery concerns allegations made
in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, a putative class
action adversary proceeding pending in the same Bankruptcy Court.

In the Belton adversary proceeding, which was filed on April 30,
2014, plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge
injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by
attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update
and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to
show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have
been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.
On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order staying the
adversary proceeding pending the appeal of an order denying the
Bank's motion to compel arbitration.


SYNGENTA AG: Wisconsin Corn Growers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Mertes, writing for The Star, reports that dozens of
Wisconsin corn growers filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court on Feb. 13, 2014, seeking redress against Syngenta AG, a
manufacturer of genetically-modified corn seed.

The farmers are represented by the law firms of Axley Brynelson,
LLP, Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, and Gingras, Cates & Luebke.

The Wisconsin class action lawsuit coincides with class action
lawsuits filed against Syngenta AG in other Midwestern states
including Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and
Nebraska.  Wisconsin farmers suffered significant financial losses
when China rejected corn shipments containing the genetically-
modified seed developed by Syngenta AG.

The lawsuit claims that Syngenta AG affirmatively misrepresented
to U.S. farmers the status of approval of the seed by China, and
failed to disclose that the genetically-modified seed had, in
fact, not been approved.

"Wisconsin grows 9 percent of our nation's corn.  Syngenta's
misconduct compromised the integrity of the corn market.  Syngenta
rushed its product to increase its own profits without regard to
the fact that its actions significantly damaged the price of corn
being sold by Wisconsin farmers," said attorney Jeff Roethe.

China, a major buyer of U.S. corn, began a blanket rejection of
all U.S. produced corn starting in November of 2013 due to the
cross-contamination stemming from Syngenta's genetically-modified
product, which caused corn prices to plunge.

The National Grain and Feed Association estimated that China's
rejection of the corn cost American farmers $1.14 billion for the
last nine months of 2014 alone.

"The farmers of Wisconsin are an important part of our State's
economic engine.  Our focus is to protect all of Wisconsin's
consumers when they fall victim to bad business practices," said
attorney Heath Straka.

"The issue is not whether Syngenta should offer a genetically-
modified corn seed.  The question is whether Syngenta should have
first obtained approval from major corn markets like China, or, at
least, directly informed the U.S. farmer that Syngenta's product
had not been approved before it was sold to U.S. farmers.  This is
an extremely important question because Syngenta's actions caused
the risk of falling prices to be borne by Wisconsin farmers," said
Attorney Robert Procter.

"Our lawsuit will clarify guidelines for the sale of genetically-
modified seeds that have not been approved by major market
buyers," add Mr. Procter.

Corn growers may still be added to this lawsuit.

Any corn grower who sold corn during 2013 and 2014 may be
eligible, whether or not the corn grower used Syngenta AG's seeds.
Please contact Attorney Procter, Attorney Modl, Attorney Roethe or
Attorney Straka with questions.


SYRINGA MOBILE: To Pay Damages to Residents Who Lacked Water
------------------------------------------------------------
KXLY.com reports that the owner of an Idaho mobile home park must
pay damages to residents who went more than 90 days without
potable drinking water.

The Lewiston Tribune reports about 140 residents filed a class-
action lawsuit last year against the owner of the Syringa Mobile
Home Park in Moscow.

Documents filed in Latah County 2nd District Court show the sides
reached a settlement.  The owner, Magar E. Magar, can't close the
park for at least the next year and must pay $2,000 per mobile
home unit to all current park residents.


T UP TRADING: Recalls Corn Bba Korean Snacks Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
T. Up Trading, Inc. of Secaucus, NJ is recalling Korean snack
named Corn Bba, because it may contain undeclared milk. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk related ingredient
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

Crown Confectionery Co. Corn Bba was distributed in NJ, NY, PA,
and MA to only selective Korean retail stores.

The product's net weight is 72g and packed in Polypropylene. The
product has a flavor of banana with real banana cream frosting.
The product was manufactured by Crown Confectionery Co., Ltd.
(Choong Chung Nam Do, S.Korea) on 11/28/2014 and 12/1/2014. The
product bears UPC code 8801111910743 and Expiration date 5/27/2015
and 5/31/2015.

One illness has been reported due to the undeclared milk
ingredient to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered the product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk ingredient. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
company's item and labeling processes.

Consumers who have purchased Crown Confectionery Co.'s Corn Bba
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-201-864-
2300, Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438137.htm


TALLAHASSEE, FL: Commissioners OK Funding for Class Action Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tallahassee Democrat reports that Tallahassee city commissioners
on Feb. 25 approved transferring $300,000 from the city's
Deficiencies Fund to help pay for legal counsel in a 2012 lawsuit
filed against the city of Tallahassee and Leon County.  Plaintiffs
in the class-action suit have asked the court to declare it
illegal for non-property owners to have paid into a fire service
fee through utility accounts since 2009.  The city estimates there
are more than 50,000 utility accounts involved and about $40
million collected since 1990.  The city and county have retained
Ausley & McMullen and Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson to represent
them.


TARGET CORP: Data Breach Costs to Reach $1 Billion
--------------------------------------------------
Tara Seals, writing for Info Security, reports that the data
breach at Target that affected 70 million US consumers has cost
the retail giant $162 million in 2013 and 2014, and could end up
totaling $1 billion or more in damages before all is said and
done.

During its fourth-quarter earnings call, the big-box behemoth said
that it booked $4 million related to the breach in Q4, and $191
million in gross expenses for 2014.  It also spent $61 million
gross for 2013.

While the gross expenses were in part offset by insurance
receivables ($46 million for 2014 and $44 million for 2013), the
losses look to only mount, as lawsuits begin to be filed.
Plaintiffs were given the go-ahead for class-action litigation by
a judge in January.

"The major breaches such as Target, Sony and Anthem damage brand
reputation and consumer trust, but they also have a real impact on
the bottom line," said Eric Chiu, president and co-founder of
HyTrust, in an email.  "The $162 million spent so far by Target is
just a drop in the bucket given the class-action lawsuits by
consumers as well as the recent court ruling that banks can go
after Target to recoup their losses."

The annual M-Trends report from FireEye noted that the huge number
of targeted attacks last year were disproportionately aimed at US
retailers.  At 14%, retailers accounted for the second largest
number of Mandiant engagements in 2014, after business and
professional services (17%).  This was a rise of 10% from the
previous year.

Weak authentication when accessing virtualized application
environments was found to be a major attack vector in the retail
sector, allowing hackers to gain an initial foothold into systems
from which they could "roam into other parts."  It's an avoidable
problem that Target famously has exemplified, leading to several
resignations in its C-suite.

"Invest now or pay later -- this is the message from one of the
largest data beaches reported to date," said Steve Hultquist,
chief evangelist at RedSeal, the security analytics company.
"Consider the ROI for even a very significant investment in
proactive security analytics and process improvements that could
have blocked the breach before it even started."

As Mr. Hulquist nutshelled it, "The lesson for other organizations
is clear: you are under attack.  Making strategic investments now
is a wise preventative measure to keep your organization and your
customers safe."


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of TCP
International Holdings Ltd. stock in and/or traceable to the
initial public offering ("IPO") on or about June 26, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 2, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/tcpintl/

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

The complaint charges certain of TCP's officers and directors, TCP
and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933.  TCP designs, develops, manufactures and delivers
energy efficient lamps, fixtures and internet-based lighting
control solutions.

The complaint alleges that on or about June 26, 2014, 7,142,858
shares of TCP stock were sold to the public at $11 per share in a
registered IPO.  The Company granted the underwriters a 30-day
option to purchase up to an additional 1,071,428 common shares at
the IPO price less underwriting discounts and commissions.

The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the IPO included information that was
false.  Specifically, the Registration Statement negligently
contained statements that falsely described the Company's
operations and business, including false statements concerning the
Company's important Underwriters Laboratory ("UL") and Energy Star
approvals, compliance, and qualifications.  In addition, the
Registration Statement failed to disclose certain material events
known to defendants that caused the information reported in the
Registration Statement and other public statements not to be
indicative of TCP's actual operations.

The IPO was successful for the Company.  However, as TCP's post-
IPO results began to show the adverse trends that had been
concealed in the offering documents, TCP's stock price declined.

On February 27, 2015, TCP shares closed at $3.02 per share, or
approximately 75% less than the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
TCP stock in and/or traceable to the June 26, 2014 IPO.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

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


TEXAS BRINE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $12MM in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that
attorneys who represented Bayou Corne residents in a class-action
lawsuit over the Assumption Parish sinkhole are asking a federal
judge in New Orleans for legal fees that amount to 25 percent of
the $48.1 million settlement award.

The request, if granted, works out to about $12.03 million in
attorneys' fees split among the few dozen lawyers involved in the
two-and-a-half-year-old litigation against Texas Brine, the
Houston company many blame for the now 31-acre sinkhole.

The lawyers also are requesting reimbursement of joint costs in
working up the case, which totals another $291,566, the case's
special master says.

"The value for which the case eventually settled was remarkable,
and it provided an extremely satisfactory benefit to members of
the class," the attorneys wrote in a Feb. 3 motion to the court.

The settlement was reached in April as the litigation was headed
to a trial with six bell-weather cases to determine the range of
plaintiffs' damages awards.

Texas Brine and its insurers agreed to set aside the settlement
fund to pay for a buyout of about 86 properties in Bayou Corne and
to issue separate checks to residents for mental anguish and other
damages.

Nearly all buy-outs had been closed by early February, according
to court papers.

Louisiana Office of Conservation scientists believe years of salt
dome mining by Texas Brine triggered formation of the sinkhole
when that mining got too close to the outer face of the dome.  A
breach opened up in the hollow cavern created by years of past
mining and surrounding sediments filled the cavity.

The sinkhole's formation also opened natural deposits of methane
gas that pose an explosive risk, scientists claimed, if the
invisible and odorless gas built up inside or under the homes.

The threat of the sinkhole and the gas and the weight of an
uncertain future led many in the community of 150 families to seek
buyouts and leave.

Attorneys representing property owners in the class action suit
have said they received replacement value for their homes, many of
which were on the water in scenic Bayou Corne.

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey had not ruled on the attorneys'
request for 25 percent of the settlement amount as of Feb. 27.

It was not clear on Feb. 27 how much of the settlement fund
remains after buyout and damages checks were cut. But before those
checks started going out, Judge Zainey set aside 28 percent of the
settlement award on Aug. 28 for attorneys' fees and costs.

A. Shelby Easterly III, the case's special master who reviewed
damage claims and handled other matters in the case, concurred
Feb. 4 with the attorneys' requests for compensation.

Easterly spoke highly of the attorneys, who he said compressed
more than four years of work into about two years, and were able
to coalesce into what amounted to a new law firm to divide the
work and get it done.

"These results have been accomplished in an expedient manner
yielding a settlement in what may be record time for similar
actions," wrote Easterly, a Denham Springs lawyer.

Sonny Cranch, Texas Brine spokesman, said on Feb. 27 that the
company takes no position on the legal fees, noting the fees were
part of the original settlement agreement.

The attorneys want to divide the fees evenly among the four
lawyers in the class counsel, who are akin to the case's
leadership team and often a case's deep pockets, and the other
private attorneys.

The class counsel are: Calvin C. Fayard Jr., of Fayard & Honeycutt
in Denham Springs; Lawrence J. Centola III, of Martzell & Bickford
of New Orleans; Matthew B. Moreland, of Becnel Law Firm of
Reserve; and Richard Perque, of Richard Perque LLC.

Attorneys for the class could not be reached by the Feb. 27, but
Blaine LeCesne, a Loyola University of New Orleans law professor
who specializes in class-action legal trends in Louisiana, said
that 25 percent for attorneys' fees is reasonable given the
complexity of the case and the size of the award.

"In any kind of contingency fee arrangement, there is enormous
financial risk that the attorneys are undertaking because they
could actually end up with nothing and have to eat all those hours
and expenses," Mr. LeCesne said.

Mr. LeCesne added that the sinkhole plaintiffs' attorneys, in
their request for fees, said the case required more than 8,000
attorney hours and more than 700 support staff hours and incurred
nearly $300,000 costs.  He estimated the attorneys, altogether,
probably put about $2 million at risk in the litigation.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Black Workers File Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Kochman and Denis Slattery, writing for Daily News, report
that nearly all of the black waitstaff at a Manhattan TGI Friday's
were replaced with light-skinned workers -- mostly Hispanics --
when the chain closed a busy Midtown outpost and opened a new
store a block away, according to a lawsuit filed on Feb. 26 in
Bronx Supreme Court.

Just one black staff member from the eatery near Penn Station was
rehired when the company moved to a new location one block east on
34th St. in December, ex-employees charge in the class action
discrimination suit.  When the workers protested, a restaurant
manager told one of them that he preferred Hispanic staffers
because they "work harder," the suit alleges.

"It was their opinion that black people were lazy," charged
plaintiff Lisa Baker, 48, a waitress who says her old manager told
her that her job serving guests was unavailable at the new
location.  "We weren't even given a chance."

Managers openly referred to the old location as "the ghetto
store," or the "black Friday's," and wanted to rid themselves of
that reputation, the suit alleges.

Former employees said they were promised a fair shot at reapplying
for jobs at the new restaurant, a 15,000-square-foot franchise on
34th St., but never heard from their old employers.

"They knew exactly what they were doing," said plaintiff Tony
Pringle, 42, who earned $850 a week as a waiter at the old
location and was not rehired.  "They were basically not hiring
blacks."

A spokesman for Friday's owners, National Restaurants Management
Inc. -- a family-run business long known as the Reise Organization
-- said the company "is proud of its 75-year tradition of positive
employee relations with a diverse workforce."

"The restaurant in question has a workforce, including managers,
that is more than 80% non-white," spokesman Pat Smith said in a
statement.

Lawyers for the former waitstaff are seeking $500,000 for each
employee -- a total of $5 million -- for "loss of wages, emotional
distress and punitive damages."

"The only reason these people are not working right now is because
of their skin color," lawyer Matthew Blit said.  "Heck, this isn't
the 1950's."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Ensure Electronic Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helene Cahen, Kerry J. Tompulis, and Merrill Nisam v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01104 (N.D. Cal., March 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to ensure the
basic electronic security of their vehicles thereby, making the
sold or leased vehicles susceptible to computer hacking.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Toyota, Lexus and
Scion automobiles in California and multiple other locations in
the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      225 Broadway, Suite 1350
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 235-5306
      Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
      E-mail: mzevin@aol.com

         - and -

      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      6116 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
              mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls 16 oz. Cinnamon Almonds Due to Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company is recalling all lot codes of its 16 ounce
packages of Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds because they may contain
undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The recalled Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds were distributed
nationwide in Trader Joe's retail stores. The product comes in a
16 ounce, clear plastic package marked with UPC # 00761437 on the
back of the package.

The recall was initiated after peanuts were discovered in packages
of Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
supplier's production and packaging processes. All product has
been removed from store shelves. Sale of this product has been
suspended.

To date, Trader Joe's has received one report of an allergic
reaction potentially linked to this product.

Customers who have purchased 16 ounce packages of Trader Joe's
Cinnamon Almonds and have a sensitivity to peanuts are urged to
discard the product or return it to any Trader Joe's for a full
refund. Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's Customer
Relations at 626-599-3817 [Monday through Friday, 6:00AM to 6:00
PM PST].

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438080.htm


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Canada Over Defective Guardrail Design
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Galli, writing for ABC News, reports that the multi-million
dollar troubles for an embattled American guardrail maker have
extended north of the border as a Canadian city filed a lawsuit
over the company's allegedly dangerous and "defective" guardrail
design.

The complaint, obtained by ABC News, seeks half a billion dollars
in damages on behalf of the city of Stratford, located in Ontario,
Canada and alleges Trinity Industries of Dallas, the manufacturer
of the ET-Plus guardrail system, "misled its customers" by not
disclosing "secret" modifications it had made to its product.

"Trinity was aware of multiple serious failures of their secretly
modified ET-Plus guardrail end terminals, but continued to
manufacture and sell the modified version without disclosing the
changes, resulting in tens of thousands of the units being
installed across Canada," the complaint reads.  "It is believed
that there are tens of thousands of these defective, secretly
modified, ET-Plus guardrail end terminals on the highways, as well
as provincial and municipal roadways, across Canada."

Reporter's Notebook: Going Inside Emergency Guardrail Testing
The ET-Plus guardrail system, which is used in states throughout
the U.S., was the subject of an ABC News "20/20" investigation
last year.  ABC News obtained an internal Trinity email from 2005
in which a Trinity official estimated that making a modification
to its widely-used guardrail system -- reducing a piece of metal
in the end terminal from five inches to four -- would save the
company $2 per end terminal, or $50,000 a year.

Trinity made the modification that year without alerting U.S.
federal or state officials and critics have since blamed the
change for rendering the end terminal defective when hit,
sometimes impaling vehicles and causing severe injury or death.
The company has maintained that the modified ET-Plus is safe and
continues to meet federal standards.

News of the complaint from Stratford, which happens to be the
hometown of pop star Justin Bieber, was first brought to light by
Trinity itself in an annual shareholders report just filed by the
publicly-held company in which it disclosed pending litigation.

"The Statement of Claim in this litigation generally alleges that
Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products and Trinity
Industries Canada, failed to warn of dangers associated with
undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals,
breached its implied warranty, breached its duty of care, and was
negligent," the Trinity earnings report reads.

Trinity spokesman Jeff Eller would not comment on the complaint
and told ABC News the company has not yet officially been served.

The Canadian complaint is the second of three class action
lawsuits filed against Trinity surrounding the ET-Plus system.  In
November, a class action complaint was filed in Illinois on behalf
of the counties in that state, alleging fraud on the part of
Trinity for not disclosing the modifications.  And a class action
complaint was filed in Wisconsin, also alleging the company was
fraudulent in selling the altered ET-Plus to transportation
departments.

While three Canadian provinces -- Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia
-- have suspended the use of the ET-Plus on its roadways, the
province in which the city of Stratford lies, Ontario, Canada's
second largest province, has not removed the ET-Plus from its list
of approved products.  According to the complaint, officials there
are "actively monitoring the developments in the United States."


U.S. ENGINEERING: "Elsea" Case May Proceed as Class, Mo. App Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri,
Western District, reversed an order by the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, denying class certification in, and
remanded, the case captioned DAVID M. ELSEA and JEANNE MORGAN,
Individually and as Class Representatives, Appellants, v. U.S.
Engineering Company, a Corporation, and Jackson County, Missouri,
Respondents, Case No. WD 77687, (Mo. Ct. App.).

Plaintiffs filed a tort action in circuit court on behalf of a
proposed class of persons exposed to asbestos fibers claimed to
have been caused by U.S. Engineering Company's generation use,
handling, storage, treatment, demolition, removal and disposal of
asbestos during the renovation, repair, maintenance and/or
remodeling of the Jackson County Courthouse which is owned,
operated, and maintained by Jackson County, Missouri. Plaintiffs
sought recovery of compensatory damages for the expense of
prospective medical monitoring allegedly necessitated by a defined
amount of minimum exposure to asbestos fibers at the Jackson
County Courthouse.

The Jackson County Circuit Court denied the class certification.
David M. Elsea and Jeanne Morgan, individually and as class
representatives, took an appeal.

In a decision dated March 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/aTwdoufrom Leagle.com, Judge Pfeiffer reversed the
circuit court's judgment denying class certification, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

James D. Griffin, Esq. -- jgriffin@sakg.com and Michele F. Sutton,
Esq. -- msutton@sakg.com of Scharnhorst ast Kennard Griffin PC --
Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com, Anthony J.
Romano, Esq. --  aromano@polsinelli.com -- Travis L. Salmon --
tsalmon@polsinelli.com -- and Jennifer J. Eng, Esq. --
jeng@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli Shughart PC serve as counsel
for U.S. Engineering Company, a Corporation.

The Appeals Court panel consists of Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding
Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Response to Amended Yucesoy Case Due March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on March 19, 2015, a
stipulation in the case captioned HAKAN YUCESOY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS KALANICK, and RYAN GRAVES, Defendants,
CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00262-EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties in the case have agreed to Plaintiff's filing of a
First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this stipulation, Plaintiffs
withdraw the First Amended Complaint filed on February 26, 2015
and re-file the First Amended Complaint concurrently with the
stipulation. Plaintiff agrees that the filing of the Amended
Complaint on February 26, 2015 did not constitute filing or
service of a pleading on that date. Defendants' time to respond to
the First Amended Complaint will be governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15, and any response must be filed within 14 days
after service of the amended pleading.

The First Amended Complaint is substantively identical to the
First Amended Complaint filed on February 26, 2015.

Defendants' response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is due
March 31, 2015.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/y59gWAfrom Leagle.com.

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated, ADELAIDE PAGANO,
pro hac vice, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., Boston, MA, Attorneys
for Plaintiff.

HAKAN YUCESOY, ROBERT JON HENDRICKS -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com
-- SACHA M. STEENHOEK -- ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -- CAITLIN V.
MAY -- cmay@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS KALANICK and RYAN GRAVES.


ULTRAZX LABS: Recalls Weight Loss Supplements Due to Sibutramine
----------------------------------------------------------------
UltraZx, Labs, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling "UltraZx" weight
loss supplements. This product has been found to contain
undeclared Sibutramine and phenolphthalein.

FDA laboratory analysis of confirmed that UltraZx contains
sibutramine and phenolphthalein. Sibutramine is a controlled
substance that was removed from the market in October 2010 for
safety reasons. The product poses a threat to consumers because
sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure
and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant
risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease,
congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke. Phenolphthalein
is a chemical that is not an active ingredient in any approved
drug in the United States. Studies have indicated that it presents
a cancer causing risk. This product may also interact, in life-
threating ways, with other medications a consumer may be taking.

Ultra ZX LABS, L.L.C. has not received any reports of adverse
events related to this recall. UltraZx weight loss supplement is
marketed as a dietary supplement used as a weight loss aid and is
packaged in bottles of thirty (30) capsules of 300mg. The affected
UltraZx weight loss supplement, includes all lots/bottles/
packages. The products were distributed from September 2014 until
February 2015.

UltraZx Labs, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors and customers
by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products.
Consumers and distributors that have product which is being
recalled should stop using the product and return the product to
UltraZx Labs, L.L.C.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact UltraZx
Labs, L.L.C. at (305) 904-9393, Monday through Friday from 9:00am
- 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this product.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437518.htm


UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Collects Tourism Tax, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Almanza, Alejandro Davison, Nicolas Arroyo, Aida Perez, Ana
Escobar, and Miguel Orozco, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. United Airlines, Inc. et al, Docket
No. 2:15-cv-00033 (S.D. Ga., March 10, 2015), arises out of the
unlawful scheme developed and implemented by the Defendants to
charge Mexican Nationals, children under the age of two and
foreigners with resident status in Mexico a Mexico Tourism Tax.

United Airlines, Inc. is an international air transportation
companies and members of the Camera Nacional de Aerotransporters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick T. O'Connor, Esq.
      Benjamin M. Perkins, Esq.
      OLIVER MANER, LLP
      P.O. Box 10186
      Savannah, GA 31412-0386
      Telephone: (912) 236-3311
      Facsimile: (912) 236-8725
      E-mail: pto@olivermaner.com
              bperkins@olivermaner.com

         - and -

      Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq.
      Chris Faucett, Esq.
      Stephen Abbott, Esq.
      Brent T. Cadwell, Esq.
      PREBEG, FAUCET & ABBOTT, PLLC
      8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307
      Telephone: (832) 742-9260
      E-mail: mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com
              cfaucett@pfalawfirm.com
              sabbott@pfalawfirm.com
              bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Deported Mexicans Can Return for Hearings
--------------------------------------------------------
KPBS.org reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of non-citizens
who signed "voluntary return" forms in Southern California and
were expelled to Mexico will be given the chance to apply to
return to the U.S. and seek legal status, a staff attorney at the
ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties said on Feb. 27.

A ruling issued on Feb. 26 by a Los Angeles-based federal judge
"acknowledges that the protection of our borders cannot come at
the cost of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution," said
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Gabriela Rivera.

"Now we can begin the process of reuniting some of the families
who could have remained together in the United States but were
driven apart by government practices that rely upon
misinformation, deception, and coercion," she said.

U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt approved provisions of the
settlement of a class-action complaint that addresses methods used
by immigration enforcement officers who allegedly deprived those
who signed the voluntary return documents of their right to see a
judge and have their fair day in court, according to the ACLU.

The 2014 settlement stemmed from a lawsuit brought in June 2013 in
Los Angeles by the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project.  They sued on behalf of individual
plaintiffs who were expelled from the United States and
organizations that used their resources in response.

The individual plaintiffs had no significant criminal backgrounds,
and their family ties could have helped them obtain relief against
deportation had Border Patrol agents or U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officers not misstated the consequences of
signing away their right to see an immigration judge, according to
the ACLU.

Under the terms of the 2014 settlement, nine plaintiffs returned
to the United States last August, with the same legal status they
had before signing the documents, according to the ACLU.

"The United States derives its core strength from embracing the
notions of fairness and due process established by our
Constitution," said plaintiffs' attorney Darcie Tilly, adding that
the Feb. 26 ruling "will allow for the reunification of numerous
families that were wrongfully separated."

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Isidora Lopez-Venegas,
described how the government's actions affected her and her
family.

"My expulsion from the United States was incredibly difficult for
my family," the ACLU quoted the mother of three as saying.

"I know that many others have been harmed by the government's
'voluntary return' practices and I'm happy that today their dream
of returning home and hugging their family can come true, like
mine did," she said.

Ms. Lopez-Venegas said she signed a voluntary return form in 2011
after being told that if she did not, her then 10-year-old son,
who had been diagnosed with autism, would be sent to a foster home
while she was detained for months.

The agents told her she could instead sign for her immediate
"voluntary" return and easily "fix" her papers from Mexico,
according to the ACLU.

Because she was a single mother and her family's only means of
financial support, she was anxious to do what was in the best
interests of her family and based on the misinformation she was
given, she saw no other choice but to sign, the civil rights group
said.

She was then expelled to Mexico, and her son, a U.S. citizen, was
forced to move with her.  They lived in Mexico for three years,
separated from ms. Lopez- Venegas' two daughters, according to the
ACLU.

During that time period, she was unable to get her son treatment
for his autism, the ACLU said.

With Judge Kronstadt's ruling, the ACLU and three organizational
plaintiffs -- the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los
Angeles, the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center and the San
Bernardino Community Service Center -- will lead the search for
potential class members in Mexico, the ACLU said.


UNIVERSAL PARKING: Faces Suit Alleging Retaliation Due to Race
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Quinto v. Universal Parking Of Florida, LLC d/b/a Star
Parking Systems, Case No. 1:15-cv-21055-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 16,
2015) seeks to redress alleged injury done to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant's discriminatory treatment and retaliation on the basis
of his race and color (black).

Universal Parking Of Florida, LLC, doing business as Star Parking
Systems, is a profit corporation authorized to conduct business in
the state of Florida.  Universal Parking is a Valet Parking
company that provides services at different locations in Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


V2V HOLDINGS: Removes "Bair" Suit to Northern District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bair, et al. v. V2V Holdings,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2015CV257139, was removed from the Superior
Court of Fulton County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-00783-ELR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  mattklase@bellsouth.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward Alexander Marshall, Esq.
          Robert Leonard Rothman, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN & GREGORY
          171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
          Telephone: (404) 873-8536
          E-mail: edward.marshall@agg.com
                  robert.rothman@agg.com


VIRGINIA: Victims of Forced Sterilizations to Get Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Zirpolo, writing for News Leader, reports that victims of
Virginia's Forced Eugenical Sterilization Act will receive $25,000
from the General Assembly after a three-year battle to include
compensation in the Virginia budget.

Virginia is the second state to set aside funds for victims of
forced sterilization.  State legislators in North Carolina set
aside $50,000 per victim as compensation in 2013, which set into
motion similar advocacy efforts in Virginia lead by Del. Bob
Marshall, R - Prince William, Del. Patrick Hope, D - Arlington and
Del. Ben Cline, R - Amherst, as well as the Family Foundation, the
Christian Law Institute and the ACLU of Virginia.

The forced sterilization program is part of a legacy of eugenics
that Del. Ben Cline called "a dark shadow on our Commonwealth's
history." From 1924 to 1979 over 7,000 non-consenting Virginians
were sterilized, focusing on those the state deemed physically or
mentally unfit.

"I can think of few greater injustices than a government
physically altering human beings without their consent to deny
them the right to give life and to have a family," said Victoria
Cobb, President of the Family Foundation.  "It is long past time
for our government to accept responsibility for its actions."

The eugenic program in Virginia inspired similar legislation in 32
states during the 1920s and eventually the sterilization of over
65,000 Americans.  Even Adolph Hitler based his racial purity
efforts on those established in Virginia according to Del. Patrick
Hope, D-Arlington.

"I hope that at the end we recognize Virginia's role in this
repugnant part of our state's history," said Del. Hope.
"Recognize that we've done something wrong, and we're going to do
something right today."

Advocates have located eleven living victims of the program.
Lawmakers included extra funding for others who may come forward
at a later date.

Lewis Reynolds, an 85-year-old electrician and Marine veteran from
Lynchburg, was forcibly sterilized when he was 13 years old.
Doctors misdiagnosed him with epilepsy after a head injury and did
not notify him of the procedure. Reynolds found out years later
when he tried to start a family and could not.

"I thank you all very much, more than you'll ever know,"
Mr. Reynolds said in a press conference with lawmakers and
advocates at the capitol.

Virginia legislators passed the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization
Act in 1924, the same year as the Racial Integrity Act barring
interracial marriage.

Three years later the Supreme Court upheld the program in Buck v.
Bell.  In the majority opinion Supreme Court Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said, "Three generations of imbeciles
are enough."

In 1980 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action
lawsuit against Lynchburg Training School & Hospital, one of six
sites then carrying out forced sterilizations in Virginia,
claiming that the procedures violated victims' constitutional
rights.

"Politicians, like those who passed the forced sterilization
program, should not have the right to decide whether an individual
has a child," said Aisha Huertas Michel, director of the Patricia
M. Arnold Women's Rights Project for the ACLU of Virginia.  "The
victims of forced sterilizations were stripped of this right
without their knowledge or consent."

The case settled in 1985 when the state agreed to launch a media
campaign to inform victims of their sterilization and provide
counseling services. In 2002 then-Governor Mark Warner formally
apologized for the eugenic program.

In 2013 the Virginia House of Delegates extended $25,000 to each
victim in the state budget, but Senate did not approve the
measure. This year no members of the House or Senate objected to
the fund.

"Although money does not restore the intentional harm perpetrated
against these individuals by their own government, it does however
provide a great level of healing and forgiveness," said Mark Bold,
Executive Director of the Christian Law Institute.  "The
Commonwealth is finally telling the victims that they matter,
their lives have value and they are equally important to us as a
community."


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellis, Julia Jacobus, Theresa Kurdt, and Louetta Schulze,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co., and NBTY, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02167 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading representation of their store-
brand herbal supplements that they contain their namesake
ingredients on the label when in fact, they did not contain the
herbs identified on their products' labels but rather contain
unrecognizable or unrelated substances.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a
chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores
throughout the United States.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation that operates the largest
drug retailing chain in the United States.

NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is one of the largest
retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of vitamins,
nutritional supplements, and related products in the United
States, with operations throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq,
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (213) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
      Gustafson Gluek PLLC
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              csmith@gustafsongluek.com
              mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
              dnordin@gustafsongluek.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, Lance Duroni, Caroline Simson and Sean McLernon,
writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia man filed a proposed
class action against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in federal court on
Feb. 27, claiming the retail giant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making at least 33 unsolicited automated calls
to his cellphone over an 11-day period.

David Dubanoski, who is seeking a jury trial and unspecified
damages, has proposed a class that consists of anyone in the U.S.
who received automated phone calls to their cellphones from
Wal-Mart in the past four years without having given prior consent
and were not the intended recipient.

Mr. Dubanoski says in his complaint that the calls began on Nov.
26 and continued until Dec. 6, all of them regarding a Wal-Mart
credit card he never had.  During this time, he received one
prerecorded voice message asking him to return the call or visit
the store's credit card website.

When Mr. Dubanoski called the number provided in the message, an
artificial or recorded voice asked for his Wal-Mart credit card
number.  Since he's never had one, he didn't enter one and was
then asked to provide his Social Security number, the complaint
says.

Mr. Dubanoski refused to disclose this information and was
directed to an operator, who asked for his telephone number but
not his name.

Upon receiving Mr. Dubanoski's phone number, the operator told him
she didn't know why Wal-Mart had tried to contact him and assured
him his information would be removed from the contact list, the
complaint says. But hours later, he received another automated
call.

According to the complaint, Mr. Dubanoski believes the calls were
intended for someone else because he had never given the store
permission to call his cellphone.  The plaintiff also said that he
believes the calls are part of a pattern of TCPA violations by the
company.

Wal-Mart was previously hit with a similar proposed class action
in September, in which a consumer said the company placed numerous
unwanted calls to his cellphone to persuade him to fill his
prescriptions there, years after he had begun using a different
pharmacy.  A Florida federal judge rejected class certification in
the case in January but said a new attempt at certification could
be made before July 15.

Mr. Dubanoski's lawyer, Shireen Hormozdi of The Hormozdi Law Firm
LLC, declined to comment on March 2.

Wal-Mart could not be immediately reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shireen Hormozdi of The Hormozdi
Law Firm LLC and Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC.

Counsel information for Wal-Mart was not immediately available.

The case is Dubanoski v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15-
cv-00042, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Beal" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Varonica Beal and Lois Walker, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co. and NBTY, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-60504 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's false and misleading representation of their store-
brand herbal supplements that did not contain the herbs identified
on their products' labels but rather contain unlisted fillers such
as rice, beans, garlic, wheat, citrus, and house plants.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation that operates the largest
drug retailing chain in the United States.

NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is one of the largest
retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of vitamins,
nutritional supplements, and related products in the United
States, with operations throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Monica McNulty, Esq.
      KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              tr@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com
              mmcnulty@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: JSX@SearcyLaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick Spellacy, Esq.
      KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
      200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 463-3008
      Facsimile: (954) 463-3010
      E-mail: Spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com

         - and -

      Robert Baldwin Brown, III
      PENNEKAMP LAW, P.A.
      2811 SW 3rd Avenue
      Miami, FL 33129
      Telephone: (305) 860-4445
      Facsimile: (866) 353-5529
      E-mail: pleading@pennekamplaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Goldenberg Heller Files Suit Over Herbal Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that an
Edwardsville law firm has filed a class action suit against the
Walgreen's Drug Store chain, claiming the stores sell herbal
supplements that actually contain such substances as rice,
tropical houseplant and material originating in the daisy family.

The suit claims the New York attorney general issued cease and
desist letters to the chain on Feb. 2.  The letter said the six
Walgreen's "Finest Nutrition" brands were tested, but all but one,
Saw Palmetto, were unrecognizable or a substance other than what
they claim to be.

According to the test results obtained by the New York Attorney
General's Office, only 18 percent of the tests yield DNA matching
the product label; 45 percent tested for botanical material other
that what was on the label; and 37 percent yielded no plant DNA at
all.

The suit was filed by Kevin Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- and
Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- of the Goldenberg Heller
Antognoli & Rowland law firm.

The named plaintiff is Donald Weeks, who bought supplements at the
Edwardsville store. A judge must certify the case before it can
proceed as a class action.  The class would be all Illinois
consumers who purchased the Finest Nutrition products within the
last three years.

The suit claims that that the Walgreen's gingko biloba does not
contain gingko biloba, but oryza, commonly known as rice.

The suit also claims that St. John's Wort contains garlic, rice
and a tropical houseplant, that ginseng contains garlic and rice;
garlic does not primarily contain garlic but primarily palm, wheat
and rice, and echinacea contains rice and a material originating
in the daisy family.

The suit claims that dietary supplements are becoming increasingly
popular, and the global market is estimated to be $100 billion.
They are advertised as having therapeutic properties.  For
instance echinacea is supposed to prevent colds, while gingko
biloba is taken to improve memory.

The suit claims the firm violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Act, which covers alleged false claims about
products.  The suit is also asking for an injunction to prevent
continued sale of the products, as well as damages, including
punitive damages.

The proceeds of any verdict would be distributed, once any amount
of damages is set.  Typically, people may be awarded a portion of
the funds by submitting a claim after an advertising campaign.


WELLMARK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Iowa Supreme Court rejected
claims by chiropractors on Feb. 27 that the state's dominant
health insurer was engaging in illegal price-fixing.

A class-action lawsuit challenged Wellmark Inc.'s practice of
making its reimbursement rates for providers in its network
available to self-insured employers who hire Wellmark to
administer their plans.  The suit also challenged Wellmark's
practice of making the same rates available to out-of-state
insurers who are affiliated with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It
contended those agreements violated Iowa antitrust law by
restricting competition.

Chiropractors have long contended that Wellmark's reimbursement
rates and coverage for their services is inadequate and unfair,
particularly since the company controls most of Iowa's health
insurance market.  But in a 5-0 ruling, the court said Wellmark's
relationships with self-insured employers and health insurers do
not amount to price-fixing agreements with competitors.

Instead, the court said, the arrangements allow employers to
purchase health insurance services from Wellmark that they
couldn't provide themselves and out-of-state insurers to use an
existing provider network instead of creating their own.

In both cases, the agreements use purchasing power to achieve
market efficiencies and therefore are legal, the court ruled.

"We are pleased with the ruling and feel the outcome in favor of
Wellmark speaks for itself," said Traci McBee, a spokeswoman for
Des Moines-based Wellmark, which covers nearly 1.8 million Iowa
residents and 300,000 in South Dakota.

Steven Wandro, an attorney for the chiropractors, said he expects
his clients will push for changes to state law to address the
issue, and are pursuing a separate lawsuit alleging Wellmark's
rates are discriminatory.  Chiropractors receive smaller
reimbursements than doctors even when they provide the same
services, he said.


WELLPOINT INC: High Court Won't Hear Premium-Hike Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on March 2 declined to hear a proposed class action accusing
Wellpoint Inc. of orchestrating an illegal plot to shave unhealthy
policyholders from its rolls and force them to reapply for
coverage with higher premiums after its 2001 merger with
Rightchoice Managed Care Inc.

The high court's refusal to take up the case leaves in place the
Seventh Circuit's August 2014 ruling affirming an Illinois federal
judge's 2012 decision declining to certify the proposed class and
rejecting the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and unfair
trade practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against
Wellpoint.

The plaintiffs are former Illinois customers of Rightchoice
Managed Care Inc. who have been fighting to revive their proposed
class action accusing Wellpoint of orchestrating a plot to shave
policyholders with pre-existing conditions from its rolls after
the insurers merged in an act of "abominable intentional corporate
wrongdoing" that stripped the plaintiffs of their renewable health
insurance, according to court documents.  After the Seventh
Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc in
October 2014, the plaintiffs petitioned the high court for review
in January.

In a statement to Law360 on March 2, the plaintiffs' attorney
Clinton Krislov -- clint@krislovlaw.com -- of Krislov & Associates
Ltd. said he was very disappointed in the high court's decision
not to hear the case, which involved seriously ill people being
forced off of their guaranteed renewable health insurance by a
manipulation that the district judge recognized as "immoral,
unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous."

"Wellpoint grew to be the largest health insurer by acquiring
regional health insurers throughout the nation," Mr. Krislov said.
"In this case, acquiring the Missouri Blue Cross business, and
maximizing its profitability by forcing off those people who
needed their guaranteed renewability, because they had become
otherwise uninsurable."

Mr. Krislov added that it was also troubling that the Seventh
Circuit panel seemed more motivated to criticize counsel, than to
concern itself with obtaining justice for an abused class of very
ill individuals, who could have been easily redressed by simply
enforcing their guaranteed rights to renew their health insurance
without reconsideration of their worsened health.

"Class actions like this one can and should be certified as
perhaps the most effective vehicle for obtaining justice and
accountability for consumers and insureds, and we regret the
relegation of this case to those involving trivial pursuits,"
Mr. Krislov said in the statement.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that after Wellpoint's $1.3
billion acquisition of Rightchoice in 2001, it moved to wind down
Rightchoice's money-losing Illinois operations by purporting to
withdraw from that market in 2002.  The plaintiffs alleged that as
a result, they were forced to reapply for insurance as new
customers of Wellpoint's UniCare subsidiary and pay much higher
rates or else go without private insurance altogether, according
to court documents.

The plaintiffs challenged the legality of WellPoint's purported
"market withdrawal" from Illinois in 2002 and forced "conversion"
of its RightChoice insureds and whether the move was actionably
"unfair" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, Wellpoint bamboozled insurance
regulators in both Missouri and Illinois by assuring them that it
wouldn't alter Rightchoice's business operations after it acquired
the company, while plotting all along to shut down its business in
Illinois after the deal closed.

The plaintiffs had pressed the court to determine whether
WellPoint illegally breached its health insurance policy contract
and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act statutory
obligations to renew policyholders without regard to their health
conditions, according to court documents.

But the plaintiffs' claims were rejected on the merits by U.S.
District Judge J. Phil Gilbert in 2012 and the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the decision.  The Seventh Circuit panel said that a
claim that WellPoint misrepresented its plans to state insurance
regulators when acquiring Rightchoice may entitle the regulators
to seek redress, but regulators didn't express any
dissatisfaction.  As such, private litigants cannot enforce state
regulators' entitlements, the panel said.

In addition, because Rightchoice was losing money in 2001, it is
unlikely that the acquisition -- or a statement made to an agency
-- was the cause of the policy's discontinuation or its
replacement by a different policy with a higher premium, the panel
said.  Furthermore, the Illinois Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act cannot be enforced by a private suit when there
are other public or private means to implement its terms, the
panel had said.

WellPoint Inc. changed its corporate name to Anthem Inc. in
December 2014 and is one of the largest for-profit managed health
care companies in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

Mr. Myrick is represented by Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T.
Goldstein of Krislov & Associates Ltd.

Wellpoint is represented by Margo Weinstein --
mweinstein@millershakman.com -- of Miller Shakman & Beem LLP.

The case is Bob Myrick et al. v. Wellpoint Inc. et al., case
number 14-859, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defense Must Prepare Witness in Profemur Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on March 1 disclosed that a federal court
overseeing a Wright Profemur hip lawsuit scheduled to go to trial
in October has ruled that the defense must prepare a witness to
provide testimony regarding the role an Italian hip implant played
in the development of the Profemur device, Bernstein Liebhard LLP
comments.  According to an Order filed in U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Iowa on February 25th, Wright Medical
Technology had asserted, among other things, that it was
unreasonable to expect the witness to testify regarding the
design, development, and testing of the device prior to 1999,
which is when Wright acquired Cremascoli, the Italian company that
developed and marketed the prototype.  However, the Court
disagreed, and found that the plaintiffs are entitled to discover
the role that the Italian hip implant played in the development of
the Profemur hip. (Kuennen, et ux. v. Wright Medical Techonology
Inc., No. C14-2045)

"This Order will provide insight into matters relevant to the
plaintiffs, including the extent to which the Cremascoli device
served as a model for the Profemur hip, the manner in which the
Italian hip implant may have been modified, and whether or not
Cremascoli received any complaints of product failure prior to
Wright's acquisition of the company," says Bernstein Liebhard LLP,
a nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs
and medical devices.  The Firm is actively filing Wright hip
lawsuits, and continues to offer free legal evaluations to
individuals who were allegedly injured due to Wright Profemur
hips, as well as Wright Conserve hip replacements.

Wright Hip Litigation

According to a regulatory filing issued by Wright Medical Group on
February 18th, the company had been named in 34 Wright Profemur
hip lawsuits as of February 15, 2015 that allege personal injuries
due to the Profemur long titanium neck product.  The filing also
noted that Wright has been named in more than 1,000 lawsuits
involving its Conserve line of metal-on-metal hips, and has been
participating in court supervised mediation in a multidistrict
litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia.* (In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip
Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329)

Court documents indicate that Wright has reached settlements in a
small number of claims, including one Profemur lawsuit that was
set to go to trial in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Georgia in December 2012. (Courson, et ux. v. Wright Medical
Technology, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-173) Court papers filed in March
2013 in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
indicated a settlement had also been struck in a similar claim
that was pending in that jurisdiction. (Tucker, et ux. v. Wright
Medical Technology, Inc., et al., No. 4:11-cv- 03086)

Individuals who have allegedly suffered serious and debilitating
complications due to the Wright Profemur hip replacement or a
Wright Conserve hip implant may be entitled to compensation for
their injury-related damages. Learn more about filing a Wright hip
lawsuit at Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call one of the
Firm's attorneys today for a free case review, at 800-511-5092.

                   About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class
action lawsuits nationwide since 1993


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $100-Mil. Fibro Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of Exelon Corporation's subsidiaries had reserved
approximately $100 million for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC ("Generation") maintains a reserve
for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury
actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company
("ComEd") and PECO Energy Company ("PECO"). The reserve is
recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal
costs associated with handling these matters, which could be
material.

At December 31, 2014 and 2013, Generation had reserved
approximately $100 million and $90 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31,
2014, approximately $22 million of this amount related to 255 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $78 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary. During the second quarter of 2014, Generation increased
its reserve by approximately $15 million, primarily due to
increased actual and projected number and severity of claims.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not apply to preclude such employee from
suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling
reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court
precluding current and former employees from suing their employers
in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible
for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more
than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure
to asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of December 31, 2014. Increased claims activity
resulting from this ruling could have a material adverse impact on
Exelon, Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and
cash flows.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation)
subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning
asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises
liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

* the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly
worked as contractors;

* the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

* the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly
occurred; and

* the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in
southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Fibro Liability Totals $776.6MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's total liability for asbestos-related matters
and its total asset for possible asbestos-related insurance
recoveries was $776.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries are
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and
federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of
other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast
majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll-
Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New
Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos,
however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-
containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from
third-party suppliers.

"We incurred net costs after insurance recoveries of $(64.9)
million, $56.2 million, and $7.8 million during the years ended
December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, related to the
settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims. Our total
liability for asbestos-related matters and our total asset for
probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries were $776.6 million
and $335.7 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014 and
$846.2 million and $321.8 million, respectively, as of December
31, 2013."

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it
has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and
residential security businesses named Allegion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is defendant in approximately 9,700 cases
alleging injuries from asbestos related to its Corhart business,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Asbestos Litigation. Corning
and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each own 50% of the capital stock
of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named
in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for
bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims
pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various
theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products
and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million
dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis
of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any
facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's
asbestos products.

Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. On
November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision finally
confirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization (the "Amended PCC
Plan" or the "Plan"). On September 30, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision
confirming the Amended PCC Plan. On October 30, 2014, one of the
objectors to the Plan appealed the District Court's affirmation of
the Plan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of Appeals"), and that appeal is
currently being scheduled for briefing. It will likely take many
months for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to render its
decision.

Under the Plan as affirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by
the District Court, Corning is required to contribute its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), a
Belgian corporation, and to contribute $290 million in a fixed
series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning has the
option to use its shares rather than cash to make these payments,
but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not the number of
shares. The Plan requires Corning to make: (1) one payment of $70
million one year from the date the Plan becomes effective and
certain conditions are met; and (2) five additional payments of
$35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50 million, and $50
million, respectively, on each of the five subsequent
anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is
subject to reduction based on the application of credits under
certain circumstances.

In addition to the claims against Corning related to its ownership
interest in PCC, Corning is also the defendant in approximately
9,700 other cases (approximately 37,300 claims) alleging injuries
from asbestos related to its Corhart business and similar amounts
of monetary damages per case. When PCC filed for bankruptcy
protection, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to suspend
all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG and Corning -- including these
non-PCC asbestos cases (the "stay"). The stay remains in place as
of the date of this filing. Under the Bankruptcy Court's order
confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place
until the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed by the District
Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These non-PCC
asbestos cases have been covered by insurance without material
impact to Corning to date. As of December 31, 2014, Corning had
received for these cases approximately $19 million in insurance
payments related to those claims. If and when the Bankruptcy
Court's confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed,
these non-PCC asbestos claims would be allowed to proceed against
Corning. Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation
liability an additional $150 million for these and any future non-
PCC asbestos cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with
other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions
for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to
Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in
these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a
result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in
older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our
facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We
believe that we are being targeted more aggressively in asbestos
suits because many previously-targeted companies have filed for
bankruptcy, or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for
such claims.

"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years.
We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the
scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there
is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of
exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on
our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos
litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include
both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our
asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many
of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the
jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred. Many
of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are
unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making
claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout
and defense costs may become significant in the future."

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a manufacturer of automobiles. The
Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other
businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in
two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive
includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Ford
Middle East & Africa and Ford Asia Pacific. Financial services
include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The
Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six
continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other
Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including
holding companies and real estate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Units Had 17,907 Fibro Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company had 17,907 asbestos-related claimants
against Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and
has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades.
These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both
actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate
to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's
premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits
filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products,
Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact
resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products.

It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably
possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-
related claims, including future defense costs, could have a
material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash
flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial
position of the Company.

At December 31, 2014, the Company had 17,907 asbestos-related
claimants against Union Carbide and Amchem based on criteria
developed by Union Carbide and its external consultant.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to Union Carbide,
Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific
damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.
In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only Union
Carbide and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these
reasons and based upon Union Carbide's litigation and settlement
experience, Union Carbide does not consider the damages alleged
against Union Carbide and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its
determination of any potential asbestos-related liability.

The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and
technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of
products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of
customer products and services. The Company serves various
industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural;
building and construction; chemical processing; electronics;
furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings
and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods;
pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water
treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries
and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Wygant" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Wygant, administratrix of the Estate of Margaret H.
Klan, deceased, filed an appeal involving the timeliness of an
asbestos-related wrongful death action in light of the State's
High Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa.
2013), which struck down Act 152 and its statute of limitations
for asbestos actions, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5524.1, as violative of
the Single Subject Rule of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated March 19,
2015, affirmed the orders entered March 19 and 20, 2014, granting
judgment on the pleadings in favor of General Electric Company,
Hunter Sales Corporation, and Reading Crane & Engineering Co.,
based upon the court's finding that the action was time-barred
under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5524(8).

The cases are ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING
CO., Appellees; ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING
CO., Appellees; ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING
CO., Appellees, NOS. 470 WDA 2014, 471 WDA 2014, 472 WDA 2014 (Pa.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/mmMsmmfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Storey" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Goodrich
Corporation moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on
the ground that plaintiff John F. Storey has not provided any
admissible evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing
Goodrich floor title.  In a decision and order dated March 9,
2015, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York
County, denied the motion.

The case is JOHN F. STOREY and CANDACE STOREY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190283/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/aAj3rqfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid to Compel Fin'l Info Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Employers Insurance Company filed a complaining seeking a
judgment declaring the rights and duties of all of the named
parties with respect to their obligations as to the defense and
indemnification of Troy Belting, a defendant in asbestos bodily
injury claims.  Pacific Employers also seek reimbursement for
monies paid by it in defending and indemnifying Troy Belting for
prior settlements related to these asbestos claims.

More precisely, Pacific Employers state that it and The Hartford
Insurance Company and its affiliates have been paying 100 percent
of the defense and indemnity costs in connection with the asbestos
related suits brought against Troy Belting.  Essentially, Pacific
Employers and the Hartford seek a judgment determining that they
are only obligated to pay their appropriate pro rata share of the
defense and indemnity costs and that Troy Belting, in particular,
is required to pay for periods when it was self-insured,
uninsured, or underinsured, and for periods covered by now
insolvent insurers.  And, for those amounts paid in excess of
their pro rata shares, Pacific Employers and the Hartford seek
reimbursement from Troy Belting.

Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York, denied the Hartford's
Motion to Compel Troy Belting to disclose its financial
information, at this juncture, although the court preserves for
the Hartford and Pacific Employers the right to return to the
Court at any future occasion should Troy Belting raise prejudgment
the specter that it is placing its inability to pay as a defense
to the claims.  The Court guaranteed that should this occur, they
will be granted a full and complete opportunity to seek discovery
of Troy Belting's financial condition.  Magistrate Treece granted
in part and denied in part Troy Belting's Motion for a Protective
Order.

The case is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
TROY BELTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY,
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, AND
ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants. TROY BELTING & SUPPLY
COMPANY, Third Party Plaintiff, v. UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, QBE
AMERICAS, INC., ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., HARLEYSVILLE GROUP INC., HARLEYSVILLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and
BERSHIRE MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, Third Party Defendants, CIV. NO.
1:11-CV-912 (TJM/RFT)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate
Treece's memorandum-decision and order dated March 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/lzoejDfrom Leagle.com.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Esq. --
dcost@hblaw.com -- Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Esq.
-- lclark@hblaw.com -- Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E.
Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy
S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by
Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Defendant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost,
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law
Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

The Hartford Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P.
Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost,
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law
Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost,
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Joseph A. Murphy, Hiscock, Barclay Law
Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens,
Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost,
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law
Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Unigard Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta,
Esq. -- hauletta@damonmorey.com -- Damon, Morey Law Firm.

QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara
L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon,
Morey Law Firm.

Continental Casualty Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Kristin V. Gallagher, Esq. -- kgallagher@cmk.com -- Carroll,
McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@cmk.com --
Carroll, McNulty Law Firm.

The North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- Mound, Cotton Law
Firm, Mark E. Haas, Esq., Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber,
Esq. -- mweber@moundcotton.com -- Mound, Cotton Law Firm.

Harleysville Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Lance J. Kalik, Esq. -- lkalik@riker.com -- Riker, Danzig Law Firm
& Tracey K. Wishert, Esq. -- twishert@riker.com -- Riker, Danzig
Law Firm.

Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert,
Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K.
Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K.
Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. --
barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co. US LLP, Daren S.
McNally, Esq., Clyde & Co. US LLP & Cara C. Vecchione, Esq. --
cara.vecchione@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co. US LLP.

Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K.
Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Continental Casualty Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young,
Carroll, McNulty Law Firm.

Harleysville Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker,
Danzig Law Firm.

Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert,
Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K.
Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Lloyd A. Gura, Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber, Mound,
Cotton Law Firm.

QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara
L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon,
Morey Law Firm.

The North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm.
Unigard Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta,
Damon, Morey Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost,
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law
Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant,
represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm,
Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law
Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L.
Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr.,
Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook
Law Firm.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler,
Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K.
Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman,
Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law
Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Lloyd
A. Gura, Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber, Mound, Cotton Law
Firm.

Unigard Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara
L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon,
Morey Law Firm.

Continental Casualty Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young,
Carroll, McNulty Law Firm.

Harleysville Group, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Lance J.
Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig
Law Firm.
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Clyde & Co. US LLP & Daren S.
McNally, Clyde & Co. US LLP.

Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, Cross Defendant, represented by
Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker,
Danzig Law Firm.

The North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 2015, Plaintiff Bonnie Wilson filed a second
motion to dismiss his asbestos-related action voluntarily and with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
Wilson's motion also seeks leave to reinstate the case within 90
days of dismissal should any issues arise in winding up the case
and a settlement.

In an opinion and order dated March 16, 2015, Chief District Judge
Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denied Wilson's
motion, holding that under Rule 41(a)(2), an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff's request "only by court order, on
terms that the court considers proper," and the terms set out in
Wilson's motion are not proper in the Seventh Circuit.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.
VI). BONNIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS.
MDL 875, 2:98-CV-00095-PPS (N.D. Ind.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Simon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/K5iKIzfrom
Leagle.com.

Bonnie L Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

AC and S Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrea L Cohen, Lewis and
Wagner & Susan E Mehringer, Esq. -- smehringer@csmlawfirm.com --
Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP.

Anchor Packing Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J
McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd, Jennifer
Kelly Fardy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William F Mahoney, Segal
McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

AP Green Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason L
Kennedy, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd, John K McDavid,
Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael
A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by
John K McDavid, Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke
Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Dresser Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel D
Trachtman, -- dtrachtman@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP,
Douglas B King, -- dking@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP,
Jennifer Kelly Fardy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William F Mahoney, Segal
McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

Durabla Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Donald K
Broad & Donald G Orzeske, Esq. -- dorzeske@goblaw.com -- Goodin
Orzeske & Blackwell PC.

GAF Corp, Defendant, represented by John K McDavid, Tucker Hester
LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin,
Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Garlock Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward J McCambridge, Segal
McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd, Jason L Kennedy, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd & William F Mahoney, Segal
McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

General Refractories Company, Defendant, represented by Randall J
Nye, Esq. -- rnye@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett LLP.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew J
Detherage, Esq. -- andy.detherage@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg
LLP.

John Crane Company, Defendant, represented by David A Temple,
Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP & Thomas W Hayes, Law Office of William
M Koziol.

JP Bushnell Packing & Supply, Defendant, represented by Andrea L
Cohen, Lewis and Wagner, Bryce H Bennett, Jr, Riley Bennett &
Egloff LLP, Julia Bunton Jackson, Riley Bennett and Egloff & Susan
E Mehringer, Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Douglas
B King, Wooden & McLaughlin LLP & Jeffrey L McKean, Wooden &
McLaughlin LLP.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented
by Keith A Kinney, Kinney Law Firm LLC & Knight S Anderson, Tucker
Ellis LLP.

PPG Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Cynthia M Locke,
Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP.

Rapid-American Corp, Defendant, represented by Douglas B King,
Wooden & McLaughlin LLP.

Rhone Poulenc Ag Co, Defendant, represented by John K McDavid,
Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael
A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher N Wahl, Hill Fulwider PC, Knight S Anderson, Tucker
Ellis LLP & Keith J Hays, Hill Fulwider PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, allege that Mr.
Hasenberg was exposed to asbestos from Air and Liquid Systems
Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pump, and Warren
Pumps LLC's products during his employment with the United States
Navy and that said exposure resulted in his current diagnosis.
The Defendants filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment arguing
that the Plaintiffs fail to offer evidence that the Defendants
manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing components
attached to or within pumps used at the Plaintiff's work sites,
that the Defendants are not liable for the Plaintiff's exposure to
asbestos arising from components not manufactured or supplied by
the respective Defendants and that the claim for Loss of
Consortium must fail if Summary Judgment is granted on the
products liability claims.

Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied both motions, finding that
circumstantial evidence in the case suggests that asbestos-
containing materials supplied by the Defendants were used on the
ships at the time of the Plaintiff's service.  Judge Yandle noted
that although the Plaintiff cannot present direct evidence that
the Defendants manufactured or supplied the materials in question,
the Plaintiff's claim does not fail simply because it is
impossible to locate direct evidence specifically identifying the
maker of the replacement gaskets and packing that the Plaintiff
worked with over forty years ago.  The record contains enough
circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material
fact, and when looking at the facts in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could infer that the Plaintiff
was exposed to asbestos-containing products from both companies
while performing his duties aboard both ships, Judge Yandle said.

The case is WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR. and LINDA HASENBERG,
Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ET AL., Defendants, CASE
NO. 13-CV-01325-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Yandle's memorandum and order dated March 18, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/G2gBpTfrom Leagle.com.

William Hasenberg, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Eric D.
Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et
al..

Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt,
Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et al..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith
B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et
al..

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

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Continental Teves, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC, Eric D. Rosser,
HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Edward E Fu,
Donohue, Brown et al..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by William D.
Cross, Rasmussen, Willis, Dickey & Moore, LLC.

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss,
Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Maureen A.
McGlynn, Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC & Joseph B. McGlynn, Jr.,
Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

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

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Thomas J. Kernell, Kernell
Law Firm, P.C..

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

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Class Cert. of PI Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Elsea and Jeanne Morgan, individually and as class
representatives, appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, denying class certification.  The
Plaintiffs filed a tort action in the circuit court on behalf of a
proposed class of persons exposed to asbestos fibers claimed to
have been caused by U.S. Engineering Company's "generation, use,
handling, storage, treatment, demolition, removal and disposal of
asbestos during the renovation, repair, maintenance and/or
remodeling of the [Jackson County Courthouse]," which is owned,
operated, and maintained by Jackson County, Missouri.  The
Plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory damages for the expense
of prospective medical monitoring allegedly necessitated by a
defined amount of minimum exposure to asbestos fibers at the
Jackson County Courthouse.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, concluded that
the circuit court erred in denying class certification, thus the
circuit court's class certification ruling is reversed, and the
case is remanded.

The case is DAVID M. ELSEA and JEANNE MORGAN, Individually and as
Class Representatives, Appellants, v. U.S. ENGINEERING COMPANY, a
Corporation, and JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondents, NO. WD
77687 (Mo. App.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 17,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/5MHSA4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit in Insurance Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNH Industrial America LLC filed an action for declaratory relief
and breach of contract against a number of insurance companies,
including Travelers Indemnity Company, alleging that the defendant
insurance companies have failed to honor defense and coverage
obligations arising from asbestos-related lawsuits filed against
CNH.  Travelers filed summary judgment motions, and partially
supported the motions with the Affidavit of Gary C. Bennett.  In
response, CNH filed a Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Gary
Bennett.  The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in a
decision dated March 10, 2015, denied CNH's motion, although the
Court will disregard certain paragraphs and documents of the
Affidavit.

The case is CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. Defendants, C.A.
NO. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del. Sup.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/UNv6jGfrom Leagle.com.

Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C.
Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- mlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth
A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell,
Esq. -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com -- and Dale E. Hausman, Esq. --
dhausman@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC.
Attorneys for The Travelers Indemnity Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Flips Ruling in "Calewarts" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal, June Calewarts, individually and as special
administrator for the estate of Robert J. Calewarts, who died of
malignant pleural mesothelioma, argues that the circuit court
erred by granting 12 of the defendants' motions in limine.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, agreed with
Calewarts that the circuit court erred by granting some of these
motions, but rejected the appellant's arguments regarding others.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment dismissing
Calewarts' claims and remanded the case with directions.

The case is JUNE CALEWARTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT J. CALEWARTS, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT, v. CR MEYER & SONS COMPANY, COLONIAL HEIGHTS PACKAGING,
INC., INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. AND THILMANY, LLC, DEFENDANTS-
RESPONDENTS, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., DEFENDANTS, APPEAL NO. 2014AP531 (Wis. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Opinion dated March 17, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/bUWpqpfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Brown" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry E. Brown
and Phyllis Brown, moved for an order granting leave to reargue
and/or renew her opposition to defendant Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc.'s post-trial motion for an order setting
aside the jury verdict rendered against it, and upon renewal and
reargument, vacating the decision and order dated August 29, 2014,
and denying Con Edison's motion.

In the prior decision, Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court,
New York County, held, in pertinent part, that "absent legally
sufficient evidence demonstrating, as a matter of law, that Con
Edison supervised or controlled Brown's work at Ravenswood, [the]
defendant has sustained its burden of proving that the jury could
not have reached its verdict on the issue of Con Edison's
liability pursuant to Labor Law Section 200 on any fair
interpretation of the evidence."  As an insulator, Mr. Brown
regularly applied asbestos insulation to various components at
Ravenswood, and was exposed to asbestos dust from his own work and
from that of his co-workers.

In a decision and order dated March 12, 2015, Judge Jaffe denied
the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and denied the
plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue, except to the extent of
vacating that portion of the prior decision finding that the
plaintiff waived the issue of whether Con Edison should have filed
a notice of motion.

The case is PHYLLIS BROWN, as Administratrix of the Estate of
HARRY E. BROWN, and PHYLLIS BROWN, Individually, Plaintiff, v.
BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12,
MOT. SEQ. NO. 018 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/wDEsmEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14-Mil. Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
After a nine-day, highly-contentious arbitration hearing in the
reinsurance coverage dispute between Amerisure Mutual Insurance
Company, and its reinsurer, Everest Reinsurance Company, an
arbitration panel awarded Amerisure over $14 million.  Amerisure
provided insurance coverage to a steam trap manufacturer, and one
of the company's affiliates manufactured products that included
parts containing asbestos.  Certain individuals made claims
against the steam trap manufacturer and its affiliate for
asbestos-related injuries that were allegedly caused by these
products.

Amerisure moves to confirm the arbitration award; Everest moves to
vacate it.  In an opinion and order dated March 18, 2015, Judge
Matthew F. Leitman of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted
Amerisure's motion and denied Everest's motion.

The case is AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Michigan
Mutual Insurance Company), Movant, v. EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY
(f/k/a Prudential Reinsurance Company), Respondent, CASE NO. 14-
CV-13060 (E.D. Mich.).  A full-text copy of Judge Leitman's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/FIQRPGfrom Leagle.com.

Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioner, represented by
Aaron L. Vorce, Esq. -- avorce@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Lori
M. McAllister, Esq. -- lmcallister@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett,
Christopher Michael Assise, Esq. -- cassise@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP, Daniel Joseph Neppl, Esq. -- dneppl@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP & Susan Ann Stone, Esq. -- sstone@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP.

Everest Reinsurance Company, Respondent, represented by Joseph J
Schiavone, Esq. -- jschiavone@buddlarner.com -- Budd Larner, Mark
D. Hoerrner, Esq. -- mhoerrner@buddlarner.com -- Budd Larner,
P.C., Michael J. Sheehan, Esq. -- MSheehan@howardandhoward.com --
Howard & Howard, Robert E. Graziani, Esq. --
RGraziani@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC &
Vincent John Proto, Bud Larner, P.C..

Everest Reinsurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Mark
D. Hoerrner, Budd Larner, P.C., Michael J. Sheehan, Howard &
Howard & Robert E. Graziani, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC.

Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented
by Aaron L. Vorce, Dykema Gossett & Lori M. McAllister, Dykema
Gossett.


                             *********

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  * * *