CAR_Public/150515.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 97


                            Headlines


2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABM SECURITY: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ACCREDO PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
ADS WASTE: Class Actions on Improper Fees in Early Stage
AKORN INC: Faces "Sarzynski" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

ALFRESCO HOME: Recalls Charcoal Products
AMBIT ENERGY: Wittels Firm Files Class Action Over Consumer Fraud
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Tiemann" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Discriminatory Policies
ANTHEM INC: Warren Woman Files Data Breach Class Action

ASCOM NETWORK: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Israel Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Cert. Motion
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Nexium Consumer Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Faces Byetta/Bydureon Liability Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: 707 Crestor Plaintiff Claims Remain in Calif.
ASTRAZENECA PLC: 40 Nexium Product Liability Claims Still Active
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Among Defendants in Onlgyza Lawsuits
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Defending 2 Seroquel IR Cases
ASTRAZENECA PLC: 2 Antitrust Suits Filed in Pennsylvania Pending

AXA EQUITABLE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Yale" Action
AXA EQUITABLE: No Update on Motion to Dismiss "Zweiman" Action
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Stayed Motion to Transfer "Shuster" Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Trial Date Set in "Nguyen" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending

BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Held on Motion to Remand "Lina" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: Court Stayed All Proceedings in "Jones" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: May 28 Pre-Trial Conference in "Carag" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: No Ruling Yet on Joint Request in Trimmer Case
BMW: Faces Class Action Over TwinPower Turbo Engine Claims

BRARA GEOLOGIC: Faces "Gotcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAMP JOHN HAY: BCDA Pres. Calls on Sub-Lessees to File Class Suit
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Garrison Security Safe Digital Locks
CAPE BANCORP: Seeks Class Action Status With Colonial Financial
CFS ROOFING: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CHICAGO-ILLINOIS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee Models
COAST MATERIALS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
COLORADO: OCC Faces July 1 Reauthorization Deadline
CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission

CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Suit
DUCATI: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Defective Shock Absorber
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Action Over Water Waste
ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Illegally Prints Cards Expiration, Suit Says

EXPEDIA: North Charleston Agrees to Settle Hotel Tax Suit
EXPRESS SERVICES: Scope of Discovery Bid in Stoddart Case Denied
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against Tank Exchange Biz Claims
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Propane Service Case Has Not Been Certified
FOREST RIVER: Faces Class Action; 8,000+ Starcraft Buses Recalled

FOREST RIVER: Recalls Launch and Ar-One Starcraft Bus Models
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Canyon & Colorado Models
GUGLIELMO & ASSOC: Final Approval Order in Hernandez Case Vacated
GULF SOUTH: SE Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation Dismissed

HERD ENTERPRISES: "Masi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
INTERACTER INC: Recalls Battery Chargers
INVENTURE FOODS: Montantes Federal Class Action Dismissed
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action

J. STAFF: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Underwriters' Labor suit for $950,000
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Metal Leaching Risk Part of Class Action
KAMADO JOE: Recalls Natural Charcoal Products
KILLARNEY MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. Coli

KIRKLAND SIGNATURE: Recalls Natural Creamy Peanut Butter
LEAD SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chahal" Suit Claims
LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Will Fund $7.9MM Settlement Amount
M-QUBE INC: Cullan Has Until Aug. 13 to File Class Cert. Motion
MAGO'S I: Faces "Palma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MATTHEW CATE: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Mitchell Suit Settlement
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Evaluating Claims in Retirement System Suit
MISSISSIPPI: DOC Wants Walnut Grove Settlement Decree Terminated
MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
MXI CORP: Illegally Promotes Pyramid Scheme, "Martinez" Suit Says

NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Ordered to Stop Debt Collection Threats
NEW YORK, NY: Public Housing Residents Seek to Enforce Settlement
NICK & HOWARD: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Discriminatory Policies
NORDIC CRYOBANK: Sued Over Failure to Screen Sperm Donor
NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Models

OCEAN POWER: Shareholder Litigation in Preliminary Stages
OM SAMBA: Faces "De La Torre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Managers' OT Class Suit for Up to $2.98MM
PARADIES SHOPS: Removed "Frazier" Suit to S.D. California
PEDEGO INC: Recalls Ion Rechargeable Batteries Due to Fire Hazard

PETROBRAS: AP1 Mulls Suit Over Corruption Scandal
PINGTAN MARINE: Defending Against "Fila" Case
PNC BANK: Faces "Dobson" Suit Over Forced-Placed Insurance
RHODE ISLAND: Social Service Providers File Class Action
RHODE ISLAND: Retirees' Pension Suit in Legal Limbo

RJR PENSION: Supreme Court to Hear Reverse Stock-Drop Case
ROLL N GO: "Wijaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANOFI: Court Dismissed CVR Class Actions in Their Entirety
SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action; April 2016 Hearing Set
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Certified Class in "Ubaldi" Action

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners Await Ruling in Chinese Drywall Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Actos Drug
TNUVA FOOD: Donates to Animal Welfare Groups to Avert Suit
UNITED STATES: Paid $3.3 Billion to Resolve Lawsuits in 2014
UPM MARKETING: Expands Recall on Voltage Thermostats

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Denied
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaiting Court's Ruling in Israel Class Action
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case
VIACOM INC: Says $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement Reasonable
WE WASH: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

WORLD FUEL: Lac-Megantic Train Derailment Class Action Pending

* Landowners Balk at Pennsylvania's Handling of Royalty Issue
* Maryland Introduces Bill on Indigent Bail Hearing Representation
* Milwaukee Gas Companies Defend Suits in Supreme Court
* NY Officials Push for Right to Counsel Bill for Poor People
* TRC Wants Mandatory Education on Canadian Residential Schools

* Victims of Financial Wrongdoing Need More Help from SEC


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Telephonic Appearance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in "Brown" Suit Consolidated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Granted in "McCloskey" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Fails to Win Summary Judgment in NY Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 NY Fibro Suits Consolidated for Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont, ArvinMeritor Dropped in "Bell" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex Wins Dismissal of "Ricks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assoc. Allowed to File Amicus Brief in NY Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Allowing Equipment in "Kelly" Trial Issued
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Enforcement of "Bartel" Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $15.9MM Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 195 Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 9 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 254 PI Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,457 PI Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,326 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,300 Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 3,251 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,314 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Fibro Claims


                            *********


2429 LINCOLN: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Granados, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. 2429 Lincoln Ave Inc. d/b/a Pizano's Pizza &
Pasta on Lincoln and Rudy Malnati, Case No. 1:15-cv-03902 (N.D.
Ill., May 4, 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 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


ABM SECURITY: "Thomas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Thomas and other similarly situated individuals v. ABM
Security Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21681-UU (S.D. Fla., May
4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AMB Security Services, Inc. provides custom, residential, and
commercial security services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


ACCREDO PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Cuadra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Accredo Packaging, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01184 (S.D.
Tex., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Accredo Packaging, Inc. is a Texas corporation that manufactures
and provides green packaging for its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


ADS WASTE: Class Actions on Improper Fees in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that purported class actions
alleging that the defendants charged improper fees are in the
early stage.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in
Chester County, Pennsylvania in 2014. The Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' contracts with the Company and seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

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


AKORN INC: Faces "Sarzynski" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mikojaj Sarzynski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, and Timothy A Dick,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03921 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 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.

Akorn, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets multisource and branded pharmaceuticals
alongside prescription animal health products and over-the-counter
health products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Esq.
      Peter E. Cooper, Esq.
      John Scott Monical, Esq.
      LAWRENCE, KAMIN, SAUNDERS & UHLENHOP
      300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 372-1947
      E-mail: mgoldberg@lksu.com
              pcooper@lksu.com
              jmonical@lksu.com


ALFRESCO HOME: Recalls Charcoal Products
----------------------------------------
Starting date: May 8, 2015
Posting date: May 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53327

This recall involves the 9.07 kilogram bags of Fornetto brand
Charcoal. Fornetto Charcoal is an all-natural, lump charcoal used
for outdoor cooking. The affected product has UPC 9333417011941
and date code AH-SP-7 next to the bar code.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program project has
revealed that the Fornetto Charcoal does not meet the warning
label requirements under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
(CCPSA). The CCPSA requires warning labels be in both French and
English. Fornetto Charcoal does not have a French warning label.

Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is
burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning
labels help to protect the public by telling them about this
hazard.

Neither Alfresco Home nor Health Canada have received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this product.

Approximately 43 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled product was sold from 2013-2015.

Manufactured in Paraguay.

Manufacturer: Garth Australia Pty Ltd.
              Melbourne
              AUSTRALIA

Distributor: Alfresco Home
             Pottstown
             Pennsylvania
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the product and contact Alfresco Home
at 1-610-705-8808 or by email to receive a refund.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/58IfzE


AMBIT ENERGY: Wittels Firm Files Class Action Over Consumer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that another class action lawsuit was filed
against a New York energy supplier in late March over allegations
that it overcharged consumers.

Steven L. Wittels -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- of Wittels Law in New
York, filed the $100 million suit against Ambit Energy on March
23, alleging that the company gouged customers and charged
shockingly high rates.  Ambit also allegedly secretly switched its
customers to more expensive energy plans without their consent.

The energy company allegedly advertised a guaranteed savings plan
that would save customers one percent over what their existing
utility company would have charged. However, the lawsuit alleged
the savings were never realized by consumers.

Mr. Wittels is seeking a refund for consumers who overpaid and the
one percent rebate on the energy costs. He also is asking for a
court order to prevent further fraud by the energy company.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Tiemann" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maryli Tiemann on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02507 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into illegal
vertical agreements, arrangements, contracts, or combinations with
merchants known as Anti-Steering Rules or Non-Discrimination
Provisions which artificially inflated the cost of products and
services sold by merchants who accept American Express credit
cards.

American Express Company is a multinational financial services
corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.

American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. Delaware
corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express
Company. It responsible for all aspects of the payment card
business conducted under the American Express brand, including the
operation of the American Express network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Tabacco Jr., Esq.
      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
              tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Susan A. Bernstein, Esq.
      SUSAN A. BERNSTEIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
      200 Highland Avenue, Suite 306
      Needham, MA 02494-3035
      Telephone: (781) 290-5858
      Facsimile: (781) 247-4266
      E-mail: susan@sabernlaw.com

         - and -

      Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
      1650 Market Place
      Philadelphia, PA19103
      Telephone: (215) 575-3985
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Paul Costa,Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              dperelman@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Discriminatory Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Kosh, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals v. American International Group, Inc., AIG Property
Casualty Inc., and AIG Claims, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03430-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's employment
discrimination practices, on the basis of age, disability, and
unlawful retaliation, in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

American International Group, Inc. is an insurance organization
that maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
New York, New York.

AIG Property Casualty Inc. handles property and casualty insurance
operations for American International Group, Inc.

AIG Claims, Inc. is a subsidiary of AIG Property Casualty, Inc.
and provides insurance agent and broker services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Beranbaum, Esq.
      BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP
      80 Pine Street-32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 509-1616
      Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
      E-mail: jberanbaum@nyemployeelaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Warren Woman Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner, writing for WFMJ.com, reports that a Warren woman
as filed a class action lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield over the health insurance giant's recently announced data
breach.

Marnetta Xides is the plaintiff in the suit filed by Cleveland
area attorney Michael Pasternak in U.S. District Court.

The civil lawsuit alleges that Anthem is guilty of negligence,
fraud and breach of contract as a result of a data breach that
could affect 80 million current and former customers around the
nation.

The complaint says that hackers gained personal information
including names, birthdates, Social Security number, addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, health insurer member
identification numbers, employment information, and income data.
The suit says that not only did Anthem fail to encrypt the
personal data, but it also put customers at risk by using and
keeping Social Security numbers instead of utilizing unique health
insurer member identification numbers like those used by other
insurers.

Anthem has said that it discovered on January 27, 2015 that its
computer systems has been breached as early as December 10, 2014.
Anthem made information public on February 4, 2015.

The suit says that Anthem did not implement reasonable security
measures until after the data breach was discovered.  The lawsuit
does not say that Xides has personally been a victim of identity
theft because of the breach, but she and other Anthem subscribers
will face a number of negative consequences that could include
fraudulent tax returns and medical identity fraud.

The suit asks a federal judge to declare the suit a class action,
which would allow other current and former Anthem customers to
join as plaintiffs.

A civil cover sheet filed with the lawsuit claims that damages are
expected to exceed $5 million.

Anthem has not filed a response to the lawsuit.

The insurer has notified present and former customers about the
data breach by mail and email.  It is offering 24 months of
identity theft repair and credit monitoring services to current or
former members of an affected Anthem plan dating back to 2004.


ASCOM NETWORK: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Fletcher, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Ascom Network Testing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00575-GBL-MSN
(E.D. Va., May 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ascom Network Testing, Inc. engages in national and international
telecommunications network testing business operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Ward, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01493 (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2015), violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by altering the Georgia statutory form
summons for Magistrate Court in a manner designed to deprive
consumers of important information for defending cases.

Asset Acceptance, LLC is one of the largest purchasers of charged
off debt and receivables.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 513-6651
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: steve@kovalfirm.com

         - and -

      James W. Hurt Jr., Esq.
      HURT STOLZ, P.C.
      345 West Hancock Avenue
      Athens, GA 30601
      Telephone: (706) 395-2750
      Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
      E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Israel Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Cert. Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court in Israel has
not yet ruled on a motion to certify a claim as a class action.

In November 2012, a Motion to Certify a Claim as a Class Action
and Statement of Claim were filed in Israel in the District Court
in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, against AstraZeneca and four other
pharmaceutical companies for alleged deception and failure to
disclose material facts to consumers regarding potential adverse
events associated with certain drugs, including Crestor. In July
2013, an amended Motion to Certify a Claim as a Class Action and
Statement of Claim containing similar allegations to those in the
first action were filed in the same court against the same
defendants. The court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Certify.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Nexium Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that AstraZeneca is a
defendant in a class action filed in Delaware State Court alleging
that AstraZeneca's promotion, advertising and pricing of Nexium
(esomeprazole magnesium) to physicians, consumers and third party
payers was unfair, unlawful and deceptive. The action, which is
the last of a number of lawsuits previously resolved, was stayed
until February 6, 2014. On January 9, 2015, AstraZeneca filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the
alternative, a motion to strike certain allegations.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Faces Byetta/Bydureon Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca
are among multiple defendants in various lawsuits filed in federal
and state courts in the US involving approximately 1,474
plaintiffs claiming physical injury from treatment with Byetta
and/or Bydureon(exenatide). The lawsuits allege multiple types of
injuries including pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and thyroid
cancer. A multi-district litigation has been established in the US
District Court for the Southern District of California in regard
to the alleged pancreatic cancer cases in federal courts. Further,
a co-ordinated proceeding has been established in Los Angeles,
California in regard to the various lawsuits in California state
courts.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: 707 Crestor Plaintiff Claims Remain in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are now a total of
707 plaintiffs remaining with claims pending in California state
court and two plaintiffs with claims pending in the Eastern
District of Kentucky related to Crestor product.

AstraZeneca is defending a number of lawsuits alleging multiple
types of injuries caused by the use of Crestor (rosuvastatin
calcium), including diabetes mellitus, various cardiac injuries,
rhabdomyolysis, and/ or liver and kidney injuries. The claims of
594 plaintiffs, comprising 102 California residents and 492 non-
California residents, were aggregated in one co-ordinated
proceeding in Los Angeles, California. The claims of additional
plaintiffs are waiting to be added to the co-ordination. In
October 2014, the co-ordination judge dismissed the claims of the
492 non-California plaintiffs whose claims were in the co-
ordinated proceeding. Plaintiffs have appealed the October 2014
order dismissing the non-California plaintiffs from the
proceeding. There are now a total of 707 plaintiffs remaining with
claims pending in California state court and two plaintiffs with
claims pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: 40 Nexium Product Liability Claims Still Active
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that fewer than 40
plaintiffs' product liability claims related to Nexium remain
active and pending in California state courts.

AstraZeneca has been defending product liability lawsuits brought
by approximately 1,900 plaintiffs who alleged that Nexium
(esomeprazole magnesium) caused osteoporotic injuries, such as
bone deterioration, loss of bone density and/or bone fractures,
and approximately 1,700 of these plaintiffs' claims were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the US District Court
for the Central District of California (the Court) through the
multi-district litigation (MDL) process. Between November 2013 and
September 2014, the Court dismissed approximately 1,440
plaintiffs' claims. In October 2014, the Court granted
AstraZeneca's motion for summary judgment as to all of the claims
that remained pending in the MDL and entered judgment in
AstraZeneca's favour as to all pending MDL claims. Approximately
270 plaintiffs have appealed this judgment to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals. In addition, fewer than 40 plaintiffs' claims
remain active and pending in California state courts.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Amylin Among Defendants in Onlgyza Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca
are among multiple defendants in various lawsuits filed in federal
and state courts in the US involving a total of nine plaintiffs
claiming physical injury from treatment with Onlgyza
(saxagliptin). The lawsuits allege injuries including pancreatic
cancer.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Defending 2 Seroquel IR Cases
----------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that with regard to the
Seroquel IR (quetiapine fumarate) product liability litigation in
the US, AstraZeneca is currently defending two cases in active
litigation, each involving a single plaintiff.

With regard to insurance coverage for the substantial legal
defence costs and settlements that have been incurred in
connection with the Seroquel IR product liability claims in the US
related to alleged diabetes and/or other related alleged injuries
(which now exceed the total amount of insurance coverage
available), disputes continue with two insurers about the
availability of coverage under certain insurance policies. These
policies have aggregate coverage limits of $100 million.

An arbitration is ongoing against one of the insurers in respect
of a policy with a coverage limit of $50 million.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: 2 Antitrust Suits Filed in Pennsylvania Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astrazeneca PLC said in an exhibit to its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the two anti-trust
lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania state court by various indirect
purchasers of Nexium are pending.

AstraZeneca is a defendant in a multi-district litigation class
action and individual lawsuits alleging that AstraZeneca's
settlements of certain patent litigation in the US relating to
Nexium violated US anti-trust law and various state laws. A trial
in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
commenced on October 20, 2014 on certain liability issues for
claims that remain in the case. On December 5, 2014, a jury
returned a verdict in favour of AstraZeneca. On December 31, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed motions for a new trial. On January 7, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed motions for a permanent injunction.
AstraZeneca opposed those motions. A hearing on the plaintiffs'
motions for a permanent injunction was scheduled for February 6,
2015.

On December 10, 2014, following the favourable jury verdict,
AstraZeneca filed a motion requesting dismissal of its appeal of
the District Court's procedural decision to certify a class of end
payers. On January 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied
AstraZeneca's request to dismiss the appeal and issued a decision
affirming the District Court's class certification ruling.

The two lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania state court by various
indirect purchasers of Nexium are pending. The cases are in their
initial stages.


AXA EQUITABLE: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Yale" Action
----------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company has filed a motion to dismiss
on substantial grounds the class action filed by Andrew Yale, AXA
Equitable said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in April 2014, entitled Andrew Yale,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life
Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid
premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable from
2011 to March 11, 2014 (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges
that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory
annual statement or elsewhere that certain reinsurance
transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were
collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby AXA Equitable allegedly misrepresented its "financial
condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of the equivalent
of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the
relevant period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in
October 2014.

In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs
for the current named plaintiff, Mr. Yale, who had determined that
he could not serve as the named plaintiff and class representative
in the case. In March 2015, AXA Equitable filed a motion to
dismiss on substantial grounds.


AXA EQUITABLE: No Update on Motion to Dismiss "Zweiman" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state
court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the
Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently
became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a
result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that volatility management
techniques -- which the complaint refers to as the "ATM Strategy"
-- were implemented in certain variable investment options offered
to plaintiff's mother under her variable annuity contract and that
use of volatility management in those options "breached the terms
of the variable deferred annuities held by plaintiff and the
Class." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA
Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2014,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to New York state
court. In September 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act.

No updates were provided in AXA Equitable's Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


AXA EQUITABLE: Court Stayed Motion to Transfer "Shuster" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey federal district court has stayed AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by
Arlene Shuster, AXA Equitable said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

In November 2014, a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company was filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Camden County ("New Jersey state court"). The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all AXA
[Equitable] variable life insurance policyholders who allocated
funds from their Policy Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate
Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-
management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof."
Plaintiff asserts that volatility management techniques were
implemented in certain variable investment funds offered to
plaintiff under her variable life insurance contract and that use
of volatility management in those funds "breached the terms of the
variable life insurance policies held by plaintiff and the Class."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

In December 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and a
motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In January 2015, plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to New Jersey state court. In January
2015, the New Jersey federal district court stayed AXA Equitable's
motion to transfer, as well as its date to respond to the
complaint, pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion to remand.


BARNES & NOBLE: Trial Date Set in "Nguyen" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the trial date is May 3,
2016, in the case Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response
to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, and
moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual
basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25,
2012. The Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint and
moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the
Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed
that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court
granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the
action had been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal
from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.

On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel
arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23,
2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The Company
then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to
transfer the action to New York.

On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to
transfer. The Company's motion to dismiss was taken under
submission by the court on February 20, 2015, after oral argument.
The parties are engaging in discovery and pursuant to the court's
scheduling order dated December 17, 2014, all dates for the case
have been scheduled, including the deadline for plaintiff to file
for class certification of April 24, 2015, and trial date of May
3, 2016.


BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's second
motion to dismiss the PIN Pad Litigation is pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended
complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That
motion is pending.


BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Held on Motion to Remand "Lina" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing date for the
motion to remand was March 23, 2015, in the case Lina v. Barnes &
Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.

The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On
July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on August 29, 2014. No appellate briefing schedule has been set.
On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings
pending appeal. On January 14, 2015, Barnes & Noble removed the
action to federal court based on new United States Supreme Court
authority. On February 13, 2015 plaintiff filed a motion to
remand. The Company filed its Opposition on February 23, 2015. The
hearing date for the motion to remand was March 23, 2015.


BARNES & NOBLE: Court Stayed All Proceedings in "Jones" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has stayed all
proceedings in the case Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of
the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees.

On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action
is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action
and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served
with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013.
On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending
appeal in the related Lina action.


BARNES & NOBLE: May 28 Pre-Trial Conference in "Carag" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a pre-trial conference
is scheduled for May 28, 2015, in the case Cassandra Carag
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes
& Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through
100 inclusive.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to
recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes
& Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to
present.

On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state
court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal
court. On May 30, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the
latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). On
September 2, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to
disqualify counsel based on their prior role in the Lina matter.

On January 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to federal court
based on new US Supreme Court authority. On February 13, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand which has not yet been fully-
briefed. A hearing on the remand motion is scheduled on March 13,
2015, and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for May 28, 2015.


BARNES & NOBLE: No Ruling Yet on Joint Request in Trimmer Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court has not yet
ruled on a joint request in the case Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and
other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010,
when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint
seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of
ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until
July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs
employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The
parties have completed the first phase of discovery with respect
to the individual claims asserted by Trimmer and one opt-in
plaintiff only. The Company filed a summary judgment motion on
November 25, 2013, which was denied on July 18, 2014. Trimmer
filed a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA and
class certification under the NYLL on November 7, 2014, which was
fully briefed and submitted to the Court on December 15, 2014. The
Court has not yet set a hearing date for the pending class
certification motion. On February 17, 2015, the parties submitted
a joint request that the pending class certification motion be
stayed for thirty days so that the parties could engage in
settlement discussions. The Court has not yet ruled on that joint
request.


BMW: Faces Class Action Over TwinPower Turbo Engine Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, CarComplaints.com, reports that BMW is facing a
class action.

What's the difference between a BMW TwinPower Turbo engine and a
single turbocharged engine? According to a class-action lawsuit
against BMW, the engine name is everything.  Even where the word
"twin" is used in a phrase has created legal questions.

The lawsuit says from model years 2007-2009, BMW manufactured its
cars with the twin-turbo N54 engine which provided 8-cylinder
engine levels of horsepower and torque while providing the fuel
economy of a 6-cylinder.

However, BMW later changed the N54 engine to the N55 engine.
While the N54 is a true twin-turbo engine, the newer N55 is a
single-turbo engine, and therein lies the legal rub.  BMW named
the N55 single-turbo engine the "TwinPower Turbo," a name used to
describe all BMW turbocharged engines since 2010.

The plaintiff claims the phrase "TwinPower Turbo" purposely is
used to make people believe the cars have the more powerful N54
twin-turbo engines.  Consumers who allegedly bought the cars with
the newer N55 TwinPower Turbo engines were under the false
impression they were getting the previous N54 twin-turbo engine,
therefore getting a cheaper and less powerful engine.

Calling the TwinPower Turbo a "false twin," the BMW lawsuit says
the automaker is guilty of false advertising in attempting to use
the word "twin" in the name when the engine is actually a single-
turbo engine.

While the focus is on the N55 engine, BMW has other engines (N20,
N26, B38) the lawsuit claims are also "false twins."

Some of those vehicles are the 2014 BMW 228i, M235i, 320i , 328i,
335i, 428i, 435i, 528i,  535d, 535i, 640i, 740i, 740li, Z4
sDrive28i, Z4 sDrive35i and Z4 sDrive35is.  The plaintiff claims
all these cars are equipped with the "false twin" engines marketed
as the TwinPower Turbo.

The BMW lawsuit says consumers have been damaged by BMW's
misrepresentations, concealment and non-disclosure of the true
nature of BMW's "TwinPower Turbo" engines.  Further, BMW is
accused of misleading consumers into purchasing or leasing
vehicles of a quality different than they were led to believe they
were getting.

The plaintiff also claims he paid more for the vehicle than he
would have if the true nature of the BMW "TwinPower Turbo" engine
had been disclosed.

The BMW TwinPower Turbo lawsuit was filed on behalf of all current
and former owners and lessees of new and used BMW vehicles
equipped with single-turbocharger engines that BMW calls
"TwinPower Turbo" engines.

The BMW TwinPower Turbo lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey -- Deepkarn Bedi v.
BMW of North America.

The plaintiff is represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP.


BRARA GEOLOGIC: Faces "Gotcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Gotcher, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Brara Geologic Consulting, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00033-SPW (D. Mont., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40
hours a week.

Brara Geologic Consulting, LLC provides geological services and
mud logging to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. McGrady, Esq.
      McGRADY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      PO Box 40
      Park City, MT 59063
      Telephone: (406) 322-8647
      E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com


CAMP JOHN HAY: BCDA Pres. Calls on Sub-Lessees to File Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voltaire Palana, writing for The Manila Times, reports that the
state-owned Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) said
on April 5 a private company with a 25-year lease on the Camp John
Hay resort in Baguio City sub-leased various properties for 50
years and faced lawsuit from investors.

BCDA President and Chief Executive Officer Arnel Cassanova said.
The Camp John Hay Development Corp (CJHDevCo) sold 50-year sub-
leases, which was made in bad faith.

"There is also such as thing as seller in bad faith,"
Mr. Cassanova said and called on the sub-lessees to file a class
suit against the company.

CJHDevCo, led by Robert John Sobrepena, has a 25-year lease on
Camp John Hay, a former American resort, which is renewable for
another 25 years, but the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center has
ordered the company to vacate the area.

The Resolution Center ordered the BCDA to return the P1.42
billion, which CJHDevCo paid as lease payments.  BCDA called on
sub-lessees to seek legal advise to recover their investments from
the payment.

BCDA head for legal services Peter Flores said the order of the
Arbitral Tribunal on CJHDevCo to vacate the area, including new
constructions and improvements, was also binding on the subleases.
He said the sub-lessees could demand reparation of damages through
a class action suit against the CJHDevCo, which mislead the
investors by telling them that BCDA was aware of their contracts.

"Contrary to what the CJHDevCo has claimed, the BCDA is not privy
to the contracts so how could the BCDA honor it," Mr. Flores said.
He said BCDA had requested CJHDevCo copies of all contracts and
other documents related to the development of residential homes,
estates and condotels within the leased area but the company
refused.


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Garrison Security Safe Digital Locks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 7, 2015
Posting date: May 7, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Improper Safety Mechanisms
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53297

This voluntary recall involves the Garrison Small and Large
Security Safe.  The black Garrison safes have a digital keypad in
the front. The Garrison brand name can be found in the top left
corner of the panel, above the knob.

The following Model numbers are included in this recall:

   Product       UPC             Product Name
   -------       ---             ------------
   046-0035      6926373306997   Garrison Small Security Safe,
                 6926373306980   Digital Lock
   046-0036      6926373307000   Garrison Large Security Safe,
                                 Digital Lock

The affected Garrison safes are being recalled as a precautionary
measure since the safe can be opened without using the digital
code and key. The contents of the safe can be easily accessible to
children, and provides a false sense of security.

Canadian Tire has received one report regarding the above issue.

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

Approximately 5,983 units of the affected safes were sold at
Canadian Tire stores across Canada in the last twelve months.

The recalled Garrison safes were sold between January 2005 and
April 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Ningbo Yongfa International Holdings
              Ningbo
              CHINA

Importer: Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected Garrison
safes and return them to their local Canadian Tire store for a
refund.

For more information, consumer can call Canadian Tire toll-free at
1-800-387-8803 (English) or 1-800-565-3356 (French) or by email.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lwg02a


CAPE BANCORP: Seeks Class Action Status With Colonial Financial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a complaint was filed on
February 24, 2015, against Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and
the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, seeking class action
status and asserting that Colonial Financial Services, Inc. and
the members of its Board had violated their duties to Colonial
Financial Services' shareholders in connection with the proposed
merger with Cape Bancorp. The Company was also sued for allegedly
aiding and abetting these alleged fiduciary breaches. On or about
March 2, 2015, the complaint was supplemented to seek a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting
consummation of the merger. The litigation is in its very early
stages, and the time to answer has not yet run. The Company
believes the complaint is baseless and without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend it.


CFS ROOFING: Faces "Picard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Picard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. David Crowther, CFS Roofing Services, LLC, and
Crowther Holdings Inc. , Case No. 2:15-cv-00278-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.,
May 1, 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 roofing services company that
regularly transacts business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Westshore Center
      1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


CHICAGO-ILLINOIS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Zamarripa, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Chicago-Illinois Cleaning Service, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03908 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Chicago-Illinois Cleaning Service, Inc. owns and operates a
cleaning services company 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


CHRYSLER: Recalls Grand Cherokee Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 8567
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015193TC
ID number: 2015193
Manufacturer recall number: R05

   Make     Model            Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----            ----------------------
   JEEP     GRAND CHEROKEE   2014


COAST MATERIALS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Vickers v. Coast Materials, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00196
(S.D. Tex., May 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coast Materials, Inc. owns and operates a sand & gravel hauling
company having its principal place of business located in Aransas
Pass, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Kay Loftin, Esq.
      HERRERO & LOFTIN, PLLC
      606 N Carancahua, Suite 506
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 882-1882
      Facsimile: (844) 270-4827
      E-mail: jennifer@herreroloftin.com


COLORADO: OCC Faces July 1 Reauthorization Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Jaffe and Joey Bunch, writing for The Denver Post, report
that the state agency that fights for homeowners, farmers and
small businesses in electric, gas and telephone rate cases is up
against a ticking clock -- one that consumer advocates say is a
time bomb.

The Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel, or OCC, must be
reauthorized by the legislature or it will expire on July 1.  But
with a month left in the four-month legislative session, a bill
that would do that hasn't even been filed.

There's potentially a lot of household budget money at risk.

From 2008 to 2013, the office argued an average of 40 rate cases a
year before the state's Public Utilities Commission, paring back
$23 million from telephone company requests and $220 million in
electricity cases, according to a legislative analysis that
accompanies the office's sunset review.

"When Xcel asks for a rate increase, the OCC goes line by line
through their financial statements to make sure it's needed," said
Katie Dahl, associate director of the liberal-leaning, public-
integrity organization Colorado Common Cause.

"Without the OCC, Colorado citizens have no voice."

The OCC's seven-person staff includes four analysts who are
economists, engineers and business experts. The OCC budget is
about $1.5 million a year.

"They can get down in the weeds in the huge files of spreadsheets
that we tend to get from the utilities and figure out what's right
and wrong," said Cindy Schonhaut, the OCC's executive director.

"And in those details is a lot of money for consumers."

Democrats in the statehouse think some Republicans are running a
political gambit to weaken or kill opposition to regulation.

A hearing on reauthorization was held in January, during which
Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, questioned how much the OCC was
necessary, given the availability of contingency-based lawyers,
class-action lawsuits and outside citizen advocate groups to
represent ratepayers.

Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, chairman of the Senate
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which
controls the reauthorization bill, said it's not about killing the
office but making it work as it should.

"The OCC is important, but it's not our job to rubber-stamp any
sunset review," he said.

As the Senate debated next year's budget, Sen. Leroy Garcia,
D-Pueblo, introduced a facetious budget amendment to defund the
office, forcing a floor debate, which annoyed Sen. Sonnenberg and
some other Republicans.  The amendment was unanimously defeated.

Sen. Garcia's use of the budget process to offer a bogus amendment
"was political posturing at its worst," Sen. Sonnenberg said.

Sen. Garcia, though, said the stakes are too high to dillydally,
since his constituents already pay some of the highest electricity
rates in the state, and without a strong advocate in future rate
cases, they could pay even more.

"If people disagree on the policy, the substance or the process,
that's fair; that's what we're each here to do," Sen. Garcia said.
"But what we're seeing here is Washington, D.C.-style politics
where you put something off to the side, and the committee chair
doesn't give it due regard until it's too late."

Without legislative action, the agency would still be around for
another year for the purpose of "winding up affairs," according to
sunset guidelines.  Next year, the responsibility for sunset
legislation shifts to the Democrat-led House, meaning the agency
theoretically could be resurrected, though such a move would be
rare, according to statehouse staff.

Sen. Sonnenberg said there are a handful of issues that need to be
worked out before the committee offers up a reauthorization bill.

Telecom industry representatives want to remove their industry
from OCC involvement, since the industry will be largely
deregulated in 2016.

"The OCC was created in 1984 when there were telephone and
electric monopolies, and a lot has changed in 31 years," said
Peter Kirchhof, executive director of the Colorado
Telecommunications Association, a trade group.

The OCC's Schonhaut said there will still be telecom elements
under the PUC that require consumer oversight.

These include the state's 911 emergency response operations; the
"high cost fund," which helps subsidize rural phone service; and
reviewing deregulation.

Sen. Sonnenberg said there also is a question of whether the
office should be under the state Attorney General's Office instead
of the Department of Regulatory Agencies.  He couldn't predict
when a bill might be ready for his committee to assign to a
sponsor, vote on and send it on the Senate floor for a debate and
a vote.  If it clears those steps, it would bounce to the House to
start all over.

"I don't think it's going to be too late unless you get to that
last week of the session," Sen. Sonnenberg said.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has taken the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the CytRx
Corporation Securities Litigation under submission and took the
hearing off the calendar.

On June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, were consolidated in the matter of In re
CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx),
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1,
2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13,
2014, against CytRx, certain Company officers and directors, a
freelance writer, and certain underwriters. The complaint alleges
that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other
public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of
the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making
materially misleading statements and omitting material information
in the shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC
on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2)
filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise
out of the Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and
MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms
unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December
9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and
officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages,
including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief
that the court may deem just and proper.

On December 5, 2014, CytRx and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear
argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015,
the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing
off the calendar.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted Motion to Stay Rajasekaran Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has granted
the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay the Rajasekaran
proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the CytRx
Corporation Securities Litigation.

On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain officers and each director, as
well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation,
et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and
attorney's fees and costs.  On October 14, 2014, the court granted
the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay this proceeding pending
resolution of motions to dismiss in the related federal action, In
re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK
(PJWx).


DUCATI: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Defective Shock Absorber
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 0
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015186TC
ID number: 2015186

On certain motorcycles, the rear shock absorber may not have been
manufactured correctly. The piston rod nut may have been tightened
before the piston had the correct full metal-to-metal contact.
This could result in the nut loosening, which would prevent proper
rear suspension action, and could cause poor handling that may
result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will send the rear shock assembly to the
suppliers repair facility or replace the rear shock absorber with
a new part supplied by Ducati.

   Make     Model              Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----              ----------------------
   DUCATI   1199 PANIGALE S    2014
   DUCATI   1199 PANIGALE R    2014
   DUCATI   1199 SUPERLEGGERA  2014


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Machado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Endurance International Group Holdings,
Inc., Hari Ravichandran, and Tivanka Ellawala, Case No. 1:15-cv-
11775-GAO (D. Mass., May 4, 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.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., provides cloud-based
platform solutions for small and medium-sized businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9 150
      Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              csadler@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
      E-mail: hsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Class Action Over Water Waste
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom Leyde, writing for Monterey Herald, reports that about 70
residents of a Castroville mobile home park are so concerned about
the amount of water wasted there that they have filed a lawsuit
over it.

Residents at Monte Del Lago Mobile Home Community are suing park
owner Equity Lifestyle Properties, which is owned by billionaire
Sam Zell.  The company owns 30 mobile home parks in California.

Water waste is just one of a litany of complaints in the suit, but
park residents are especially concerned about it because of
California's drought, now entering its fourth year.

Gov. Jerry Brown ordered mandatory water use restrictions with a
goal of reducing use by 25 percent statewide.

Paul Curatolo, a five-year park resident, said residents have
received no instructions on cutting water usage.  The park, at
13100 Monte Del Lago, is on its own well and there are no water
meters for mobile homes.

"We are out here wasting water constantly every day, all day long
. . .," Mr. Curatolo said.  "We have water running constantly, 24
hours a day, into a pond and it's being refilled, and we're in a
drought."

The pond is about 100 by 50 feet and 2 feet deep.  It has a mud
seal, but residents say water seeps out of it and it has to be
rebuilt constantly.  The park also has two swimming pools and a
spa.

Mr. Curatolo said a car wash at the park does not use recycled
water and water from it drains into Castroville's drainage system.
Residents, he said, also wash vehicles in their carports and
pressure-wash the outside of their mobile homes. More than 300
people live at Monte Del Lago.

The lawsuit was filed in February in Monterey County Superior
Court on behalf of the residents by San Diego's Allen,
Semelsberger & Kaelin.

Last April, the firm won a $111 million class-action lawsuit
against Equity Lifestyle Properties for 61 residents of California
Hawaiian Mobile Estates in San Jose.  A judge later overturned the
jury's verdict and granted Equity Lifestyle a new trial on
monetary damages, which the judge found excessive and ruled there
was "insufficiency of evidence to support the verdict."

Marv White, another resident of Monte Del Lago, said the suit
filed by residents is similar to the San Jose case.

"We're claiming failure to maintain (the park), everything from
infrastructure to landscaping to providing areas for parking and
for children and for kids . . . keeping the place looking
respectable," Mr. White said.

Residents also are trying to get a rent control agreement with
Equity Lifestyle Properties.  They have been in contact with
former Salinas Mayor Anna Caballero, now state secretary of the
Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency in Sacramento.

"If it (a rent control effort) goes statewide, we might have a
better chance of creating a better result," Mr. White said.

Equity Lifestyle Properties has been the subject of many lawsuits
and complaints across the United States.  The website Ripoff
Report contains a several stories about the company.  Complaints
range from breach of contract and deceptive practices to
victimizing the elderly.

Monte Del Lago residents said they have complained many times to
park management about conditions there, but to no avail.


ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Illegally Prints Cards Expiration, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staci Palazzo, individually on behalf of herself, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Erminia Restaurant Corporation
d/b/a Lattanzi Restaurant, Case No. 1:15-cv-03478-JSR (S.D.N.Y.,
May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
protect its costumers against identity theft and credit card and
debit card fraud by continuing to print the expiration date on
paper receipts that they provided to the Plaintiff and Class
Plaintiffs at the point of sale.

Erminia Restaurant Corporation owns and operates an Italian
restaurant located in the New York's Theater District's Restaurant
Row.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Joseph P. Griffin, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              jpg@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


EXPEDIA: North Charleston Agrees to Settle Hotel Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
John McDermott, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that as
tax season enters the home stretch, a couple of local governments
are anticipating some hefty refunds.

Not from the IRS, though.

The city of North Charleston and Charleston County stand to
collect more than half of a seven-figure legal settlement with a
long list of travel websites, most of them owned and operated by
Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity and Orbitz.

It's the latest turn in a long-running nationwide dispute over
hospitality taxes that many municipalities charge hotels and, in
turn, their guests.

The issue first reared its head about a decade ago, when cash-
strapped local and state governments felt they were being short-
changed by Web-based travel sites.  It centered on the industry's
standard practice of reserving blocks of hotel rooms at discounted
rates and then reselling them one by one at a profit.

The lawsuits began to fly when tax officials discovered that the
booking businesses were basing their remittances, if they were
remitting them at all, on the lower prices.  The online firms have
argued that only the wholesale rate they negotiate with hotels is
taxable.

The spreads don't amount to much on a single booking, but they
sure add up.  An analysis this year by BloombergBusiness estimated
that Expedia could be on the hook for an $847 million retroactive
tax bill -- that is, in the highly unlikely event it loses all of
the legal challenges it's still facing.

The S.C. Supreme Court already has weighed in on the issue in a
2011 decision that sent a chill across the online travel
landscape.  It upheld a previous legal ruling and ordered Expedia
subsidiary Travelscape in 2011 to pay more than $6.3 million in
sales taxes for Internet hotel bookings it had brokered within the
state.

Charleston and Mount Pleasant also have gone to the mat over the
accommodations money in a court case they filed with North Myrtle
Beach.  Their 2006 lawsuit was settled for $900,000 about three
years ago.  Of that, Charleston pocketed $657,000, and Mount
Pleasant was paid $50,000.

North Charleston, which charges hotels a 2 percent room tax,
brought its own challenge in mid-2013 with Columbia and Aiken
County. Charleston County joined in later.  Circuit Judge R.
Markley Dennis approved class-action status for the complaint in
February.

The original lawsuit didn't say how much money was at stake.
Described as a compromise to avoid further litigation, the $3.5
million settlement figure was reached after two mediation sessions
and an analysis of hotel transactions by forensic accountants at
Dixon Hughes Goodman.

After the plaintiffs' attorneys are paid their requested 25
percent cut and reimbursed about $97,000 for expenses, about $2.49
million will be left for everyone else, assuming the deal is
approved.  The pot would be divided up among 23 counties and
nearly 50 cities and towns all over South Carolina, unless they
opt out of the settlement.

Of the four main plaintiffs, Charleston County is poised to cash
the biggest check, almost $1.16 million.  North Charleston will
collect about $240,600. Columbia and Aiken County are expecting to
recover $303,689 and $8,431, respectively.

The other South Carolina government bodies were added to the class
because they hadn't previously brought their own lawsuits, said
Charleston attorney Jesse Kirchner, who helped file the case.
Their proposed payments from the travel websites range from about
$67,953 for Richland County to just $16.39 for tiny Westminster,
in Oconee County.

The settlement was up for approval at a fairness hearing n the
heart of downtown Charleston, the land of many a hotel room.


EXPRESS SERVICES: Scope of Discovery Bid in Stoddart Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In MICHAEL STODDART, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-1054 KJM CKD, (E.D. Cal.), the plaintiff's
motion regarding the scope of discovery was referred to Magistrate
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney by minute order entered on May 4, 2015.
The motion was originally set for hearing on May 8, 2015 before
the District Judge.

This action is a putative class action and has been pending in the
court since April 20, 2012. After filing the motion regarding the
scope of discovery, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is
currently set for hearing on June 5, 2015.

Resolution of the motion to dismiss will determine the allowable
contours of discovery. Given the expansive breadth of discovery
sought by plaintiff and the intrusive nature of the information
sought which impacts the privacy rights of nonparties to this
action, the court has determined that the motion is premature.

For this reason, Mag. Judge Delaney ruled that plaintiff's motion
regarding the scope of discovery is denied without prejudice to
its renewal after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss.

Before the filing of a renewed motion regarding the scope of
discovery, the parties were directed to meet and confer. The
motion will be briefed in accordance with the format set forth in
Local Rule 251.

A copy of Mag. Judge Delaney's May 5, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/HWYHbRfrom Leagle.com.

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn
Connor -- jconnor@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Kimberly
Dawn Neilson -- kneilson@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer,
Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis A.P.C.,
Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com --  Cohelan Khoury &
Singer & Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com --
GrahamHollis, APC.

Express Services, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer --
janetgrumer@dwt.com --  Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W.
Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Richard J Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Aaron N. Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com
-- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Elizabeth Scott Wood --
elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC & Jessica John
Bowman -- jessica.johnbowman@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC.

Phillips & Associates, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan, Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey, Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton, Richard J Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Aaron N. Colby, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison H
Hong -- Alison.Hong@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.,
Douglas George Johnston -- Douglas.Johnston@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine --
fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott C
Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against Tank Exchange Biz Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.;
Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015,
that the Company believe it has strong defenses to the claims in
the complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers
of the Company's tank exchange business.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation
into certain practices related to the filling of portable propane
cylinders. On March 27, 2014, the FTC filed an administrative
complaint alleging that Ferrellgas and one of its competitors
colluded in 2008 to persuade a customer to accept the cylinder
fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds.  The complaint does
not seek monetary remedies.  Ferrellgas reached a settlement with
the FTC during the three months ended October 31, 2014 without any
financial payment; the settlement has been approved by a vote of
the Commission and is in a public comment period.

Ferrellgas has also been named as a defendant, along with a
competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple
jurisdictions. "The complaints, filed on behalf of direct and
indirect customers of our tank exchange business, reference the
FTC complaint," the Company said.  "The lawsuits allege that
Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill
level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common
customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased
cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of
federal and certain state antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek
treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on
behalf of the putative class.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into one case by a multidistrict litigation panel."

"We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to
vigorously defend against the consolidated case.  Ferrellgas does
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to the putative class action lawsuit," the Company said.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Propane Service Case Has Not Been Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.;
Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015,
that the lawsuit regarding the propane service has not been
certified for class treatment.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas. The complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which
was granted, in part, in August 2011. The surviving claims allege
breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence
of an oral contract for continuous propane service. Ferrellgas
believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously. The case has not been certified for class treatment.
Ferrellgas recently prevailed on an appeal before the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals and the appellate court ordered the trial
court to determine whether the case must be arbitrated. Ferrellgas
does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this
time related to this putative class action lawsuit.


FOREST RIVER: Faces Class Action; 8,000+ Starcraft Buses Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South Bend Tribune reports that more than 8,000 shuttle buses
manufactured by Starcraft Bus will be recalled as the result of a
class-action suit.

From 2002 to 2007, the maximum cargo capacity was mislabeled on
buses the Goshen company manufactured, according to a news release
from the law firm Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman.  It
was discovered that the buses were not weighed with a full tank of
fuel, as required by federal law, which can affect the safety
standards of the vehicle.  The problem was found when a church
noticed the label on its bus showed it could not carry cargo, even
though the vehicles came with luggage racks.

The church's bus was then weighed and was found to exceed the
weight rating, according to the release.  Originally, about 400
buses were recalled, but further investigation found a little more
than 8,000 needed to recalled.

Starcraft and its parent company Forest River will have to modify
the recalled buses to comply with federal regulations and pay
owners $1,500 for each seat removed, according to the release.


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Launch and Ar-One Starcraft Bus Models
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015183TC
ID number: 2015183

On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loading
information labels do not contain correct tire size information.
The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of ST205/75R14C while
the correct tire size is LT235/75R15C. As a result, the vehicle
may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect replacement tires.
Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle handling
characteristics, which could result in a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Updated labels will be
mailed to owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for
proper installation.

   Make         Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----         -----      ----------------------
   STARCRAFT    LAUNCH     2016
   STARCRAFT    AR-ONE     2016


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00360 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 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.

Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd. is a Bermuda exempted company with
its principal executive offices located at 6501 William Cannon
Drive West, Austin, Texas. Freescale designs, develops,
manufactures and sells through a world-wide distribution network
microcontrollers and digital networking processors, commonly
called embedded processors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall C. Owens, Esq.
      WRIGHT & CLOSE, LLP
      One Riverway, Suite 2200
      Houston, Texas 77056
      Telephone: (713) 572-4321
      Facsimile: (713) 572-4320
      E-mail: owens@wrightclose.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Canyon & Colorado Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 4956
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015185TC
ID number: 2015185
Manufacturer recall number: 15150

Certain vehicles may fail to comply with the requirements of
Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207 -- Anchorage of Seats.
Certain seat-frame attachment hooks that secure the front driver
and/or front passenger's seat may not have been properly attached
to the vehicle body during the assembly process. If this condition
were present, the seat could fail to meet the requirements of the
standard. This could increase the risk of injury in a crash.
Correction: Dealers will inspect seats for proper installation,
and if required, disassemble and properly reassemble the seats.

   Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----      ----------------------
   GMC         CANYON     2015
   CHEVROLET   COLORADO   2015


GUGLIELMO & ASSOC: Final Approval Order in Hernandez Case Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lloyd D. George inadvertently signed the proposed
final approval order along with the preliminary approval to class
action settlement in the case captioned CARLOS HERNANDEZ and RYAN
A. EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL D. GUGLIELMO, dba GUGLIELMO &
ASSOCIATES, Defendant, NO. 2:09-CV-0830-LDG-GWF, (D. Nev.).

Accordingly, Judge George on May 5, 2015, vacated the final
approval order.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/vpiL9Xfrom Leagle.com.

Carlos J Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Friedberg
-- cbfriedberg@justice.com -- Law Offices of Craig B. Friedberg,
Craig M Shapiro -- craig@horwitzlaw.com -- Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates & O. Randolph Bragg -- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- Horwitz,
Horwitz & Associates.

Ryan A Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Friedberg, Law
Offices of Craig B. Friedberg, Craig M Shapiro, Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates & O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates.

Paul D Guglielmo, Defendant, represented by Tomio B. Narita --
tnarita@snllp.com -- Simmonds & Narita LLP, Joseph P Garin --
JGARIN@LIPSONNEILSON.COM -- Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin,
P.C. & Shannon D Nordstrom -- SNORDSTROM@LIPSONNEILSON.COM --
Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.


GULF SOUTH: SE Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has
dismissed with prejudice, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection
Litigation.

Gulf South and Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, along with
approximately 100 other energy companies operating in Southern
Louisiana, have been named as defendants in a petition for damages
and injunctive relief in state district court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana (Case No. 13-6911) by the Board of Commissioners of the
Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - East (Flood
Protection Authority). The case was filed in state court, but was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New Orleans (Court) in August 2013. The plaintiff has
moved for remand back to state court, which motion has been argued
and is under consideration by the court. The lawsuit claims
include negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, private
nuisance, breach of contract, and breach of the natural servitude
of drain against the defendants, alleging that the defendants'
drilling, dredging, pipeline and industrial operations since the
1930s have caused increased storm surge risk, increased flood
protection costs and unspecified damages to the Flood Protection
Authority. In addition to attorney fees and unspecified monetary
damages, the lawsuit seeks abatement and restoration of the
coastal lands, including backfilling and revegetating of canals
dredged and used by the defendants, and abatement and restoration
activities such as wetlands creation, reef creation, land bridge
construction, hydrologic restoration, shoreline protection,
structural protection, bank stabilization, and ridge restoration.
On February 13, 2015, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.


HERD ENTERPRISES: "Masi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Masi v. Herd Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Broward Factory Service,
Case No. 0:15-cv-60929-JIC (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Herd Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a major appliance repair
business and maintains a corporate office in Hollywood, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 683-2300
      Facsimile: (561) 697-3852
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has
approved a class action settlement and entered a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel
fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and terminating the
litigation.

On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage
entered into and documented an agreement in principle among
Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for
the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court
of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action").
The Action alleges that Washington Banking's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders
in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined
their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington
Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleges,
among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and
that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking
Merger are misleading in various respects.

On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of the consolidated litigation and
ordering WBCO to provide notice of the proposed settlement to
those persons who held WBCO shares during the purported class
period.

On February 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to consider whether
the settlement was fair and reasonable to the class members and,
if so, to approve the settlement and to consider plaintiffs'
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs
from Washington Banking.  At the hearing, the Court approved the
settlement and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses
totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation.

The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking
Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in
connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on
May 1, 2014.  Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage took
the position that the Action was without merit and denied any
wrongdoing of any kind.  Washington Banking, its directors and
Heritage entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the
costs, risks, burden, distraction and expense of further
litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been
asserted to rest.  Nothing in the stipulation of settlement or any
public filing, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the
materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional
information contained herein or in any public filing associated
with the settlement of the Action.


INTERACTER INC: Recalls Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------
Starting date: May 7, 2015
Posting date: May 7, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Unauthorized products
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53229

This recall involves Interacter Inc. Professional and Lineage
Series model battery chargers.  The affected products display an
unauthorized CSA Group certification mark and/or CSA file number
92516 on the unit label.

The affected battery chargers are advertised with an unauthorized
CSA certification mark and have not been evaluated by CSA Group.
It is unknown if the affected products have been tested and
evaluated to the applicable standard for safety and performance
for Canada or the United States.

Neither Health Canada nor CSA Group has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these battery
chargers.

The number sold is unknown.

The time period sold is unknown. Affected units were found for
sale online on various websites and in stores in Ontario, Canada.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Interacter Inc.
              Wallingford
              Connecticut
              UNITED STATES

Consumers with the affected models are advised to immediately
discontinue use of the product and to contact their retailer,
point-of-sale or the distributor.

For more information, consumers can contact CSA Group by email and
view the CSA Group public notice on their website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/10fnzD


INVENTURE FOODS: Montantes Federal Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the federal class action
filed by Vanessa Montantes was dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to the stipulation of the parties.

On February 13, 2014, the Company was sued in two putative class
actions filed by Vanessa Montantes alleging that it recorded
telephone calls made to its consumer affairs telephone number
without obtaining consent to recording as allegedly required by
California law.  One of the actions was filed in California State
Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods, Inc.
doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC536218.  This state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff
within a few days of its original filing date.  The other action
was filed in Federal Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v.
Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, United States
District Court for the Central District of California Case No.
CV14-1128 MWF (RZx).  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on April 21, 2014, which was denied on June 9, 2014.
The Company also demanded indemnity from EMS, Inc., the
independent contractor that answered the consumer affairs calls,
but EMS, Inc. has not agreed to indemnify the Company.

On July 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding
EMS, Inc. as a defendant.  The Company answered the First Amended
Complaint on August 1, 2014.   On January 7, 2015, the federal
action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of
the parties.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Invivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing
on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was scheduled for
March 24, 2015.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). "The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing
and completion of the clinical study of our Neuro-Spinal
Scaffold," the Company said.  "The plaintiff seeks class
certification for purchasers of our common stock during the period
from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified
damages. On December 12, 2014, we moved to dismiss this lawsuit,
and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for March 24, 2015. We
intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit."


J. STAFF: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aguilar, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216 (b) v. J. Staff Corp. a/k/a Pepe's Grocery Store, and Chung
Hyon Cho, Case No. 3:15-cv-01379-P (N.D. Tex., May 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate Pepe's Grocery Store in Dallas
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Underwriters' Labor suit for $950,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that JPMorgan Chase has agreed
to pony up $950,000, according to the terms of a preliminary
settlement agreement reached in a California labor law class
action lawsuit.  The lawsuit was filed by the company's California
underwriters who alleged the bank failed to pay overtime and
provide proper breaks. No comment.

The proposed agreement potentially ends the three-year-old
lawsuit, which was filed by two loan modification underwriters who
worked at a Chase location north of San Diego.  They alleged the
bank was in violation of federal and state labor laws and that
they suffered from overwhelming workload requirements.  Filed in
2012, by plaintiffs Mary Loeza and Angie Reveles, the suit claims
that Chase saddled its underwriters with unrealistic quotas for
processing mortgage loan modification applications that they could
not achieve without working overtime.

The plaintiffs further claimed that Chase had a strict policy on
approval of overtime and would punish employees who worked it
without authorization, leaving employees to work off-the-clock and
through meal breaks and rest periods to meet the elevated quota,
according to the settlement agreement.

"Based on their knowledge of this action, plaintiffs determined
that the settlement would constitute the best outcome for class
members," court documents state.  "Likewise, Chase concluded that
this action should be settled in order to avoid the expense,
inconvenience and burden of further legal proceedings, and the
uncertainties of trial and appeal."

The proposed class consists of approximately 838 current and
former Chase employees who worked at the bank between December 11,
2008, and the date the judge preliminarily approves the agreement.
If certified, the settlement will see each class member receive a
share of the settlement funds, fees and expenses are paid.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Metal Leaching Risk Part of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Money, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that hundreds of Australians with metal hip replacements fear
their bodies have been poisoned by cobalt and chromium leaching
from the implants.  While the national Therapeutic Goods
Administration maintains there is "insufficient evidence" of a
definite link, many patients have reported matching symptoms --
nausea, vertigo, headaches, heart problems and more.

The possibility of illness through metal leaching is part of the
class action, now under way in the Federal Court, against Johnson
& Johnson over its DePuy metal-on-metal (MOM) hip -- but there are
many Australians with MOM hips of other brands.  They are excluded
from any benefit the class action may achieve.

Hip replacement -- traditionally with ceramic and plastic
prostheses -- is regarded as the "world's most successful surgical
operation" but evidence has been mounting for years that MOM hips
-- where a metal ball fits into a metal socket -- can produce
metal ions which seep into the body.  Four years ago three
specialists sounded the alarm in the Medical Journal of Australia,
stating there was an "emerging clinical problem" with MOM hips and
citing hand tremors, depression and hearing loss.  In 2013 three
South Australian ophthalmologists reported eyesight
"complications" from cobalt toxicity.  They said it was an
emerging problem with the "increasing number of . . . metal-on-
metal hip implants".

Patients with different brands of MOM hips have told Fairfax Media
that they have been plagued by mystery ailments since having the
devices fitted.  Di Harvey, of Charlton in Victoria, said she
often felt like she was "about to drop dead".  The former nurse
had a BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) device implanted in 2003
but had it removed eight years later because of a series of
crippling ailments.  "But I've been told that once the cobalt gets
into your body the damage has been done," Ms. Harvey says.


KAMADO JOE: Recalls Natural Charcoal Products
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2015
Posting date: May 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53271

This recall involves Kamado Joe 100% Natural Charcoal.  Kamado Joe
Charcoal is an all-natural hardwood lump charcoal used for
barbeque cooking.  The product comes in a red bag with black and
white writing.  It has a net weight of 10kg (22lbs) and a UPC code
of 5226400202.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the Kamado Joe 100% Natural Charcoal Charcoal does not meet the
bilingual warning label requirements under Canadian Law.

Charcoal produces carbon monoxide. This can be toxic if it is
burned inside or in an area without proper ventilation. Warning
labels help to protect the public by telling them about this
hazard.

Neither Kamado Joe nor Health Canada have received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 6,744 units of the affected product were sold in
Canada at various retailers.

The recalled product was sold from March 2012 to April 2015.

Manufactured in Argentina.

Distributor: Kamado Joe Company
             Duluth
             Georgia
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the product and contact Kamado Joe
Company at 1-877-215-6299, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST (Monday
to Friday) for information on how to receive a corrective label.
Consumers may also visit the Kamado Joe's website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/sYXK6x


KILLARNEY MARKET: Recalls Ground Beef Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Killarney Market
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9825

Killarney Market is voluntarily recalling Killarney Market brand
ground beef from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products were sold from Killarney Market, 2611 East
49th Ave., Vancouver, British Columbia.

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

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size      Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----      product        ---
                                       ----------
Killarney      Lean Ground   Variable  All Sell By    Starts with
Market         Beef                    dates from     200089
                                       May 05, 15 up
                                       to and including
                                       May 11, 15
Killarney      Lean Ground   Variable  All Sell By    Starts with
Market         Beef Family             dates from     200115
               Pack                    May 05, 15 up
                                       to and including
                                       May 11, 15
Killarney      Extra Lean   Variable   All Sell By    Starts with
Market         Ground Beef             dates from     200117
               Less than               May 05, 15 up
               10% Fat                 to and including
                                       May 11, 15
Killarney      Extra Lean   Variable   All Sell By    Starts with
Market         Ground Beef             dates from     200117
               Family Pack             May 05, 15 up
                                       to and including
                                       May 11, 15
Killarney      100% Hormone Variable   All Sell By    Starts with
Market         Free Black              dates from     200820
               Angus Lean              May 05, 15 up
               Ground Beef             to and including
                                       May 11, 15

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5Z5B7t


KIRKLAND SIGNATURE: Recalls Natural Creamy Peanut Butter
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and
Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9816

  Brand name   Common name     Size   Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   -----------     ----   product        ---
                                      ----------
Kirkland       Natural Peanut  2 x 1  Best By dates  0 96619-
Signature      Butter - Creamy kg     17NOV2015 up   89682
                                      to and
                                      including
                                      08JAN2016


LEAD SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Chahal" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manpreet "Mark" Chahal, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lead Services, LLC d/b/a Auto Protection
Department, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00711 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing calls on the class members'
cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system.

Lead Services, LLC owns and operates call centers and maintains
its principal place of business at 1575 Anton Boulevard, Third
Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626.

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


LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Will Fund $7.9MM Settlement Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's insurance
carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount in a
class action lawsuit.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police &
Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations
of the Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf
of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original
Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without
merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013.

On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice. The District Court held a final fairness hearing on
December 11, 2014 and issued two Report and Recommendations on
February 11, 2015 approving the settlement plan of allocation and
Lead Plaintiff's fees and expenses. On March 3, 2015, the District
Court entered its Judgments adopting the Report and
Recommendations previously issued.

The Company's insurance carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million
settlement amount. The Company's balance sheet reflects the entire
settlement in current assets as a receivable due from insurance
carrier and correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in
current liabilities as a legal settlement payable.


M-QUBE INC: Cullan Has Until Aug. 13 to File Class Cert. Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, v. M-QUBE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff, and
MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS, Inc., a Delaware corporation; CF
ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an Australian company; and JOHN DOES 1-
200, Defendants, NO. 8:13CV172, (D. Neb.) came before the court on
the parties' joint motion for extension of briefing deadlines and
for continuance of hearing date.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken granted the motion
on May 5, 2015, holding that:

* Any motion to certify this case as a class action must be filed
  on or before August 13, 2015.

* On or before September 11, 2015, the defendants must file and
  serve any objections to class certification specifying with
  particularity the factual and legal basis of the objections and
  identifying any facts in which an evidentiary dispute exists.

* On October 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., an evidentiary hearing will
  be held before the magistrate judge in Courtroom No. 7, Second
  Floor, Roman L. Hruska, U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza,
  Omaha, Nebraska, to consider all questions coming within the
  class action issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). At the
  hearing to be conducted on October 29, 2015, the parties may
  present extracts of depositions, interrogatories, and
  documentary evidence relevant to any factual dispute, and only
  upon a showing of good cause will a party be permitted to call a
  witness to testify in person at the hearing.

* A conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held
  following the class certification hearing on October 29, 2015,
  for the purpose of reviewing the preparation of the case to date
  and the scheduling of the case to trial.

A copy of Mag. Judge Thalken's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/Z9VLXkfrom Leagle.com.


MAGO'S I: Faces "Palma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Palma, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Mago's I, Inc. and Antelmo Mejia, Case No.
1:15-cv-03924 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants, one located on
West Fullerton Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, and the other located
on West Diversey Avenue in Chicago, 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


MATTHEW CATE: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Mitchell Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an order on May 4, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/HCD6g9from Leagle.com,
granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
ROBERT MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:08-CV-01196-TLN-EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

The Court found that, for purposes of settlement only, the
Stipulated Settlement meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section
3626(a)(1). The Stipulated Settlement is granted preliminary
approval, subject to the right of class members to challenge the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Stipulated
Settlement.

A Final Fairness Hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. on September
24, 2015, at the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, United States Courthouse, 501 I St.,
Sacramento CA 95814, in Courtroom 2, to determine whether the
proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Stipulated Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be finally approved by the Court, and whether
this action should be dismissed under the settlement.

Any further briefing from the parties in advance of the hearing
must be filed no later than September 10, 2015.

Regarding the fairness of the settlement, a written comment must
contain the author's full name and CDCR number, must include all
objections and the reasons for them; must include any and all
supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs,
written evidence, and declarations), must be signed by the Class
Member, and must be postmarked by September 1, 2015.

Plaintiffs in this action, Robert Mitchell, Alvaro Quezada, and a
class consisting of all male prisoners who are now, or will in the
future be, subjected to CDCR's modified program and lockdown
policy, allege that CDCR has a policy and practice of implementing
modified programs and lockdowns that violate the Eighth Amendment
and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to statewide injunctive
relief to address their claims.


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Evaluating Claims in Retirement System Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Millennial Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is currently
evaluating the claims asserted in the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Millennial Media, Inc. et al. and Travis
Ostroviak v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against a group of defendants including us,
certain of our current and former executive officers, directors,
and large shareholders, and the underwriters associated with our
initial public offering and secondary offering. Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that certain defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors. On
October 17, 2014, plaintiff Travis Ostroviak also filed a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff makes
certain of the same allegations made in the action brought by
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi. The complaint
names us and certain of our current and former executive officers
and directors as defendants."

"On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated these two purported
class actions. On February 17, 2015, the Court ordered that a
consolidated amended complaint be filed in the actions by March
20, 2015, and that Defendants file any motion to dismiss the
complaint by April 17, 2015. We are currently evaluating the
claims asserted in these two matters."


MISSISSIPPI: DOC Wants Walnut Grove Settlement Decree Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Le Coz, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that the
Mississippi Department of Corrections reneged on a five-year
agreement it had made with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
over violence at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, an
unprecedented move that raises legal questions and leaves inmates
without court-ordered protections.

The bombshell announcement came at the end of the first day of a
three-day federal court hearing to determine whether MDOC had been
violating the terms of the agreement, called a consent decree.

MDOC entered into the decree in 2012 to settle a lawsuit alleging
severe and systemic violence at the privately run correctional
facility.  As part of the agreement, MDOC promised to make
numerous improvements and submit to regular visits by court-
appointed monitors.

The agency also had waived its right to seek to terminate the
decree after two years, as allowed under the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act, and instead accept the full five-year
agreement.

But just two weeks before the hearing, MDOC filed a motion to
terminate the decree.  By law, the decree becomes invalid as soon
as the motion is filed and remains so until a court rules it.

Law also requires the court grant MDOC's request unless it finds a
continuing and ongoing violation of prisoners' federal rights.

That changes the purpose of the hearing, said attorney Margaret
Winter of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison
Project. Instead of determining whether MDOC violated the decree,
she said, it now must determine whether it's violating prisoners'
federal rights.

"Nobody has ever done what they've done," Ms. Winter said about
the state breaking its own agreement.  "There's no law on this. We
were stunned."

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves appeared confused by the
information, which came after a full day of testimony on what he
thought was the plaintiffs' attempt to prove consent decree
violations.

"I've been prepared to hear the motion to enforce the consent
decree," he said.

The consent decree is gone, Ms. Winter said.

MDOC attorney Gary Friedman would not answer media questions but
told the court earlier that Walnut Grove made substantial
improvements in the past three years.

Among them, he said, is a significant reduction of its inmate
population, elimination of its long-term segregation and maximum-
security units, and more staff training.

The facility is run by Utah-based Management and Training Corp.,
or MTC.

But the plaintiff's expert witness, Eldon Vail, said those changes
came amid pressure from litigants and the court-appointed monitors
-- not because of MDOC's or MTC's desire to implement best
practices.  He also said prison officials learned nothing from two
2014 riots involving hundreds of inmates and injuring many.  They
could improve, he said, but they're not.

"It illustrates to me," Mr. Vail said, "a lack of seriousness
about MTC's commitment to keep people safe."


MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salman Panjwani, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mobileiron, Inc., Robert Tinker, and Todd
Ford, Case No. 3:15-cv-01984-SC (N.D. Cal., May 1, 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.

Mobileiron, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides a
purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables companies to secure
and manage mobile applications, content, and devices while
providing their employees with device choice, privacy, and a
native user experience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MXI CORP: Illegally Promotes Pyramid Scheme, "Martinez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Martinez, Michelle Martinez, and Sunshine Martinez-Valdez,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. MXI Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 -RCJ-VPC
(D. Nev., May 1, 2015), is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged false
statements made in the course of operating and promoting the
pyramid scheme.

MXI Corp. is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Reno, Nevada.
MXI promotes itself as an organization that sells product through
a network of salespeople who are financially encouraged to bring
in new salespeople, and create their own networks of salespeople.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Desmond, Esq.
      Justin J. Bustos, Esq.
      GORDON SILVER
      100 West Liberty Street, Suite 940
      Reno, NV 89501
      Telephone: (775) 343-7500
      Facsimile: (775) 786-0131
      E-mail: jdesmond@gordonsilver.com
              jbustos@gordonsilver.com
         - and -

      R. Adam Swick, Esq.
      J. Benjamin King, Esq.
      REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
      1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite C300
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 647-6100
      Facsimile: (512) 647-6129
      E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com
              bking@rctlegal.com


NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Ordered to Stop Debt Collection Threats
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that a federal consumer
agency has ordered a California debt collector to stop using
district attorneys' letterheads or threatening criminal punishment
in their notes seeking payment from debtors -- the practices
challenged in four Bay Area counties in a lawsuit filed five
months ago.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a settlement
last week with a company called National Corrective Group, which
operates CorrectiveSolutions in San Clemente (Orange County).  The
settlement includes a $50,000 civil penalty and an end to what the
agency called "deceptive communications to consumers."  Those
include use of a district attorney's letterhead or signature, any
other effort to impersonate a prosecutor, or any false threats
that debtors who fail to pay what they owe will face arrest and
possible imprisonment unless they take part in "diversion," a
company-run education program for bad-check writers.
"National Corrective Group masqueraded as prosecutors and used
deceptive tactics to intimidate consumers into paying hundreds of
dollars in extra fees to avoid potential criminal prosecutions,"
the federal agency's director, Richard Cordray, said in a
statement.

The company's chief operating officer, Thomas Jonsson, said the
changes ordered by the agency "will not substantially change the
program" and would have no effect on the private lawsuit still
pending in a San Francisco federal court.  But a lawyer for the
debtors who sued CorrectiveSolutions said the government's action
should resolve all their complaints except one: the fees the
company and affiliated firms collected for everything from
diversion classes to processing payments.


NEW YORK, NY: Public Housing Residents Seek to Enforce Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Wang, writing for ProPublica, reports that plaintiffs are
taking the New York City Housing Authority back to court.  At
Maria Santana's public housing apartment on New York's Upper West
Side, dirty, black water has periodically poured in from the
walls, from the pipes, from the radiator.  She says the problems
started two years ago.

"It's so much water, it looks like it's raining in here.  I am
scared," Ms. Santana said.  She has placed buckets throughout her
apartment. Her couch is covered in plastic to keep it from getting
wet.

Ms. Santana, 60, says she lives in fear that dripping water will
come down on the electrical outlets and start a fire.  She's taped
and covered some of her outlets with plastic as a precaution.  Her
red folder is a testament to how many times she's tried to get
help from her landlord, the New York City Housing Authority.
Inside, scrawled in Spanish and broken English, are long lists of
ticket numbers and notes from her calls to NYCHA's hotline.
Workers would come to the apartment sometimes and make small
fixes, she said, but they never actually solved the problems.

"They gave me ticket, ticket, ticket, ticket, ticket," Ms. Santana
said, paging through her papers.  "Over here too, ticket, ticket,
ticket, ticket.  They just give you tickets.  But they don't do
nothing." (NYCHA's media office declined ProPublica's requests for
updates on specific tickets, directing us instead to make formal
records requests.)

Ms. Santana, who's been in public housing for more than two
decades, has seen the decline of the NYCHA, which was once
considered one of the nation's best-run housing authorities.  The
agency, which is the country's largest public housing authority
and home to more than 400,000 tenants, has suffered from a decade
of underfunding and aging infrastructure.

To hear NYCHA officials tell it, though, the agency is making
strides despite continued underfunding.  Officials speak of
improved customer service and quicker repairs.  In recent years,
NYCHA has issued press release after press release about its
progress in clearing out a backlog of 330,000 repair requests,
cutting it down by as much as 95 percent.

"If you call us with a leak on Monday, what we're saying is we're
going to send someone to your house within seven days," NYCHA
General Manager Cecil House told ProPublica.  He said that the
agency's expectation is that even complex repairs of apartments
should take about 15 days.

"While NYCHA is a very large and complicated organization with
more work to do," House said, "I do think we've made a lot of
progress."

But residents and NYCHA's own numbers offer a more sobering
picture.  Residents, housing attorneys and community advocates say
that across New York City's public housing developments, they've
continued to fight for months, even years, to get the agency to
fix falling paint, moldy walls and water leaks.

"It's not true. Let me just state that emphatically.  It's not
true that repairs are getting handled in much of a different way
than they've been handled in the past 20 years," said
Grant Lindsay, a community organizer affiliated with the
Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of religious congregations
and community groups.

Judging by the agency's own metrics, while the housing authority
has done better in some areas, it's still performing far below
expectations.  Basic maintenance in February, on average, took
about twice as long as the seven-day target, and longer than it
did a year ago.  A plumbing job, on average, took 49 days. A paint
job took 53. Plaster work? 63 days.

What's more, NYCHA's method of tracking repairs makes it
impossible to tell whether underlying problems are actually being
addressed.  A closed work order may mean that a problem was fixed,
said NYCHA executive Cecil House, or it may mean that "some
component of the problem was fixed."

Closed work orders also don't convey whether the response was
adequate.

Consider the water that has been dripping from a light fixture in
the lobby of Ms. Santana's apartment building in the Douglass
Houses for more than a week.

"It was leaking water like a faucet," said Santana's downstairs
neighbor, Ralph Pinkcombe.  Concerned, he immediately called NYCHA
and the fire department.  "Everyone knows water and electricity
don't mix."

NYCHA put in an emergency work order, assigned a ticket number,
and sent somebody over to the building within a few hours.  The
fix? A bucket under the leak.  A week later, the light fixture is
still leaking, and when Mr. Pinkcombe called about it again, he
learned that NYCHA had already closed his earlier ticket.  When he
told the rep the problem hadn't actually been solved, he was
simply given a new ticket number.

NYCHA's media office said that the ticket closure was "an
oversight."  "We apologize that it delayed resolution of this
situation for the residents," a spokesperson said, adding that it
plans to send a plumber to follow up.

"Putting in a ticket number doesn't mean anything here. It's
garbage," Mr. Pinkcombe said.  He's lived in the building for
nearly two decades, but it still surprises him that the agency
allows dangerous conditions to persist.  "These people will wait,
they will wait until it's a catastrophe for them to act upon it."

Asked whether the housing authority has data that looks at actual
problems fixed rather than work orders closed, NYCHA's House said
it would be "challenging" to aggregate the data that way.

"Our focus has been on trying to identify the components of all
the problems.  We use that data for staffing purposes, to help us
track and count materials and costs.  The system was designed with
those things in mind," he said.  "It wasn't designed to explain
this complex system to the public."

A court-approved settlement of a federal class action case last
year offers another window into what NYCHA considers a repair.  As
part of the settlement, the housing authority agreed to address
nearly all mold and moisture-related work orders within a week or
two.  The housing authority also agreed to fix underlying problems
rather than literally painting over them.

But in a letter NYCHA submitted in March to the judge who approved
the settlement, the housing authority argued that multiple work
orders may be submitted for a given problem, and that each work
order gets its own 15 days.

"So if they hire a plumber, that can be a 15 day work order.  If
they hire a plasterer, that's another 15 days. If they hire a
painter, that's another 15 days.  So that could be 30, 45, 60
days." said Greg Bass, an attorney with the National Center of Law
and Economic Justice, which helped bring the case.  "They
literally don't agree that there is any specific limit to getting
the actual job done to get mold and water out of the apartment."

Mr. Bass said the plaintiffs are taking NYCHA back to court to
enforce the settlement because they say the agency's work to get
rid of mold hasn't come close to what the settlement requires.
(NYCHA disputes that, arguing it is "not in systemic non-
compliance.")

"A frequent scenario is they come out and do what they've always
done," Mr. Bass said.  "They wash down the moldy wall with bleach
or detergent, and don't address the underlying moisture.  Mold
comes back time and time again.  We've heard horror story after
horror story both before and after we've filed the lawsuit."

Javonne Carl has lived that sort of horror story.  It took her
three and a half years and four housing-court lawsuits to get
relief from the mold that plagued her apartment in the Smith
Houses on the Lower East Side.

"I was constantly putting in tickets," Carl said.  When she'd
call, NYCHA would tell her the ticket was closed out.  "Why? I
never understood it."  Sometimes they came, made a superficial
fix, and the problem would come right back.

"It was so bad.  So bad. The walls in the bathroom, they bubbled
like bubble gum," Carl recalled.  They were so soggy that the
bathroom sink fell off the wall more than once.  In 2011 and 2012,
a social worker who paid Carl's teenage daughter home visits was
so horrified by the extent of the mold in the apartment that she
wrote letters documenting the conditions and even accompanied Carl
to housing court to press for a remedy.

"Two children living in the apartment, aged 16 and 4 individually,
are experiencing excessive coughing and skin rash problems," the
social worker's October 2011 letter said.  "Several items of
clothing and furniture in the apartment have become covered with
the mold and the odor associated with the mold."

For years, that's how she lived 2013 bleaching walls and scraping
mold, tossing out moldy clothes and furniture and replacing them,
taking NYCHA to court and waiting at home for repairs.  Ms. Carl
said she had to miss work so often that she ended up losing her
job at Whole Foods.

It took until this March for NYCHA to move Ms. Carl and her
children out of that apartment and into another.  The moisture
problem, she says, was never truly solved.

For the first time in years, Ms. Carl said, she finally can
breathe easy.  Her daughters are loving the new apartment.


NICK & HOWARD: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Discriminatory Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zonahi Ariana Zamudio, Leslie Morales, and Brianne Stringham, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown v. Nick & Howard LLC d/b/a The Underground,
Rockit Ranch Productions, Inc., and Scott Horwitch, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03917 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
female employees of the Defendants who were routinely subjected to
discrimination and harassment on the basis of their sex.

The Defendants own and operate multiple restaurants and nightclubs
in in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORDIC CRYOBANK: Sued Over Failure to Screen Sperm Donor
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanchez Manning and Stephen Adams, writing for Mail Online, report
that a British mother is among nearly 100 women who have had
babies by a Danish sperm donor who has triggered an international
scare over the spread of an incurable genetic disease.

The man, known only as Donor 7042, carries a defective gene known
as neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) that can pass on a severe, life-
limiting condition to his offspring.

With demand for Danish sperm soaring, the donor is understood to
have fathered 99 'Viking babies' -- as they are widely dubbed --
across the world through the clinic Nordic Cryobank.

Ten of his offspring have already been diagnosed with NF1 -- a
condition which can increase the risk of cancer, cause learning
difficulties and reduce a sufferer's lifespan by up to 15 years.
A child born from a parent with the defective gene has up to a 50
per cent chance of developing the disease.

Now four families are suing the sperm bank and the case has raised
questions among fertility experts about Denmark's booming, and
unregulated, sperm export trade.

Laura Witjens, from the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT),
said: "The distribution and use of Danish and American sperm
donors is not regulated or monitored, but patients are not told
this.

"NF1 is a rare disease, but the terrible spread of the gene via
this prolific Danish donor highlights the worrying dangers of the
widespread use of a single donor."


The British mother was one of 20 women treated at an IVF clinic in
Belgium who conceived using the rogue sperm, the Belgian federal
health authority revealed.

But reports from a variety of countries show the donor has
fathered many more children -- 99 in total, including the ones on
Belgium, along with 44 across Scandinavia, 34 in America and one
in Iceland.

Danish mother Lone Sogaard-Kristensen, whose daughter inherited
Donor 7042's illness, claims she was contacted by as many as 17
women with his children who had the condition.

Ms. Witjens on April 4 said that it was possible more British
women could have bought his donations with the defective gene
online.

Donor 7042's sperm was also exported to a closely associated
centre in America -- the California Cryobank.  But in 2009 it was
discovered he carried the NF1 gene -- despite undergoing tests and
stating in a questionnaire for Nordic Cryobank that there were no
genetic disorders in his family.

The shock discovery was made when a baby conceived with his sperm
in Belgium was diagnosed with the condition.

Ms. Sogaard-Kristensen was "stunned" to be informed of his medical
status by the Danish health authorities.  And when her daughter
Andrea subsequently developed the illness, she became one of the
families -- three from Denmark and one from the US -- who are
taking legal action against Nordic Cryobank.

A class action lawsuit claims it failed to properly screen for the
disorder before using his specimens.

"The case is not about money or revenge, it is about the fact we
have not been able to get any information and the only way we can
do this is through a court," Ms Sogaard-Kristensen said.  "There
are no rules that say you must be told how many children these
donors make and the sperm banks will not tell you."

The case comes as leading fertility scientists from Birmingham
University and the Netherlands are calling for new international
rules limiting the number of children one donor can produce to
100.  They say if a donor exceeds this there is a risk of siblings
inter-breeding and suffering psychological damage on finding out
they are related to hundreds of other children.

Dr Jackson Kirkman-Brown, the fertility expert who led the
research at Birmingham University, said: "What is clear when
buying sperm from abroad is that although the number of families a
donor is allowed to father in the UK is capped, it could be
hundreds elsewhere.

"If you can imagine finding out that you have 500 siblings across
the globe -- that could have a real risk to the mental health of a
child."

It is understood that The Nordic Cryobank will claim that the
legal claims against them are unfounded.

Managing director Peter Bower has previously stated that Donor
7042 could not be "clinically classified as having NF1, as it only
occurs in some of his cells".  The company's website states that
it carries out genetic testing for a range of diseases including
cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia.  But it adds the
disclaimer: "It is impossible to rule out genetic disease with 100
per cent certainty since it is not possible to test for all
inheritable diseases."


NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Models
----------------------------
Starting date: May 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015191TC
ID number: 2015191

On certain buses with Cummins Westport ISL natural gas engines,
excessive engine crankcase pressure could cause the vent tube
assembly elbow to detach from the breather. This could allow
engine oil to come in contact with hot surfaces, increasing the
risk of fire. Excessive engine crankcase pressure could also cause
a loss of motive power and cause the engine diagnostic lamps to
illuminate. These issues could result in injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install clamps at both ends of
the elbow of the breather tube assembly and reprogram the
Electronic Control Module (ECM) to improve diagnostic
capabilities.

   Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----     -----      ----------------------
   NOVA     LFS        2013


OCEAN POWER: Shareholder Litigation in Preliminary Stages
---------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the shareholder
litigation cases are still in their preliminary stages and
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

The Company is a defendant in four putative securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. See Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815-MAS-
DEA; Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-04015-FLW-DEA; Turner v. Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592. The Company's
former Chief Executive Officer is named as a defendant in each of
the lawsuits and the Company's Chief Financial Officer is named as
a defendant in two of the lawsuits. The complaints allege claims
for violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to
a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty.
Ltd. and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for the
development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). All four
complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2014, five motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
were filed. The motions also seek to consolidate the actions. The
Court has not ruled on the motions. The cases are still in their
preliminary stages and defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints.


OM SAMBA: Faces "De La Torre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Rosa De La Torre and other similarly situated individuals v.
OM Samba, LLC, Susan G. Farkas, Leon Miguel A. Wilensky, and
Amechaye, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-60930 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 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 real estate company that does
business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Managers' OT Class Suit for Up to $2.98MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Penton, writing for Law360, reports that a class of Panda
Express general managers who accused the Chinese fast food chain
of stiffing them on overtime pay have agreed to settle the matter
for up to $2.98 million, according to a filing in New York
district court on April 2.

Attorneys representing the 155 members of the class action and the
California-based restaurant chain signed off on the nine-page
settlement letter that could bring closure to a matter that has
dragged out for more than six years, ever since the initial
January 2009 filing.  As part of the agreement, the restaurant
chain will pay up to $2.98 million, depending on hours billed and
other details.

"A substantial amount of work undertaken by both sides is not
necessarily reflected in the court docket," the attorneys wrote.

The employees claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a week and performed a substantial amount of nonmanagerial duties
-- taking out trash, taking customer orders and cleaning, for
example -- but did not get paid for the extra time.

Over the six years since the initial complaint was filed, the two
sides have fought over several details in determining whether the
general managers should be considered exempt or nonexempt.  For
example, attorneys representing Panda Express have objected to the
plaintiffs including preaddressed, postage-paid envelopes in a
mailing for a collective action notice to restaurant employees.

"We believe that the provision of a self-addressed stamped
envelope encourage participants to join," lawyers representing
Panda Express wrote to a judge back in 2011.  The judge allowed
the plaintiffs to include the envelopes.

Ultimately, both sides agreed to take the matter before a private
mediator in December, when they participated in an "all-day"
session that extended into the night, according to the April 2
letter.

Panda Express, which calls itself "America's favorite Chinese
restaurant" on its website, began operations in 1983 in a mall in
Glendale, California. By 2013, it had more than 1,600 restaurants
in 47 states, according to the site.

The employees are represented by Sara Wyn Kane --
skane@vkvlawyers.com -- of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP and Mary E.
Marzolla of Feerick Lynch MacCartney PLLC.

Panda Express is represented by Joshua B. Waxman --
jwaxman@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Kudo v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc. et al., case
number 7:09-cv-00712, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


PARADIES SHOPS: Removed "Frazier" Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Paradies Shops, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit styled
Stacy Frazier v. The Paradies Shops, Inc. d/b/a The Paradies
Shops, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-
00043818-CU-OE-CTL from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Diego to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00983-JAH-RBB to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sat Sang Khalsa, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLP
      633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4900
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 576-5000
      Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
      E-mail: skhalsa@gordonrees.com


PEDEGO INC: Recalls Ion Rechargeable Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 11, 2015
Posting date: May 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53305

This recall involves 36-volt and 48-volt lithium ion rechargeable
batteries.  The recalled batteries were sold separately and as
original equipment with Pedego electric bikes. The batteries came
in two styles. One style has a silver or black metal case that
measures 13-1/2 inches (34 centimeters) long and 6-1/2 inches
(16.5 centimeters) wide and 2-1/2 inches (6.25 centimeters) high
with black plastic end caps and a handle. The other style has a
black or white plastic case that measures about 14 inches (35.5
centimeters) long, 6-1/2 inches (16.5 centimeters) wide and 2-1/2
inches (6.25 centimeters) high with a red indicator lamp on one
end.

Serial numbers that start with 'DLG' are included in this recall.
The serial number can be found on a label on the side of the
batteries with metal casing and on the underside of the batteries
with plastic casing.

The batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

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

Pedego Inc. has received one report of a battery overheating,
resulting in minor property damage in Canada.

Approximately 400 units were sold in Canada.

The affected batteries were sold between January 2010 and
September 2013 at various retailers.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: DLG
              Shanghai
              CHINA

Distributor: Pedego Inc.
             Irvine
             California
             UNITED STATES

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


PETROBRAS: AP1 Mulls Suit Over Corruption Scandal
-------------------------------------------------
Madison Marriage and Joe Leahy, writing for The FT, report that
one of Sweden's largest investors has pledged to take direct legal
action against Petrobras, becoming the third large investor to
seek damages individually from the Brazilian oil group.

The $30 billion AP1 pension fund plans to sue Petrobras separately
from an existing class action lawsuit after revelations of a
multibillion-dollar corruption scandal at Brazil's biggest company
by sales.

A spokesperson for AP1, which held 3.7 milion of Petrobras shares
at the end of December, told FT: "We have opted out from the class
action and intend to have our own process against the company."

In the past two weeks, Dimensional Fund Advisors, the US fund
house, and six New York City pension funds also opted out of the
class action to sue Petrobras for losses suffered as a result of
bribery alleged to have taken place at the company between 2004
and 2012.

A spokesperson for Dimensional said: "We, along with several other
funds, have decided to take action against Petrobras.  Usually we
do this by joining a class-action suit.  This time we thought it
in our shareholders' interest to pursue our claims directly."

Investors may secure better settlement terms by pursuing a claim
separately to a class action, according to several lawyers.

The investor suits, which have been filed in the New York court
system, claim that the company misstated the value of its assets
and made misleading statements about its anti-corruption policies
and internal financial reporting controls.  Petrobras stock was
consequently sold at artificially inflated prices, according to
the legal filings.

Petrobras's share price dropped 43 per cent last year.  The
company declined to comment.

Several European pension funds that invested in Petrobras are also
assessing their legal options.

A spokesperson for AP3, the second largest of the five Swedish
government pension funds, with $33 billion of assets, told FT:
"[We] have not yet decided to join any class action suits against
Petrobras.  However, we will make sure we receive our eventual
share of [any] settlement."

The $20 billion AP7 fund confirmed it owns 3.3 million Petrobras
shares worth EUR10 million but said it "has not planned any class
action lawsuit".

Nick Butler, visiting professor at King's College London and
former vice-president for policy at BP, the UK energy company,
believes the investors "have a very strong case".  "The investor
relations statements from the company over several years have
clearly been misleading," he said.

Simon Hart, a partner at RPC, the law firm, added: "The underlying
facts about the bribery allegations seem to be well advanced in
terms of being admitted or evidenced."

However, David Seidel, chief executive of the Institutional
Investors Tort Recovery Association, which helps institutions
decide which class actions to join, was more circumspect.  He
said: "There are some very serious allegations that have to be
addressed and this is probably the biggest corruption trial I have
seen.  How that resolves itself is another question."

Dozens of US pension funds have filed lawsuits against Petrobras
since December.  In March the claims were consolidated into one
group class action with the Universities Superannuation Scheme,
the GBP40 billion UK pension fund, selected as the lead plaintiff.
Union Investment, the German asset manager, and the Hawaiian state
pension fund were named as additional plaintiffs in the suit.  USS
has claimed that it lost $84 million as a result of the Petrobras
turmoil.

ABP, the largest Dutch pension fund, and PGGM, which holds 0.8 per
cent (EUR61.5 million) of Petrobras stock, confirmed they were
participating in the class action.


PINGTAN MARINE: Defending Against "Fila" Case
---------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
defending against the case Paul Fila, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise
Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu, Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song.

The Company said, "On January 14, 2015, a purported class action
was filed by Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, against us and certain of our executive
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading
statements of material facts included in the financial statements
we filed with the SEC during the purported class period, May 14,
2013 through November 6, 2014 (including certain improperly
disclosed related party transactions). The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class
members for all damages sustained in an amount to be determined at
trial, including interest thereon."

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit, and we
intend to vigorously defend the action and seek dismissal of the
complaint. Due to the early stage of the proceeding, we believe
that the probability of an unfavorable outcome or loss related to
the proceeding and an estimate of the amount or range of loss
related to the claims, if any, from an unfavorable outcome is not
determinable at this time."


PNC BANK: Faces "Dobson" Suit Over Forced-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dobson, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated borrowers v. PNC Bank, N.A. and American
Security Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00582-LPL (W.D. Pa.,
May 4, 2015), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff
as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged anti-consumer and
predatory practice of charging for "force-placed" flood insurance.

PNC Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its
headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

American Security Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley M. Stein, Esq.
      STANLEY M. STEIN, P.C.
      445 Fort Pitt Boulevard
      Suite 150
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 904-4573
      Facsimile: (412) 904-4726
      E-mail: smstein@smsteinlaw.com

         - and -

      Stephen J. Fearon Jr., Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 421-6492
      Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
      E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


RHODE ISLAND: Social Service Providers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Salit, writing for Providence Journal, reports that mental
health and family therapy workers are suing two social service
providers -- The Providence Center and Family Service of Rhode
Island -- for allegedly failing to compensate them for work they
performed.

The workers say that while they receive a typical flat fee of $40
for providing 45-minute therapy sessions, they are not paid for
the additional time they are expected to work.  That includes
travel to clients, waiting a mandatory 15 minutes for no-show
clients and conducting the outreach and paperwork required of no-
show appointments.

The workers' lawyer, Richard Sinapi, filed the pair of lawsuits in
U.S. District, Providence, on March 30.  Each suit names three
plaintiffs, but Sinapi is seeking to expand the case into a class-
action complaint by representing others who have worked for the
two agencies with similar grievances.

Mr. Sinapi said his clients have college degrees and are licensed
professionals.  An estimated 40 workers at the Providence Center
and Family Service of Rhode Island could potentially be included
in the case, according to court papers.

"These unlawful employment practices -- which appear to be largely
industrywide -- not only make it difficult for these therapists to
support themselves and their families but it deters others from
obtaining advanced degrees and pursuing careers as mental health
and family therapists -- thereby leading to a potential future
shortage of such trained professionals," Mr. Sinapi said in a
statement.

Stephen Hug, spokesman for Family Service of Rhode Island, said in
a statement, "We value our employees and the valuable contribution
they make to serving some of RI's most vulnerable communities.  We
are unaware of this lawsuit as we have not been legally served.
Therefore we have no comment at this time."

Garry Bliss, director of government and external relations for The
Providence Center, said his agency had no comment on the case.
Not only are workers cheated, so are employers who follow the law
and are put at a competitive disadvantage as well as the state
which loses out on payroll and income taxes, said Mr. Sinapi.

Darlene D'Arezzo, the lead plaintiff in both lawsuits, said in a
statement, "This practice is occurring at a number of agencies in
Rhode Island and it must be rectified. I hope my colleagues are
inspired to join us and assert their right to be compensated for
all work performed."

Joelle Depeyrot, who works for The Providence Center, said, "There
is a tendency in our field to take advantage of clinicians.  The
organizations seem to forget that without us licensed service
providers, there is no agency.  The culture needs to change."


RHODE ISLAND: Retirees' Pension Suit in Legal Limbo
---------------------------------------------------
Katherine Gregg, writing for Providence Journal, reports that a
year ago, four dozen retired state workers and public school
teachers who vehemently objected to being lumped into a potential
class-action settlement of the legal war over state pension cuts
filed their own lawsuit.

Their fight centered on the General Assembly's cost-cutting
overhaul of Rhode Island's public employee pension system in 2011:
specifically, the suspension of annual cost-of-living adjustments
until the retirement system is 80 percent funded.  But they were
not listed on April 2 among the groups that had either agreed to
the state's new-and-enhanced settlement offer -- or rejected it --
in a status report that former Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank
Williams filed in Superior Court, as a special master in the case.

The reason why surfaced on April 3: Their legal challenge to the
constitutionality of the pension cuts is still alive, but the
retirees are so deeply split, their lawyer, Sean O'Leary, wants
out and their lawsuit is in legal limbo.

Mr. O'Leary has asked the court's permission for him and his
associate, Jonathan F. Whaley, to withdraw from the case.  In
recent filings with the court, he said conflicts within the group
have made it virtually impossible "to represent any/all
plaintiffs."  He said some have "directed [him] to take no further
actions in connection with this matter."  He said some have
expressly terminated his services, and some have informed him
"that they refuse to remit further payment(s) in connection with
this action."

In recent weeks, the number of plaintiffs "has decreased from 199
to 99, as 100 former-plaintiffs directed counsel to discontinue
their respective claims . . . . A concurrent conflict of interest
has arisen amongst the remaining plaintiffs subsequent to the
recent settlement offer," he wrote.

He told the court that the positions taken by "several of the
remaining plaintiffs . . . conflicts with the position(s) of
several other plaintiffs.  "He told the court that his continuing
involvement in the case would result in "an unreasonable financial
burden," since he and his firm are owed in excess of $30,000 for
past legal services already rendered, and "save withdrawal,
Counsel would otherwise be required to expend, upon information
and belief, between $60,000 and $160,000 in expert-witness fees,
in the coming days -- and substantially more monies and time
prosecuting this action at trial."

Mr. O'Leary said the case was also undermined by the actions of
one or more of the plaintiffs who, "despite multiple express
directives . . . on (and before) March 30, 2015 to refrain from
contacting this Court (and the media) . . . contacted Your Honor,
in direct contravention of Counsel's directives, on that very same
day."

"At this juncture, the relationship between the undersigned and
the remaining plaintiffs is, quite regrettably, beyond repair.  It
is the sincere hope of this practitioner that Counsel's withdrawal
may enable the remaining Plaintiffs, without being saddled with
the aforementioned debilitating challenges, to continue any
pursuit of their interests."

Court spokesman Craig Berke said Mr. O'Leary's motion will be
considered at the court's next anticipated hearing in the case,
April 13.

The 'Clifford case'

In their lawsuit, these retirees argued that retirement benefits
-- and specifically, the annual payment of COLAs -- were
contractual promises the state cannot arbitrarily break.
Mr. O'Leary filed the suit for them on April 3, 2014, as other
groups of employees and retirees were voting on an earlier
settlement proposal, which was ultimately defeated.

The lawsuit -- known as the "Clifford case" -- raises many of the
same constitutional issues raised by other litigants, who in
recent weeks voted to settle before their cases go to trial, and a
judge has a chance to rule on their legal arguments.

Named for the lead plaintiff, retired Scituate high school history
teacher Joseph Clifford, the retirees' alleged breach of contract
and violations of the due process and takings clauses within the
state Constitution and a legal concept called "promissory
estoppels."  In this case, estoppel means the retirees made life
plans based on what they believed were contractual promises yanked
away after the fact.

Many, if not all, of these retirees left work when the state
retirement system was still providing retirees with guaranteed 3-
percent compounded COLAs every year.

The 2011 rewrite of state pension law suspended the payment of
annual COLAs until the retirement system is 80 percent funded, but
allowed intermittent increases every 5 years.  The estimated date
for the reinstatement of annual increases: 2031.

The settlement would increase the retirees' chances of getting
COLAs every 4 years instead, and on a larger portion of their
benefits: $30,000, adjusted for inflation, plus two $500 one-time
stipends a year apart.

3 groups refused

On April 2, Williams filed a report, in his role as the special
master in the pension case, that identified only three groups --
representing about 733 employees -- who had refused to go along
with the settlement: Cranston police, Cranston firefighters and
affiliates of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
The IBPO case covers officers in Barrington, Bristol, Cranston,
East Greenwich, Foster, Glocester, Hopkinton, Johnston,
Middletown, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, North Smithfield,
Richmond, South Kingstown, Warren, West Greenwich and Woonsocket.

While emphasizing, again, her belief that "the state had a strong
case," Governor Raimondo on April 2 said taking "the litigation
risk off the table is the right thing to do . . . for all the
people of Rhode Island."  Mr. Raimondo and lawyer Mark Dingley
said the proposed settlement would also preserve "over 90 percent"
of the $4 billion in long-term savings anticipated by the 2011
overhaul, and dismiss six of nine pending lawsuits.

But the proposed deal unveiled on April 2 does not settle the
legal questions raised by the lawsuits, and it does not
necessarily avert a trial if the groups that rejected it opt for
trial on their own constitutional challenges to the reduced
benefits, increases in minimum age-and-work age requirement for a
pension, and suspended COLAs.


RJR PENSION: Supreme Court to Hear Reverse Stock-Drop Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court might hear a case in which a defined
contribution plan sponsor is being sued for selling a stock fund
too soon  --  the opposite of what a typical fiduciary lawsuit
alleges.

This reverse stock-drop case -- RJR Pension Investment Committee
et al. vs. Tatum et al. -- will include some knotty legal
questions if the court does review it. Key issues include DC plan
executives' responsibility to follow and document investment
decisions to meet the guidelines for fiduciary prudence contained
in the Employee Retirement Investment Security Act.

The case could hinge on whether the Supreme Court decides to rule
on a standard of fiduciary prudence distinguishing between the
words "could" and "would."

In the RJR case, a federal District Court issued a pro-RJR ruling,
saying the plan needed to show that a hypothetical prudent
fiduciary "could have" acted in a similar manner as RJR plan
executives.  This is a more flexible standard.

But an appeals court reversed the District Court, saying RJR had
to show that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary "would have" acted
in the same manner -- a stricter standard.

ERISA attorneys say there's a big difference between the two
standards.  In December 2014, the RJR plan petitioned the Supreme
Court.  In March, the Supreme Court asked the solicitor general to
submit views on the case, a strong indication to ERISA attorneys
that the court is interested in ruling on the case.

The RJR case is based on a 1999 decision by RJR Nabisco Holdings
to split into a tobacco company (R.J. Reynolds) and a food company
(Nabisco).

When the tobacco company was spun off in June, it had a separate
401(k) plan whose investment options included publicly traded
shares of the tobacco company, the food company and the old parent
company (whose primary asset was its stake in the food company).

The tobacco company 401(k) plan froze the latter two stock
investments.  Court documents show plan executives sold the two
stocks at a substantial loss on Jan. 31, 2000.  The food-company
stock was down 40% from the spinoff and the parent company stock
was off 60%.

However, the food-company stock rose, thanks to a bidding war in
which Philip Morris Cos. Inc. was the victor in December 2000.
Court documents show the parent company stock rose 247% and the
food-company stock rose 82% from the day the tobacco 401(k) plan
sold them.

In May 2002, participants in the tobacco company 401(k) plan filed
a class-action suit against the plan, alleging a breach of
fiduciary duty for imprudently selling its holdings in the food
company and the old parent company.

A federal District Court judge in Greensboro, N.C., ruled in favor
of the RJR plan in February 2013. Participants appealed.  In
August 2014, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Richmond, Va.,
voted 2-1 to reverse the District Court ruling.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, RJR plan attorneys said
the plan held "large amounts of Nabisco stock solely because of a
historical accident."

"Those holdings were not the result of ERISA's pro-diversification
policies," the attorneys wrote.  RJR officials acted prudently to
avoid being saddled with multiple single-stock investment options,
the petition said.

The plan participants' petition to the Supreme Court said the
actions by the RJR plan were punctuated with multiple failures to
"investigate or monitor the reasonableness" of its decision,
representing a breach of fiduciary duties.  They said the court
shouldn't overturn the appeals court's ruling.

Attorneys unaffiliated with the case don't expect the solicitor
general's opinion for several months, meaning the Supreme Court is
likely to wait until at least the fall to decide if it wants to
take the case.  The current court session ends June 30.

Poor planning

ERISA attorneys agree the RJR 401(k) plan executives did a poor
job of planning and documenting their decision to divest the
plan's food-company investments.  "This is a classic case of what
not to do when you are changing investment options," said Mary
Ellen Signorille, senior attorney for AARP Foundation Litigation,
a unit of the AARP, Washington.  "This process was just awful.
The takeaway for other employers is "do the process right.'"

AARP supports the RJR plan participants, having written an amicus
brief when the appeals court reviewed the federal District Court's
decision.

"The biggest takeaway for the benefits community is something we
have been preaching forever -- procedural prudence," said
Russell Hirschhorn, a New York-based senior counsel for Proskauer
Rose LLP, whose firm defends employers in fiduciary breach cases.

"Other fiduciaries should do a better job of documenting their
decisions," said Jeremy Blumenfeld -- jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com
-- a Philadelphia-based partner at Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, whose
firm represents employers in fiduciary breach cases.  "RJR didn't
document."

However, the District Court judge ruled in favor of RJR, saying
that "a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have decided to
eliminate" the food stock investments from the plan.  "The court
concludes that the fiduciaries' failure to properly investigate
their decision . . . was not the cause of any of Tatum's or the
class' alleged injuries."

The appeals court noted the many procedural problems presented
during the District Court trial, including the fact that an RJR
working group spent "only 30 to 60 minutes" considering whether
the tobacco company 401(k) plan should sell the food-stock
investments.

The appeals court said RJR should be held to a higher standard  --
that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary "would" have made the same
decision as the RJR 401(k) plan executives.  The appeals court
remanded the case to the District Court, where it remains pending.

Attorneys not involved in the case said the "could" standard is a
fair approach to prudence that gives fiduciaries greater leeway to
make decisions.  The "would" standard, they added, is tougher on
plan sponsors.

The appeals court ruling "set a very difficult burden for plan
fiduciaries," said Mr. Hirschhorn of Proskauer Rose.

The appeals court ruling" is a bad decision; it is a pro-
litigation decision," said James P. McElligott Jr. --
jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com -- a Richmond, Va.-based partner at
McGuireWoods LLP, whose firm represents DC plans in fiduciary
breach cases.  "When you make an investment decision, there is no
way to guarantee success."

Mr. McElligott acknowledged that the RJR executives made
procedural errors. But he supports the District Court's "could"
standard because the court said, in effect, that the RJR plan
executives' ultimate decision was "one of a number of reasonable
alternatives."

By contrast, Ms. Signorille of the AARP Foundation Litigation
endorses the appeals court's use of the stricter "would" standard
for determining prudence.  "It troubles me that fiduciaries would
go through such a terrible process and get away with it," she
said.


ROLL N GO: "Wijaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldy Wijaya, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Roll N Go Inc. d/b/a Roll And Go, Three Guys
Pizza & Burgers Inc. d/b/a Roll and Go, Noam Svilem, and Nir
Tetler, Case No. 1:15-cv-03445 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a limited-service restaurant
located at 570 8th Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Chong, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. CHONG, LLC
      300 Hudson Street, Suite 10
      Hoboken, NJ 07030
      Telephone: (201) 708-6675
      Facsimile: (201) 708-6676
      E-mail: mkc5001@yahoo.com


SANOFI: Court Dismissed CVR Class Actions in Their Entirety
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that a Court dismissed the CVR Class Actions in
their entirety with prejudice.

In December 2013, Sanofi and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in two putative class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints in the lawsuits, which were filed on behalf
of a putative class of holders of NASDAQ-traded contingent value
rights ("CVRs") originally issued in connection with Sanofi's
acquisition of Genzyme in 2011, principally allege that Sanofi's
public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the efficacy and
safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the design of two
Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS II. Such
alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints, caused an
artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs during the period
March 6, 2012 through November 7, 2013. Based on these
allegations, the complaints allege violations by the defendants of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In June 2014, Sanofi filed a motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim, and on January 28, 2015 the Court
dismissed both complaints in their entirety with prejudice. The
plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal this judgment.


SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action; April 2016 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Louise Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
class action has been filed against leading Australian travel
company Scenic Tours.

David Moore and Janette Howell spent their life savings -- $26,200
-- on what they expected to be a relaxing river cruise through the
picturesque French and German countryside.  Instead, they spent
hours on substandard coaches, including one without a working
toilet and airconditioning, and missed out on much of the promised
sightseeing.

They are leading a class action against Scenic Tours, claiming its
"expensive, luxury river cruises" turned into "cheap, second-rate
bus tours" because of extensive flooding in Europe.

Up to 1300 people who travelled with Scenic Tours and Evergreen
Tours in Europe between May 10, 2013 and June 14, 2013 will be
invited to join the class action being run in the NSW Supreme
Court.

Heavy rainfall in France and Germany in April and May 2013 caused
extensive flooding and water levels on the Rhine, Saone, Rhone and
Danube rivers rose so high that cruise boats were unable to
operate as scheduled for about six weeks.  The affected tours
included Amsterdam to Budapest, Amsterdam to Basel and the rivers
of southern France.

Mr. Moore, a Lake Macquarie school teacher, said Scenic Tours did
not give passengers any warning of the significant changes,
disruption or delays to the itinerary necessitated by the weather.
He said given his chronic back problems, "no way in this lifetime
would I have booked a bus tour".

In a statement of claim, the group said Scenic Tours breached
Australian Consumer Law by failing to cancel or delay the cruises,
offer alternative tours, or warn of expected disruptions,
particularly to passengers who travelled to Europe from Australia.

Instead of visiting cities and sites via the river and spending
nights on a boat, the passengers said they endured very long bus
rides and in some cases stayed overnight at "low-budget hotels".

Sydney firm Somerville Legal initiated the class action after
founding partner Tim Somerville and his wife Julie were passengers
on a cruise in southern France that began on May 19, 2013.

More than 120 people have signed up and the firm will be writing
soon to all passengers from the 16 affected cruises asking them to
join.

"Passengers chose to book these holidays to enjoy a relaxing
cruise along rivers, not a second-rate bus tour.  Many chose to
cruise because of limited mobility or other health problems.
Travelling long distances by bus was the last thing they expected,
and nothing like what they paid for," Benjamin Hemsworth, from
Somerville Legal, said.

Scenic Tours is defending the case.  It said the standard terms
and conditions of the contract allowed it to make changes to
itineraries, including because of road, river or weather
conditions.  It said it was not liable for any loss, cost or
damage, including the failure to perform its obligations because
of a force majeure event such as high water levels.

Furthermore, it said the river cruises were not operated by it but
by independent contractors, including Scenic Tours Europe AG, and
any claim must be pursued against them.

Scenic Tours chief operating officer Damien Thomas said the
company's aim to provide the "highest-quality service and travel
experience . . . does not alter in circumstances where a change to
an itinerary is unfortunately required due to prevailing weather
or river conditions, such as those experienced in northern Europe
in April/May 2013".

After taking redundancies from their government jobs, Alan and
Charmaine decided to take the "trip of lifetime" and paid $20,000
for a 15-day cruise between Amsterdam and Budapest.  But after
just four days cruising, the boat docked and passengers were
bussed to and from attractions for the remainder of the tour.
Alan said other cruise companies cancelled or delayed tours, but
Scenic carried on as if it was "business as usual".

"I appreciate they can't control the weather but it's the way they
handled it, which to me seemed to be disdainful of their
passengers," he said.

Once home the couple complained and were offered a "paltry" $500
refund or $1000 off their next cruise.

Other passengers have taken Scenic Tours to consumer tribunals and
been offered $2500. Somerville Legal said those people were not
prohibited from joining the class action.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and/or personal injury
damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment and the
lost opportunity to cancel.

If successful, the litigation lender will take its fees and a
percentage of the settlement.

The case returns to court in July and the substantive hearing will
take place in April 2016.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Certified Class in "Ubaldi" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Court has certified a
class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denied
class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims in
the Ubaldi class action.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae.   The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae.  Plaintiff claims that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.  On March 26, 2014, the
Court denied the plaintiff's request to certify the class;
however, the Court permitted the plaintiff to amend its filing to
redefine the class.  Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23,
2014.  On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the
renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of
improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect
to plaintiffs' usury claims.   Plaintiffs thereafter filed a
motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional
parties, which Sallie Mae has opposed.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice").  Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.  Bank SNB has substantial defenses with
respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately
made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend
against any such claims.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners Await Ruling in Chinese Drywall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Chesley, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that for
homeowners who suffered problems from defective Chinese drywall, a
recent surprise announcement is not the end of their ordeal.  But
a conclusion, at long last, could be in sight.

Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., after years of stonewalling, paid a $3.2
million judgment in a test case involving seven families from
Hampton Roads.  A federal judge in New Orleans had ordered the
payment in 2010, but the company filed appeal after appeal,
refused to appear in court and otherwise thumbed its nose at the
legal system.

U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon wasn't having it.  He barred
the state-controlled firm and its parent company from doing
business in the United States, and Taishan finally ended its
recalcitrance in March.

Think about it: China ranks second on the list of trading partners
with the United States, behind only Canada.  Yet over the past
decade, China has been the source of lead-laden toys, tainted pet
food, toothpaste containing antifreeze and contaminated seafood.

What a teammate.

Now, 4,000 other people in a class-action suit -- including 300
who lived in Virginia -- hope a resolution will come quickly.  A
trial was set for April 28 before Fallon.  They're folks like Suzy
Lenander.  She and her family now live in the Phoenix area, but
they spent several fretful years in the mid- to late 2000s in a
new home in Williamsburg built with the tainted material.

The recent development involving Taishan "gave us some hope after
many years of feeling nothing is happening," she told me by phone
on April 3.  "But it's guarded.  Until the check is in our hands,
and we can do something to get this off our necks . . .

"I had to stop thinking about it, because it made my stomach
hurt," continued Ms. Lenander, a 44-year-old wife and mother of
two young children.  "Now, I'm thinking there's some hope."

Ms. Lenander's story parallels those of other local residents that
The Pilot's Sarah Kleiner Varble detailed in a four-part series
last year.

The defective drywall often emitted a sulfur odor.  Many
homeowners suffered health issues including headaches, nosebleeds,
respiratory problems and fatigue. The drywall damaged wiring and
appliances.

People had to move. Some couldn't afford to rip out the drywall.
They had to decide whether to keep paying the mortgage.  Their
credit ratings tanked. Homeowners sought loan "forbearance" from
lenders. Some marriages crumbled.

Ms. Lenander said she came to Hampton Roads in 2007 because her
husband was in the military and had been ordered to Fort Eustis.

They spent nearly $460,000 on a 2,370-square-foot house in
Wellington Estates.  After moving in, she'd get bad headaches.
The skin on her hands would peel.

Fortunately, she said, no one suffered serious health problems
that seemed permanent.  They joined the lawsuit in 2009.

After her husband left the military, they moved out in 2011.  They
still own the Williamsburg house, but no one lives there.

"It's an albatross," Ms. Lenander said.  "I had perfect credit
when this happened, and my husband almost had perfect credit."
Not anymore.

She's "guardedly hopeful" a resolution is coming, by way of the
courts.

The Lenanders deserve that -- and so do thousands of others.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Actos Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03505-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2015), s an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the designing, developing, manufacturing,
distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and
selling of Actos (pioglitazone Hcl).

Actos is a prescription medication used to improve blood sugar
(glucose) control in adults with Type II diabetes.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business located at One Takeda Parkway,
Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Takeda is involved in the research,
development, sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
      JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
      Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
      Guaynabo, PR 00968
      Telephone: (787) 751-5290
      E-mail: juan@riverafont.com


TNUVA FOOD: Donates to Animal Welfare Groups to Avert Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globes, reports that Tnuva will donate
NIS4.2 million to animal welfare and food for the needy so that a
class action suit will be withdrawn.

Tnuva Food Industries Ltd. will pay NIS2.7 million to non-profit
animal welfare organizations in Israel, and will contribute
NIS1.5 million worth of food products to poor people through the
Latet non-profit organization, so that the class action suit filed
against it for conditions at the abattoir at its Adom Adom (Tnuva
Bakar) meat subsidiary will be withdrawn.  These are the
conditions of the compromise settlement reached by Tnuva
subsidiary Adom Adom with Ruth Kalian and Perach Amsaleg, who
filed the class action suit charging abuse of lambs and calves at
Tnuva's Adom Adom plant.  A television broadcast of the conditions
two and a half years ago shocked Israel.

The compromise, which was reached following a mediation by former
Supreme Court Chief Justice Meir Shamgar, also requires Tnuva to
pay each of the claimants NIS60,000 and NIS420,000 in legal fees
to their legal representatives: Advocates Hani Tannos, Aviad
Amzaleg, Yohi Geva, and Tal Rechnitz.

In the notifying the Jerusalem District Court of the settlement
for the purpose of having it made a legal judgment, the parties
announced that they preferred an agreed settlement to lengthy
legal proceedings.  "The compromise settlement does not completely
satisfy the wishes of the parties requesting approval, but it
promotes the main public goal they sought and the public welfare,"
the parties wrote.

They also said that after the December 2012 "Adom Adom" television
broadcast on the Kolbotek program, Tnuva had taken steps to avoid
the occurrence of cases similar to those documented in the
program, including firing the plant manager and additional
employees, and investing money in improving conditions for the
animals.

The lawsuit was sparked by the clandestinely filmed record of
events at the Adom Adom abattoir in Beit She'an shown on Kolbotek.

Anonymous for Animal Rights activist and journalist Ronen Bar got
a job at the plant, and used a hidden camera to documents the
abuse of calves and lambs.  The investigation documented the
systematic and open abuse, which violated law, regulations, and
standards for treatments of animals.

Among other things, employees were filmed using electric cattle
prods to give animals electric shocks, beating animals, standing
on them, dragging them with a forklift, etc.


UNITED STATES: Paid $3.3 Billion to Resolve Lawsuits in 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the federal government paid more than $3 billion last year to
resolve lawsuits, almost twice as much as it did the year before,
according to an analysis by The National Law Journal of hundreds
of payment records.

The departments of Energy, Interior and Health and Human Services
accounted for the largest share of expenditures.  Those agencies
spent a combined $2.35 billion to settle a series of long-running
disputes that included government contracts litigation over health
care programs run by Indian tribes.  And, while not a high dollar
total, the government made payouts to former military employees
let go under the since-reversed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The payments were logged in the Judgment Fund, a Treasury
Department database of money the feds use to satisfy court
judgments or settle lawsuits.

Created in 1956, the fund is a permanent, indefinite
appropriation, exempt from annual congressional approval.  Its
records are opaque.  Payments are identified only by citation
codes and agency file numbers that may or may not correspond to
federal court case numbers.

As in years past, the Energy Department spent the most on lawsuits
in 2014, paying $929 million in taxpayer money.  Most of the money
went to nuclear power plants to settle breach-of-contract claims
involving the storage of spent nuclear fuel.  The agency has spent
more than $4 billion on such claims during the past four years.

The federal government was supposed to begin storing spent nuclear
fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in 1998.  But the facility has not
been completed -- it's unclear if it ever will be -- and the power
plants have been stuck with the waste.

"Plaintiffs have honored all of their contractual obligations
under the standard contracts.  The government breached the
standard contracts by failing to accept [spent nuclear fuel] for
disposal as required," Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partner Arnold
Bradley Fagg wrote in a complaint on behalf of Progress Energy
Inc. subsidiaries Carolina Power and Light Co. and Florida Power
Corp.  The company accepted a $90 million settlement last year.

FIFTY SUITS COST $650 MILLION

Another major outlay came from the Indian Health Service, which
pulled more than $650 million from the Judgment Fund to settle
about 50 suits.  Indian tribes accused the agency of underpayment
of government contracts for running health care clinics and
hospitals on reservations.

"It was a 20-year battle, but we finally started to see the
results," said Lloyd Miller -- lloyd@sonosky.net -- a partner at
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson who represents about 70
tribes and intertribal organizations in pending and settled cases.

Both sides agreed the government routinely shortchanged the
tribes, underpaying contract support costs when Congress failed to
appropriate enough money to pay everyone in full.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo
Chapter, a related case against the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
nixed that practice.  "Consistent with longstanding principles of
government contracting law, we hold that the government must pay
each tribe's contract support costs in full," Justice Sonia
Sotomayor wrote for the majority.

Many of his clients "thought we'd never be able to prevail against
the United States.  The Justice Department mounted such an
aggressive defense," Mr. Miller said.  "My clients are overjoyed
they can finally secure compensation."

Settlements have ranged from $4,500 to $153 million, he said.  A
related class action against the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
pending.

Indian tribes also netted awards stemming from mismanagement of
tribal trust funds.  The Navajo Nation, represented by
BuckleySandler and the Nordhaus Law Firm, sued the government in
the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the Interior Department
breached its fiduciary duty to properly manage the tribe's mineral
royalties since 1946. The case settled for $554 million.

Another class action that settled last year was notable more for
its policy implications than dollar amount.  The government paid
$1.7 million to 103 former members of the armed forces who were
involuntarily discharged under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The soldiers had their separation pay cut in half because there
were "deemed to be not fully qualified for retention and denied
re-enlistment or continuation because of homosexuality," according
to the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Payments to the former soldiers ranged from $6,257 to $72,337.
For every Judgment Fund payment that can be detailed, many more
remain untraceable.  The Commerce Department last year spent $45
million to settle an administrative "miscellany" tort claim.  A
Freedom of Information Act request by the NLJ about the payment is
pending.

Some members of Congress are trying to force the fund to divulge
more information.  In February, Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, and
Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, re-introduced legislation that
would require the fund to list the claimants, counsel, agency,
fact summary and payment amounts.

The bill has earned the backing of Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.  "A little sunshine can go a long
way to bringing greater accountability to the Judgment Fund," he
said in a written statement then.  "More transparency leads to
greater accountability, which is something the federal government
could use more of."


UPM MARKETING: Expands Recall on Voltage Thermostats
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2015
Posting date: May 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53255

This recall expansion involves line voltage thermostats with
various brand names.

The following brand names and model numbers are included in this
recall, as well as all serial numbers:

   Brand Name    Model Number
   ----------    ------------
   Garrison      HTM611
                 HTM621
   Maison        HTM511
                 HTM611
   NOMA          HTM211
                 HTM311
                 HTM611
                 HTM621
   RONA          HTM611
   UPM           HTM211
                 HTM311
                 HTM511
                 HTM611
                 HTM621

Note that some thermostat model numbers may have a letter after
them, for example HTM221A. This letter indicates a minor, non-
electrical variation in the product such as the shape of the LCD
window or buttons or the colour of the unit. The presence of these
letters does not affect which model numbers are included in the
recall. The recalled units were certified to Canadian Standards by
CSA International.

The units may overheat, emit smoke and damage the wall, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

Since June 2011, Health Canada has received 26 reports of
incidents from consumers and retailers regarding the use of these
thermostats including overheating, melting, smoke and damage to
the wall.  No injuries have been reported.

The number sold to consumers is unknown; however the thermostats
were known to be sold at Canadian Tire, RONA and various other
hardware and building stores.

The time period sold is unknown.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: ESIC Technology Inc.
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Mandolyn Electronic Technology
              CHINA

Importer: UPM Marketing Inc.
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled thermostats
and contact the retailer from whom they purchased the product as
the importer is no longer in business.  Otherwise, consumers
should remove and discard the thermostats according to their local
municipal disposal requirements.

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

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

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


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo issued an order on May 4, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Mp5PU6from
Leagle.com, denying defendants' motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint in In re URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5978, (E.D. Penn.)

The Court ordered counsel for the respective parties to appear on
May 15, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8B at the U.S. Courthouse,
601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106 for a scheduling hearing.

DAVID SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. ROSENFELD --
Rosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DEBORAH
R. GROSS -- debbie@bernardmgross.com -- LAW OFFICES BERNARD M.
GROSS, PC, JACK REISE -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & STEPHEN R. ASTLEY -- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com --
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP.

URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARC J.
SONNENFELD -- msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN
-- kkane@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

RICHARD A. HAYNE, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

FRANK J. CONFORTI, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

TEDFORD G. MARLOW, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

DAVID W. MCCREIGHT, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

DAVID HAYNES, Defendant, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN PIESLAK POHLMANN, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaiting Court's Ruling in Israel Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the Company is
awaiting the court's determination in the case Israel Class
Action.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on
March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.
Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court
ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to
the Israeli Supreme Court."

"Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January
18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings
until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the
Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli
District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli
District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be
stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration
of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the
applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding
the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision
regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In
August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme
Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's d/ecision in Morrison
et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct.
2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be
added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay
the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling.
The Company said, "We filed an amended response on December 28,
2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered
consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated
notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities
class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an
updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the
proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the
time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."

"On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to
the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February
4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action
are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal
securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed
unless an individual plaintiff opts out.

"Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S.
court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed
a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the
proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the
applicable law. A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning
whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the
settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request.

"We filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014, and plaintiff
filed a further response pleading on September 4, 2014. We are
currently awaiting the court's determination."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that the court has set a
hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2015, in
the VeriFone Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us, certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
13-1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6, 2013, several
putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to
consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting
appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The
plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.
voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice,
on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on October 7, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs'
opposition was filed on February 6, 2015, and our reply is due on
March 10, 2015. The court has set a hearing on our motion to
dismiss on April 3, 2015."


VIACOM INC: Says $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement Reasonable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Pete Brush, Ben James and Y. Peter Kang, writing for
Law360, report that Viacom Inc. on April 3 sought to allay
concerns from a New York federal judge over its proposed $7.2
million deal seeking to resolve ex-interns' class action
assertions that they were unlawfully denied minimum-wage pay,
insisting the deal is fair and reasonable.

In a letter to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, the $28
billion media giant defended $505 payments that would go to 12,500
interns for each semester in which they participated in a Viacom
internship program.  The payments would be limited to two
semesters, and fees and costs would be deducted, Viacom noted.

In March, Judge Gorenstein said the $7.2 million figure alone
didn't give him a strong notion of the value of the settlement in
light of the $5,000 that each of two named plaintiffs would
receive for services rendered on behalf of the class.  Judge
Gorenstein said he needed to "really get a handle on the numbers"
in order to "get an understanding of why the settlement is fair."

Viacom replied on April 3 that, even if the interns worked 16
hours per week over a 10-week period -- as the internship programs
allegedly anticipated -- they would be getting a gross settlement
payment amounting to about half of what they would have been paid
in gross wages.

Additionally, "[t]he interns were eligible to receive academic
credit for participating in Viacom programs; many received
multiple credits -- as many as three," the letter said.  "Of
course, they also received the educational and professional
benefits of the programs, which helped thousands to launch their
careers during an era of historically high unemployment rates."

The company added that calculating the precise hourly rate for
each ex-intern would be impossible since it didn't maintain time
records for the interns.

Ojeda lodged the lawsuit in 2013, targeting Viacom and MTV
Networks Enterprises Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as New York law.  Plaintiffs and others were misclassified as
exempt from minimum-wage requirements, the complaint alleged.  The
sides struck the deal on March 11.

Two days later, Judge Gorenstein wondered about potential impact
on the settlement -- should it still be pending -- when the Second
Circuit weighs in on closely watched appeals that could determine
how the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions apply to
interns.

Those cases present the Second Circuit with a chance to set the
standard for ascertaining whether interns qualify as "employees"
for the purposes of wage-and-hour law. In January, the appeals
court expressed criticism of a six-factor U.S. Department of Labor
test backed by both the agency and those interns.

Viacom argued on April 3 that, even if the Second Circuit embraces
the test, the company would likely prevail on a motion to
decertify the FLSA collective and in opposition to any class
certification motion in the instant case.  The named plaintiffs
and two opt-in plaintiffs had testified they engaged in vastly
different activities during their internships, according to
Viacom.

Judge Gorenstein had also expressed concern over a nondisclosure
and non-disparagement clause in which claimants would agree "not
to make disparaging comments relating to defendants," or broadly
discuss the settlement.  Viacom replied on April 3 that the
parties had agreed to delete that provision.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lloyd Ambinder, LaDonna Lusher
and Suzanne Klein of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey Brown,
Michael Tompkins and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC.

Viacom is represented by Lyle Zuckerman -- lylezuckerman@dwt.com -
-- and Michael Goettig -- michaelgoettig@dwt.com -- of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Ojeda et al. v. Viacom Inc. et al., case number 1:13-
cv-05658, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


WE WASH: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Vazquez and Juan Pacheco-Fajardo, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. We
Wash Car Care Center, Inc., and Maruisz Lekarczyk, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03920 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 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 car wash and detail center
located at 4660 West Lawrence, Chicago, IL 60630.

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


WORLD FUEL: Lac-Megantic Train Derailment Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Gold, writing for NPR, reports that currently, World Fuel is
one of multiple defendants in a class-action lawsuit related to a
deadly train derailment in the summer of 2013.  The fiery accident
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and involved a train
carrying crude oil that was owned by World Fuel.  The class action
in Quebec Superior Court claims negligence on the part of World
Fuel.  In addition, the Quebec Minister for Sustainable
Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks ordered World Fuel
and the railway that operated the derailed train to fully
remediate the environmental impact of the oil spill.

Michael J. Kasbar, president, chief executive officer and board
chairman of World Fuel, wouldn't comment, saying only that World
Fuel had not retained outside legal counsel to defend against
claims arising from the accident, leaving the task to the
company's legal department.

To analyst Atkins, no news in the train derailment case is good
news, so far, for World Fuel: "If they thought their potential
liability was going to be higher than their insurance coverage,
they would have had to have taken a charge by now."  In addition,
"they have not taken any specific charges for the environmental
cleanup."

World Fuel remains "a solid counterparty with their customers and
their suppliers, in a market where it's hard to find a solid
counterparty," Atkins said.

"The biggest issue with that wasn't the liability but the
potential for companies to stop doing business with [World Fuel].
But that didn't happen at all. That was the biggest risk . . .
But there has been no disruption of the business," Jonathan
Chappell, a stock analyst with investment firm Evercore Partners
who has covered World Fuel for a decade.


* Landowners Balk at Pennsylvania's Handling of Royalty Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Cusick, writing for NPR, reports that people who leased
their land for Marcellus Shale drilling have been complaining for
several years that some companies are cheating them out of gas
royalty money.

It turns out the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is having the same
problem.  But the issue is so complex and convoluted, the state
doesn't even know how much money it's owed.

"It's complicated"

Gas drilling on state-owned land has sent hundreds of millions of
dollars in royalties to Harrisburg.  Private landowners have
received millions more. But some companies have been accused of
underpaying. Royalty disputes have led to several class action
lawsuits and an ongoing investigation by the state attorney
general's office.

Towanda-based attorney Chris Jones says his clients don't
understand why the state hasn't done more to protect them.

"Many times we're being asked, 'How come the state isn't doing
anything? How come there isn't anything to stop what the gas
companies are doing with our royalties -- with our money?'"

Pennsylvania has its own problems -- specifically two agencies
managing drilling on public land: the Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the Game Commission.

"We've been conducting investigations for some time now," DCNR
chief counsel Richard Morrison told StateImpact Pennsylvania in
January.  "It's an internal process. It's complicated and will
take some time."

He didn't want to say which companies are under scrutiny, and the
department has declined to comment further, citing the ongoing
investigation.  However documents obtained by StateImpact
Pennsylvania through an open records request show most of DCNR's
problems are with Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy.  The
company has been widely accused of charging landowners exorbitant
fees known as post-production costs. Chesapeake declined to
comment for this story.

Post-production costs are sort of like the gas industry's
"shipping and handling fees."  They're the expenses of moving gas
from the well to the market and include things like compression,
dehydration, and pipeline transport.

Chesapeake has leased thousands of acres of public land from DCNR
and the Game Commission -- but no one really knows how much money
could be missing from state coffers.

DCNR officials say none of its leases permit oil and gas drillers
to charge post-production costs, but Chesapeake disagrees.  Emails
between the two parties show disputes going back several years and
continuing to the present day.  DCNR complains to the company
about inaccurate or murky reporting on everything from how much
gas is produced at wells, to its selling price.

"It's going on with every company"

The Game Commission is still trying to sort out exactly what is
and isn't allowed under its leases.  Mike DiMatteo oversees the
commission's oil and gas program.

"It's definitely on our radar," he says of the royalty issues.
"We are aware they're taking deductions, and we're trying to
assess the impact.  Chesapeake seems to be targeted by a lot of
investigations because they're a big producer. It's going on with
every company."

Chris Jones and several other attorneys recently filed a federal
racketeering lawsuit against Chesapeake, alleging it's part of a
criminal conspiracy -- along with partner companies Anadarko,
Mitsui, Statoil, and Williams -- to defraud private landowners.
None of the companies would comment for this story.

"I'm surprised the state is shocked this is happening to them as
well," says Mr. Jones.  "They don't seem to be doing certain
things I'd think they'd be doing -- like having something that
could verify the production from the wells."

DCNR does perform audits of royalty statements and recently ramped
up its efforts.  It has a contract with Penn State University to
check well volume information and hired a new accountant to review
royalty statements.  The agency is also planning to contract with
an outside accounting firm.

The state Game Commission says it doesn't have the resources to do
that.

"We're not officially auditing the companies," says Mr. Matteo.
"We review the statements and make sure we're getting paid, but we
don't have an open investigation."

The situation really bothers state Rep. John Maher (R-Allegheny.)

"I want to make sure the royalty payments the state is due for gas
production are being fairly paid," he says.

As the new chair of the House Environmental Resources and Energy
committee, Mr. Maher's vowing to take a fresh look at a bill aimed
at limiting gas companies from withholding royalty money in the
form of post-production costs.

"There needs to be action"

State Rep. Tina Pickett (R-Bradford) co-sponsors the measure.

"I don't think initially as a state, we really looked at the
financial angle of this," she says.

Ms. Pickett represents one of the most drilled-on parts of
Pennsylvania and supports the gas industry.  But she's troubled
the state has to carefully comb through every royalty statement
and hire more accountants to double check everything.  She says
it's time to update royalty laws and crack down on problem
companies.

"We've talked about it. There's been lots of news about it.
There's been lots of discussion about it, but there needs to be
some action," she says.  "This is not something that should be
allowed."

The gas industry has lobbied heavily against the royalty bill --
calling it a legislative overreach that violates contracts. The
measure went nowhere during the last legislative session and it
has not been reintroduced yet.

Meanwhile, state officials are still trying to get a handle on how
much money they may be owed.


* Maryland Introduces Bill on Indigent Bail Hearing Representation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Frederick News-Post's Danielle E Gaines and The Associated
Press report that a Frederick County senator has introduced a bill
in the waning days of the General Assembly session that could roll
back a state appeals court ruling that provides poor defendants
with representation at initial bail hearings.

Maryland's Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee met on April 3 to
consider a proposed constitutional amendment introduced on April 2
by Sen. Michael Hough, R-District 4.

In its current form, Mr. Hough's bill would propose a
constitutional amendment to state that Maryland is not required to
provide government-funded legal representation of an indigent
defendant at an initial appearance.

However, the lawmaker said on April 3 that replacement language is
already being considered and it was unclear what form a bill
passed this session could ultimately take.

The goal is to roll back rules created after Court of Appeals
opinions in Richmond v. DeWolfe, a class-action lawsuit filed by
Baltimore city arrestees who requested representation by attorneys
and were denied.

Mr. Hough introduced the bill after Senate President Thomas V.
Mike Miller pressed members of the committee to take action this
year.

Because of the impending close of session on April 13, it was
important to introduce a bill and start the conversation, said
Sen. Bobby Zirkin, chairman of the committee.

"We've been given a charge in these last couple of weeks to try to
come up with a solution to the Richmond decision.  In that light,
Senator Hough introduced a late-filed bill."

Among the issues lawmakers hope to address is the $10 million cost
for the courts to provide hearings in front of commissioners, a
right Mr. Hough said was not written in state law but created by
an "out-of-control activist" court.

"This is something we have been wrestling with basically since
2012.  And we have yet to come up with a good solution," Mr. Hough
said.  "I think this bill would take care of this issue once and
for all.  What effect are we having for $10 million?"

Mr. Hough said two-thirds of defendants eligible for
representation at commissioners' hearings waive that right.  The
state could continue bail hearings before judges and reinvest the
$10 million earmarked for the commissioners' hearings into the
criminal justice system, he said.

Mr. Hough's bill was met with disapproval during a limited
committee hearing on April 3.

Maryland Public Defender Paul DeWolfe said the current program, in
place since July 1, is helping poor defendants.

"The fact is, it's working," Mr. DeWolfe said.  "The world has not
come to an end. The bank of Maryland has not been broken."

He said the state has seen at least a 4 percent increase in the
number of people released after commissioners' hearings, which
leads to savings.  Assuming commissioners hear 164,000 cases a
year, more than 6,500 people are no longer being housed before
trial by county jails, he said.

Mr. DeWolfe encouraged the committee to consider the
recommendations of a 23-member governor's commission which is
examining comprehensive pre-trial reforms in the state.
The committee also heard testimony on April 3 from three other
opponents.  They will continue to receive written testimony,
Mr. Zirkin said.

The ruling by the state's highest court has irked many lawmakers
since 2012, as they've tried to avoid the financial liability in
lean budget years.

Maryland is unusual because initial bail review hearings are often
held before a court commissioner, whose decision is later reviewed
by a judge.  In 2012, the Court of Appeals ruled that poor
defendants were entitled to legal representation at the very first
bail hearing before court commissioners.

That same year, lawmakers changed state law to specify that the
public defender's office had to represent defendants at a bail
hearing before a judge, but not before a court commissioner.
However, the state's highest court decided in 2013 in a 4-3 ruling
that poor defendants had a constitutional right to legal
representation before a court commissioner.

Lawmakers were unable to reach a consensus on how to address the
second court ruling last year and put $10 million in the budget to
pay lawyers in order to comply with the ruling.

Since the court's opinions, new court rules and laws have
presented challenges for the state court system.

Providing representation at commissioners' hearings was developed
county by county.  In Frederick, an attorney is available to
defendants from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for commissioners'
hearings.  If someone is arrested overnight and wants access to an
attorney, they are held at the jail until 8:00 a.m. and then heard
by a commissioner.

If a person is not released by a commissioner, the hearing is
recessed and resumed later by a District Court judge.
Among concerns raised by guaranteed representation at bail
hearings is whether it could create conflicts of interest for the
public defenders who handle those cases and how far their
representation of clients at bail hearings extends.

In a hearing in Frederick County Circuit Court on April 2, a
defendant claimed he was still represented by the Office of the
Public Defender when he was questioned by police immediately after
his bail review hearing, but a judge found that the attorney's
entry into a case for the purpose of bail review is terminated at
the end of that hearing.

The decision could become an issue if the case is appealed,
lawyers in the case said.


* Milwaukee Gas Companies Defend Suits in Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Molly Dill, writing for BizTimes.com, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court only takes a very small percentage of the cases that
pass through the U.S. court system each year.

"I think (the U.S. Supreme Court gets) about 5,000 to 6,000 of
what's called writ of certs a year, basically asking the court to
take a case, and grants 80 to 100 per year," said Chris Donovan,
an attorney at Pruhs & Donovan S.C. in Milwaukee who brought a
Milwaukee federal criminal case before the Supreme Court last
year.  "It's relatively rare."

One of the cases the Court took up this session involved several
Milwaukee-area companies represented by a local firm.  At issue is
whether the federal Natural Gas Act preempted state antitrust
claims based on a conspiracy to inflate prices in retail natural
gas sales from 2000 to 2002.

The Wisconsin plaintiffs in the case are: Wauwatosa-based engine
manufacturer Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Menomonee Falls-based
commercial printer Arandell Corp.; Cudahy-based forging company
ATI Ladish LLC (which has since been acquired); Kenosha-based
Carthage College; Middleton-based animal nutrition provider
Merrick's Inc.; Wisconsin Rapids-based NewPage Wisconsin System
Inc.; and Plymouth-based Sargento Foods Inc.

Robert Gegios -- rgegios@kmksc.com -- of Glendale law firm Kohner,
Mann & Kailas S.C. is representing the companies in the case.

According to KMK, Wisconsin businesses and residents consume up to
$3.5 billion in natural gas per year, which is almost 2 percent of
state GDP.  It is the primary energy source for a variety of
Wisconsin businesses, including electricity generation, metal
working, food processing, brewing and dairy processing.

"Between 2000 and 2002, the retail price of natural gas in
Wisconsin rose dramatically," according to the brief for the
Wisconsin respondents.  "For instance, the city-gate price for
natural gas in Wisconsin increased from $2.94 per thousand cubic
feet in January 2000, to a price of $9.92 per thousand cubic feet
in January 2001.  On average, prices during this period more than
doubled.  That dramatic spike was the result of a conspiracy among
petitioners.  The victims of the conspiracy include industrial and
commercial users of natural gas who consumed it.  These Wisconsin
businesses were injured by the exorbitantly high prices paid for
natural gas as a result of petitioners' wrongful acts."

The Wisconsin plaintiffs represent a proposed class action that
could include hundreds of Wisconsin businesses impacted by the
alleged price manipulation.

The case before the Supreme Court, Oneok Inc. v. Learjet Inc.,
also includes claims from several other states where state
antitrust laws came into conflict with the federal regulation
related to natural gas pricing.  KMK submitted the brief
representing the Wisconsin respondents in the case in November,
and the Supreme Court justices held oral arguments in the case in
January.  A decision is expected to come down any day now, and
will definitely be released before the justices end this session
in June or July.

It's been a long and complicated road to the U.S. Supreme Court
since the initial Wisconsin case was filed in 2006, but most
recently Kohner, Mann & Kailas helped overturn a district court's
ruling that the Natural Gas Act preempted state antitrust laws,
which would have prevented the plaintiffs from using Wisconsin's
antitrust laws to secure damages for the alleged manipulation of
their natural gas costs.  KMK appealed the ruling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of its Wisconsin
business clients, and that court reversed the district court's
decision.

The natural gas company defendants then took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court, hoping for a reversal of the Ninth Circuit
decision.

"All we're asking for is a fair recovery," Mr. Gegios said.  "They
did significant, substantial harm to Wisconsin businesses, the
Wisconsin economy."

The group of natural gas companies that appealed the case to the
Supreme Court, which include major energy providers ONEOK Inc. and
Shell Energy North America L.P., argue that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission has sole authority to regulate their alleged
price manipulation practices.  The claims being brought by states
in the case could add up to billions of dollars in payouts for the
natural gas providers, and allowing individual states to bring
antitrust claims throws the energy companies into "regulatory
chaos."

"FERC's orders regulating index-reporting practices sought to give
jurisdictional sellers clear rules to guide their conduct," the
petitioners' brief reads.  "Respondents' use of state law to
impose liability for those same practices threatens to undermine
that uniform regulatory scheme and replace it with a morass under
which individual states can impose their own conflicting
standards."

After nine years of trying to recover for the Wisconsin
businesses, Mr. Gegios is hoping for a quick decision from the
Supreme Court affirming the Ninth Circuit decision that the
Wisconsin firms can pursue the antitrust issue.  If that happens,
the case could come back to federal court in Madison to be tried
on its merits.

"We just want to get to the merits as soon as we can and get these
matters to a courtroom to be tried," he said.

If the Supreme Court decision is in the Wisconsin plaintiffs'
favor, it would allow the state to more easily argue it should not
be superseded by federal agencies going forward, Mr. Gegios said.

While KMK is up against some of the country's top law firms,
Mr. Gegios said he isn't intimidated and feels the Wisconsin
companies' case is strong.

"It's not unusual for our firm in particular to do battle against
very large firms and companies," he said.  "We don't shy away from
big controversies against firms bigger than we are.  That's how
you handle a case like this. You outdo everybody by just working
better and more than they will."


* NY Officials Push for Right to Counsel Bill for Poor People
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Davis O'Brien, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
reports that New York officials are seeking to increase funding to
provide poor people with free legal services in civil proceedings
such as eviction and immigration matters, part of a broader
national movement to establish a legal right to counsel in civil
cases.

The newly approved state budget, allocated $85 million for
indigent civil legal services at the request of the state
judiciary, an increase of $15 million from the previous fiscal
year.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recommended in his preliminary
budget proposal spending $36 million on free legal services in
housing court, which would bring the city's total spending on
civil legal services up to about $50 million.

A majority of City Council members have signed onto a bill
requiring free counsel for indigent defendants in eviction cases.
If passed, it would be the first such mandate in the country.  A
separate bill introduced last week would establish the Mayor's
Office of Civil Justice to oversee the city's civil legal
services.

"We are talking about the necessities, or essentials, of life,"
said Jonathan Lippman, New York's chief judge, who has been
pushing for indigent legal services in civil cases since taking
office in 2009.  "We mean the roof over someone's head, we mean
their physical safety, their livelihoods, the well-being of their
families, entitlement issues."

At least 90% of people in civil cases in New York, or 2.3 million,
don't have lawyers, and many are unable to advocate for themselves
on complicated legal matters, experts and officials say,
jeopardizing people's immigration status and leading to a loss of
benefits, housing and child custody.

Ana Jimenez and her husband, Jose, who works at a grocery store,
were nearly evicted from their Washington Heights apartment last
summer.  They hadn't missed a month's rent, but unbeknown to them,
city housing inspectors had declared their wood floors out of
compliance, so Section 8 had stopped sending rent subsidies. The
landlord, who was supposed to fix the floors, sued in housing
court.

"I felt helpless," said Ana Jimenez, 59, speaking through a
translator, her eldest daughter Annie.  "I would barely sleep."
Annie said her parents had no idea they were in violation until
they got an eviction notice; after a traumatic first day in court,
she called the Legal Aid Society.  A lawyer got the landlord to
fix the floor and had Section 8 support renewed, but it still took
months to resolve.

The concept of subsidized defense services in high-stakes civil
cases appears to have broad political support, though some warn of
overstretched government budgets, a shortage of resources and
space, diminished leverage for landlords and fears that a blanket
right to civil counsel would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

Tenant advocates said providing civil counsel to people who can't
afford it is not only fair but could ultimately save taxpayers
money by keeping court dockets lean and alleviating pressure on
homeless shelters and other social services.

Some say the stakes are high enough in civil cases that an
absolute right to counsel should exist, a movement known as "Civil
Gideon," a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 decision in
Gideon v. Wainwright that established a universal right to counsel
in criminal cases.

No such guarantee exists for civil matters.  But in 2006, the
American Bar Association urged states to provide counsel in civil
cases where "basic human needs" are at stake, calling it a logical
extension of Gideon's push for equal justice under the law.

The rules governing free counsel in civil proceedings vary by
state. New York requires counsel for parents facing loss of
custody over a child, and judges have authority to appoint counsel
in other cases.

"If you are going to lose your house, or if the state is going to
take away your children, I think there is probably a good defense
for a subsidy," said Jim Copland, director of the conservative
Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy.  "The concerns here
arise when effectively the state is subsidizing class-action
lawsuits."

Judge Lippman said his effort to expand civil legal services in
New York wouldn't extend to "trip-and-fall" lawsuits or class-
action claims.

In 2009, California passed the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act,
which created several pilot programs, supported by court fees,
free legal counsel in civil cases.  In its third year, the program
has succeeded despite a modest $8 million annual budget, its
coordinators say. More than 15,000 people have been served so far,
most in eviction cases.

"One of the big takeaways is that attorneys help settle cases,"
said Bonnie Hough, managing attorney for California's Judicial
Council, the policy-making body for state courts. "They are able
to help the client understand what's likely to happen in court"
and often push for mediation, which provides clients and landlords
with stability, Ms. Hough said.

Mitchell Posilkin, general counsel for the Rent Stabilization
Association, a property owners' organization in New York City,
said landlords have no fundamental objection to the right to
counsel.  But providing it, he said, would prolong cases.
Officials must consider "whether there are an adequate number of
judges, attorneys, clerks and courtrooms to handle what would
unquestionably be a slower litigation process," he said.

Others say the effort may be unrealistic financially. In most
states, including New York, services that provide mandated counsel
in criminal cases are underfunded and overwhelmed.

Officials in the New York City Council estimate the cost of
providing free legal services to needy people in eviction cases at
$117 million a year.  That would be offset, officials say, by $171
million in annual savings by keeping families out of homeless
shelters.

Councilman Mark Levine, the bill's sponsor, said cost
considerations and the logistics of finding lawyers and courtroom
space will be constraints.

Still, he said, "These are life-changing judgments that nobody
should have to face without legal defense."


* TRC Wants Mandatory Education on Canadian Residential Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Malone, writing for CJME, reports that a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) commissioner wants
mandatory education on residential schools for students across
Canada.

Commissioner Marie Wilson was in Saskatoon to speak about the
legacy the commission will leave behind.

"Here is our courageous moment as a country to say let's learn
from that and lets figure out how we go forward together . .. I
think we have to tackle what we teach our children, all of our
children," Wilson said.

As part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement,
the largest class-action settlement in Canadian history, the TRC
was created.  Through seven national events across the country,
the TRC collected testimony from residential school survivors to
create official documentation as well as establish a national
research centre.

Ms. Wilson, who was designated a commissioner in 2009, said she
hopes the legacy will inspire jurisdictions across Canada to
include the residential school history as a required course to
graduate high school.

"Education was the tool that was used to assimilate and
Christianize and otherwise diminish and damage all of these
generations.  It was also the tool that was used . . . mindlessly,
to keep the whole rest of the community ill informed and
ignorant," Mr. Wilson said.  "We need to teach an honest history
that includes the history of the indigenous peoples of Canada,
whose homeland it is and that the history of this American
continent didn't begin with the arrival of the Europeans."

In March 2014, Alberta joined two other jurisdictions and made the
education of residential schools and First Nation treaties
mandatory content for all kindergarten to Grade 12 students.
Wilson said it's a positive step for indigenous and non-indigenous
children who will pave the path of the country's future.

"So that indigenous children can start to feel that they have
heroes too, they have history too, they have languages too, they
have place names too, they have historic moments too, they have
tragedies too . . . And so that non-indigenous children can learn
the truth about the whole country," Mr. Wilson said.  "If we had
that in 13 jurisdictions, not just three, imagine the difference
we could make. Saskatchewan is not there yet."

The federal government estimates more than 150,000 students were
forced to attend the schools over the years.  A Saskatchewan
facility, outside Regina, was the last residential school to close
in 1996.

"We are inching forward (to reconciliation).  I think that there
is no room for slippage," Mr. Wilson said.

"Whether or not we were aware of it at the time, we created this
situation by Canadian laws and policies.  Now we are waking up to
the fact that we are going to have to work together to build our
way out of it by reshaping and redesigning our notion of society
and our notion of what is fair and just in this country."

The TRC will hold its closing events in Ottawa from May 31 to
June 3.


* Victims of Financial Wrongdoing Need More Help from SEC
---------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reports that given the many billions of dollars
financial companies have paid in regulatory and legal settlements
related to the mortgage crisis, how much money has actually found
its way into the pockets of investors harmed by their actions?

Less than you may think. To start with, little of the cash
generated in most of the Justice Department settlements went to
investors.  Much of this money went into Treasury coffers or to
various states while troubled borrowers were promised loan
modifications and other relief as part of the deals.

Wronged investors are entitled to receive money, however, from
lawsuits filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  While
the S.E.C. cannot, by law, seek compensatory damages for losses
incurred by investors, the agency does collect penalties and
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from both institutions and
individuals.

Sometimes the S.E.C. puts the dollars it collects into a fund to
be distributed to a class of victims the agency has identified;
other times it forces defendants to repay those investors
directly.

The S.E.C. says it tries, whenever possible, to extract money from
wrongdoers on behalf of investors.  And an analysis of financial
crisis lawsuits cited most recently on the S.E.C.'s website shows
that 23 of them generated nearly $2.6 billion for investors.

Among the larger S.E.C. recoveries was $285 million from a 2011
case against Citigroup over a $1 billion collateralized debt
obligation and $250 million returned to investors after Goldman
Sachs's settlement of the Abacus C.D.O. case in 2010.  Investors
also received $275 million from a mortgage securities deal struck
last year with Morgan Stanley.

Returning almost $2.6 billion to investors is not nothing.  But
the S.E.C.'s recoveries pale in comparison to the amounts
generated by law firms that brought class actions on behalf of
stockholders and debtholders.

In the 17 largest securities law class actions arising out of the
financial crisis, investors have recovered almost $8.3 billion,
net of legal fees and expenses, court records show.  These
recoveries included $1.1 billion in two class actions against
Citigroup, $850 million received from the American International
Group and $523 million from Lehman Brothers.

Among the 17 private lawsuits and the 23 S.E.C. cases, six overlap
-- meaning the same financial institutions were sued on the same
facts by both the agency and private plaintiffs.  On a direct
comparison, the recoveries generated by class-action lawsuits far
exceeded those collected by the S.E.C.

In those six cases, the S.E.C. recovered $400 million for
investors while the private plaintiffs received almost $3.8
billion, net of legal fees and expenses.

Consider, for example, the lawsuits against Bank of America.  Both
the S.E.C. and investors claimed that Merrill Lynch executives had
not disclosed losses and bonus payments at the firm before it was
purchased by the bank.  Private plaintiffs received almost $2.3
billion in their case; from the S.E.C.'s suit, investors received
$150 million.

Then there is the case against Angelo R. Mozilo and other top
executives of Countrywide Financial.  The private lawsuit
generated $516.4 million for investors; the S.E.C.'s recovery for
investors was just over $48 million.

Finally, private litigation against New Century Financial, a
defunct mortgage lender, recovered $107.6 million, while the
S.E.C.'s lawsuit recovered $1.5 million for investors.

"Private litigation prosecuted by sophisticated plaintiffs and
their counsel -- who are not restrained by the limited resources
and bureaucracy of government agencies -- has delivered far larger
recoveries for victims than companion government actions," said
Gerald H. Silk, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann, a securities class-action law firm.

To some degree, of course, this is because the S.E.C. cannot
recover losses for investors.  By law, the agency cannot seek a
penalty that exceeds the financial gain a wrongdoer made, even if
losses incurred by investors as a result of the improprieties are
far greater.  For instance, if investors lost $100 million in a
Ponzi scheme in which the overseer pocketed $10 million, the
S.E.C. can seek to recover only the $10 million in ill-gotten
gains and another $10 million in penalties.  And the S.E.C. has
secured significant sums for investors in some matters where there
was no class action.  For example, in three big C.D.O. cases, the
agency returned a combined $661 million to investors from
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

When asked about the size of the recoveries the S.E.C. has
generated for investors, Andrew J. Ceresney, the agency's director
of enforcement, said: "We have been vigorous in our efforts to
hold individuals and companies accountable for abuses related to
the financial crisis.  One of our highest priorities in these
cases is to return money to harmed investors, in addition to
punishing and deterring misconduct."

The S.E.C. can pursue powerful remedies that private plaintiffs
cannot.  For instance, the S.E.C. can bar people from serving as
directors or officers of companies and suspend lawyers and
accountants from practicing before the agency. In the financial
crisis cases identified by the S.E.C., the agency said it had
barred or suspended 40 people.

The agency can also force the people it sues to pay penalties out
of their own pockets; this is much harder for private plaintiffs
to do.

Still, the disparity in recoveries is telling. It shows, among
other things, how crucial it is for investors to be able to bring
private actions under the securities laws.

"The S.E.C. can't do everything," said Norman Poser, a professor
emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and a former S.E.C. official.
"The Supreme Court has said there is an implied private right of
action under the securities laws for exactly that reason."

While both plaintiffs and the agency have different roles to play,
Congress should still consider expanding how much the S.E.C. can
extract in penalties, perhaps making them commensurate with the
losses investors incurred.

The S.E.C. has asked Congress for this authority, Mr. Ceresney
said.  But it has not been granted. "Allowing us to recover
penalties equal to investor losses would assist us in fulfilling
our investor protection mission," he said.

As the financial crisis shows, the S.E.C.'s penalties often proved
to be nominal costs of doing business for reckless institutions or
their employees.  The agency is clearly hamstrung in its efforts
to generate recoveries on behalf of harmed investors.

Isn't it time to ensure that when the S.E.C. comes knocking, the
fine fits the crime?


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Telephonic Appearance
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California allowed the heir of an asbestos
plaintiff to telephonically attend a settlement conference as he
is unable to physically attend the conference.

The case is JOHN WARD and PIERCE WARD, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-
03140-SI (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Spero's
Decision dated April 3, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/qhzF9A
from Leagle.com.

Ronald J. Shingler, Esq., Richard A. Brody, Esq., Shingler Law,
Antioch, CA.

Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., Kazan, Mcclain, Satterley & Greenwood, A
Professional Law Corporation, Oakland, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in "Brown" Suit Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated April 30, 2015, consolidated the
appeals filed in the lawsuit styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to BROWN, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, MOTION
NO. M-1350 (N.Y. App. Div.), and enlarged the time to perfect the
appeal to the October 2015 Term.  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/GEqce6from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay Granted in "McCloskey" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated April 28, 2015, granted stay on
condition appeals heard in the June 2015 Term in the lawsuit
styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. McCLOSKEY, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. -- ESTATE OF
McCLOSKEY, MOTION NO. M-1402 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/wV77Ixfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MD Fails to Win Summary Judgment in NY Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
John Storey was diagnosed with mesothelioma on August 5, 2013.
His disease, he claims, is connected to his work as a tile setter
at various job-sites in New York City from the 1960s to 1980,
including at Penn Plaza, the Pfizer Building, and the Avon
Building where the moving defendant Morse Diesel was the general
contractor and/or construction manager.  The Plaintiffs' John
Storey and Candace Storey causes of action against MD are asserted
under Labor Law Section 200 and common law negligence.

MD moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint
and all claims and cross claims against it.  MD's moving
affirmation states that the basis is "because there is no triable
issue of material fact and because the plaintiffs' have failed to
identify or establish Morse Diesel as the source of any asbestos
exposure nor have plaintiffs demonstrated that Morse Diesel had
any direction or control over others who may have caused John
Storey's injuries."

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated April 27, 2015, denied the defendant's motion,
holding that "[e]ven if MD had met its burden, issues of fact
exist for trial.  Plaintiffs point to the United States Department
of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration ("OSHA")
regulations in 1971 regulating the amount of asbestos exposure
considered safe for employees.  Plaintiffs also point to testimony
in a case before Judge Madden where their expert testified that in
1974 OSHA published an alert to the construction industry warning
of the dangers of asbestos.  The OSHA website also reflects the
development of regulations aimed at the construction industry in
particular starting in 1983.  Thus, on this record, an issue of
fact exists as to whether MD violated Labor Law Sec. 200 and was
negligent because as a general contractor, it should have known of
the dangers from MD laborers (or other laborers) sweeping up
asbestos debris."

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JOHN F.
STOREY and CANDACE STOREY Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS,
INC. et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190283/2013 (N.Y. Sup.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/iP8VBEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 NY Fibro Suits Consolidated for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated April 29, 2014, granted a motion to
consolidate nine asbestos actions for trial, comprising the
Williams Law Firm In Extremis trial group.

In support of her decision, Judge Kern stated: "As to the three
groups being consolidated, this court finds that the trials in
each of the groups involve common questions of law and fact and
that consolidation of these cases into the three groups will not
prejudice a substantial right of defendants. As to the three
groups, all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm
and are in the same phase of discovery as they have all been
assigned to this part for trial. Moreover, in all of the groups,
the plaintiffs allege the same type of cancer."

The case is N RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GEORGE R.
BIRRELL AND RAMONA J. BIRRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AERCO
INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190105/2013 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Kern's decision is available at
http://is.gd/u4yaQnfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont, ArvinMeritor Dropped in "Bell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued two orders dated April 5,
2015, dismissing the lawsuit bearing Civil Action No. NDC C 12-
00131 CRB with prejudice as to defendants Maremont Corporation and
ArvinMeritor, Inc.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.
VI). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DONALD BELL and SUMIKO BELL,
Plaintiffs, v. ARVIN MERITOR, INC., et al. Defendants, CASE NO.
12-CV-00131 CRB (N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Decision with respect to
Maremont is available at http://is.gd/jWMCjefrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Decision with respect to
ArvinMeritor is available at http://is.gd/Xe1emifrom Leagle.com.

Farid Zakaria, Keller, Fishback & Jackson, LLP, Agoura Hills, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Ana T. Portillo, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Maremont Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex Wins Dismissal of "Ricks" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, in an order dated
May 1, 2015, granted defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's motion to dismiss
an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, after the plaintiff
has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss and the time for
doing so has expired.

The case is BRENDA RICKS, Personal Representative of the Estate of
John Sam Ricks, Jr., deceased, Plaintiff, v. ARMSTRONG
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Boyle's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/35Y8VVfrom Leagle.com.

Brenda Ricks, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Sam
Ricks, Jr., deceased, 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,
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..

Dana Companies, LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, Defendant,
represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd,
P.A..

FMC Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to
Peerless Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos,
Esq. -- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Kirk G.
Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan & Addie
K.S. Ries, 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..

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., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Defendant, represented
by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assoc. Allowed to File Amicus Brief in NY Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion filed by
Retired Enlisted Association et al. for leave to file a brief
amici curiae on the appeal in the lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF
NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DORIS KAY DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD DUMMITT, DECEASED,
Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO.,
Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-420 (N.Y.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated May 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/zNS3Rp
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Allowing Equipment in "Kelly" Trial Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince G. Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an
order dated May 4, 2015, allowing trial equipment in the asbestos-
related lawsuit styled BARRY KELLY and MOLLY KELLY, Plaintiffs, v.
CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC; CRANE CO; PUGET SOUND COMMERCE CENTER, INC.
(FKA TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION)) Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-
03240-VC (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's
order is available at http://is.gd/5FtI9Sfrom Leagle.com.

GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., KIMBERLY J. CHU, ESQ., BRAYTON PURCELL
LLP, Attorneys at Law, Novato, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Enforcement of "Bartel" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to enforce a
settlement between William Bartel and David Peebles, as co-
administrators of the estate of Robert M. Young, with the
University of Miami.

According to Magistrate Hey, the defendant responded that no
settlement was ever reached, saying the plaintiffs did not
communicate acceptance of its August 8 offer.  Magistrate Hey
agreed with the defendant, which argued that it is a universal
tenet of contract law that acceptance of an offer must be
communicated to create a contract.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No.
VI). Willard Bartel and David Peebles, as co-administrators of the
Estate of ROBERT M. YOUNG v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, MDL DOCKET NO.
875 (MARDOC), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-32162 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text
copy of Magistrate Hey's memorandum order dated May 6, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/f1zbhwfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, ADMINISTRATORS FOR ROBERT M. YOUNG, DECEASED
(DOD 11/10/2008), PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A.
KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN DAVID HURST,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C PEEBLES, ADMINISTRATORS FOR ROBERT M. YOUNG, DECEASED (DOD
11/10/2008), PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A.
KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN DAVID HURST,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A. W. CHESTERTON CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON,
Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER
SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.

GLOBE SEAWAYS INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

TIDEWATER MARINE SER. INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP.

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD,
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, Esq. --
ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $15.9MM Fibro Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity plc has $15.9 million of net loss reserves for
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's environmental exposure arises from the sale of
general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance. Currently,
the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental
contamination claims. In some states the Company is required,
however, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for
certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to
a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that
were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental
coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of
products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also
received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of
which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In
establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts
currently known and the current state of the law and coverage
litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and
updated continually.

Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the
resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for
individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by
plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of
asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to
coverage under general liability policies that do not contain
aggregate limits of liability.

The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses,
inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates
for future amounts needed to pay losses and related adjustment
expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the
financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of
December 31, 2014, the Company has $15.9 million of net loss
reserves for asbestos-related claims and $15.3 million for
environmental claims. The Company attempts to estimate the full
impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves
on all known losses.

Establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves
considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to,
among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in
bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related liabilities,
and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of
recovery and broaden the scope of coverage.

In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve asbestos related coverage
litigation related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos-
related bodily injury claims and future claims. The settlement was
approved by the Court and a final order was issued in September
2014.

Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company. The
Company is a property and casualty insurer and provides its
insurance products across a distribution network of binding
authority, program, brokerage and reinsurance. The Company manages
the distribution of products in two segments: Insurance
Operations, which includes the operations of United National
Insurance Company, Diamond State Insurance Company, United
National Specialty Insurance Company, Penn-America Insurance
Company, Penn-Star Insurance Company, Penn-Patriot Insurance
Company, American Insurance Adjustment Agency, Inc., Collectibles
Insurance Services, LLC, Global Indemnity Insurance Agency, LLC,
J.H. Ferguson & Associates, LLC, and American Reliable Insurance
Company, and Reinsurance Operations, which includes the operations
of Wind River Reinsurance Company, Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Had 195 Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. had a total of 195 asbestos-related
cases, 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: "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2014
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.8 million
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately
$25,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 195 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2014 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of January
1, 2014. During 2014, 51 new cases were filed against the Company,
and the Company was dismissed from 29 cases and settled zero
cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

CECO Environmental Corp.,(CECO) is an environmental technology
company focused on critical solutions in the product recovery, air
pollution control, fluid handling and filtration segments. The
Company operates through four principal product groups: Engineered
Equipment Technology and Parts Group, Met-Pro Group,
Contracting/Services Group and Component Parts Group. Its
Engineered Equipment Technology and Parts Group produces various
types of air pollution control technology and equipment. The Met-
Pro Group manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution
control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid
handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature
liquids, and filtration and purification products. Its
Contracting/Services Group produces air pollution control and
engineered industrial ventilation systems and its Component Parts
Group manufactures products used by the Company and other air
pollution control companies and air system contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 9 Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc., has nine asbestos-related
cases, 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.

For more than 20 years, a number of claims have been filed against
the company on behalf of merchant seamen or their personal
representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to
asbestos while employed as seamen on company-owned ships at
various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s. The claims
are based on allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness. In
these cases, the company is typically one of many defendants,
including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing
asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Nine of these cases are
pending in state courts in various stages of activity. Over the
past seventeen years, 27 state court cases have been settled and
49 state court cases have been resolved without any payment. In
addition to the state court cases, there are federal court cases
(known as the "MARDOC" cases), which are managed under the
supervision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. A total of approximately 5,070 MARDOC cases have
been brought against the company, approximately 5,000 have been
dismissed; 46 of these cases had earlier been re-activated against
the company, of which 35 cases were dismissed without any
settlement payment. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has
remanded 1,200 MARDOC cases (89 of which are against the company)
for trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio. The court's scheduling order deadlines have passed in
connection with the company's remaining approximately 430 MARDOC
cases, approximately 5% of which are expected to be dismissed
without payment during 2015. While the complaints allege a cause
for punitive damages, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit has held that seamen may not seek punitive damages
in personal injury or wrongful death action as a matter of law.
Although the company is developing information with which to
evaluate these maritime asbestos claims, management does not
believe, based on information currently available to it and advice
of counsel, that these claims will, individually or in the
aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the consolidated
financial statements of the Company.

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CBII) ,along with its
subsidiaries, is an international marketer and distributor of
bananas and pineapples sold under the Chiquita and other brand
names in 70 countries, and packaged salads sold under the Fresh
Express and other brand names primarily in the United States. The
Company operates in three segments: Bananas; Salads and Healthy
Snacks, and Other Produce. The Bananas segment includes the
sourcing (purchase and production), transportation, marketing and
distribution of bananas. The Salads and Healthy Snacks segment
includes ready-to-eat, packaged salads, and other value-added
products, such as healthy snacking products, fresh vegetable and
fruit ingredients used in food service, processed fruit
ingredients. The Other Produce segment includes the sourcing,
marketing and distribution of whole fresh produce other than
bananas. The primary product of the Other Produce segment is
pineapples.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 254 PI Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is co-defendant in 254 personal injury
asbestos-related cases asserting claims on behalf of 612
plaintiffs, 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 were a co-defendant in approximately 254
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 612 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only six asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining
case, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0
million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., (Holdings) is a holding Company. The
Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its
direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and
Engineered Products. Supply Technologies provides its customers
with Total Supply Management services for a range of high-volume,
specialty production components. Assembly Components manufactures
cast and machined aluminum components, automotive and industrial
rubber and thermoplastic products, fuel filler and hydraulic
assemblies for automotive, agricultural equipment, construction
equipment, heavy-duty truck and marine equipment industries.
Engineered Products operates a diverse group of niche
manufacturing businesses that design and manufacture a range of
high quality products engineered for specific customer
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,457 PI Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had a total of 8,457 pending asbestos
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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid
subsidiary and of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution. During
2013, all pending claims against the inactive subsidiary in
dissolution were settled, dismissed or barred and the dissolution
court issued a final order thereby concluding the dissolution
proceedings. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often
in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

For the year-ended December 31, 2014, the Company had a total of
8,457 pending asbestos claims.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. The Company's Forged
and Cast Rolls Segment's Union Electric Steel Corporation produces
forged hardened steel rolls used in cold rolling by producers of
steel, aluminum and other metals throughout the world. Union
Electric Steel United Kingdom Limited produces cast rolls for hot
and cold strip mills, medium/heavy section mills and plate mills
in a variety of iron and steel qualities. Its Air and Liquid
Processing Segment's Aerofin Division of Air and Liquid Systems
Corporation produces custom-engineered finned tube heat exchange
coils and related heat transfer products for a variety of
industries. Buffalo Air Handling Division of Air and Liquid
Systems Corporation produces custom air handling systems used in
commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. It
manufactures a line of centrifugal pumps for the refrigeration,
power generation and marine defense industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 1,326 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named
defendant in 1,326 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort 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.

BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,326 and 1,234 alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of December 31, 2014 and
2013, respectively. The claims were filed over a period beginning
1994 through December 31, 2014. In many cases these claims
involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,108 and
1,023 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and
closed as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Of the
claims settled, the average settlement was less than $3. There
remained 218 and 211 pending asbestos claims as of December 31,
2014 and 2013, respectively. There can be no assurance that the
number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 and $2,082 at December
31, 2014 and 2013,respectively, in estimated remaining self
insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of
coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the
insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies
issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related
to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled
claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in
receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to
increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, BNS Sub has accrued
$1,422 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub.
This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely
costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond
the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously
funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However,
there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take
additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement or
judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date relating to
existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the BNS
Liquidating Trust.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
Company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain
management and logistics, banking, food products and services,
oilfield services, sports, training, education and the
entertainment, and lifestyle industries. The Company operates
business through four segments, which include diversified
industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other.
SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries
Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to
the oil and gas industry. The Company's financial services segment
consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary,
WebFinancial Holding Corporation. The diversified industrial
segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd. The corporate and other
segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as
various investments, and cash and cash equivalents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,300 Product Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc., is involved in 3,300 asbestos- and silica-related
product liability cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 3,300 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment and commercial matters."

Joy Global Inc., is a manufacturer and servicer of high
productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company manufactures and market original
equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both underground
and surface mining and certain industrial applications. The
Company's equipment is used in major mining regions throughout the
world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, gold and other
minerals. The Company operates in two business segments:
Underground Mining Machinery and Surface Mining Equipment. The
Company is a manufacturer of underground mining machinery for the
extraction of coal and other bedded minerals and offer service
locations near major mining regions worldwide. The Company is a
major producer of surface mining equipment for the extraction of
ores and minerals and provides extensive operational support for
many types of equipment used in surface mining.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 3,251 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation is a defendant in 3,251 asbestos-related
cases, 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 have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for over 20 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by us. As of December 31, 2014, we were a defendant
in approximately 3,251 cases brought in Federal District Courts
throughout the United States. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and
2012, 104, 133, and 113 asbestos cases, respectively, were brought
against us. In the last 22 years, we have had no cases proceed to
verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant
before trial for lack of product identification. As of December
31, 2014, 47,887 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In calendar
years 2014, 2013 and 2012, 25,954 cases, 65 cases and 66 cases,
respectively, were dismissed. With regards to the approximately
3,251 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these
cases based upon either lack of product identification as to
whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of
exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product.

"As of December 31, 2014, 2,679 pending lawsuits had been brought
on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC")
and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases
generally allege that they formerly worked in the maritime
industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products
that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The
MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the
judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In September
2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current statistical
report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as a list
identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name,
we recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of
pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679.

"In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that
the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related
injury, but also must produce specific product identification
evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010,
the MDL Court ordered plaintiffs to identify the defendants
against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases.
General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the
plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that
General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related
lawsuits.

"For cases outside the MDL as of December 31, 2014, plaintiffs
have asserted monetary damages in 278 cases. In 143 of these
cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar
amount (about $402 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there
are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any
defendant. In the 134 other cases pending in state and federal
district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately
$457 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one
case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to us in the amount
of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 278 cases, there
are claims of $324 million in punitive damages from all of the
defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege
non-malignant injuries. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, we have
accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.7 million and $5.2
million and had recorded approximately $0.5 million of insurance
recoveries for these lawsuits, at each year end. The net amount of
$4.2 million and $4.7 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013
represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of
current and future asbestos-related claims.

"The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos-related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel. As of December 31, 2014, aggregate
settlement costs were $9.5 million. In calendar years 2014, 2013
and 2012, the settlement costs totaled $0.6 million, $0.3 million
and $0.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2014, aggregate
costs of administering and litigating the asbestos claims were
$24.7 million. In calendar years 2014, 2013 and 2012, the costs of
administering and litigating asbestos claims totaled $1.8 million,
$1.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively.

"In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with
certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the
costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the
asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the
insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for
a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and
another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the
insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially
most of the costs relating to these lawsuits.

"Based on our experience in this litigation, the amounts pleaded
in the complaints are not typically meaningful as an indicator of
the Company's potential liability because (1) the amounts claimed
usually bear no relation to the level of plaintiff's injury, if
any; (2) complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple
defendants (a typical complaint asserts claims against some 50
different defendants); (3) damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants; (4) the defendants' share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability; (5) the amount of
fault to be allocated to each defendant is different depending on
each case; (6) many cases are filed against General Cable, even
though the plaintiff did not use any of General Cable's products,
and ultimately are withdrawn or dismissed without any payment; (7)
many cases are brought on behalf of plaintiffs who have not
suffered any medical injuries, and ultimately are resolved without
any payment to that plaintiff; and (8) with regard to claims for
punitive damages, potential liability generally is related to the
amount of potential exposure to asbestos from a defendant's
products. General Cable's asbestos-containing products contained
only a minimal amount of fully encapsulated asbestos."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more
than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing
facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in
which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with
regional distribution centers across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,314 PI Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation had 17,314 pending asbestos personal injury
actions, 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 is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions in the United States
alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over
the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers,
distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or
products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

At December 31, 2014, there were 17,314 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,979
were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 115
were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 220
were filed in courts located in other states.
The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

At December 31, 2014, 16,816 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment. The remaining 163 cases in New York County are pending
on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can
demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment.

The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available,
if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions. The Company
believes that a substantial portion of the costs and expenses of
the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's insurers.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the United
States, the Company expects to continue to receive additional
claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice
of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At December 31,
2014, the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,550 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the United States due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are
reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection
with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Company is subject to various other claims and legal
proceedings covering a wide range of matters that arose in the
ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all
such matters are adequately covered by insurance or by established
reserves, and, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such
kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or
cash flows of the Company.

Insurance liabilities are recorded when it is probable that a
liability has been incurred for a particular event and the amount
of loss associated with the event can be reasonably estimated.
Insurance reserves have been estimated based primarily upon
actuarial calculations and reflect the undiscounted estimated
liabilities for ultimate losses, including claims incurred but not
reported. Inherent in these estimates are assumptions that are
based on the Company's history of claims and losses, a detailed
analysis of existing claims with respect to potential value, and
current legal and legislative trends. If actual claims differ from
those projected by management, changes (either increases or
decreases) to insurance reserves may be required and would be
recorded through income in the period the change was determined.
When a recognized liability is covered by third-party insurance,
the Company records an insurance claim receivable to reflect the
covered liability. Insurance claim receivables are included in
Other receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets.
See Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, for
additional information on Accrued Insurance and Loss Reserves.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Harsco Metals
& Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's
principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services
to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery
technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by-
products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered
scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access-
related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance
services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled
heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. Harsco also holds an
approximate 29 percent equity interest in Brand Energy &
Infrastructure Services, a provider of specialized industrial
services to the worldwide energy and infrastructure sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos, 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.

A negative outcome on personal injury claims against the Company
may adversely impact results of operations and financial
condition.

The Company has been named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging
personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past
several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and
installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos. The majority of the asbestos
complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New
York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard
claim for damages of $20 million or $25 million against the
approximately 90 defendants, regardless of the individual
plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure. If the Company is found to be liable in any of
these actions and the liability exceeds the Company's insurance
coverage, results of operations, cash flows and financial
condition could be adversely affected.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Harsco Metals
& Minerals, Harsco Rail and Harsco Industrial. The Company's
principal lines of business include outsourced, on-site services
to steel mills and other metals producers; resource recovery
technologies for the re-use of industrial waste stream by-
products; industrial abrasives and roofing granules; engineered
scaffolding, concrete forming and shoring, and other access-
related services, rentals and sales; railway track maintenance
services and equipment; industrial grating products; air-cooled
heat exchangers, and heat transfer products. Harsco also holds an
approximate 29 percent equity interest in Brand Energy &
Infrastructure Services, a provider of specialized industrial
services to the worldwide energy and infrastructure sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Illinois,
Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the UK by approximately 125
plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or
death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of the
plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal
amount. A special master reviewed all 58 cases and made an
allocation of settlement funds among the parties. The District
Court Judge reviewed the allocations and accepted the special
master's recommendations and approved the settlements. The
settlement documents and final documentation for the individual
plaintiffs are being processed.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still
ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature
of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas,
Louisiana and the UK, we have other asbestos or lung injury claims
pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions. Although
we do not expect final disposition of these asbestos or lung
injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our
financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be
no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is the United Kingdom-based offshore contract
drilling company. The Company offers offshore drilling rig fleet,
ultra-deepwater fleet and jackup fleet. Ensco owns and operates an
offshore drilling rig fleet of 74 rigs. The Company's target
market includes oil companies, in addition to many independent
operators. The Company's operations and drilling contracts span
across 20 countries on six continents around the world. The
markets in which the Company operates include the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico, Mexico, Brazil, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, the
Middle East, West Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia. The
Company provides drilling services on a day-rate contract basis.
It operates through three segments: Floaters, Jackups and Other.
The Floaters segment includes the Company's drillships and
semisubmersible rigs. The Jackups segment offers contract drilling
services. The other segment comprises management services on rigs
owned by third parties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against numerous
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF Railway employees was due
to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive
engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.
However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after
1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by
1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

Key elements of the assessment include:

   * Because BNSF Railway did not have detailed employment records
in order to compute the population of potentially exposed
employees, it computed an estimate using Company employee data
from 1970 forward and estimated the BNSF Railway employee base
from 1938-1969 using railroad industry historical census data and
estimating BNSF Railway's representation in the total railroad
population.

   * The projected incidence of disease was estimated based on
epidemiological studies using employees' age, duration and
intensity of exposure while employed.

   * An estimate of the future anticipated claims filing rate by
type of disease (non-malignant, cancer and mesothelioma) was
computed using the Company's average historical claim filing rates
observed in 2011-2014.

   * An estimate of the future anticipated dismissal rate by type
of claim was computed using the Company's historical average
dismissal rates observed in 2010-2014.

   * An estimate of the future anticipated settlement by type of
disease was computed using the Company's historical average of
dollars paid per claim for pending and future claims using the
average settlement by type of incidence observed during 2010-2014.

From these assumptions, BNSF Railway projected the incidence of
each type of disease to the estimated population to arrive at an
estimate of the total number of employees that could potentially
assert a claim. Historical claim filing rates were applied for
each type of disease to the total number of employees that could
potentially assert a claim to determine the total number of
anticipated claim filings by disease type. Historical dismissal
rates, which represent claims that are closed without payment,
were then applied to calculate the number of future claims by
disease type that would likely require payment by the Company.
Finally, the number of such claims was multiplied by the average
settlement value to estimate BNSF Railway's future liability for
unasserted asbestos claims.

The most sensitive assumptions for this accrual are the estimated
future filing rates and estimated average claim values. Asbestos
claim filings are typically sporadic and may include large batches
of claims solicited by law firms. To reflect these factors, BNSF
Railway used a multi-year calibration period (i.e., average
historical filing rates observed in 2011-2014) because it believed
it would be most representative of its future claim experience. In
addition, for non-malignant claims, the number of future claims to
be filed against BNSF Railway declines at a rate consistent with
both mortality and age as there is a decreasing propensity to file
a claim as the population ages. BNSF Railway believes the average
claim values by type of disease from the historical period 2010-
2014 are most representative of future claim values. Non-malignant
claims, which represent approximately 90 percent of the total
number and 60 percent of the cost of estimated future asbestos
claims, were priced by age of the projected claimants.
Historically, the ultimate settlement value of these types of
claims is most sensitive to the age of the claimant.

During the third quarters of 2014, 2013 and 2012, the Company
analyzed recent filing and payment trends to ensure the
assumptions used by BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos
liability were reasonable. In 2014, management recorded a decrease
in expense of $2 million. In 2013, management determined that the
liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded. In
2012, management recorded a decrease in expense of $15 million due
primarily to favorable settlements. The Company plans to update
its study again in the third quarter of 2015.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks
in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a
network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of
the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of
that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and
permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet
of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal
facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and
industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities
and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with
short-line partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., had 54,000 total outstanding 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.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota
and Wyoming, pending claims at the time of enactment, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy. The Company cautions, however, that the
legislation may be challenged and there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its
accrual, continues to assign no value to claims filed after June
11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

For the year ended 2014, the Company had 54,000 total outstanding
asbestos-related claims; and made $30 million asbestos-related
payments.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given its settlement experience
with post-1964 claims, the Company does not believe that an
adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation
cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos
legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with
respect to such claims.

As of December 31, 2014, the percentage of outstanding claims
related to claimants alleging serious diseases was 22%.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of December 31,
2014.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $275
million, including $231 million for unasserted claims. The
Company's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims
through the year 2024. The Company's accrual excludes potential
costs for claims beyond 2024 because the Company believes that the
key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

Approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2014
were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific amount of
damages or claim a minimum amount as established by court rules
relating to jurisdiction; approximately 11% were filed by
plaintiffs who claim damages of less than $5 million;
approximately 1% were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages from
$5 million to less than $100 million (86% of whom claim damages
less than $25 million) and 3 were filed by plaintiffs who claim
damages in excess of $100 million.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant, the Company
and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of
settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities,
the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in
additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt
defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including
the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first
exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's
ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the
volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies
available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of
receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and
the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity
and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-
Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the
Company's asbestos cases are filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods. The Company's products include steel
and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household and other consumer
products and metal vacuum closures and caps. The Company's
products are sold to the soft drink, food, citrus, brewing,
household products, personal care and various other industries.
The Company operates 147 plants with service facilities throughout
40 countries. The Company's business is organized geographically
within three divisions, Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The
Company's segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. The Company's segments within the
European Division are European Beverage and European Food. The
Company's Asia Pacific Division is a segment which consists of
beverage can operations and non-beverage can operations, primarily
food cans and specialty packaging.


                            *********

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  * * *