CAR_Public/150424.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 82


                             Headlines

AEGON USA: "Dennard" Suit Transferred from California to Iowa
ALCAL INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Court Nod on "Thorp" Settlement
AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Aguirre" Case
APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: "Morgret" Settlement Wins Conditional Okay

AT&T: To Pay $25MM Fine for Multiple Customer Data Breaches
BASIN DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
BLUE BELL: Temporarily Shuts Down Plant Over Listeria
BMW AG: To Recall 91,800 Mini Coopers Over Air-Bag Defect
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: S.D. Fla. Judge Wants Defendants to Post Bond
CA PERSONNEL MGMT: Accused of Bias by Blind Rehab Specialist
CANADIAN HEATING: May 19 Fireplace Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CHICKEN SHACK: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss Compressor Suit
CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit

CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
COTTER & SONS: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ECOHOUSE: Faces Class Action in Brazil Over Social Housing Scheme
EL TIO: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EMERITUS CORPORATION: "West" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied
GAP SPARTA: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kirchinger" Suit Over Car Ignition Switch
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries
GRAND BAHAMA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Momita" Suit Claims

GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Morton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HMO MISSOURI: Removes "Sabatino" Suit to Missouri District Court
HORIZON MUD: Faces "Melkoski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

KIMMEL & GODFREY: "Sams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Wheat Prices
KROGER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bobko" Suit Claims
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Resort Fees

LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Babbitt" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
LITTLE LUKE: E.D.N.Y. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit
MENDEZ CLEANING: Faces "Soriano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Reibum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MF GLOBAL: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MINE SAFETY: "Murray" Personal Injury Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids for Women's Prison 50% Higher Than Budgeted
NEW YORK, NY: To Implement Broad Changes to Summons System
NO PLACE: Faces "Glasper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Greco" Suit Claims

OHIO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of "R. Harris" DRC Suit
ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over FICA Tax Refund
PIPE TRADES: Sued Over Failure to Remit Plan Contributions
PIZZA PROFITS: Plaintiffs File Amended "Koch" Class Complaint
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Fuerst" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

RAWLINGS FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Papetti" Suit Says
REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: D. Ariz. Judge Narrows Claims in Delta Suit
ROBERT M. SPANO: "Boyle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SABA DIPPING: Recalls Hummus Products Over Listeria Contamination

SHOW ME PIES: Plaintiff Files Amended "Washburn" FLSA Complaint
SISTAR BEAUTY: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STATE FARM: Judge Trims Claims in "Thornell" Suit
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners in Drywall Settlement Face Tax Woes
TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Lopez" Suit Says

TRICAN WELL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED SERVICES: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to Muscogee County Court
VETERANS AFFAIRS: Carney May Amend Suit Over Unpaid Benefits
VOGUE INT'L: May 25 Organix(R) Settlement Approval Hearing Set
WALGREENS BOOT: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Machines

WHOLE FOOD: Failed to Convince Court to Dismiss "Speer" FCRA Suit
WINN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* Businesses Must Invest in Data Security, Prepare for Breaches
* Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys Balk at "Mooting" Strategy


                         Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $10.1-Mil. LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Appeals vs. EnPro Unit Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Industries Had $100.7MM Fibro Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Dismisses PI Claims vs. FMC Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Nesser" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined $26,000 for Fibro Removal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Wins Dismissal of "Juni" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies AB's Bid to Junk "LeFrak" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Seeks to Dismiss "Malone" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions Issued in "Kelly" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Grants Bid for Reimbursement of Atty Fees

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Court Flips Non-Suit Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Affirms $4.8MM Judgment vs. Crane Co.


                            *********


AEGON USA: "Dennard" Suit Transferred from California to Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled Lequita Dennard, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Aegon USA LLC, Transamerica
Financial Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Retirement
Solutions Corporation, Kirk Buese, Ralph Arnold, Ken Klinger, Mary
Taiber, and Diane Meiners, Case No. 2:15-cv-00896-CBM-E (C.D.
Cali., February 6, 2015), was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The District Court Clerk
of Northern District of Iowa assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00030-EJM
(N.D. Iowa, April 3, 2015) to the proceeding.

The class action alleged violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan S. Maher, Esq.
      Stris and Maher LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      E-mail: brendan.maher@strismaher.com

         - and -

      Peter K. Stris, Esq.
      STRIS AND MAHER LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com

         - and -

      Victor A. O'Connell, Esq.
      STRIS AND MAHER LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      E-mail: victor.oconnell@strismaher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

      Brian David Boyle, Esq.
      O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
      1625 Eye Street NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 383-5300
      Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
      E-mail: bboyle@omm.com

         - and -

      Brittney Marie Lane
      O'Melvenyn and Myers LLP
      400 South Hope Street 18th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
      Telephone: (213) 430-6000
      Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
      Email: blane@omm.com

        - and -

      Catalina J. Vergara, Esq.
      O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
      400 South Hope Street 18th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
      Telephone: (213) 430-6000
      Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
      E-mail: cvergara@omm.com

         - and -

      Christopher Brendan Craig, Esq.
      O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
      400 South Hope Street Suite 1453
       Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
       Telephone: (213) 430-6000
       Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
       E-mail: ccraig@omm.com

                           *     *     *

Lequita Dennard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Aegon USA LLC, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance
Company, Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Kirk
Buese, Ralph Arnold, Ken Klinger,  Mary Taiber, and Diane Meiners,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00030-EJM (N.D. Iowa, April 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties,
specifically by, failing to offering Plan participant prudent
investment options at reasonable cost and  failing to adequately
monitor and remove or replace AEGON-managed investment products
with bloated and superfluous management fees.

The Defendants own and operate a financial service company that
provides insurance, and pension and asset management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter K. Stris, Esq.
      Brendan S. Maher, Esq.
      Victor O'Connell, Esq.
      STRIS & MAHER LLP
      725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 995-6800
      Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
      E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com
              brendan.maher@strismaher.com
              victor.oconnell@strismaher.com


ALCAL INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Court Nod on "Thorp" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting
final approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit HEILA L.
THORP as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALCAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California
Corporation; ALAMEDA ELECTRIC SUPPLY, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-2289 YGR, (N.D.
Calif.).

The Class consists of all persons employed by Alcal Industries or
Alameda Electric Supply as a non-exempt hourly employee in the
state of California during the period from May 20, 2009 through
Nov. 10, 2014.

Sheila Thorp is appointed as class representative for the
settlement class for purposes of the settlement.

Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K.
Haines of Boren, Osher & Luftman LLP, are appointed as Class
Counsel.  The Court awards to Class Counsel $135,000 for
attorneys' fees and $29,689.04 for costs.

A copy of the judge's Order dated March 27, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/KUdW3hfrom Leagle.com.

Sheila L. Thorp, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Flores
Baltodano,, Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Baltodano & Baltodano LLP,
Paul Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com , Boren Osher & Luftman &
Stephen Zachary Boren -- sboren@bollaw.com , Boren, Osher and
Luftman, LLP.

Alcal Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lee David
Stimmel -- lstimmel@stimmel-law.com -- of Stimmel, Stimmel & Smith
& Seth John Schwartz -- sschwartz@archernorris.com -- of Archer
Norris.

Alameda Electric Supply, Defendant, represented by Lee David
Stimmel, Stimmel, Stimmel & Smith & Seth John Schwartz, Archer
Norris.


AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered a final judgment
approving the class settlement negotiated in the lawsuit BRADFORD
GRIMM, MARGARET MOONEY, AND DINESH PATEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. LA CV11-00406 JAK (MANX), (C.D. Calif.).

The California District Court certifies the Class, defined as all
current and former employees of American Eagle Airlines, Inc,
employed in the State of California who worked in one or more
Covered Positions (all Airport Agents, including "Reservation
Agents," "Ticket Agents," "Gate Agents," "Customer Service
Agents," "Baggage Service Agents," "Passenger Service Agents,"
"Operations Planning Agents," "Cargo Agents," and similar
positions) from September 21, 2006 through September 29, 2014.

On the Effective Date, Plaintiffs Bradford Grimm and Margaret
Mooney shall be deemed to hold an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured
Claim (as defined in Defendant's Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan filed in Defendant's and related debtors' voluntary cases
under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York Case No. 11-15463 (SHL)) on
behalf of themselves and the Class in the total amount of the
Settlement Amount in Defendant's chapter 11 cases to resolve the
Settled Lawsuit on a class-wide basis.  The distribution mechanics
shall be governed by the Plan. Because distributions on an Allowed
Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in the Plan) are made in
common stock of American Airlines Group, Inc. (AAL), the ultimate
dollar value of the Settlement will depend on the trading price of
AAL, although the Service Payments, Class Counsel's costs, and
Settlement Administration Costs shall at no time exceed the dollar
amount approved by the Court in this Judgment.

The Court finds that Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of John P.
Dorigan are qualified to represent the Class and confirms their
appointment as Class Counsel.  The Court grants Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of
the Settlement Amount, approximately some $100,000 depending on
the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation, and attorneys'
costs in the amount of 2.99% of the Settlement Amount,
approximately some $11,978 depending on the value of AAL stock at
the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed
$11,978).

Class Representatives Mooney, Patel, and Grimm are to be paid in
the amounts of 1.25%., 0.3125%, and 0.125%, respectively, of the
Settlement Amount, which is approximately some $5,000, $1,250, and
$500, respectively, depending on the value of AAL stock at the
time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed
$5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively), as Service Payments in
recognition of their efforts in coming forward as Class
Representatives and participating in the Settled Lawsuit.

Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of 4.5% of the
Settlement Amount, approximately some $18,000 depending on the
value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not
at any time exceed $18,000), will be paid to Rust Consulting, Inc.

A copy of the California District Court's Final Judgment dated
March 23, 2015 is located at http://is.gd/lLQklGfrom Leagle.com.

Bradford Grimm, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & John Patrick
Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices.

Margaret Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and
Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan,
John P Dorigan Law Offices.

Dinesh Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and
Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan,
John P Dorigan Law Offices.

American Eagle Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Mo -
dmo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert J
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.


AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Aguirre" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease of the Court of Appeals of
California reversed and remanded the appealed case entitled DIONE
AGUIRRE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC., et
al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. C073059 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Plaintiff Dione Aguirre purchased an item from the Party America
store in Placer County using a credit card. During the
transaction, the cashier requested plaintiff's ZIP Code, which
plaintiff provided, believing she was required to do so to
complete the transaction. The cashier then entered plaintiff's ZIP
Code into an electronic cash register.

Plaintiff sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc., and PA
Acquisition, doing business as Party America on behalf of herself
and similarly situated individuals, alleging Party America
violated Civil Code section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act of 1971 (Section 1747 et seq.) by routinely requesting
and recording personal identification information, namely ZIP
Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail stores in
California.

Party America filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the
sole ground that a cardholder's ZIP Code does not constitute
personal identification information within the meaning of section
1747.08. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff
appealed.

The court reversed the trial court's decision and held that a
cardholder's ZIP Code constitutes personal identification
information as that phrase is used in section 1747.08.

On September 25, 2012, Party America moved for an order striking
and dismissing the class allegations from plaintiff's operative
complaint and denying class certification on the grounds that
there is no ascertainable class, and class certification is not
the superior method for adjudication of this matter.

The trial court agreed with Party America that plaintiff failed to
establish the existence of an ascertainable class, and thus,
granted the motion to strike and dismiss the class allegations and
to deny class certification. Plaintiff appealed.

Acting Presiding Justice Blease reversed the order striking and
dismissing the class allegations and denying class certification.
Judge Blease remanded the matter to the trial court for
consideration of whether class certification is proper.

A copy of Presiding Justice Blease's opinion dated March 6, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/4hOFlWfrom Leagle.com

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
Elaine W. Yan, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: 916-235-7140
Facsimile: 916-235-7141
Email: zipcode@stonebargerlaw.com

     - and -

James R. Patterson, Esq.
PATTERSON LAW GROUP
402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-398-4760
Facsimile: 619-7566991

Todd C. Atkins -- info@atkinsdavidson.com -- at Atkins & Davidson,
for The Consumer Federation of California as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant

David F. Faustman -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- Cristina K.
Armstrong -- carmstrong@foxrothschild.com -- Tyreen G. Torner --
ttorner@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild, for Defendants and
Respondents

The California Court of Appeals panel consists of Acting Presiding
Justice Cole Blease and Justices Harry H. Hull and William J.
Murray.


APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: "Morgret" Settlement Wins Conditional Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiffs' request in the case TIMOTHY
MORGRET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY
AND INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01801-JLT (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Timothy Morgret requests preliminary approval of a class
settlement reached with defendant Valley Industrial X-Ray and
Inspection Services, Inc. Plaintiff seeks: (1) the conditional
certification of a settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of
the settlement; (3) appointment of Plaintiff as the class
representative; (4) appointment of Alexander Dychter and Walter
Haines as Class Counsel; (5) approval of the proposed class notice
and related materials; (6) appointment of Phoenix Settlement
Administrators as the Claims Administrator; (7) approval of the
Settlement distribution plan; and (8) scheduling for final
approval of the settlement. Defendant does not oppose the motion
for preliminary approval of the class settlement.

Magistrate Judge Thurston granted plaintiff's request for
conditional certification of the Settlement Class, and the class
is defined as follows: All individuals who are or previously were
employed by VIXR in the State of California as a Technician or
Assistant Technician at any time since November 6, 2009 through
January 21, 2015. Preliminary approval of the parties; proposed
settlement agreement, as modified as well as the proposed notice
plan is granted and approved.

Timothy Morgret is appointed the class representative for the
Settlement Class, Alexander Dychter and Walter Haines are
appointed Class Counsel and Phoenix Settlement Administrators is
appointed as the Claims Administrator, with responsibilities
pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Class Representative enhancement requests for plaintiff is
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to a
petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.

Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing. Class Counsel's request for fees in the amount of 25% of
the gross settlement fund and expenses in the amount of $20,000 is
granted preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and
review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members
and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so
desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. The petition
for attorneys' fees and for class representative enhancement fee
shall be filed no later than May 8, 2015 and the costs of
settlement administration shall not exceed $15,000. The proposed
Notice is preliminarily approved, and the parties were directed to
file a finalized Notice for the Court's approval no later than
March 13, 2015.

Class Members shall mail any dispute related to the number of work
days to the Claims Administrator later than May 8, 2015.
A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement shall
postmark an opt-out request no later than May 8, 2015 and any
objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be
filed with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel no later than May
8, 2015. A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for May 29,
2015, at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510
19th Street, Bakersfield, California.

Class Members may appear at the hearing on May 29, 2015, in person
or through his or her own attorney, to show cause why this Court
should not approve the Settlement Agreement, or to object to the
motion for attorneys' fees or class member representative
enhancement award. For comments or objections to be considered at
the hearing, the Class Member must file comments with the Clerk of
this Court indicating briefly the nature of the Class Member's
comments, support, or objection. The Court reserves the right to
vacate the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing if no comments or
objections are filed with this Court on or before May 8, 2015.

A copy of Judge Thurston's order dated March 5, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/lNqInefrom Leagle.com

Timothy Morgret, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Isaac Dychter
-- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- at Dychter Law Offices, APC; Walter L.
Haines -- at United Employees Law Group, PC

Valley Industrial X-Ray And Inspection Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by John C. Gray -- john.gray@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Robert Michel Dawson -- robert.dawson@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP


AT&T: To Pay $25MM Fine for Multiple Customer Data Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fung, writing for The Washington Post, reports that AT&T has
agreed to pay a $25 million fine for multiple data breaches that
leaked hundreds of thousands of customer records, including names,
phone numbers and some Social Security numbers.

On at least three occasions, outsiders paid AT&T call center
employees to provide them with sensitive customer information,
according to the Federal Communications Commission, which
announced the settlement on April 8.  The breaches occurred in
AT&T's foreign call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the
Philippines.

As many as 279,000 AT&T customers may have been affected by the
unauthorized leaks, regulators said.  Those customers will receive
free credit monitoring as part of the official settlement.  The
agreement also requires at AT&T to appoint a privacy official who
will review the company's policies and strengthen its security.

The fine marks the FCC's largest data security action ever.  In
October, the agency fined two telecom companies $10 million for
inadvertently releasing customer data.

[With a $10 million fine, the FCC is leaping into data security
for the first time]

In a statement on April 8, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said his
agency would not "stand idly by when a carrier's lax data security
practices expose the personal information of hundreds of thousands
of the most vulnerable Americans to identity theft and fraud."

The type of information accessed by the thieves is protected by
federal regulations.  In the wrong hands, the data can be used by
thieves to obtain "unlock" codes that enable phones to be used
with any wireless carrier.  Stolen phones that have been unlocked
are more valuable on the black market because they can be sold
virtually anywhere.

The FCC said the Mexico breach lasted for more than five months
between 2013 and 2014.  Three AT&T contractors improperly used
68,000 customer records to request more than 290,000 unlock codes
from AT&T.

AT&T conceded in a statement on April 8 that "a few of our
vendors" failed to uphold subscribers' confidence.

"Protecting customer privacy is critical to us," the company said.
"We've changed our policies and strengthened our operations.  And
we have, or are, reaching out to affected customers to provide
additional information."


BASIN DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Verm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Basin Drilling, LP, Case No. 6:15-cv-00411 (E.D. Tex., April
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent a Mass
Layoff and Plant Closing at the Defendant's Tyler, Texas site of
employment or operational units.

Basin Drilling, LP operates drilling rigs in and around Tyler,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


BLUE BELL: Temporarily Shuts Down Plant Over Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Brumfield and Catherine Shoichet, writing for CNN, report that
Blue Bell ice cream has temporarily shut down one of its
manufacturing plants over the discovery of listeria contamination
in a serving of ice cream originating from that plant.

Public health officials warned consumers on April 3 not to eat any
Blue Bell-branded products made at the company's Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, plant.  That includes 3-ounce servings of Blue Bell ice
cream from this plant that went to institutions in containers
marked with the letters O, P, Q, R, S or T behind the coding date.

The warning by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does
not affect other Blue Bell ice cream, including other 3-ounce
servings, not made at the plant.  But Blue Bell has recalled other
products.

The company is shutting down the Broken Arrow facility "out of an
abundance of caution" to search for a possible cause of
contamination.

It is the third time Blue Bell has taken action in light of a
listeria outbreak at a Kansas hospital that served the company's
ice cream.

Listeria at the plant

Listeria monocytogenes was recently found in a cup of ice cream
recovered from the hospital.

The cup contaminated with the bacteria was produced at the Broken
Arrow plant in April 2014, Blue Bell said. And, according to the
CDC, listeria bacteria was found in additional samples of the same
product that were recovered from the plant.

The bacteria in the hospital sample and the factory sample
appeared to match each other genetically, the CDC said. But they
did not appear identical to listeria samples taken from patients
infected in the Kansas outbreak.

In a separate outbreak in Texas, the CDC did find that listeria
samples taken from patients who came down with listeriosis between
2010 and 2014 in a hospital that served 3-ounce Blue Bell cups
matched the listeria in recovered samples.

None of this means the ice cream is the source of either spate of
the infections.

"Investigation to determine whether these illnesses are related to
exposure to Blue Bell products is ongoing," the CDC said.

Recall from Texas plant

In early March, in light of the Kansas listeria outbreak, Blue
Bell recalled a group of products made at a plant in Texas.  It
later added 3-ounce cup servings to the recall.

Five people were infected and three died in the past year in
Kansas from listeria that might be linked to Blue Bell Creameries
products, according to the CDC.

All five of them were hospitalized at the same hospital before
developing listeriosis, the CDC said.  At least four of them had
consumed milkshakes made with Blue Bell ice cream before
developing the infection.

"We are devastated and know that Blue Bell has to be and can be
better than this," Paul Kruse, Blue Bell CEO and president, said
in a statement.  "Quality and safety have always been our top
priorities.  We are deeply saddened and concerned for all those
who have been affected."

The CDC advises that individuals and institutions should check
their freezers for the recalled products and throw them away.

In a statement on its website, Blue Bell said "this recall in no
way includes Blue Bell ice cream half gallons, pints, quarts, 3
gallons or other 3 oz. cups."

This has been the first product recall in the 108-year history of
Blue Bell Creameries, the company said.

What is listerosis?

Listeriosis is a serious infection caused by eating food
contaminated with listeria, and primarily affects the elderly,
pregnant women, newborns and people with weakened immune systems,
according to the CDC.

Symptoms of a listeria infection are fever and muscle aches,
sometimes associated with diarrhea or other gastrointestinal
symptoms.

In the United States, an estimated 1,600 people become seriously
ill each year, and approximately 16% of these illnesses result in
death.  Cervical infections caused by listeriosis in pregnant
women may result in stillbirth or spontaneous abortion during the
second or third trimesters.


BMW AG: To Recall 91,800 Mini Coopers Over Air-Bag Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that German auto maker BMW says it is
recalling 91,800 Mini Coopers to fix a defect that may prevent the
air bag on the front passenger side of the cars from deploying in
a crash.

The problem affects the 2005 to 2008 models of the Mini Cooper and
Cooper S.

BMW said the air bag might not work properly because a vehicle's
mat detection system might be prevented from sensing a passenger
sitting in the front seat.

BMW told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it has
been notified of one minor injury linked to the defect.

To repair the problem, BMW will replace the detection mat in the
affected models for free. The recall will begin May 1.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit BARRY
JEKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE AG Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02158-VC, (N.D.
Calif.).

For purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies
a Settlement Class defined as: All residents of the United States
(including Puerto Rico), who currently own or lease, or previously
owned or leased, a Class Vehicle.  "Class Vehicle" is defined as:
2009 through 2012 model year BMW Z4 vehicles that were sold or
leased in the United States or Puerto Rico to residents of the
United States and Puerto Rico that were equipped with Class Wheels
either as original equipment, or that a Class Member equipped with
Class Wheels post-purchase.

Barry Jekowsky is appointed as class representative and Kemnitzer,
Barron & Krieg and Chavez & Gertler are appointed as class
counsel.

Gilardi & Co. is approved as the Claims Administrator to perform
the duties set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement.

A final approval hearing will be held on October 29, 2015 at 10:00
a.m. before the Honorable Vince Chhabria in California.

A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2015 Order is available
at http://is.gd/VrOsTGfrom Leagle.com.

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP, MARK A. CHAVEZ -- mark@chavezgertler.com --
Mill Valley, CA.

KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP, BRYAN KEMNITZER, NANCY BARRON,
ELLIOT CONN, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Barry
Jekowsky and the proposed class.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: S.D. Fla. Judge Wants Defendants to Post Bond
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. O'Sullivan of the Southern District of
Florida denied defendants' motion in the case BANNING LARY, M.D.
and KATHERINE LARY, TODD LARY, AND SCOTT LARY as Successor
Trustees of the STARBRIGHT GRANTOR FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs, v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, CASE
NO. 11-CV-23820-O'SULLIVAN (S.D. Fla.)

A judgment was entered against the defendants for $13,967,911.00.
On February 13, 2015, a cost judgment of $60,000.00 was entered
against the defendants. The total of the two judgments is
$14,027,911.00.

On January 26, 2015, the defendants filed a motion and supporting
memorandum for a stay of execution of judgment and for waiver of
supersedeas bond pending appeal. The defendants have provided
affidavits and financial information to support their request to
waive the need for a supersedeas bond.

The plaintiffs point to a $945 million loss reserve book entry
which represents what the defendants believe are its future
probable litigation losses. The plaintiffs argue that the
defendants' cash on hand is not sufficient to meet the $945
million in projected litigation losses.

Judge O'Sullivan denied defendants' motion and supporting
memorandum for a stay of execution of judgment and for waiver of
supersedeas bond pending appeal and asked the defendants to post a
supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment plus 10% or post
the same amount of cash with the Clerk of Court on 03/20/2015.

A copy of Judge O'Sullivan's order dated March 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/SruLJwfrom Leagle.com

Banning Lary, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison
Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz
Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann
PL & Joel Stephen Perwin

Katherine Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal &
Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Todd Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz
Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann,
PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Scott Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal &
Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Elizabeth Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal &
Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Diane Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal &
Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy
DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP,Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon & Michael Aaron
Holt, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy
DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP, Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon & Michael Aaron
Holt, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Counter
Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP.
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook
Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M.
Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Diane Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Elizabeth Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold &
Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Diane Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Elizabeth Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz,
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL

Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira
Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL


CA PERSONNEL MGMT: Accused of Bias by Blind Rehab Specialist
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hudson v. Office of Personnel Management, Katherine
Archuleta, in her official capacity as Director of Office of
Personnel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Robert
A. McDonald, in his official capacity as Secretary of Department
of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 3:15-cv-01539 (N.D. Cal., April 3,
2015) alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the
Plaintiff, a female employee with a female spouse, by treating her
differently from similarly situated male employees with female
spouses, who performed jobs that required equal skill, effort, and
responsibility.

Ms. Hudson, a woman, has been employed since 2001 as a Blind
Rehabilitation Specialist at the Western Blind Rehabilitation
Center in Menlo Park, California.

The Office of Personnel Management is an independent establishment
in the executive branch of the United States.  The Federal Health
Benefits Act charges OPM with administering the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program, which provides health insurance for
federal employees, retirees, and their dependents.  Katherine
Archuleta is the Director of OPM.  The Department of Veterans
Affairs is Ms. Hudson's employing agency.  Robert A. McDonald is
the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          Julie Wilensky, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C.
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
          E-mail: nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com
                  jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

               - and -

          Judith Galat, Esq.
          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
          80 F Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639-6425
          Facsimile: (202) 379-2928
          E-mail: galatj@afge.org


CANADIAN HEATING: May 19 Fireplace Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE* OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS ACTION
INVOLVING CERTAIN GAS BURNING FIREPLACES, FIREPLACE INSERTS AND
STOVES

TO: ALL PERSONS IN CANADA WHO OWN, LEASE OR OTHERWISE OCCUPY
PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTAINING A FIREPLACE FROM ONE OF THE SETTLING
DEFENDANTS DESCRIBED BELOW CERTIFICATION

A lawsuit commenced in British Columbia has been certified as
a class action against CANADIAN HEATING PRODUCTS INC., MILES
INDUSTRIES LTD., MONESSEN HEARTH CANADA, INC., and MONESSEN HEARTH
SYSTEMS COMPANY (doing business as VERMONT CASTINGS GROUP) (the
"Settling Defendants"), by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(the "Court").

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT?
It is an action concerning the risk of burns from contacting the
hot glass fronts of some gas burning fireplaces.

WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT?
Under a proposed settlement, the Settling Defendants have
agreed to provide, free of charge, barrier screens or screen kits
for certain of their Fireplaces to reduce the burn risk.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
All persons in British Columbia, plus all persons elsewhere in
Canada who choose to "opt in", who have one of the Settling
Defendants' gas fireplaces, inserts or stoves ("Fireplaces") in
their home that was installed between January 1, 2001 and
December 31, 2014.  Class Members shall exclude non-natural
persons and those natural persons whose Fireplace is located
outdoors or is in business or commercial use.

If you live in British Columbia and have such a Fireplace you
are automatically included in the class action settlement,
unless you choose to exclude yourself (opt out).  If you live
elsewhere in Canada you may choose to opt into the settlement.
You should immediately review the full legal notice in this
matter to ensure that you understand your legal rights.  Further
details on the proposed settlement and on opting in and opting
out are available via the telephone numbers and email & website
addresses set out in this notice.

Opt in requests MUST BE SUBMITTED within one year of
notice that the Court has approved the settlement.  If your
request
is not received in time it will not be considered valid.

WHAT IF I WISH TO COMMENT ON OR OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?
The settlement must be approved by the Court before it can
become effective.  An application to approve the settlement will
be heard by the Court at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British
Columbia at 10:00 a.m. on May 19, 2015.  If you fit the above
description you are entitled to appear and make submissions at
the settlement approval hearing.  If you wish to comment on or
make an objection to the settlement, a written submission must
be delivered to Class Counsel at the address listed below,
postmarked no later than May 5, 2015.  If you do not do so, you
may not be entitled to participate in the settlement approval
hearing.

WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE?
If you live in British Columbia and you fit the class definition
but do not wish to participate in the class action, you must
submit a written request to opt out of the class action to:

          Crawford Class Action Services (the "Administrator")
          Suite 3-505, 133 Weber Street North
          Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9
          Toll Free: 1-877-739-8933
          Fax: 519-578-4016
          Email: fireplaceclassaction@crawco.ca

Opt out requests MUST BE SUBMITTED BY May 11, 2015.

Persons who submit valid requests to opt out by the deadline
will not be eligible to receive any compensation or benefits that
may be achieved as a result of the class action.

DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE?
No. You do not need to pay any money to participate in the
settlement.  Class members pay nothing.  The lawyers appointed
by the Court to represent the Class will be paid by the
defendants under the settlement, and will be seeking court
approval of legal fees not to exceed $1,160,000 plus tax.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
The following law firm represents the plaintiffs and the class,
and will answer questions about the class action:

          Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP
          25th Floor
          700 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, BC, V7Y1B3
          Contact: fireplaceclassaction@farris.com

             -- or --

           Mike Wagner
           Tel: 604-661-9388

             -- or --
           Robert Anderson, QC
           Tel: 604-661-9372

(*) This Notice is just a summary. For more detailed information,
including a list of all defendants and the definitions used in
this Notice, please go to www.fireplaceclassaction.com or contact
one of the lawyers listed above.

Do Not Contact the Court about this Notice.

For any questions, please contact the Administrator or the lawyers
listed above

THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME
COURT


CHICKEN SHACK: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss Compressor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul D. Borman of the Eastern District of Michigan
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case COMPRESSOR
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES J. THOMAS, JR.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 10-10059 (E.D. Mich.)

The plaintiff Compressor Engineering Corporation filed a class
action complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 against defendants Chicken Shack,
Inc., Chicken Shack Depot, Inc., and Charles Thomas, Jr.

Plaintiff alleges that Charles Thomas sent an unsolicited
advertisement to plaintiff's fax machine on November 6, 2005.
Plaintiff further alleges that Thomas has sent similar unsolicited
advertisements via fax machine to at least 39 other recipients.

Plaintiff is attempting to bring this class action on behalf of
"All persons that are holders of telephone numbers to which a
facsimile transmission was sent on behalf of defendant advertising
or promoting the goods or services of defendant at any time from
August 13, 2005 to present.

Defendant Thomas served plaintiff with an offer of Judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, and on February 27, 2014,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's failure
to respond or accept the offer of judgment.

Judge Borman denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Borman's opinion and order dated February 19,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/6gjoerfrom Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Dickinson R. DeBevoise reviewed and approved
three Reports and Recommendations filed by Special Master George
L. Priest in the action CECIL McLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ALBERT J. JAKUB, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants. ROBERT GAVALIK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, (N.J.).

The action was settled through a Settlement Agreement dated
December 19, 1990, pursuant to which settlement amounts were
distributed in accordance with a Plan of Distribution. Special
Master George L. Priest supervised the extraordinarily complex
distribution process, complicated by the length of time required
to effect distributions, the necessity to apply for FICA tax
refunds, dispersal and deaths of class members.

The Reports and Recommendations filed by the Special Master are:

  (1) the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the
      Special Master with Respect to the Waiver of Certain
      Settlement Payments,

  (2) the Second Supplemental Report of the Special Master with
      Respect to Certain Class Members Overpaid during the
      Distribution of the Settlement, and

  (3) the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with
      Regard to the Termination of the Settlement.

In sum, a total of $418,047,492 was disbursed to class members and
Special Settlement participants or successors; another $7,110,888
in tax refunds.

A copy of the District Court's Order and Opinion dated March 26,
2015 is available at http://is.gd/gR0gCLfrom Leagle.com.

Rose A. Wehner, Esq., Law Office of Rose A. Wehner PC, Chicago,
IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al.

John G. Jacobs, Esq. Jacobs Kolton, Chartered, Chicago, IL,
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al.

Roslyn Litman, Esq., The Litman Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney
for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al.
Martha Helmreich, Esq., Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick &
Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J.
Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al.

Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Esq., Don Scott, Esq. Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Defendants.

Timothy J. Thalken, Esq., Fraser Stryker PC LLO, Omaha, NE,
Attorney for Defendants.

George L. Priest, New Haven, CT, Special Master.


CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Continental Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00084
(S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek.

Continental Laboratories, Inc. is a global oilfield Services
Company headquartered in the Southern District of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COTTER & SONS: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Russell R. Cervantes, Stephanie Faz, Daniel Young and John Ward on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cotter &
Sons, Inc., James A. Cotter, Jr., and James Cotter, Sr., Case No.
5:15-cv-00287 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Texas bases company that provides
real estate management and leasing services to customers
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell R. Cervantes, Esq.
      VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
      3501 Allen Parkway
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222
      Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
      E-mail: edocs@vwtexlaw.com


ECOHOUSE: Faces Class Action in Brazil Over Social Housing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wong Wei Han, writing for The China Post, reports that founded in
2009, the London-based EcoHouse enticed many investors with its
unique proposition of investing in social housing in Brazil as
part of the government's low-cost program My House, My Life.

Investors were asked to fork out at least 23,000 pounds per unit
to help fund EcoHouse's development in exchange for an impressive
20-percent fixed rate of return for a 12-month contract.

The scheme reportedly attracted over 2,000 investors globally,
while at least 800 people in Singapore were said to have ploughed
about SG$65 million into the scheme.

Initially, investment returns were paid promptly, but concerns
about EcoHouse's legitimacy started to emerge last year when
investors did not receive payments on time.

After its Singapore office was abruptly closed down in August, the
Brazilian government said that EcoHouse had no links with the
social housing scheme.  EcoHouse subsequently announced the
suspension of its global operations and filed for voluntary
winding-up in the UK.

Reports against EcoHouse have been filed with Singapore's
Commercial Affairs Department's , and a class-action suit has also
been lodged in Brazil by a group of more than 100 Singapore
investors.


EL TIO: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Godinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. El Tio Loco, Inc. and Andres Soto, Case No.
1:15-cv-03386 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


EMERITUS CORPORATION: "West" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cara L. West, on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. Emeritus Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00437 (M.D.
Tenn., April 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of
litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Emeritus Corporation owns and operates a health care facility
located at 2908 Poston Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mathieu R. Berman, Esq.
      PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
      1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Dunwoody, GA 30338
      Telephone: (615) 403-1297
      E-mail: mathieurberman@yahoo.com


FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tomm S. Lee denied class certification of the
action MARY BRIDGES, BOBBY GORDON, AND JOHNNIE GRIFFIN, ALL
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 345 OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFFS,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD A. FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; SHEILA M. BOSSIER;
DENNIS C. SWEET, III; FREESE AND GOSS PLLC; SWEET AND FREESE PLLC;
BOSSIER AND ASSOCIATES PLLC; AND DENNIS C. SWEET, D/B/A SWEET AND
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants, v. DON A. MITCHELL, Third-Party
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV457TSL-JCG, (S.D. Miss.)

Plaintiffs Mary Bridges, Bobby Gordon and Johnnie Griffin, along
with 345 others, were previously represented by defendants Freese,
Goss, Sweet and Bossier (and their respective law firms) and by
third-party defendant Don Mitchell in three separate lawsuits
brought against, inter alia, BorgWarner Corporation, in which the
plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries they claimed to
have suffered as the result of the alleged release and improper
disposal and elimination of those certain toxic chemicals
(polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) at a Crystal Springs
manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs' counsel ultimately reached a
global settlement of nearly $28,000,000 with BorgWarner on behalf
of the 348 plaintiffs (Filed Claimants), and on behalf of an
additional 2,471 clients (Unfiled Claimants) who were not
plaintiffs in the PCB litigation but who also claimed they were
injured from exposure to PCBs. The terms of the settlement were
finalized in mid-2010 and in early 2011, defendants began the
process of disbursing settlement funds to the PCB claimants, filed
and unfiled.

On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs Bridges, Gordon and Griffin filed the
present lawsuit for themselves and on behalf of a putative class
comprised of the other 345 former clients represented by
defendants, asserting myriad claims relating to defendants'
representation of plaintiffs in the PCB litigation, with
particular reference to their handling of litigation expenses and
disbursement of settlement proceeds. The complaint purports to set
forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of
contract, fraudulent inducement, conversion, tortious interference
with contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith based on
allegations that defendants failed to properly allocate litigation
expenses among the Filed and Unfiled Claimants; charged plaintiffs
expenses that were exorbitant and unreasonable; converted funds
from the PCB settlement for their own personal and unjust benefit;
had an undisclosed conflict of interest related to their ongoing
representation of the State of Mississippi for recovery of
Medicaid and Medicare liens in other mass tort litigation, while
at the same time negotiating the PCB plaintiffs' Medicaid and
Medicare liens; improperly paid expenses and fees to themselves
before disbursing settlement funds to plaintiffs; and unreasonably
delayed payment to plaintiffs so as to use the settlement funds to
further defendants' own monetary interests.

Among other things, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs
are not adequate class representatives.

A copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/NbZxClfrom
Leagle.com.

Mary Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Bobby Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Johnnie Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Richard A. Freese, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Tim K. Goss, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN,
LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC,
Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin
Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Sheila M. Bossier, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Dennis C. Sweet, III, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Freese and Goss PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sweet and Freese PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Bossier and Associates PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Dennis C. Sweet, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Don A. Mitchell, Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard,
DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL, Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP &
Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL.

James W. Shelson, Material Witness, represented by Fred L. Banks,
Jr., PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP.

Freese and Goss PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Richard A. Freese, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sheila M. Bossier, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sweet and Freese PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Dennis C. Sweet, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Tim K. Goss, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Bossier and Associates PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Dennis C. Sweet, III, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Don A. Mitchell, Third Party Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt
Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL & Christy Vinson Malatesta,
DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL.


GAP SPARTA: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Benitez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. G.A.P. Sparta Food Service, Inc. d/b/a
Savoury Restaurant And Pancake Cafe, Ltd., and Peter Panagakis,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03355 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kirchinger" Suit Over Car Ignition Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kirchinger v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02588-UA
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015) arises out of a motor vehicle accident
that occurred on September 12, 2013, involving the Plaintiff.

Mr. Kirchinger alleges that on that date, while driving his 2010
Chevrolet Cobalt north on 1-275 in Saint Petersburg, Florida, he
figured in an accident with another vehicle.  He contends that his
airbags failed to deploy causing severe injuries and damages.  He
alleges that the airbags failed to deploy due to a design defect
in the vehicle's ignition switch.

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

The lawsuit is related to the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No.
1:14-md-02543-JMF.

The litigation involves an alleged unprecedented failure to
disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous
defects in GM vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has allegedly sold
millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide
that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's ignition switch
can unintentionally move from the "run" position to the
"accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of power,
vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the
vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie "Casey" and Pam Marlenee, each Individually, and on behalf
of M.M., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00026-SPW-CSO (D. Mont., April 3, 2015) arises from the alleged
injuries to M.M. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the
prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK is the successor
in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Incorporated.
Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug Application
for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
          Triel D. Culver, Esq.
          A. Christopher Edwards, Esq.
          EDWARDS, FRICKLE & CULVER
          1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 256-8155
          Facsimile: (406) 256-8159
          E-mail: jenny@edwardslawfirm.org
                  triel@edwardslawfirm.org

               - and -

          Peter L. Helland, Esq.
          HELLAND LAW FIRM
          311 Klein Avenue
          Glasgow, MT 59230
          Telephone: (406) 228-9331
          Facsimile: (406) 228-9335
          E-mail: phelland@nemont.net


GRAND BAHAMA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Momita" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Momita, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, and does 1 through 20,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-02828 (C.D. Cal.,
April 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular
telephone for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message
or artificial voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC is a Florida limited liability
corporation with its principal place of business at 801
International Parkway, 5th Floor, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 that
operates cruise ships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310)507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com


GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Yunjian Lin, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Grand Sichuan 74 St Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan
74, Grand Sichuan 75 St Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan 74, Li Jiang, and
Guang Li Li, Case No. 1:15-cv-02950 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 307
Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Steven Samuel, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Morton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Morton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gyro Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Vaughn Energy Services,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00290 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gyro Technologies, Inc. provides equipment and services to
customers in the oil and gas industry and maintains its principle
place of business in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


HMO MISSOURI: Removes "Sabatino" Suit to Missouri District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sabatino, et al. v. HMO Missouri,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1522-CC00367, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00575 to the proceeding.

The Action arises from a computer security breach alleged to have
compromised the Plaintiffs' personal information.  The Plaintiffs'
claims include: (1) violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act; (2) breach of fiduciary duty based on standards set
forth in regulations promulgated pursuant to the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; (3) breach of
contract; and (4) negligence.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington, Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                  lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Ste. 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neal F. Perryman, Esq.
          Ronald A. Norwood, Esq.
          David W. Gearhart, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1311
          Telephone: (314) 444-7661
          Facsimile: (314) 612-7661
          E-mail: nperryman@lewisrice.com
                  rnorwood@lewisrice.com
                  dgearhart@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com


HORIZON MUD: Faces "Melkoski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Melkoski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Horizon Mud Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00177 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
forty 40 per week.

Horizon Mud Co., Inc. is a drilling fluids company that provides
customized fluid solutions and well-site services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
James Patrick Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02944-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 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.

iDreamSky Technology Limited is a China corporation with its
principal executive offices located at 16/F, A3 Building, Kexing
Science Park, 15 Keyuan Road North, Nanshan District, Shenzhen,
Guangdong, 51805 7, People's Republic of China that is purportedly
the largest independent mobile game publishing platform in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dov Berger, Esq.
      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      GALLET DREYER & BERKEY LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-3131
      Facsimile: (212) 935-4514
      E-mail: dab@gdblaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, 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
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


KIMMEL & GODFREY: "Sams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Sams and Jillian Lockwood, both individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated individuals v. Kimmel & Godfrey
Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Fine and Small Homes, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-01643-SB (D.S.C., April 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kimmel & Godfrey Enterprises, LLC owns and operates a digital
manufacturing start-up company doing business in Charleston
County, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Scott Falls, Esq.
      FALLS LEGAL
      245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
      Charleston, SC 29492
      Telephone: (843) 737-6040
      Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
      E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desmond Adams, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., and Does 1 to 10, Case
No. 8:15-cv-00598 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), seeks to put an end
on the Defendant's practice of sending automated SMS text messages
to mobile telephones for the purpose of marketing or advertising
without first obtaining the prior express written consent of the
called party.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. is a California corporation that
owns and operates a chain of department stores throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
      Gregory H. D. Alumit, Esq.
      HOWARD LAW, PC
      675 Anton Boulevard, First Floor
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 872-5925
      Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
      E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com
              galumit@howardlawpc.com

          - and -

      David M. Arbogast, Esq.
      ARBOGAST LAW
      8117 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 530
      Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
      Telephone: (310) 477-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0416
      E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com


KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Wheat Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henrik Christensen, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Modelez Global
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03367 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of the
prices of cash wheat and wheat futures contracts traded on the
Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) during the period of at least
January 1, 2003 through January 2014, in violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a Virginia corporation, with its
corporate headquarters located at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield,
Illinois 60093-2753 and is one of the largest consumer packaged
food and beverage companies in North America and worldwide.

Modelez Global LLC is a Virginia corporation with its principal
place of business also located at Three Parkway North, Deerfield,
Illinois 60015, which manufactures and markets snack food and
beverage products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Lesht, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE M. CUMMINGS, P.C.
      55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0144
      Telephone: (312) 948-4403 (direct with voicemail)
      Facsimile: (312) 984-0146
      E-mail: dlesht@emcpc.com


KROGER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bobko" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bobko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Co. d/b/a King Soopers, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-00798 (D. Colo., April 15, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff
and Class members on their cellular telephone for non-emergency
purposes using a prerecorded message or artificial voice in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Kroger Co. is an Ohio corporation that maintains its
headquarters at 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, which owns
and operates 2,625 grocery retail stores throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jenny Diane DeFrancisco, Esq.
      LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: jdefrancisco@lemberglaw.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Resort Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Martin, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that if you
have ever glanced at your hotel receipt only to be stunned to see
an unexpected $28 resort fee, help may be on the way.

A Studio City man has filed a class-action suit against a Las
Vegas casino, claiming that the resort is guilty of false and
misleading advertising for failing to clearly disclose a mandatory
resort fee at the time that he booked the room.

The practice is not unique to Las Vegas.

Undisclosed resort fees are such a prevalent problem that the
Federal Trade Commission sent out a letter to 22 hotel companies
in 2012, warning that their online reservation sites "may violate
the law by providing a deceptively low estimate of what consumers
can expect to pay for their hotel rooms."

In the lawsuit, Benjamin Brin said he booked a three-night stay at
the Palazzo hotel in Las Vegas in June of last year.  The booking
website said he would pay a total rate of $209, excluding taxes
and fees.  Once he received his billing receipt, Mr. Brin learned
that he was charged a "resort fee" of $28 a night.

"This rate is not the accurate quote of the nightly cost of the
hotel per night," the lawsuit contends. "Nowhere in the
reservation system page, including the price, is the resort fee
specified."

A spokesman for Las Vegas Sands Corp., the owner of the Palazzo
and the Venetian casinos, declined to comment on the suit.

Brian Kabateck, an attorney for Mr. Brin, said he has heard from
many hotel guests who have groused about being surprised by resort
fees on their hotel receipts.  "This is really an insidious
practice," he said.

Although the U.S. Department of Transportation regularly imposes
fines against airlines that fail to disclose the full airfare,
there may be too many hotels in the U.S. for the Federal Trade
Commission to enforce the disclosure law on hotels, Mr. Kabateck
said.

"The U.S. has a very definite number of airlines," he said.  "When
you are dealing with hotels, you have too many to track.  Just
consider in Las Vegas alone how many hotels you have."


LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Babbitt" Suit Over Harmful Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Babbitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case
No. 5:15-cv-01712 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 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:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, California 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. Saint Clair Ave.
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 551-9175
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
              bhollowell@karonllc.com

         - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON PLC
      310 Clifton Ave.
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              janderson@heinsmills.com


LITTLE LUKE: E.D.N.Y. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York
denied defendants' motion in the case OSCAR G. MERCADO MENDOZA,
FRANKLIN ORTIZ, and NOHVIS REYES, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE LUKE,
INC. d/b/a PEDESTALS FLORIST; and PHILIP SAMMUT, jointly and
severally, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-3416 (JS)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y.)

Little Luke is a New York corporation d/b/a Pedestals Florist in
Garden City Park, New York and Philip Sammut is the owner,
officer, and manager of the business.

The plaintiffs Oscar G. Mercado Mendoza, Franklin Ortiz, and
Nohvis Reyes were employed by the defendants as florists.
Plaintiffs commenced a putative collective and class action on May
30, 2014 against defendants, asserting several violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.,
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y. LAB. LAW Section 190 et
seq.

Plaintiffs specifically claim that defendants failed to pay
overtime compensation and minimum wage, failed to pay uniform
maintenance as required by the NYLL and had failed to post and
provide certain notices required by the FLSA and the NYLL. The
Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs worked in excess of
forty hours many workweeks but defendants willfully failed to pay
overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay as required by the FLSA and the NYLL.

Defendants move to dismiss the original and amended complaint for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Seybert denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint
as moot.

A copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated March 6,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/n49eCRfrom Leagle.com

For Plaintiffs:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway #408
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-229-2249

For Defendants

Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq.
Jael Dumornay, Esq.
Trivella & Forte, LLP
1311 Mamaroneck Ave # 170
White Plains, NY 10605
Telephone: 914-949-9075


MENDEZ CLEANING: Faces "Soriano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose M. Soriano, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Mendez Cleaning Services
Corporation, and Mirna I. Mendez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03371 (N.D.
Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a cleaning service business in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Reibum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronni Reibum and Samuel Jorgenson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Bank Of America
Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02960 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of America
Corporation, provide financial and investment services to
customers across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
      Susan Hilary Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
              sstern@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Juno Emmeline Turner, Esq.
      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      Katrina L. Eiland, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com
              jms@outtengolden.com
              keiland@outtengolden.com


MF GLOBAL: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Bleichmar Fonti
Tountas & Auld LLP on April 9 issued a statement regarding the In
re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 1:11-CV-07866-VM

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Securities Actions, (DeAngelis v.
Corzine), ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS;
(II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH CERTAIN UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS;
AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period
beginning on May 20, 2010 through and including November 21, 2011,
purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global Settling Underwriter
Securities1 and were damaged thereby (the "Underwriter Settlement
Class")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the
Underwriter Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Underwriter Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I)
Certification of Settlement Class; (II) Proposed Settlement with
Certain Underwriter Defendants; and (III) Settlement Fairness
Hearing (the "Underwriter Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed partial settlement of the Action for
$74,000,000 in cash (the "Underwriter Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims asserted against certain of the
underwriter defendants in the Action.  A complete list of the
Settling Underwriter Defendants is set forth in the Underwriter
Notice.  The proposed Underwriter Settlement does not resolve any
claims against the other Defendants in the Action, which is
continuing to be litigated.

A hearing will be held on June 26, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Victor Marrero at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11B of the United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Underwriter Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the
Settling Underwriter Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Certain Underwriter Defendants dated November 25, 2014 (and in the
Underwriter Notice) should be granted.

If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, your
rights will be affected by the proposed Underwriter Settlement and
any orders or judgments related to the Underwriter Settlement, and
you may be entitled to share in the Underwriter Settlement Fund.
If you have not yet received the Underwriter Notice, you may
obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at In re MF
Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City
Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10164, Dublin, OH 43017-3164, or calling
toll-free 1-877-940-5045.  Copies of the Underwriter Notice can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Notice
Administrator, www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

A Proof of Claim Form is not being disseminated at this time.  To
participate in the Underwriter Settlement, you will be required to
submit a Proof of Claim Form that will be disseminated at a future
date.  Many copies of the full notice are being forwarded to
potential settlement class members through brokers and other
nominees.  If you have not yet received the full Underwriter
Notice by mail, or if you do not receive a copy in the mail in the
next few weeks, please contact the Notice Administrator at the
address above to request that you be added to its mailing list for
the In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation.
PLEASE NOTE: The Proof of Claim Form, when it becomes available,
and other notices in the Action will be posted on the website
referred to in the preceding paragraph.  Please check it
periodically.

If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class and wish
to exclude yourself from the class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May
29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Underwriter Notice.  If you properly exclude yourself from the
Underwriter Settlement Class, you will also be excluded from any
other classes that may be certified in the Action in which you
would otherwise be a member, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you
will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Underwriter
Settlement or any other recoveries that might be obtained in the
Action.

Any objections to the proposed Underwriter Settlement must be
filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Settling
Underwriter Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than May 29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Underwriter Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants or
their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice or the proposed Underwriter Settlement should be directed
to Co-Lead Counsel or the Notice Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Underwriter Notice, should
be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

or

BLEICHMAR FONTI TOUNTAS & AULD LLP
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 789-1341
bfta@bftalaw.com

Requests for the Underwriter Notice or to be added to the mailing
list for future notices in the Action should be made to:

In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 10164
Dublin, OH 43017-3164
(877) 940-5045
www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

By Order of the Court

1 The MF Global Settling Underwriter Securities are: MF Global
common stock purchased in or traceable to the secondary offering
pursuant to a Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-162119, dated February 24, 2010, a Preliminary
Prospectus Supplement dated June 1, 2010, and a Final Prospectus
supplement dated June 3, 2010 (CUSIP 55277J108); MF Global's
1.875% Convertible Senior Notes due February 1, 2016 issued on or
about February 7, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAA6); MF Global's 3.375%
Convertible Senior Notes due August 1, 2018 issued on or about
July 28, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAB4); and MF Global's 6.25% Senior
Notes due August 8, 2016 issued on or about August 1, 2011 (CUSIP
55277JAC2).


MINE SAFETY: "Murray" Personal Injury Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant 3M Company removed the lawsuit titled Murray v. Mine
Safety Appliances Company, et al., Case No. CV-2014-451-2, from
the Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00101-JM to the proceeding.

The action is brought for personal injuries arising under the
Federal Employers Liability Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Malouf, Esq.
          Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
          John T. Givens, Esq.
          PORTER & MALOUF, PA
          Post Office Box 12768
          Jackson, MS 39236-2768
          Telephone: (601) 957-1173
          Facsimile: (601) 957-7366
          E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com
                  tim@portermalouf.com
                  johnny@potermalouf.com

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422
          Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

Defendant and Cross Defendant 3M Company is represented by:

          Mary Clay Morgan, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC
          188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 948-8000
          Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com

Defendant and Cross Claimant E D Bullard Company is represented
by:

          D. Michael Huckabay, Jr., Esq.
          James Tucker Sayes, Esq.
          HUCKABAY LAW FIRM
          Simmons Tower, Suite 1575
          425 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 375-5600
          Facsimile: (501) 375-5605
          E-mail: michael@huckabaylawfirm.com
                  jay@huckabaylawfirm.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids for Women's Prison 50% Higher Than Budgeted
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMUR9abc reports that construction bids for the new women's prison
have come in over 50 percent higher than budgeted, requiring a
redesign and delaying its opening at least a year, until late
2017, state officials say.

A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of inmates over conditions
and lack of programming at the women's prison in Goffstown was put
on hold last year after the legislature approved $38 million for
the new women's prison.

But the bids came in April at $58 million, and officials say they
are going back to the drawing board to radically amend the design.

Elliott Berry, one of the lead lawyers for the inmates, said the
legal team will be meeting to consider what action to take.

"It's been a long time since they were first ordered to do this,"
Mr. Berry said, referring to nearly three decades of court orders
to build a new women's prison to remedy disparities in the
programs and facilities for male and female inmates.

At the request of Corrections and Administrative Services
officials, Gov. Maggie Hassan in her budget proposal last month
allocated an additional $12.6 million for construction of the new
prison, originally slated to open in late 2016.  Officials say
they are going to scale back what was expected to be a four-
building, campus-style prison behind the men's prison in Concord.
Both designs aim to house 224 inmates.

"It's a no-brainer," said Michael Connor, deputy commissioner of
the Department of Administrative Services.  "We may be looking
more monolithic than campus."

Mr. Connor said that the construction industry is picking up and
that contractors are getting picky.  About 20 contracts were put
out for bid on the project, and some, such as fencing, netted only
one bidder.

"Disappointment would be an understatement," Mr. Connor said.

Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn said he's open to any
design that allows his department to provide programs and
treatment facilities the women need.

"Any delay is a disservice to the inmates," he said.

House Finance Committee Chairman Neal Kurk said another concern
with the four-building campus approach is spiraling staffing
costs.  Gov. Hassan's budget request for permanent, classified
positions at the women's prison in fiscal year 2017 is $3.7
million more than triple that of 2014.

"I think it would be much more cost-efficient from a labor point
of view to have all these facilities in a single structure,"
Mr. Kurk said.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Carroll), chairman of the Public Works and
Highways Committee, agrees.

"Once it's built, it gets staffed forever," Mr. Chandler said.


NEW YORK, NY: To Implement Broad Changes to Summons System
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Davis O'Brien and Pervaiz Shallwani, writing for The Wall
Street Journal, report that New York officials are pursuing broad
changes to the city's overwhelmed summons system, part of an
effort to handle low-level offenses more efficiently and fairly,
officials and advocates say.

The changes, which city and state officials are expected to
announce in the coming days, include providing more ways for
summons recipients to pay fines, tighter controls for police-
issued summonses and better training for judicial-hearing officers
and assigned counsel in the summons courts, according to people
familiar with the discussions.

"What we want to do is examine this whole issue from top to
bottom," said Jonathan Lippman, chief judge for the New York State
Court of Appeals, whose office has been working on the changes
with the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice and the New York
Police Department.

"Not just how those parts run, what the experiences of people who
come into those parts are, but also, what are we trying to do
there?" he added.  "I don't think that's crystal clear right now."

Summonses are tickets issued by NYPD and other law-enforcement
agencies for low-level infractions, most of which must be answered
and paid in person on a specific date in one of the city's eight
summons courts.

In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, more
than 458,000 summonses -- for offenses such as public urination,
riding bicycles on the sidewalk and drinking alcohol from open
containers in public places -- were filed in the city.

More than 19% were dismissed for defects in the complaint or legal
insufficiencies, while about 5% were paid by mail.  Almost a
quarter of those who received a summons pleaded guilty but never
paid the fines.

Fewer than 1% went to trial, according to city statistics.
Summons payments in 2013 totaled $8.8 million, more than a quarter
of the city criminal-court-system's revenue.

Rory Lancman, a Queens Democrat who is chairman of the City
Council committee on courts and legal services, called summons
court "a broken-windows court," referring to the law-enforcement
strategy popularized by Police Commissioner William Bratton.
In December, Mr. Lancman led a council hearing at which
representatives from public-defense and civil-rights groups said
summons courts were marked by opaque proceedings and poor legal
representation.

They also described the far-reaching effects of summonses.  Though
the fines are typically less than $100, paying them amounts to
pleading guilty, which can result in summons recipients losing
jobs, financial aid and even beds in homeless shelters, as well as
delayed immigration hearings, the lawyers and advocates said.

Elizabeth Glazer, director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal
Justice, which has coordinated the summons overhaul effort, told
the council there was a need to "tighten up" the system.

Since then, summons courts have become a "very high priority" in
City Hall, said Mr. Lancman, who has dubbed the system "Turnstile
Justice."

Another concern among those pursuing changes to the summons system
is the proliferation of bench warrants, according to people
familiar with the discussions.  If someone fails to appear in
court on his or her assigned day, an arrest warrant can be issued.
About 73,000 such warrants were active in 2014 stemming from
summonses issued in 2013, officials said.

Officials have discussed changing the summons form to include the
recipient's race and ethnicity, which could be used to monitor how
summonses are issued.  Other proposed changes include a hotline
offering summons-payment options and treating more summonses like
traffic tickets, which could be paid by mail, said an NYPD
official familiar with the discussions.

The push for change in the summons system comes as other aspects
of New York's criminal-justice practices are being debated.  In
recent months, there have been proposals to move 16- and 17-year-
olds out of adult courts, as well as calls for a more open grand-
jury process and more attention to mental-health issues in the
criminal-justice system.

"We are doing this wholesale re-evaluation of the gradation of
crimes," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime
Commission of New York, a criminal-justice advocacy group.

In November, the city switched to summonses, rather than arrests,
for people stopped with small amounts of marijuana.  Despite fears
that this would lead to summons courts flooded with marijuana
cases, from Nov. 19, 2014, to March 15, 2015, marijuana summonses
decreased 1.2% from the same period a year earlier.  Marijuana
arrests dropped 60% over the same period, NYPD data show.

Total summons filings in New York City have fallen from a high of
648,638 in 2005, and records show further declines in 2014 and
2015.  Summonses issued by the NYPD, aside from those related to
parking or traffic violations, are down 35% so far this year
compared with the same period in 2014, according to police
records.

The city's summons system faces challenges in federal court and
from local law enforcement.  A civil-rights class-action lawsuit
pending against the city in Manhattan federal court alleges that
summonses were issued without probable cause to satisfy police
quotas and disproportionately affected minority communities.  The
city has denied the charges.

Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson raised alarm about the
system last fall, when he visited the summons court at 346
Broadway, a dingy building that serves Manhattan and Brooklyn and
handled about 145,000 scheduled arraignments in 2013.

Its courtrooms can be crowded and disorderly, with summons
recipients called to the bench in quick succession, without time
to confer with court-assigned counsel and often without an
explanation of their rights as they are urged to pay their fines.

"That assembly-line approach I think raises some due-process
concerns," Mr. Thompson said last fall.  "I didn't see individuals
being told the consequences of their plea.  The fact that bench
warrants are almost automatically issued for people who don't
appear even once is troubling."

The court faces an additional problem: The city's lease at 346
Broadway expires this year, and the building is set to be
converted to luxury condominiums.  A new location for the court
hasn't been announced.


NO PLACE: Faces "Glasper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrick Glasper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. No Place Like Home, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02253 (W.D.
Tenn., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

No Place Like Home, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation that provides
home healthcare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randolph Scott Jackson Jr., Esq.
      R. SCOTT JACKSON JR. LAW FIRM
      4525 Harding Road, Ste 200
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 313-8188
      E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Greco" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Greco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
and John Doe (1-10), Case No. 2:15-cv-02669 -CCC-MF (D.N.J., April
15, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting
the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone for
non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message or artificial
voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants are providers of residential and commercial
mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset management
services

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, New Jersey 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


OHIO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of "R. Harris" DRC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, affirmed the July
23, 2014 judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing appellant's
complaint in Ronald E. Harris, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 14AP-668.

Mr. Harris filed the complaint in April 2014 against the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) making various
allegations, the essence of which was that he was purportedly
exposed to asbestos while an inmate at the Chillicothe
Correctional Institution and was denied participation in a class
action lawsuit, and settlement regarding the same, in the federal
courts. See Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., S.D.Ohio No.
2:08-CV-15 (Apr. 26, 2012).

In a decision dated March 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/btjzZifrom Leagle.com, the Ohio appeals court hold
that:

-- The Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
    consider appellant's claims for relief grounded upon the DRC's
    alleged violations of appellant's constitutional rights as
    specified in the complaint. Thus, the Court of Claims did not
    err when it dismissed those claims.

-- Appellant filed his complaint in 2014, over two years from
    when he first learned of his injury. The trial court properly
    applied R.C. 2743.16(A) to bar appellant's complaint pursuant
    to the statute of limitations.

-- Appellant states that "all courts shall be open, and every
    person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or
    reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall
    have justice administered without denial or delays. To the
    extent appellant assigns error that he is being denied due
    process, the Ohio appeals court overrules that assignment of
    error.

Ronald E. Harris, II, pro se.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Amber Wootoon Hertlein and Peter
E. DeMarco, for appellee.


ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over FICA Tax Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bryan Reuss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60808-RNS (S.D.
Fla., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to disclose or otherwise act on the existence of the 2001-
05 refund opportunity pertaining to Federal Insurance
Contributions Act (FICA) employer and employee payments made on
behalf of medical residents.

Orlando Health, Inc. operates eight hospitals in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
      KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
      700 S. E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 522-6601
      Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
      E-mail: jml@kulaw.com

         - and -

      T. Scott Tufts, Esq.
      TUFTS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      111 South Maitland Avenue, Suite 101
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Telephone: (407) 647-8886
      Facsimile: (407) 641-8082
      E-mail: stufts@tuftslawfirm.com


PIPE TRADES: Sued Over Failure to Remit Plan Contributions
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack E. Neal, Jr., James Johnson, and United Association of
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 440 Health and Welfare Fund v.
Pipe Trades Industry Health and Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00609 (S.D. Ind., April 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
failed to reciprocate all contributions made on behalf of the
Local 661 members based upon all hours worked in October 2013 and
all subsequent months.

Pipe Trades Industry Health and Welfare Fund is an employee
benefit plan maintains its office and principal place of business
in Terre Haute, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Richard Myers Jr., Esq.
      Frederick W. Dennerline III, Esq.
      FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH & TOWE LLP
      429 E. Vermont Street, Suite 200
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Telephone: (317) 353-9363
      Facsimile: (317) 391-7232
      E-mail: jmyers@fdgtlaborlaw.com
              fdennerline@fdgtlaborlaw.com


PIZZA PROFITS: Plaintiffs File Amended "Koch" Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a February 20, 2015 order granting the Defendants'
motion to sever, Chief Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas directed the Clerk of
Court to sever the case captioned Jacqueline L. Conners, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Catfish Pies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14CV000002 BSM, and to open
two new cases and docket the lawsuits of (1) Whitney Koch and
Maria Campanelli against Pizza Profits, Three Buddies, and Ben
Biesenthal; and (2) Cecilie Washburn against Show Me Pies, Three
Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal.

On April 3, 2015, Whitney Koch and Maria Campanelli filed their
amended complaint captioned Koch, et al. v. Pizza Profits Inc., et
al.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00190-BSM
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for wages owed.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Holleman, Esq.
          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Ford, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  maryna@johnholleman.net
                  matthew@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

Defendants Pizza Profits Inc., Three Buddies Incorporated and
Benjamin Biesenthal are represented by:

          Ashley R. Hudson, Esq.
          Genoveva Gilbert, Esq.
          James Matthew Gary, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975-3116
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com
                  genoveva.gilbert@kutakrock.com
                  james.gary@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
          Telephone: (479) 973-4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: scott.jackson@kutakrock.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Fuerst" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Fuerst, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 3:15-cv-00060-
TBM (D. Alaska, April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Wang, Esq.
      ASHBURN & MASON, P.C.
      1227 West 9th Ave., Suite 200
      Anchorage, AK 99501
      Telephone: (907) 276-4331
      Facsimile: (907) 277-8235
      E-mail: thomas@anchorlaw.com

         - and -

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Ave.
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      17 Miles Road
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Telephone: (800) 934-2921
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com


RAWLINGS FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Papetti" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Papetti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rawlings Financial Services, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), seeks to put an
end on the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Rawlings Financial Services, LLC is engage in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another with it business located at 1 Eden Parkway,
LaGrange, Kentucky 40031-2020.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-797
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com


REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Greco, Executor of the Estate of Frank W. Greco and all
others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02931-CM (S.D.N.Y., April 15,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's actions of using an
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a collection agency with its
principal office located at 1349 Empire Central Drive, Ste 150,
Dallas, Texas 75247.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, New York 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, New York 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW, LLC
      15 00 Allaire A venue, Suite 101
      Ocean, New Jersey 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: D. Ariz. Judge Narrows Claims in Delta Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Arizona
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case Delta Mechanical, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Rheem
Manufacturing Company, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:06-CV-01095-JWS
(D. Ariz.)

The defendants Rheem Manufacturing Company, American Water Heater
Company, Bradford White Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, and
Lochnivar Corporation are manufacturers of water heater tanks.
Defendants were involved in a class action lawsuit, by which they
agreed to facilitate the repair of defective water heaters that
they had manufactured.

Delta Mechanical, Inc. is a plumbing company and was among the
authorized service providers enlisted to perform dip tube
replacements. In applying to be an authorized service provider,
Delta agreed to abide by the terms set forth in a pamphlet
entitled.

Delta filed a lawsuit in Arizona state court, asserting claims
against defendants and the administrator of the settlement
agreement for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and promissory
estoppel. Delta maintains in its complaint that it performed
hundreds of dip tube replacements between January 2000 and
December 2001 for class members who had submitted proof-of-claim
forms, but that defendants, through the claims administrator,
never issued certificates to those class members despite their
eligibility for benefits. Specifically, Delta seeks payment from
defendants for 2,611 dip tube services it allegedly performed for
customers it believes are entitled to benefits under the
agreement.

The case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity.
In June 2007, the court dismissed Delta's promissory estoppel and
unjust enrichment claims based on the applicable statutes of
limitation. In a separate order, the court dismissed Delta's
breach-of-contract and good faith claims, holding that Delta was
not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the court's determination,
stating that the evidentiary record on this issue demonstrates
that at this early stage of the case, whether Delta was or was not
a third-party beneficiary is a genuine issue of material fact that
might survive summary judgment.

Defendants again moved for summary judgment as to whether Delta
was a third-party beneficiary. The court granted summary judgment
in favor of defendants on the ground that Delta was not a third-
party beneficiary of the Agreement under Missouri law. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded the case to
the district. Defendants again move for summary judgment. They
argue that Delta has not and cannot establish compliance with the
claims protocol as to any of the 2,611 service claims Delta
contends are eligible for payment under the Agreement, and because
compliance with the claims protocol was a condition that must have
been followed before a class member could avail herself of the
benefits under the Agreement, payment is not due.

Judge Sedwick granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claim for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed. Plaintiff's
claim for breach of contract survives because there appears to be
a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants impliedly waived
the requirement that a class member receive a certificate before
obtaining repair services.

A copy of Judge Sedwick's final order and opinion dated March 6,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/K6sDCofrom Leagle.com

Delta Mechanical Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by:

Claudio Eduardo Iannitelli, Esq.
Paul Keith Frame, Esq.
CHEIFETZ IANNITELLI MARCOLINI PC
111 West Monroe Street, 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: 602-952-6000
Facsimile: 602-952-7020

Rheem Manufacturing Company, A Delaware corporation, American
Water Heater Company, a Nevada corporation, A.O. Smith
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Lochinvar Corporation, a
Tennessee corporation, and Bradford White Corporation, Defendants,
represented by:

Kenneth Harold Brendel, Esq.
MANGUM WALL STOOPS & WARDEN PLLC
100 North Elden Street
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Telephone: 928-779-6951


ROBERT M. SPANO: "Boyle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boyle, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Robert M. Spano Plumbing &
Heating, Inc. v. Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. et al,
Case No. 7:15-cv-02899-KMK (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. is a New York
corporation, with its principal place of business located at 152
Adams St., Bedford Hills, NY 10507, which is engaged in plumbing
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
      LEEDS MORELLI & BROWN
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Karl Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
      E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com

         - and -

      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net


SABA DIPPING: Recalls Hummus Products Over Listeria Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Abrams, writing for The New York Times, reports that two
food manufacturers have issued nationwide recalls of products
because of the discovery of the potentially lethal bacterium
listeria, which federal authorities have now linked to three
deaths and five illnesses in Texas and Kansas.

On April 8, the Sabra Dipping Company recalled 30,000 cases of its
classic hummus after one tub in Michigan tested positive for the
food-borne bacteria.  No illnesses related to the hummus have been
reported so far, according to Jennifer Holton, a spokeswoman for
the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Separately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
confirmed that three people in Texas fell ill after eating Blue
Bell ice cream from 2011 to 2014.  The agency had already
connected the company with three listeria-related deaths and two
additional cases.

The agency is investigating three more potential cases, according
to Dr. Rob Tauxe, deputy director of the C.D.C.'s Division of
Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, which would
bring the total number of cases to 11.

The agency initially linked five patients at a hospital in Kansas
who fell ill from January 2014 to January 2015 to Blue Bell
Products.  The C.D.C. determined that at least four had consumed
milkshakes made with Blue Bell ice cream.

Listeria is among the most dangerous food-borne illnesses,
particularly to people with compromised immune systems, although
it is much more rare than other common diseases like salmonella
poisoning.  The C.D.C. estimates that about 380 people die of
salmonella every year, which translates to less than 1 percent of
about one million annual cases.  About 260 people, or about 16
percent of about 1,600 cases, die of listeria every year.

Symptoms include headaches, fever and abdominal pain.  Consumers
who were exposed to Blue Bell or Sabra products and exhibit signs
of illness should contact their doctors, Dr. Tauxe said.
Consumers who have been exposed but do not exhibit symptoms
probably have little reason to worry, he added.

Health officials say that consumers should wrap potentially
contaminated products in plastic before throwing them away.
Closed containers that have not spilled do not pose a significant
risk of spreading listeria to other areas of the home.

Blue Bell has been expanding a recall of its products over
listeria concerns since March, when the company recalled 10 frozen
snack items manufactured at a plant in Brenham, Tex., where Blue
Bell is based.  The company said it was its first recall in 108
years.

"This is really surprising, very startling and distressing to the
company," said Gene Grabowski, a Blue Bell spokesman.

Days later, the company recalled its chocolate, vanilla and
strawberry three-ounce cups manufactured at a second plant in
Broken Arrow, Okla.  Those cups were available only to
institutional buyers like schools and hospitals, Mr. Grabowski
said, and not to the public.

Blue Bell expanded the recall a third time in April to include
banana pudding, butter crunch, mint chocolate chip, cookies 'n
cream, homemade vanilla, Dutch chocolate and "moo-llennium crunch"
flavors of ice cream manufactured from Feb. 12 through March 27 at
the Broken Arrow plant.

In a statement on its website, Blue Bell said that it suspended
operations at the Broken Arrow plant on April 3, and that it was
"working with retail outlets to remove all products" made there.
The company hopes to resume operations at the plant in the next
seven to 10 days, Mr. Grabowski said, once it has identified the
source of the contamination and sterilized the facilities.

Blue Bell is offering a full refund for all products made at its
Broken Arrow plant. Such products are stamped with a six-digit
code and the letter "O," "P," "Q," "R," "S" or "T."

Ice cream, unlike hummus, can stay good in a freezer for years,
posing a challenge to health officials.

"We are concerned that there may be contaminated ice cream still
in people's freezers," Dr. Tauxe said.  "It appears that products
from the Oklahoma facility may have been contaminated for some
time."

An outbreak of listeria traced to cantaloupe killed 33 people in
2011 and sickened more than 140 others.  In March, a district
court judge approved settlements for the families of 30 people who
died.

The Sabra and Blue Bell recalls follow three other recent food
recalls over listeria concerns. Amy's Kitchen, the maker of
organic frozen meals, recalled about 74,000 cases of prepackaged
products.  Wegmans Food Markets issued a recall of more than
12,000 packages of organic spinach, while the Carmel Food Group
recalled some of its Rising Moon Organics frozen ravioli.


SHOW ME PIES: Plaintiff Files Amended "Washburn" FLSA Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a February 20, 2015 order granting the Defendants'
motion to sever, Chief Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas directed the Clerk of
Court to sever the case captioned Jacqueline L. Conners, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Catfish Pies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14CV000002 BSM, and to open
two new cases and docket the lawsuits of (1) Whitney Koch and
Maria Campanelli against Pizza Profits, Three Buddies, and Ben
Biesenthal; and (2) Cecilie Washburn against Show Me Pies, Three
Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal.

On April 3, 2015, Cecilie Washburn filed an amended complaint
captioned Washburn v. Show Me Pies Inc., et al.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00191-BSM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for wages owed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Holleman, Esq.
          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          Matthew Michael Ford, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  maryna@johnholleman.net
                  matthew@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

Defendants Show Me Pies Inc., Three Buddies Incorporated and Ben
Bisenthal are represented by:

          Ashley R. Hudson, Esq.
          Genoveva Gilbert, Esq.
          James Matthew Gary, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975-3116
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com
                  genoveva.gilbert@kutakrock.com
                  james.gary@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
          Telephone: (479) 973-4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: scott.jackson@kutakrock.com


SISTAR BEAUTY: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndsy Jones, Shadiy Smith, LaShear Allen, Jakia Neeley and
Tsedkeyah Pittman, on behalf of themselves and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown v. Sistar Beauty
Corporation and Sang W. Lew, Case No. 1:15-cv-03359 (N.D. Ill.,
April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sistar Beauty Corporation is an Illinois corporation that is a
retailer of beauty and hair supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarmistha Banerjee, Esq.
      David J. Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 929-7590
      E-mail: buri@fishlawfirm.com
              dfish@fishlawfirm.com


STATE FARM: Judge Trims Claims in "Thornell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the Western District of
Washington granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
in the case SANDRA THORNELL, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE SERV. BUREAU,
INC., and STATE FARM MUT. AUTO INS. CO., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-
1601 MJP (W.D. Wash.)

The plaintiff Sandra Thornell is a resident of Texas, who brought
a putative class action against State Farm, an Illinois
corporation, and Seattle Service Bureau (SSB), a Washington
corporation, alleging unjust enrichment and Washington Consumer
Protection Act violations (WCPA).

The violations stem from an allegedly deceptive practice by State
Farm of referring unliquidated subrogation claims to SSB, which
then sends debt collection letters demanding a specified sum to
persons against whom the claims could be brought. Plaintiff
further alleges she enrolled in a credit monitoring program at her
expense and sought and retained counsel as a result of the debt
collection letters she received from SSB on behalf of State Farm.

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to Strike and defendant SSB Joins
State Farm's motion to dismiss and motion to strike. Defendant
State Farm first asserts it is not directly or vicariously liable
for the actions of SSB. Also defendant State Farm argues the
Washington Consumer Protection Act does not apply to claims made
by plaintiffs who are not Washington citizens, particularly
against non-Washington corporations. Defendant Seattle Service
Bureau incorporates the arguments made by State Farm on this topic
and further argues that Texas law should control.

State Farm and SSB argue plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails
because plaintiff cannot allege she conferred any benefit on State
Farm or SSB. Defendant State Farm argues plaintiff's requests for
injunctive and declaratory relief must be dismissed because
plaintiff's injuries are adequately addressed by monetary relief.
Finally, defendants ask that plaintiff's class allegation be
struck under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Chief District Judge Pechman granted defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and also granted defendants'
request to certify questions regarding extraterritorial
application of the WCPA. Judge Pechman denied defendants' motions
to strike class allegations and the motion to dismiss plaintiff's
request for injunctive and declaratory relief.

A copy of Chief Judge Pechman's order dated March 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/tZEjEm from Leagle.com

Sandra Thornell, Plaintiff, represented by James L Kauffman --
jkauffman@baileyglasser.com -- Michael L Murphy --
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- at Bailey & Glasser LLP; Beth E
Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE
PLLC

Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I
Hasson -- hasson@dhlaw.biz -- at DAVENPORT & HASSON

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Defendant, represented by
Cornelius M. Murphy -- nmurphy@winston.com -- Thomas J. Frederick
-- tfrederi@winston.com -- at WINSTON & STRAWN; Daniel L Syhre --
dsyhre@bpmlaw.com -- Joseph D Hampton -- jhampton@bpmlaw.com -- at
BETTS PATTERSON & MINES


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners in Drywall Settlement Face Tax Woes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Salman, writing for Herald Tribune, reports that Colleen
Stephens discovered her Virginia home was built with toxic Chinese
drywall six years ago.  Even today, many homeowners are still
battling to receive reimbursements for damage and health effects
of the faulty drywall.  U.S. consumers who have been hurt by
defective products made by in China often have little recourse.
But in a recent turn of events, Chinese drywall manufacturer
Taishan Gypsum Co. has agreed to pay the damages owed to some
impacted homeowners.

The judgment against the Taishan, a state-controlled company,
dates to 2010, when a New Orleans federal judge ruled that the
drywall maker was liable for $2.6 million to fix the homes of
seven Virginia families.

The seven were used as a so-called bellwether case -- a test trial
of sorts for the issues surrounding complex litigation -- to
represent the owners of about 4,000 houses nationwide built with
Taishan's drywall.  But the company never paid.

The company dismissed its lawyers and stopped showing up in court,
and a judge last summer found Taishan in civil and criminal
contempt -- banning the company and its affiliates from doing
business in the United States.

The company just recently agreed to honor its court-mandated
payments.

Taxation meets contamination

Forced to leave, she bunked with friends, stayed in a travel
trailer and eventually moved into a small rental while waiting for
the legal saga surrounding the house and scores of others like it
to play out.  She was ultimately forced to walk away from the
uninhabitable property in 2012, agreeing to a short sale.

Ms. Stephens received just a sliver of the tens of thousands of
dollars she had invested into the house, by way of class-action
settlements in the drywall lawsuits.

Now the government wants Ms. Stephens -- and thousands of others
like her -- to pay taxes on those reimbursements.

"Our losses far outweighed what we earned back," Ms. Stephens
said. "This is our money, and we already paid taxes on it.

"Why should we have to pay again?"

The organization hired to oversee the distribution of checks in at
least one of the Chinese drywall lawsuits has sent 1099 tax forms
to thousands of homeowners across the Southeast.

Many of the homeowners already are out hundreds of thousands of
dollars.  They are struggling to overcome credit scars from
foreclosures and bankruptcies.  In many cases, they are still
grappling with health issues after having living with the tainted
building material.

There are varying opinions from attorneys and accountants familiar
with these types of settlement reimbursements about whether the
drywall victims should be taxed.  But some of the homeowners who
spoke to the Herald-Tribune said just they can't afford the latest
financial burden.  They are calling on Congress for help.

Wide distribution

Shipments of Chinese drywall made their way to Florida in 2001,
and by the height of the region's real estate boom four years
later, the faulty material was widespread -- especially in
ballooning markets such as North Port, Cape Coral and Lehigh
Acres.

An investigation by the Herald-Tribune and the watchdog group
ProPublica found that nearly 7,000 U.S. houses were built using
bad drywall, but enough of the material was imported to raise at
least 100,000.

The material, notorious for producing a sulfurous, rotten-egg
smell in homes -- has also been known to corrode the metal found
in pipes, wiring, air-conditioners and appliances.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the
tainted material can also lead to a slew of adverse health
effects, ranging from headaches to breathing problems, increased
blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neuropathy
and extreme fatigue.

A federal judge in 2013 approved five class-action settlements
calling on Chinese drywall manufacturers and others to pay
hundreds of millions of dollars to repair homes in Gulf Coast
states damaged by the product.

Many of the victims are now being asked to pay taxes on those
disbursements, which the federal government is classifying as
income, according to records obtained by the Herald-Tribune.

The 1099

The 1099 forms include information about the drywall victim, and
the amount each received in the class-action settlement.  They are
designed to be given to accountants or tax preparers, to be
factored into homeowners' total earnings for the year.

Many of the victims that received these notices have paid the
requested taxes at the advice of accountants.  Others say they are
still waiting for greater clarity.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's staff had a call with the Internal Revenue
Service recently to discuss the issue.  The IRS told the Florida
congressman that it is trying to formalize some guidance for
drywall victims, but the tax officials said that it is taking
time.

"We told them we don't believe people receiving these settlements
should be receiving income statements," Dan McLaughlin, a
spokesman for Nelson's office, said in an email.  "In most cases
they probably shouldn't be taxed."

Erroneous

At least one Sarasota construction attorney involved in many of
drywall lawsuits also does not believe the victims should pay.

Alan Tannenbaum said he thought the notices were most likely based
on an erroneous interpretation by the government.  He suggested a
construction defect -- like the Chinese drywall cases -- ought to
involve the same sort of legal standard that applies to an
accident.  The money for repairs should not qualify as a taxable
income, he said.

"It makes absolutely no sense at all," Mr. Tannenbaum said.  "If a
plane crashes into someone's home, and the homeowner files an
insurance claim to fix that, the money to repair the home doesn't
qualify as a taxable event."

Mr. Tannenbaum urges impacted victims to fight the tax request.

"People need to understand that just because the government takes
a position that a tax is owed, it doesn't mean it is owed.  It's
just the start of the conversation," he said.

"To me, they should fight it."


TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Lopez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federico Lopez and Armando Gonzales, on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Timothy Edwards, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00103 (N.D. Tex., April 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of forty 40
per week.

Timothy Edwards is the owner of Total Performance, Inc., a trailer
manufacturing company in Northern Texas that specializes in
manufacturing and customizing trailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


TRICAN WELL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trican Well Service, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00176 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Trican Well Service, L.P. provides oil and gas related services to
oil and gas companies with a principal place of business located
at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED SERVICES: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to Muscogee County Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Carlson was insured under an automobile
insurance policy issued by Defendants United Services Automobile
Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, and USAA General
Indemnity Company (collectively, "USAA").  Carlson alleges that
after his 2013 Toyota Prius V was damaged due to a flood in 2013,
USAA paid to have the car repaired but denied Carlson's request
for diminution in value. Carlson claims that he was entitled to
$9,750 for diminution in value under his insurance policy.

Carlson filed an action in the Muscogee County Superior Court,
seeking to represent a class of Georgia USAA insureds who suffered
a non-total loss due to water damage and did not receive a payment
for diminution in value.  USAA removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Carlson now asks the Court to remand the action to the state
court.

Chief District Judge Clay A. Land finds thatUSAA did not prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement is met, so Carlson's Motion to Remand is granted, and
the action is remanded to the Superior Court of Muscogee County,
Georgia.

The class action is CHRISTOPHER CARLSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15-CV-6
(CDL), (M.D. Ga.).

A copy of the judge's Order dated March 30, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/kgDsTSfrom Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER CARLSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Neal Pope,
David C. Rayfield -- davidrayfield@pmkm.com -- of Pope, McGlamry,
Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP, SHAUN O'HARA & Wade H.
Tomlinson, III -- triptomlinson@pmkm.com

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
CANNON C ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost -- cca@savellwilliams.com
, JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan Van Duyne --
little@maynardcooper.com , LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY --
mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CANNON
C ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost, JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan
Van Duyne, LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY.

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CANNON C
ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost, JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan
Van Duyne, LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY.


VETERANS AFFAIRS: Carney May Amend Suit Over Unpaid Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard F. Boulware of the District of Nevada ruled
on the parties' motions in the case Ronald Carney, Plaintiff, v. B
John Kaufman, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00565-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.)

Plaintiff Ronald Carney filed a suit against B. John Kaufman
alleging that the later conspired with the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, had fraudulently deprived him of his disability
benefits. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Kaufman moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim, failure to join a necessary party, improper venue, and lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Carney moved for entry of proposed stipulated order and consent
judgment. Carney proposed that the court certify a class action,
enjoin defendants from wrongfully taking money, inflicting harm,
interfere with legitimate government functions, collecting
unlawful debt, and applying the Fiduciary Program Services,
declare the Fiduciary Program Services unconstitutional, order
plaintiff free to exercise his rights without systematic
interference regarding benefits or employment and award Carney
damages. On August 29, 2014, Carney moved to amend his complaint
to adjust the naming of the defendant.

Judge Boulware dismisses Carney's complaint without prejudice and
affords Carney 45 days to file an amended complaint. Kaufman will
then have 21 days to file a motion to dismiss, should he feel it
necessary. Carney's motion to amend complaint is dismissed as moot
and denied Carney's motion for entry of proposed stipulated order
and consent judgment.

A copy of Judge Boulware's order dated March 6, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/qy31qH from Leagle.com

Ronald Carney, Plaintiff, Pro Se

B John Kaufman, Defendant, Pro Se


VOGUE INT'L: May 25 Organix(R) Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Approval Notice - If you purchased Organix(R)brand hair care
and skin care products your rights may be affected by a proposed
class action settlement

A proposed class action settlement has been reached involving
Organix(R) brand hair are and skin care products Products.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

You may be a Class Member if you purchased Organix Products in
Canada from October 25, 2008 until May 25, 2015.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuit claims that Vogue International LLC and related
companies made certain misrepresentations regarding the
ingredients of their Organix(R) brand hair care and skin care
products in their marketing and sales.  Vogue denies it did
anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side was right.
Instead, the parties have decided to settle.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

A maximum Settlement Cap of not more than CDN $325,000 is intended
to pay claims eligible Class Members, the costs of the settlement
notice, attorneys' fees, an award the representative Plaintiff and
the costs of settlement administration as of April 2nd, 2015.
Vogue is also agreeing to refrain from certain practices.  Full
details about the Settlement are on the website
www.haircaresettlement.ca

WHAT TYPE OF COMPENSATION CAN YOU RECEIVE?

Vogue will provide to each individual Class Member that qualifies
for Compensation the following:

CDN $4.00 for each Organix Product purchased in Canada during the
Class Period, up to a total of CDN $28 less any applicable
deductions and adjustments as specified below.

For Quebec residents, it is understood that the Fonds d'aide aux
recours collectifs will be entitled to claim 2% on each individual
Compensation paid in money to Class Members.

For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, Vogue shall provide
payment as described above, so long as providing such Compensation
does not exceed the Settlement Cap. If providing each Claimant
with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement Cap, then in
such circumstances each Claimant's Compensation shall be reduced
on a pro rata basis.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

To receive money, eligible Class Members must submit a claim form
through the Settlement Website, by email, or by mail sent no later
than July 20, 2015.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude
yourself; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the
settlement.  If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you
must exclude yourself.  However, if you exclude yourself, you
can't get a payment, but you can sue Vogue for these claims.  If
you stay in the Class, you may submit a Claim Form and/or object
to the settlement.

WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES?

A motion to approve the Settlement will be heard by the Superior
Court of Quebec, 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec on
May 25, 2015 at 3:00 P.M. in room 15.07.

If the proposed Settlement is approved, it will be binding on all
Class Members except those who timely opt out.

If you wish to opt out, you must no later than June 19, 2015: i)
complete and submit by mail the Opt Out Form; ii) the Opt Out Form
is available on the Settlement Website at
www.haircaresettlement.ca

Class Members who want to opt out and who are residents of Quebec
must IN ADDITION give written notice to the Clerk of the Superior
Court of Quebec.

If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must send a
written notice of objection to Class Counsel and Defence Counsel
by no later than May 15, 2015.  Your written objection should
include: (a) your name, address, e-mail address and telephone
number; (b) a brief statement of the reasons for your objection;
and (c) whether you plan to attend at the hearing in person or
through a lawyer, and if by lawyer, the name, address, e-mail
address and telephone number of the lawyer.  Class Members who do
not oppose the proposed settlement need not appear at the
settlement approval hearing or take any other action at this time.

WHEN SHOULD I MAKE A CLAIM?

The Claim Form is available on the Settlement Website at
www.haircaresettlement.ca

A Claim Form must be sent no later than July 20, 2015.  The Claim
form must be sent through the Settlement Website, by email, or by
mail to: Vogue Settlement Canada c/o Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
attention Marie Jose Grandmaitre at 1000, de la Gauchetiere Street
West, Suite 900, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 5H4.  There will be no
further notice in the newspapers of this Settlement Agreement.

WHEN DO I GET PAID?

Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for
Compensation at the earliest starting on September 1, 2015,
assuming that the Settlement is approved and that such judgment
has become final.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

A complete copy of the Settlement Agreement and detailed
information on how to obtain or file a Claim are available on the
Settlement Website at www.haircaresettlement.ca

To obtain a paper copy or for any other information, please
communicate with Class Counsel at the phone numbers below.

WHO REPRESENTS ME?

The Class Counsel, or law firm representing the petitioner, is the
following:

          Jeff Orenstein
          Consumer Law Group Inc.
          1030 Berri St., Suite 102
          Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 2Y5
          Telephone: 1-888-909-7863
                     514-266-7863
                     416-479-4493
                     613-627-4894
          Email: jorenstein@clg.orq
          Website: www.clq.orq

If there is a conflict between the provisions of this Notice and
the Settlement Agreement and any of its Schedules, the terms of
the Settlement Agreement shall prevail.

This notice has been approved by the Superior Court of Quebec.


WALGREENS BOOT: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Machines
----------------------------------------------------------
David Dicarlo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02919-
JPO (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
discriminatory practices of replacing traditional soda fountains
with new touch-screen Coca-Cola Freestyle machines, which deny
blind individuals equal access to the goods and services at
Walgreens Stores.

Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a
principal executive office at 108 Wilmot Road, Deerfield,
Illinois, which owns and operates a chain of drugstores and
pharmacies throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


WHOLE FOOD: Failed to Convince Court to Dismiss "Speer" FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard A. Lazzara denied Defendant's bid to
dismiss the first amended complaint alleged in COLIN SPEER, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. WHOLE FOOD MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
8:14-CV-3035-T-26TBM, (M.D. Fla.).

Colin Speer brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated against Whole Foods for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff worked for Defendant in
Tampa, Florida, until June 20, 2013, when he was terminated.

Plaintiff notes that Whole Foods "conducts background checks on
many of its job applicants as part of a standard screening
process." It also conducts background checks "on existing
employees from time-to-time during the course of their employment"
through a third party, LexisNexis, which gathers and reports this
information.  The applicant must read and sign two forms: a
"Disclosure Statement" and the "Consent and Release of
Information."

In the class action, Plaintiff alleges in Count I violations of
the FCRA for failure to make proper disclosure, and in Count II,
violations for failure to obtain proper authorization.

In his order dated March 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4mO08a
from Leagle.com, Judge Lazaara denied dismissal of the class
action based on these reasons:

-- Based on the allegations, with all inferences drawn in favor
    of Plaintiff, if both the disclosure and the consent forms
    combined and read as one document with the waiver and release
    included simultaneously with the disclosure, the complaint
    states a claim for relief.

-- Based on Plaintiff's allegations that both forms constituted
    one combined form, Count II states a claim for relief.

-- Allegations that Defendant had access to legal advice and
    guidance from the Federal Trade Commission yet it knew that
    its conduct was inconsistent with that guidance and the plain
    terms of the statute, are sufficient to withstand attack at
    this stage of the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.

Colin Speer, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon J. Hill, Wenzel
Fenton Cabassa, PA & Luis A. Cabassa, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
J. Petrillo -- AJP@LS-law.com -- of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo &
Jones, LLC & Michael H. Kestenbaum - mkestenbaum@LS-Law.com -- of
Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, LLC.


WINN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Winn Management Group LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00606-GSA
(E.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Winn Management Group LLC owns and operates a real estate company
with its headquarters and principal place of business in Six
Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 and a
regional headquarters located at 2350 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 142,
Fresno, California 93711.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Malk, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 203-0016
      Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
      E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com


* Businesses Must Invest in Data Security, Prepare for Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Squitero, Esq. and Matan A. Scheier, Esq. --
mas@katzbarron.com -- of Katz Barron Squitero Faust, in an article
for Miami Herald, reports that on Dec. 16, 2014, a group of former
Sony employees filed a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in
Los Angeles against Sony for negligently failing to protect its
computer systems from hackers, resulting in the employees'
personal information being leaked to the public, and potentially
ending up in the hands of criminals. In addition, the former
employees allege that Sony failed to adequately notify the
employees that their confidential, personal information was
breached.  The Sony breach is the latest in a string of recent
high-profile data thefts in the news.  However, data theft is not
only a threat to large multinational corporations such as Sony.
Florida companies of all sizes are at risk, and face stiff
penalties under the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014
(FIPA) for the failure to notify any Florida resident of the
breach of his/her personal information. To assist in complying
with this statute, Florida attorneys should counsel their clients
to invest in data security, especially those who own or manage a
business, to have a plan in place to respond to breaches as they
occur, and to promptly notify all "persons" whose data has been
breached.

Passed during 2014's Legislative session, FIPA represents the
first expansion of the State's data breach notification laws in
nine years.  Its goal is to require the State's private sector as
well as State government entities to promptly inform aggrieved
parties when cyber thieves appear to have stolen their unencrypted
personal information from computer records.  FIPA defines personal
information as a person's first name, middle initial, or any
middle name and last name in combination with unencrypted records
containing:

   -- A driver's license, passport, military identification or
Florida Identification Card number;

   -- A Social Security number;

   -- A financial account number, credit card number or debit card
number, and a required security code or password that would permit
access to the relevant account;

   -- Any information regarding the individual's mental or
physical condition, medical history or medical treatment; or

   -- A health insurance policy or subscriber identification
number and any unique identifier used by a health insurer.

Additionally, the FIPA statute requires notification whenever a
user name or email address may have been breached in combination
with a password or security question and answer that would permit
access to an online account.

The updated FIPA statute provides that any person conducting
business in the State (company) must notify the person whose
unencrypted personal information is reasonably believed to have
been stolen within 30 days of the determination of the breach.

In addition, the Florida Department of Legal Affairs must be
notified of any breach affecting more than 500 individuals in
Florida within 30 days of a determination of the breach.  A 15-day
extension to notify the department may be granted, if good cause
for delay is provided in writing within 30 days after
determination of a breach.

A company that discovers a breach affecting more than 1,000
individuals at a single time must also notify all consumer
reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on
a nationwide basis of the timing, distribution, and content of the
notices.  Failure to notify individuals affected by the breach is
treated as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, and subjects the
company to a civil penalty, as follows:

   -- $1,000 for each day the breach goes undisclosed for 30 days;

   -- $50,000 for each 30-day period for up to 180 days;

   -- A maximum of $500,000, if notification is not made within
180 days.

These sanctions apply per breach, not per individual affected by
the breach.  Substitute notice, in the form of a conspicuous
announcement on the company's website or in print and/or broadcast
media where the affected individuals reside, may be provided in
lieu of direct notice if:

  -- The cost of providing notice would exceed $250,000;

  -- The affected individuals exceed 500,000 persons; or

  -- The company does not have email addresses or mailing
addresses for the affected individuals.

There are certain limited exceptions to the notification
requirements under the FIPA statute.  Required notification may be
delayed upon a request by a law enforcement agency if it is
determined that the notification will impede a criminal
investigation.

It should be noted that the FIPA Statute expressly does not
provide for a private right of action to recover damages.

Additionally, notification is not required if, after an
appropriate investigation and consultation with relevant law
enforcement agencies, the company responsible for storing the
information reasonably determines that the breach has not and is
not likely to result in harm to the individuals whose data was
unlawfully accessed.

The person at the company responsible for data storage must make
this determination in writing, and the documentation must be
maintained for five years.  Failure to make the written
determination or to preserve it for five years subjects the
responsible persons to a $50,000 administrative fine.  A copy of
the written determination must be provided to the Florida
Department Legal Affairs within 30 days of the determination.  The
statute does not set specific guidelines to follow in making a
reasonable determination of no harm.

As seen by recent occurrences at Sony, Target, and VeriSign, among
others, sophisticated hackers can breach even the strongest
defense systems.  Companies should develop a broad data breach
response plan and educate employees on all levels of the
organization on the protocol to follow.  Preferably through a
specific designated representative, companies should work with
their legal counsel to act quickly and efficiently in
investigating the cause of a breach and the circumstances
surrounding its discovery.  The IT department, if the company has
one, should secure the breached equipment or cloud and safely take
it offline, identify the compromised information, and provide it
to the legal team to determine whether the occurrence falls under
the provision of the statute and requires notification to the
affected parties or law enforcement.  The company should also have
a plan in place to notify the affected parties and deal with any
media coverage of the breach.  Human resources personnel should be
trained to act as a hotline for affected customers and employees.
It may also be necessary to hire an expert in electronic data
security to advise the company on the source of the breach and the
remedy to avoid future occurrences.

Additional proactive steps should include: (1) training employees
on steps to take to ensure data security as part of their job
duties; (2) purchasing data security software; (3) limiting
employees' access to data that each specific employee needs to
complete their job requirements; (4) having a procedure in place
for reporting data breaches or violations of security protocol;
(5) frequently re-educating employees on any new developments in
data breach security; (6) hiring an expert to periodically review
the company's system.

By seeking the advice of their attorneys regarding compliance with
FIPA guidelines before data breaches occur, companies can alert
their clients, customers and employees to potential threats of
data theft, thus avoiding liability, as well as preserving the
company's public reputation.  In this day and age, a computer
security breach not only subjects the company to severe fines and
penalties, as well as civil liability, but can also damage the
reputation of the company.  These breaches simply can no longer be
ignored.


* Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys Balk at "Mooting" Strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. -- bkimrey@vedderprice.co -- and
Bryan Clark, Esq. -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price PC,
in an article for Lexology, reports that by now, most attorneys
who handle class action litigation are familiar with the defense
strategy commonly known as "mooting".

The cautious plaintiffs' attorney will file a cursory motion for
class certification with the complaint to minimize the likelihood
of mooting.  The defense attorney will serve an offer of judgment
for full relief as soon as possible and immediately move to
dismiss.  But in light of conflicting circuit court decisions, the
legal landscape is unclear on the ultimate effect of these
maneuvers.

For the uninitiated, "mooting" occurs when a defendant offers the
plaintiff all the relief he or she has requested.  Courts have
long held that an individual plaintiff cannot continue to pursue a
claim in court when that individual has been offered full and
complete relief.  The question the courts have wrestled with,
however, is what this means in the class action context, where an
individual plaintiff purports to bring an action on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, but full relief
is offered before a class is certified.  In many instances, it is
more economically rational for the defendant to pay the named
plaintiff the maximum recovery than it is to litigate a class
action, even if the defendant has strong defenses on the merits.
But many plaintiffs' class action attorneys do not see it that way
-- they criticize this tactic as a way to "pick off" class
representatives to avoid broader liability for alleged corporate
malfeasance.

To balance these competing interests, federal circuit courts have
created various tests:

The most extreme position of the circuits is the position adopted
by the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, holding that an unaccepted
offer of judgment is "a legal nullity with no operative
effect."Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948,
954-55; see also Jeffrey M. Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v.
Buccaneers L.P., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22603 (11th Cir. Dec. 1,
2014).

The Eighth Circuit has not considered a scenario in which the
plaintiff made an offer of complete relief before a class
certification decision.  In Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84
F.3d 1525, 1539 (8th Cir. 1996), the court held that an offer of
individual judgment can moot the case "only where class
certification has been properly denied." But the district court in
that case had ruled on the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  84 F.3d at 1539.

The Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits all recognize that an
unaccepted offer for full relief can moot a case.  See Lucero v.
Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1250 (10th
Cir. 2011); Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 920-21
(5th Cir. 2008); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 348 (3d
Cir. 2004). But these courts limit the applicability of this rule
to cases in which the named plaintiff "unduly delays" seeking
class certification.

The Seventh Circuit also recognizes that "once the defendant
offers to satisfy the plaintiff's entire demand, there is no
dispute over which to litigate, and a plaintiff who refuses to
acknowledge this loses outright . . . because [he] has no
remaining stake." Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895
(7th Cir. 2012).The limitation placed on this general rule by the
Seventh Circuit is that a plaintiff may preserve its class claims
by filing a motion for class certification.  Id.

But is any of these the right test? It seems counterintuitive --
and unconstitutional -- that a single plaintiff can obtain
standing on behalf a putative class simply by making class
allegations in a complaint or filing a cursory motion for class
certification.  In fact, an Illinois court recently reached that
exact conclusion, holding that a skeletal class certification
motion was not enough to create class standing in the face of an
offer of complete relief. This is consistent with Supreme Court
precedent that has, for nearly 40 years, emphasized the actual
certification decision (rather than a plaintiff's motion for class
certification or any other procedural maneuver) as the threshold
for a class to acquire independent legal standing. This approach
also is consistent with fundamental constitutional principles of
Article III standing and due process.  As renowned constitutional
scholar Martin Redish has noted:

"It is important to keep in mind that a lawsuit does not 'arise'
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
governs class actions in the federal courts.  The legal rights to
be adjudicated, rather, are substantively created by some
recognized legal authority -- a legislative body, a court, or the
Constitution."

Martin H. Redish, Wholesale Justice: Democracy and the Problem of
the Class Action Lawsuit(Stanford Books 2009), at p. 3.

According to Vedder Price PC's Kimrey and Clark, "With these
principles in mind, we believe the standard should be this: A
class representative's claim can be mooted by an offer of complete
relief at any time before a class certification decision.  So far
no circuit has adopted this approach, but at some point the
Supreme Court will need to address the growing divide among the
circuits, and it certainly would not be unprecedented for the
Supreme Court to side with a minority approach.  We will continue
to monitor this critical issue for class action litigators, so
keep checking back for updates in the future."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $10.1-Mil. LAE Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss
adjustment expenses reserves for all direct business written by
its property and casualty companies related to asbestos and
environmental damage liability was $10.1 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: "Although we attempt to limit our exposures to
asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific
policy exclusions, we have been and may continue to be subject to
claims related to these exposures. Ending loss and LAE reserves
for all direct business written by our property and casualty
companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability
were $10.1 million, $11.5 million and $9.8 million, net of
reinsurance of $21.4 million, $20.6 million, and $20.4 million for
the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

"Activity for our asbestos and environmental reserves was not
significant to our 2014, 2013 or 2012 financial results. In recent
years, average asbestos and environmental payments have declined
modestly. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of
Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks,
past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience
has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE
incurred experience.

"In addition, we have established gross loss and LAE reserves for
assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental
damage liability of $29.1 million, $29.8 million and $30.3 million
at December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. These reserves
relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation;
however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in
which we were a participant. Results of operations from these
pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our
pool reserves relates to our participation in the Excess and
Casualty Reinsurance Association ("ECRA") voluntary pool from 1950
to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the
business has been in run-off. Our percentage of the total pool
liabilities varied from 1% to 6% during these years. Our
participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of
approximately $2 million annually over the past ten years.

"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental
and toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their
existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of
the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that,
notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in
asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to
these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos,
environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised,
and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period
or on our financial position."

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. ("THG") is a holding company
organized as a Delaware corporation in 1995. Its primary business
operations are property and casualty insurance products and
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,700 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through December 31, 2014, we have been named
a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,700 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,700 claims were pending and 4,000 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through December 31, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to
asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled
for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand
dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make
accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of
the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. While we
have seen an increase in the number of recent filings, especially
in one specific venue, we do not believe that the increase or any
unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on
our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow,
and at December 31, 2014, we had approximately $5.0 million
accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to
unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of
potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the
probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of
liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because
of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and
deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our
insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., a Netherlands company,
provides a wide range of services, including conceptual design,
technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, modularization,
construction, commissioning, maintenance, program management and
environmental services to customers in the energy infrastructure
market throughout the world, and is a provider of diversified
government services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Appeals vs. EnPro Unit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Two asbestos-related appeals are pending from adverse decisions in
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's
bankruptcy case, according to the Company's GST has collected Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "GST LLC has a record of success in trials of
asbestos cases, especially before the bankruptcies of many of the
historically significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw
asbestos, asbestos insulation, refractory products or other
dangerous friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion
lost jury verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it
has received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority
of those appeals. At December 31, 2014, two GST LLC appeals are
pending from adverse decisions totaling $1.5 million.

"GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of three recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500,000 verdict
against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal
court jury. The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted
because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination
of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume." In May 2011, a
three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST
LLC's $700,000 share of a 2009 jury verdict, which included
punitive damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in
Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was secured by a bond
pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012. In a Kentucky appeal
from a 2006 verdict against GST LLC, another Kentucky Court of
Appeals panel upheld, in August 2014, GST LLC's share of the
verdict and a $600,000 punitive damage award. The verdict against
GST LLC totaled $874,000. This verdict and post-judgment interest
were secured by a bond in the amount of $1.1 million. The
plaintiff in the case agreed to resolve the case, including claims
for post-judgment interest, for the amount of the bond and to
forgo additional accrued interest on the verdict, and GST LLC
agreed to discontinue further appeals. Because we were responsible
to the bonding company for the bond amount, our Coltec subsidiary
purchased the verdict from the plaintiff in September 2014 for the
amount of the $1.1 million bond. As a result, Coltec has a claim
against GST LLC for the amount of the judgment, including post-
judgment interest."

EnPro Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Industries Had $100.7MM Fibro Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., had $100.7 million of insurance coverage
to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and certain
expense payments, 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: "At December 31, 2014, we had $100.7 million
of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments. GST
has collected insurance payments totaling $95.4 million since the
Petition Date. Of the $100.7 million of available insurance
coverage remaining, we consider $100 million (99%) to be of high
quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed
by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment
grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-)
or better. Of the $100.7 million, $64.6 million is allocated to
claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the
Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. The $100.7 million is in addition to the
$21.3 million collected in 2014. There are specific agreements in
place with carriers covering $66.2 million of the remaining
available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the
policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we
believe that substantially all of the $100.7 million of insurance
proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no
assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as
and when due. Based on those agreements and policies, some of
which define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of
which limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we
anticipate that $38.7 million will become collectible at the
conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the following years
regardless of when the case concludes:

2015 -- $20 million
2016 -- $18 million
2017 -- $13 million
2018 -- $11 million

"GST LLC has received $8.1 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, including a $900,000 payment
received in 2014, and may receive additional payments from
insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier
collections are included in the $100.7 million of anticipated
collections. The insurance available to cover current and future
asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies
that cover Coltec and certain of its other subsidiaries in
addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could
be subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees.

"Our recorded asbestos liability as of the Petition Date was
$472.1 million. We based that recorded liability on an estimate of
probable and estimable expenditures to resolve asbestos personal
injury claims under generally accepted accounting principles, made
with the assistance of Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates
White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The estimate developed was
an estimate of the most likely point in a broad range of potential
amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve asbestos claims (by
settlement in the majority of the cases except those dismissed or
tried) over the ten-year period following the date of the estimate
in the state court system, plus accrued but unpaid legal fees. The
estimate, which was not discounted to present value, did not
reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal liability. GST LLC has
continuously maintained that its products could not have been a
substantial contributing cause of any asbestos disease. Instead,
the liability estimate reflected GST LLC's recognition that most
claims would be resolved more efficiently and at a significantly
lower total cost through settlements without any actual liability
determination.

"From the Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014, neither
we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual except as necessary to
reflect payments of accrued fees and the disposition of cases on
appeal. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been
resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed
to by the debtor, its asbestos claimants and a legal
representative for its potential future claimants. GST did not
believe that there was a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a consensual resolution could be made and therefore believed
that there was no basis upon which it could revise the estimate
last updated prior to the Petition Date.

"Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating
GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125
million and GST's filing in May 2014 of its first amended proposed
plan of reorganization setting out its intention to fund a plan
with total consideration of $275 million, GST undertook to revise
its estimate of its ultimate payment to resolve all present and
future asbestos claims against it to be no less than the amounts
required under its amended proposed plan. Similarly, while GST
believes it to be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST believes
its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims against it could
be no more than the total value of GST. As a result, GST believed
that its ultimate asbestos liability would be somewhere in the
range between those two values and therefore revised its estimate
to the low end of the range. Accordingly, at June 30, 2014, GST
revised its estimate of its ultimate payment to resolve all
present and future asbestos claims to $279.6 million, the amount
of its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims under that
amended plan.

"In light of the filing of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization by GST on January 14, 2015, GST undertook to
further revise its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims
against it. Under this revised plan, not less than $367.5 million
will be required to fund the resolution of all GST asbestos
claims, $30 million of which will be funded by Coltec. As a
result, GST believes the low end of the range of values that will
be necessary for it to fund to resolve all present and future
claims is now $337.5 million. Accordingly, GST has revised its
estimate of its ultimate asbestos liability to $337.5 million and
has recorded its liability at December 31, 2014 at that amount.
GST's estimate of its ultimate asbestos liability of $337.5
million does not include any amount with respect to the contingent
supplementary contributions to the litigation fund contemplated by
the revised plan as GST believes that initial contributions to the
litigation fund may likely be sufficient to permit the balance of
that facility to exceed the specified thresholds over the 40-year
period for such contributions and, accordingly, that the low end
of a range of reasonably possible loss associated with these
contingent supplementary contributions is $0.

"On May 29, 2014, GST filed its amended proposed plan of
reorganization and a proposed disclosure statement for such
amended plan. The plan provided $275 million in total funding for
(a) present and future asbestos claims against GST that have not
been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date,
and (b) administrative and litigation costs. The $275 million was
to be funded by GST ($245 million) and the Company's subsidiary,
Coltec Industries Inc ($30 million), through two facilities - a
settlement facility (which would receive $245 million) and a
litigation facility (which would receive $30 million ). Funds
contained in the settlement facility and the litigation facility
were to provide the exclusive remedies for current and future GST
asbestos claimants, other than claimants whose claims had been
resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date and
were not paid prior to the Petition Date. The $275 million amount
was more than double the $125 million that the Bankruptcy Court
found to be a reasonable and reliable measure of the amount
sufficient to satisfy present and future mesothelioma claims
against GST, and was determined based on an economic analysis of
the feasibility of the proposed plan. This plan was superseded by
GST's second amended proposed plan of reorganization.

"On January 14, 2015, we announced that GST and we had reached
agreement with the Future Claimants' Representative that includes
a second amended proposed plan of reorganization. The Future
Claimants' Representative agreed to support, vote for and help GST
gain confirmation of this revised plan of reorganization in
exchange for an increase in the funds available for settlements
and a limited funding backstop to the litigation option that the
plan offers to claimants who choose not to accept the plan's
settlement option. Terms of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization, including that $30 million contribution to be made
by Coltec to the settlement facility under the revised plan and
our guarantee of GST's obligations to make contributions to the
settlement facility and the litigation fund under the plan after
the consummation of the plan.

"The revised plan would establish two facilities to resolve
unliquidated present and future asbestos claims -- a settlement
facility and a litigation fund. The settlement facility,
administered by an independent trustee, will handle settlement
offers under the plan. Claimants will be able to compute their
offers from a matrix in the plan that contains objective criteria
such as disease, age, whether the injured party left or will leave
a spouse, and whether there are dependents. The amounts of the
matrix values have been set based on an economic analysis and are
designed to ensure that the funding provides future claimants the
same recoveries as comparable current claimants.

"The settlement facility will provide claimants with both an
expedited review option and an individual review option. Under
expedited review, a claimant can receive a quick and efficient
settlement once he or she provides required evidence of a
compensable disease and meaningful exposure to GST asbestos
products. Under individual review, a claimant can potentially
receive a significantly higher settlement offer if he or she can
demonstrate certain additional factors. In order to receive a
higher amount than the expedited option offers, claimants or their
representatives will have to certify to the claimants' complete
exposure histories and authorize Garrison to investigate and
monitor both their tort and trust claims.

"Garrison, as reorganized under the plan, will receive a $30
million contribution from GST LLC to maintain and administer the
litigation fund separate from the settlement facility. Garrison
will manage the litigation of claims from claimants who reject
settlement offers from the settlement facility and choose instead
to pursue a remedy in court. A case management order will govern
the way those claims can be pursued.

"Claimants who choose to litigate must file their claims in the
Bankruptcy Court in North Carolina. The Bankruptcy Court will
oversee discovery and other pre-trial matters before referring
cases to the federal district court in Charlotte for trial under
the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Charlotte federal court will
have discretion about where to send each case for the actual
trial. The case management order will also require that claimants
identify and disclose all trust claims and provide authorization
for Garrison to retrieve all their trust submissions directly from
trusts.

"The second amended plan includes provisions referred to as the
"Parent Settlement" for the resolution and extinguishment of any
and all alleged derivative claims against us based on GST asbestos
products and entry of an injunction permanently protecting us from
the assertion of such claims. As consideration for the Parent
Settlement, (a) Coltec will contribute $30 million of the amount
proposed to be paid into the settlement facility to pay future
claimants, (b) Coltec will fund Anchor's costs of dissolution (up
to $500,000), (c) EnPro will guarantee all contributions to the
settlement facility and litigation fund by GST after the effective
date of the second amended plan, and (d) Coltec and its affiliates
will subordinate their interests in certain insurance coverage to
GST's obligations to make payments to the settlement facility and
litigation fund after the effective date of the second amended
plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the terms of the
second amended plan only in the context of the specifics of the
plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST LLC being
retained by the reconsolidation of GST LLC into the Company with
substantial equity above the amount of equity currently included
in our consolidated financial statements, and an injunction
protecting us from future GST claims. As a result of Coltec's
agreement to fund a contribution of $30 million to the settlement
facility pursuant to the revised plan of reorganization, we
recorded a $30.0 million charge to establish this liability in our
2014 results.

"Confirmation and consummation of the second amended plan are
subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the
actions and decisions of creditors and other third parties that
have an interest in the bankruptcy proceedings, delays in the
confirmation or effective date of a plan of reorganization due to
factors beyond GST's or our control, which would result in greater
costs and the impairment of value of GST, challenges to
confirmation of the plan, including appeals, and risks and
uncertainties affecting GST and Coltec's ability to fund
anticipated contributions under the plan as a result of adverse
changes in their results of operations, financial condition and
capital resources, including as a result of economic factors
beyond their control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that GST
will be able to obtain final approval of its second amended plan
of reorganization and the settlement and resolution of claims and
related releases of liability embodied therein, and the time
period for the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings is not
presently determinable."

EnPro Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had an aggregate asbestos liability of $614 million for
pending claims and future 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.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2014, we had an aggregate
asbestos liability of $614 million for pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against us through December 31, 2021.
Estimation of our exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject
to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that
can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the
manner of their resolution. We have retained the firm of Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the field, to assist management in estimating our
asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information
provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on our
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. Our experience is then
compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against us through our forecast period and estimates the
aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to
resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average
settlement costs by disease during the reference period. After
discussions with us, HR&A augments our liability estimate for the
costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a
forecast from us which is based upon discussions with our defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
our asbestos liability for pending and future claims expected to
be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most
significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the
number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2) the
average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the
percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the
aggregate defense costs incurred by us. These factors are
interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the
liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be
applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the
indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the
epidemiological studies), management believes that the level of
uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating
future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable
estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such
claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated
estimate. Through December 31, 2014, our actual experience during
the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in our liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, we considered
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, we determined
that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended
December 31, 2014. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern
of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change
materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the
asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the
uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors
used in the calculation of our asbestos liability, and since no
one factor predominates, we believe that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for
our asbestos liabilities. As of December 31, 2014, we had an
aggregate asbestos receivable of $147 million. In developing this
estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and other settlement
agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. These
additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 47,507 pending asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 47,507 pending claims as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,300 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $81.1 million, $90.8
million and $96.1 million, respectively. In contrast to the
recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the
current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and
receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months
or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter.
Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all
releases and other required documentation are received by the
Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense
costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December
31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $61.3 million, $62.8 million and
$78.0 million, respectively.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Dismisses PI Claims vs. FMC Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, issued
an order dated April 10, 2015, allowing the joint motion to
dismiss claims, without prejudice, against defendant Federal-Mogul
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (sued as successor to Felt-Products
Manufacturing Co.) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The case is JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA RICKS, Plaintiffs, v.
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00037-BO (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Boyle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wdMfa3from
Leagle.com.

Brenda Ricks, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Esq. -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.

Coen Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A..

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos, Esq.
-- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Esq. -- ckiger@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount
Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Kirk G. Warner, Esq. --
kwarner@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan & Addie K.S. Ries, Esq. -- aries@smithlaw.com -- Smith
Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com --
Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch & Seekings.

Terex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq. --
tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Wabco Holdings Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Nesser" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated April 14, 2015,
refused to remand the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled KENNETH NESSER and KAREN NESSER, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED
COMPOSITES GROUP, et al., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-1367-SMY-SCW
(S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/NZgLPmfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth Nesser, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani,
Shrader & Associates LLP, Andrew J. McEnaney, Shrader & Associates
LLP & Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates LLP.

Karen Nesser, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani, Shrader
& Associates LLP, Andrew J. McEnaney, Shrader & Associates LLP &
Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates LLP.

Allied Manfacturing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Ameron International, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Dayna L. Johnson, Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

The Boeing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Mark Coad Sampson, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

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

CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita
M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

CIBA Giegy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
David F. Fanning, Johnson & Bell LTD & Joseph A Kilpatrick, Husch
Blackwell LLP.

Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephen J. Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald &
Pranaitis.

The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S.
Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Brian
J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & John K Nelson, Shumaker Loop et
al.

Eaton Aeroquip, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Brian
J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & John K Nelson, Shumaker Loop et
al.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

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

General Cable Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP &
Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Harco Laboratories, Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Jerome C. Simon, Pitzer Snodgrass, PC & Derek
Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C..

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S.
Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Hitco Carbon Composites, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by John H. Bornhofen, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

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

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray
Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

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

Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

MW Custom Papers, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brian J. Huelsmann, Wilson Elser et al..

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Voss, Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

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

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC,
Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli
PC.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S.
Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & William D.
Shultz, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP &
Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined $26,000 for Fibro Removal Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department, in a decision and judgment dated April 15, 2015,
confirmed the determination of the New York State Department of
Labor, dated March 9, 2012, which adopted findings of fact and
conclusions of law of a hearing officer dated November 7, 2011,
which, after a hearing, found that petitioner North Fork
Management & Maintenance, LLC, failed to conduct an asbestos
survey and failed to undertake asbestos removal by a licensed
asbestos contractor, and assessed a civil penalty in the amount of
$26,000.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF NORTH FORK MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE,
LLC, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent, 2013-07133, INDEX NO. 19966/1 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/9tHcoL
from Leagle.com.

Vincent J. Trimarco, Smithtown, N.Y. (Clare B. Connaughton of
counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Terri
Gerstein and Seth Kupferberg of counsel), for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Wins Dismissal of "Juni" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company moves post-trial for orders: (1) striking the
causation opinions of asbestos plaintiffs Arthur H. Juni and Mary
Juni's expert witnesses, and (2) dismissing the action and
entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of it based on the
plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie case at trial, or,
alternatively (3) setting aside the verdict rendered against it at
trial and granting a new trial; (4) granting it leave to renew its
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and upon
renewal, denying the motion to consolidate and granting a new
trial; (5) setting aside and remitting the verdict as excessive
and contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (6) reducing the
verdict by offsets from settlements before entering judgment.

Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated April 13, 2015, granted Ford's motion to
set aside the verdict, holding that absent a sufficient foundation
for the admission of the expert evidence, the plaintiffs' evidence
was legally insufficient to establish, prima facie, that Arthur
Juni's exposure to asbestos from brakes, clutches, or gaskets sold
or distributed by defendant constituted a significant contributing
factor in causing his mesothelioma.  There is thus no valid line
of reasoning or permissible inference which could have led the
jury to reach its result, Judge Jaffe ruled.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
ARTHUR H. JUNI and MARY JUNI, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190315/12, MOTION SEQ.
NO. 018 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/5DIkEqfrom Leagle.com.

Pierre Ratzki, Esq., Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway, New
York, NY 10003, 212-558-5500, for Plaintiffs.

Oded Burger, Esq., Aaronson Rappaport et al., 600 Third Ave., New
York, NY 10016, 212-593-6700, For Ford Motor Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies AB's Bid to Junk "LeFrak" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard Lefrak was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
pleural asbestosis in June of 2013.  His disease, he claims, is
connected to his asbestos exposure from joint compound and floor
tiles, as a student and also as a janitor sweeping up dust at
Stony Brook University where he went to college from 1965 to 1969.
Defendant American Biltrite, Inc., is alleged to have manufactured
and sold Amtico asbestos-containing vinyl tiles to Stony Brook
that were used during various construction projects during the
relevant period of time.  It is undisputed that during the
relevant period of time, AB sold Amtico asbestos-containing vinyl
tiles.  AB moves for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
complaint and all claims and cross claims against it.

In an order dated April 10, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied AB's motion finding that AB
has failed to establish a prima facie case.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
RICHARD R. LEFRAK Plaintiff, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190033/2014 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YTgF7d
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Seeks to Dismiss "Malone" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., one of the defendants in the
lawsuit styled CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-406-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a report
and recommendations dated April 14, 2015, directing the plaintiffs
to submit any opposition to Huntington's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Fallon's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/J9GZeBfrom Leagle.com.

Charles D. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Sensor,
Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr..

Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Sensor,
Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Amaryah
K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A. Cincilla,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP.

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote, P.C.

Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher C.
Popper, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Krista Reale Samis,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Joseph W. Benson, Esq..

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf,
Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP &
Nathan David Barillo, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn
Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented
by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Hopeman Brothers Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by
R. Stokes Nolte, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Stephanie S.
Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC & Mary Kathryn Hodges
Harmon, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer &
Turchi LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C..

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Riley Power Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel
Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC.

Viad Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Anne Kai
Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus.

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.

Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by
Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Trane US Inc., Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta,
Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions Issued in "Kelly" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order dated April 13,
2015, regarding motions in limine to assist the parties in an
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit in focusing their
preparation for a pretrial conference.

The case is BARRY KELLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-03240-VC (N.D. Calif.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/lEkk6Ifrom Leagle.com.

Barry Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan
R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Molly Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan
R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin
Douglas Jamison, Esq. -- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by
George D. Yaron, Yaron & Associates.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP, James A Lowery, III, KL Gates LLP, Peter Edward Soskin,
K&L Gates LLP & Zachariah David Baker, KL Gates.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca
Bain, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and
Mansfield, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Andrew
Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated April 16, 2015, enlarged the time
to perfect appeal to the September 2015 Term in the case captioned
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS REMOVAL, INC., v. BEYS SPECIALTY, INC. --
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-992 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/bVh54v
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Grants Bid for Reimbursement of Atty Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danaher Corporation brought a suit in 2010 against, among others,
the Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company to resolve disputes concerning insurance coverage for
underlying silica- and asbestos-related claims against Chicago
Pneumatic Tool Company.  Travelers later impleaded Atlas Copco
North America LLC, seeking a declaratory judgment on insurance
coverage.  On September 6, 2012, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York held that Travelers has a
duty to defend Danaher and Atlas Copco against those claims "in
the past and in the future."

In an April 14, 2015, opinion and order report and recommendation,
District Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted in full Magistrate Judge
Francis's Report and Recommendation regarding two subsequent
motions by Danaher and Atlas Copco seeking reimbursement for
attorney's fees and costs.  The Report recommends granting the
motions.

The case is DANAHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY, et: al., Defendants, NO. 10-CV-121
(JPO)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Oetken's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/DqG31cfrom Leagle.com.

Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Jonathan
Osias, Esq. -- bosias@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP &
Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Third-Party Plaintiff, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Counter Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham,
Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Third-Party Plaintiff, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Counter Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham,
Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A..

North River Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert
Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen
Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig
Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

Unigard Mutual Insurance Company Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robert Dwyer Sullivan, Jr, Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
LLP, Barbara Hopkinson Kelly, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dicker LLP & Sheilagh Mary Depeter, Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker LLP.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by
Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Frankini & Grammatico.

Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John
Albert Mattoon, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser LLP &
Andrew I Mandelbaum, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP.

Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

International Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Gambardella, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer & Jay Kenigsberg, Rivkin
Radler, L.L.P..

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen
Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig
Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton
Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP &
Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
John T. Wolak, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione.

AIU Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Gerard
Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

Century Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Brian G. Fox, Siegal & Park & James F Martin, Cohn Baughman &
Martin.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insuance Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Eric J. Voigt, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

Industria Insurance Company LTD., ThirdParty Defendant, Counter
Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP.

Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, LTD., ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Karen M. Asner, White & Case LLP.

Danaher Corporation, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Counter Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, McCarter &
English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English, LLP.

North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount,
LLP.

Atlas Copco North America, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Esq. --
pbreene@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Court Flips Non-Suit Ruling in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed a circuit court's judgment
granting an asbestos-related personal injury plaintiff's motion
for nonsuit, after determining that there is reversible error in
the judgment of the circuit court.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., et al., Appellants, v.
Garland Cantrell, Appellee. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Company, n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Appellant, v.
Garland Cantrell, Appellee, RECORD NOS. 140748, 140749 (Va. Sup.).
A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 16, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/dHZQCKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Affirms $4.8MM Judgment vs. Crane Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. appeals from judgments entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County in two asbestos-related lawsuits.

In the first lawsuit, at trial, the jury found that Thomas Amato's
exposure to Cranite was a factual cause of his mesothelioma and
awarded him and his wife damages in the amount of $2.5 million.
In the second lawsuit, the jury found that Frank Vinciguerra's
exposure to Cranite was a factual cause of his mesothelioma and
awarded his estate damages in the amount of $2.3 million.

After careful review, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed
both judgments.

The appeals cases are THOMAS AMATO AND JEAN AMATO, HIS WIFE v.
BELL & GOSSETT, CLARK-RELIANCE CORP., COPES-VULCAN, INC., CRANE
CO., DEZURIK/COPES-VULCAN, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL
HOLDINGS CORP. F/K/A CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INC., J.A. SEXAUER,
INC., JOHN CRANE, INC., LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., NIBCO, INC., PARKER-
HANNIFIN CORP., SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., SEPCO CORP., SPX
CORP., VELAN VALVE COMPANY, TRANE US, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND F/K/A
AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., SUCCESSOR TO THE TRANE CO., AMERICAN
RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., KEWANEE BOILER, CO., AND/OR
KEWANEE BOILER DIV. OF AMERICAN STANDARD, UNION CARBIDE CORP., AND
WARREN PUMPS, LLC. APPEAL OF: CRANE CO. CHARLOTTE VINCIGUERRA,
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK VINCIGUERRA, DECEASED, AND
CHARLOTTE VINCINGUERRA, WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT v. BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., F/K/A
BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, BELL & GOSSETT, BRAND INSULATIONS, INC.,
CERTAIN-TEED CORP., CLEAVER-BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, INC.,
CRANE CO., DAVID MOSER, DFT, INC., DURABLA CANADA, LTD., E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GEORGIA-
PACIFIC CORP., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
CO., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., GRINNELL
CORPORATION, HAJOCA CORPORATION, HERMAN GOLDNER CO., INC.,
HONEYWELL, INC., INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC.,
KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER CO., MARLEY COOLING TOWER, METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE CO., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PECORA CORP., RILEY
STOKER CORP., SEPCO CORPORATION, INC., SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES,
INC., F/K/A SID HARVEY MID ATLANTIC, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORP.,
WARREN PUMPS, LLC., WEIL MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE MARLEY CO., A
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC.,
YARWAY CORPORATION, AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., F/K/A VENTFABRICS,
INC., DAP PRODUCTS, INC., DURO DYNE CORP., AND TREMCO, INC. APPEAL
OF: CRANE CO., NOS. 2344 EDA 2013, 2388 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision dated April 17, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/sEpQGUfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

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

Copyright 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  * * *