CAR_Public/150605.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 112


                            Headlines


AKORN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in N.D. Ill.
AMBOW EDUCATION: Court Granted Final OK of Class Action Deal
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Moreira" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
AMERICAN APPAREL: Class Suit Filed After Easter Mass Filing
ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Investors Plan to Sue Over Ponzi Scheme

AUTOLIV INC: No Timeline for Class Cert. in Canadian Cases
BAKER HUGHES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Merger Cases
BAKER HUGHES: Court Dismissed "Rovner" Class Action
BAKER HUGHES: Parties in Ciamillo Case Agreed to Settle
BERKS CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says

BP PLC: Payments to Lee County Claimants Has Exceeded $83MM
BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removes "Cooper" Suit to Florida District Court
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
CANADA: Marijuana Patients File Privacy Breach Class Action
CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CARVER BIBLE: Faces "Gardner" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Asserting Insurance Claims
CNOOC LIMITED: No Appeal Filed in Class Suit Prior to Deadline
CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

CUSTOM CLIMATE: "Smith" Suit Moved From N.D. to M.D. Florida
DAIMLER BUSES: SLF Transit Buses Are Defective, Port Arthur Says
DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Cameras
DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Walker" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
E. I. DU PONT: 37 Lawsuits Pending Related to Imprelis(R)

E. I. DU PONT: Drinking Water Case Trials to Begin Sept. and Nov.
EOS CCA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Leblanc" Suit Claims
ESKATON VILLAGE: Mediation Set for Homeowners' Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in N.D. Iowa
FINANCIAL CORP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

FLOWERS BAKING: Removes "Porreca" Class Suit to E.D. California
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
FORTUNE BRANDS: Shareholder Suits Block Norcraft Acquisition
FREDERICK J HANNA: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in N.D. Iowa

GAZIT-GLOBE: Response to Certification Motion Due
GENCO SHIPPING: Levi & Korsinsky Mulls Suit Over Baltic Deal
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Grants Motion to Stay Document Unsealing
GOOGLE INC: Wallet Privacy Class Action to Proceed
GSCM VENTURES: Accused of Falsely Marketing "Libido For Her" Drug

HEALTH ENHANCEMENT: August 27 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces $3-Bil. Suit Over Aruba Networks Purchase
HOME DEPOT: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.8 Million
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Securities Suit Proceeds on Remaining Claims

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 104 Product Liability Cases
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Taylor" Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Garza" Suit Over Xarelto-Related Death
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Kolter" Injury Suit Over Use of Xarelto
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Roberts" Injury Suit Over Use of Xarelto

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Defending Against "Gross" Class Action
LEE COUNTY, FL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
LEVY ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over Del Taco Deal
LLOYDS BANKING: Faces Class Suit Over 2008 HBOS Takeover
LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Faces 6,027 Product Liability Cases

LORILLARD INC: 3 Conventional Product Liability Cases for Trial
LORILLARD INC: Special Master to Oversee Accord in Engle Cases
LORILLARD INC: 11th Circuit Court Issued Opinion in Graham Case
LORILLARD INC: Fla. Supreme Court Issued Opinion in "Hess" Case
LORILLARD INC: Florida Supreme Court Upheld Russo Case Ruling

LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases
LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Mrozek Case Remains Pending
LORILLARD INC: No New Trial Date Set in Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds
LORILLARD INC: Court Ruling on Counsel Fees in "Sury" Pending
LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Calloway Case

LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Evers Case
LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Gafney Case
LORILLARD INC: "Chamberlain" Suit v. RJ Reynolds Has Concluded
LORILLARD INC: Motion for Attorneys' Fees Denied in Burkhart Case
LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Harris Case

LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Irimi" Case Filed Notice of Appeal
LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Lourie Case
LORILLARD INC: Perrotto Plaintiff Seeks to Disqualify Trial Judge
LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff Motion Pending in "Caprio" Suit
LORILLARD INC: Bids to Rehear Appellate Court Rulings Pending

LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs in W.Va. IPIC Filed Certiorari Bid
LORILLARD INC: No Flight Attendant Cases Scheduled for Trial
LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Remains Defendant in Smokers' Action
LORILLARD INC: Not Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases
LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Defending 56 Filter Cases

LORILLARD INC: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Merger-Related Case
LOS ANGELES, CA: Water Dept Threatened by Suits Over Billing
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in West Virginia
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Udit" Suit in Virginia District Court
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Abshier" Liability Suit in S.D. Ohio

MANN PUBLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, N.Y. Suit Claims
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Sued by Kentucky for Fixing Price of Gasoline
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Class Actions Dismissed in 1st Qtr

MICHAEL JACKSON: 2 Former Child Stars Sue Estate Over Sex Abuse
MISTRAS GROUP: Removes "Viceral" FLSA Suit to N.D. California
MITEL NETWORKS: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Moves Iron Workers Suit to District of Delaware
MVM INC: Faces "Bonilla-Ramirez" Suit Alleging Discrimination

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Duerson's Family to Appeal Class Action Deal
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NYFACS PTO CORP: Accused of Gender and Pregnancy Discrimination
ORGANO GOLD: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Delaware District Court

ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duty in Florida
PARADISE SHOWGIRLS: Strippers Win $6.5MM Payout in Dance Tip Suit
POST PAINTING: Irregularly Paid Black Painter, Suit Claims
PREMERA: Faces "Kaihoi" Suit Asserting Insurance-Related Claims
RASPUTIN RECORDS: Fails to Offer Accessible Facilities, Suit Says

RELIANT CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RICHARD & RICE: Removes "Gonzalez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
RITE AID: Class Suit Filed Over PIN Disclosure
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit

SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Lawsuit Filed by Australian Travelers
SEADRILL LIMITED: Judge Consolidated Fuchs and Heron Cases
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Payment Supported by Insurance
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Receives Pro-Rata Disbursement in TiO2 Accord

SINO-FOREST CORP: Defense Lawyers' Bill Reach $41 Million
SONUS NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
TARGET CORP: US Banks, Credit Unions Challenge $19MM Settlement
TEVA: Settles Suit Over Delayed Generics for $512 Million

THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Quebec Court Affirms Ruling on 121851 Suit
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
TRANSUNION CORP: "Young" Suit Moved From California to Georgia
UNITED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
UTICA, NY: Faces Class Action Over Refugee Segregated Schools

VIRGIN AMERICA: Removes "Bernstein" Class Suit to N.D. California
VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Tinsley" Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
WALGREENS BOOTS: June 9 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Application
WEGMANS FOOD: Seeks Dismissal of Baked Bread Fraud Suit

WILSON COUNTY, NC: Pet Advocates to Sue Over Animal Privilege Fee
YOUNG ADULT: Sued for Denying ERISA Funds to Female Plan Member

* Civil Procedure Code Amendment Allows Class Suit in Thailand
* Cummings Manookian Mulls Class Suit Over Graded Diamond
* Possible Class Suit vs NZ Insurers Gains Support


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cases in New Zealand May Have Peaked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Bowling Alley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traverls Must Pay $9-Mil. in Fees
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Aussie Walking Area
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust to Be Removed from NJ School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Reject Fibro-related Pollution Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Shuts Down Virginia Preschool
ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Tribunal Seeks List of Fibro Mines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Library to Remove Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Fines Co. for Fibro Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fife Man Sues for Toxic Dust Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust to Be Removed from Cork River
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit over Jackson Courthouse Seeks Millions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Charged with Improper Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Fibro Illness Predicted in Asia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library to Close Due to Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Seeks Relief From Bankruptcy Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alresford Man Dies Due to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Illegally Dumped in Orangeville

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council Sentencing Delayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Flips Ruling on Motion for Nonsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Common Law Rules Fibro Claims, Not CBA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Can't Raise New Fibro Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworker Can't Revive Suit vs. Crane Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Governor Signs Bill on Fibro Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Horrified Over Fibro Find at Mill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Fears for Man After Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Ordered to Pay GBP10,000 After Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Congress Urged to Restore Removal Funding

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leisure Center Shuts Down Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Legislature OKs Bill on Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher's Family Launches Legal Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Gets Nod with $325M Asbestos Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Settles Navy Repairman Death Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Garlock "Fishing" in RICO Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Settles GBP150,000 Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Mulls Changes After Sheldon Silver Scandal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gracie Mansion Roof
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Opposes Subpoenas in Racketeering Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge to Study Defense Qualms in Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three More York Deaths Linked to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imo Industries Wants Out of Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Death of Emsworth Engineer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Gov. Signs Bill Modifying Fibro PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Spa Resort Demolition Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Magnet Joinery Worker Appeals for Fibro Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Affirms $1.6-Mil. Talc Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naval Veteran Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Directed to Pay $9M in Fibro Row

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Wins GBP176,000 Fibro Compensation Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Wilde" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment OK'd in "Landry" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Exclusion Motion in PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Modifies WCB Ruling in "Beck" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of 4 Cos. in "Malone" Suit Recommended
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Djokic" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Show Cause Ordered in "Hall" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO Coverage Suit Junked as to Gen. Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Eaton Corp. Insurance Suit Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 24 Conference Set in "Cotten" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Inc. Had $927-Mil. NARCO Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell In'tl. Has $622MM Bendix Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Had 9,193 Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $8MM Est. Fibro Liability


                            *********


AKORN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Akorn, Inc.
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, and docketed under 15-cv-01944, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Akorn
securities between April 17, 2014 and March 2, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 4, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Akorn, Inc. engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic
and therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital
drugs, and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally.  The Company offers products in various specialty
areas, including ophthalmology, antidotes, anti-infectives, pain
management, anesthesia, and vaccines.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as of December 31, 2014, more
than eight months after it acquired Hi-Tech and four months after
it acquired VersaPharm, Akorn did not yet integrate those
subsidiaries into the Company's centralized accounting department
and accounting systems; (2) certain financial and other related
data related to Hi-Tech and VersaPharm, which require inclusion in
Akorn's annual report to be filed with the SEC on Form 10-K, could
not be timely collected and compiled; (3) due to the
aforementioned issues, the Company would be unable to timely
complete its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014; (4)
Akorn's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective
and  material weaknesses existed relating to the completeness and
accuracy of underlying data used in the determination of
significant estimates and accounting transactions and accurate and
timely reporting of its financial results and disclosures in its
Form 10-K; (5) and as a result of the foregoing, Akorn's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 2, 2015, after the close of trading, the Company issued a
press release and filed a Form 12b-25, Notification Of Late
Filing, with the SEC, announcing that it would need an extension
to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2014.

As a result of this news, shares of Akorn fell $4.38, or over 8%,
on unusually heavy volume, to close at $49.33 on March 3, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions.  Today more than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.


AMBOW EDUCATION: Court Granted Final OK of Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ambow Education Holding Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that at a March 16
hearing, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the class action settlement and attorney fees and costs.

On June 11, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The complaint also named
as defendants current officer of Ambow, Jin Huang, and former
officer Paul Chow. On June 22, 2012, a second putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the Central District of
California against Ambow, Chow and Huang. On November 19, 2012,
the Judge issued an order consolidating the two cases and
appointing Tianqing Zhang as lead plaintiff.

On February 18, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against Ambow and eight individual defendants, sought
recovery on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ambow's American Depositary Shares on the New
York Exchange from the date of its initial public offering on
August 5, 2010 through July 5, 2012 for allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning Ambow's operations and financial
results in the Company's public filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
Complaint. On March 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants.

On March 24, 2014, Judge entered a scheduling order pursuant to
which defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint
are due by May 19, 2014. On or around May 12, 2014, counsel for
the parties agreed upon the principal terms of a settlement. The
settlement provides for a total payment of RMB 9.1 million (US$
1.5 million) by the Company's insurer to the plaintiff class, in
exchange for complete dismissal and release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the action against the Company
and named defendants.

At the final approval hearing, held on March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs
reported that they had not received any objections to the proposed
settlement, not any request from individuals to be excluded from
the settlement class. At March 16 hearing, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement and attorney fees and costs, thereby terminating this
litigation subject to the payment of the settlement amount. By the
date of issuance of this report, the Company has not received the
full dismissal and release letter from the court yet.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Moreira" FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Moreira v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
2015-008471-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-21820-CMA to the proceeding.

The action is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 to
redress alleged injuries resulting from the Defendant's unlawful,
disability-based discriminatory treatment of and retaliation
against the Plaintiff.  In addition, the action by the Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated staff assistants is brought for
damages exceeding $15,000, excluding attorneys' fees or costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime or minimum wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          Michael A. Holt, Esq .
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: hocariz@shb.com
                  mholt@shb.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Class Suit Filed After Easter Mass Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clothing manufacturer American Apparel has been sued by workers
after an Easter week mass firing.  The complaint filed on April 16
by the fired employees of the multi-million dollar fashion upstart
charges that American Apparel failed to comply with the WARN Act
that prohibits surprise mass firings by companies that have more
than 100 employees. American Apparel claims to have more than
10,000 workers.  The charges in the complaint describe a scenario
where long time employees were discharged without even a single
full day's warning and forced to sign releases without time to
seek legal advice.

"I was told that I had to sign a release immediately or I would
not receive any severance at all," said Dominga Valencia, a fired
long time worker. "I stood there worried about how I would be able
to feed my family without the severance."

The actions described in the labor complaint stand in stark
contrast to the promise of a "sweat free workplace" touted by
American Apparel to its mostly urban fan base.   The clothing
manufacturer has taken a cold tone to its American workforce since
being taken over by billionaire Wall St. Hedge fund manager
Standard General. Standard General recently took a major stake in
Radio Shack before the electronic retailer was led to bankruptcy
and began the firing thousands of American workers.

"American Apparel promised its workers and its customers that it
would be an ethical employer," said Nativo Lopez of Hermandad
Mexicana. "The only thing sweat free at American Apparel is the
way that management regards labor law. Its Wall St. owners say 'we
need to dump workers now' and its management responds 'no sweat.'"


ARCHIPEL CAPITAL: Investors Plan to Sue Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reported that as many as
15 prominent Central New Yorkers, including former NFL player Tim
Green, lawmakers and the Onondaga County executive's husband, may
have been victimized by a Ponzi scheme involving up to $19 million
in investments.

Gregory Gray Jr. of Buffalo, who grew up in the Syracuse area, was
arrested on charges of securities fraud. He's accused of operating
"a classic Ponzi-like scheme" involving shares of Twitter stock
since June at the latest, according to an affidavit from an
investigator with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

FBI agents arrested Gray, 39, on March 4 at his home in Lake
Worth, Fla., on charges of defrauding investors out of $5 million.
He was freed from jail after posting $500,000 bond.

Gray used two local men to recruit new investors: Onondaga County
Legislature Chairman Ryan McMahon and Andrew Russo Jr., a concert
pianist who ran unsuccessfully for state Senate in 2010, according
to Gray's testimony before the SEC.

The local investors included Marc Overdyk, the husband of Onondaga
County Executive Joanie Mahoney; Green, a lawyer, former pro
football player and author; James Breuer, president of Hueber-
Breuer Construction; Andrew Goldberg, with the former Goldberg &
Sons furniture; County Legislator Kevin Holmquist; lawyers William
Gilberti, Francis Stinziano and Joshua Heintz; Syracuse City Court
Judge Rory McMahon; Dr. Cynthia Bright, wife of Jim Bright,
president of Dunk & Bright Furniture; former Destiny USA executive
Michael Lorenz; developer Joseph Scuderi; David Rothschild, a
lawyer and law clerk to an Onondaga County Court judge; and
Syracuse.com sports columnist Bud Poliquin and his wife, Kathleen.

Of those individual investors, the people who invested the most
were Overdyk, $250,000; Goldberg, $225,000; Russo, $150,000; and
Green, $100,000, according to court filings.

Five or six of the 15 prominent local investors were not recruited
by McMahon or Russo, Russo said. He said they were recruited by
another referral service. Of the 60 or more total investors in the
Syracuse area, Russo or McMahon recruited about 25, Russo said.

Russo and McMahon are also possible victims as partners in
Prufrock Ventures LLC, which invested in the companies Gray was
promoting. Russo also invested as an individual.

Russo, Prufrock and at least 16 other investors plan to file a
class-action lawsuit against Gray and his companies, one of which
is Archipel Capital LLC, according to the investors' lawyer, John
Cherundolo. Gray is managing director of the venture capital
company.

McMahon declined to comment.

In a Ponzi scheme, a promoter pays returns to early investors
using money from later investors, requiring him to have a
continual stream of new investors' money. Many Ponzi operators
vanish when the scheme unravels.

"Gray tried to keep his operation afloat by raising money from new
investors and was in the process of soliciting new investments
just before he was shut down and arrested," said Gabe Nugent, a
lawyer for one of the investors, Scuderi.

It's not clear how much of the investments will be lost. A federal
judge appointed a receiver to oversee Archipel Capital's assets.
The receiver's responsible for marshaling and safeguarding the
assets and will hire a forensic accounting firm to go through the
finances.

"It was shocking that it was a Ponzi scheme," Holmquist said.
Russo and McMahon recruited him and Holmquist invested a total of
$30,000 in two of Gray's projects -- Twitter and Everloop.
Holmquist's $15,000 investment in Twitter doubled, he said. But he
lost his entire investment in Everloop, he said.

"There wasn't due diligence on the company itself," Holmquist said
of Everloop. "I don't think anyone ever led me astray. I went in
with my eyes open, knowing this was a high-risk venture. But
obviously they didn't do the due diligence on the running of the
company, the business side of things."

McMahon and Russo weren't responsible for researching the stock,
Holmquist said.

"I think probably they put faith in folks who didn't do the due
diligence on that company," he said.

"We gave $11,000 foolishly," Bud Poliquin said. "We didn't do any
research. We were just innocent saps. The next thing we know, that
money may be gone."

Gray's troubled past wasn't disclosed to the investors, according
to court records. The SEC censured him and barred him from work as
a general securities representative from 2008 to 2011. That agency
found he'd entered unauthorized trades in customer accounts then
harassed and threatened the customers and their families after
they complained, according to SEC filings.

At one point, Russo had a "battle royale" with Gray, Gray told the
SEC when he testified before the agency in February.
In an email in November 2012, Russo told Gray, "No need to
discuss. Just another GG lie."

In April 2014, lawyers for Prufrock Ventures told Gray in a letter
that he'd shorted the partnership the number of shares of Twitter
stock he'd agreed to purchase for them with their $1.1 million.
Instead of buying the agreed-upon 55,000 shares, Gray bought
47,169 shares, the letter said.

Gray claimed to have access to 230,000 shares of Twitter stock,
but in reality only had 80,000, an SEC investigator said in court
papers. He said that all investors received the Twitter shares
they'd bought.

Gray corrected a reporter who asked him to respond to allegations
that he was running a Ponzi scheme.

"It doesn't say that at all," Gray said of the SEC lawsuit. "It's
an alleged Ponzi-like scheme. There's a difference."

He wouldn't answer questions about the allegations, responding
repeatedly by saying, "Are you asking about the involvement of
Ryan McMahon and Andy Russo in the company?"

Russo, a certified financial advisor, and McMahon received part of
Archipel's 5 percent management fee, Gray told the SEC.
Gray referred all questions to his lawyer, who could not be
reached.

The local investments began in 2011, when Gray flew the CEO of a
new company, Everloop, to Syracuse. The company's product was
marketed as Facebook for children. The CEO was Hilary DeCesare,
from California. Gray, in testimony before the SEC, said he had
Russo and McMahon recruit investors for him.

"We would fly her into Syracuse to meet with investors, either on
a one-on-one basis or in a larger forum," Gray testified. But
neither Gray nor DeCesare ever disclosed Gray's disciplinary
history with the SEC, he testified.

"We had a lot of Syracuse investors," Gray testified.
Everloop did not do well. Archipel ended up filing a claim against
the company, claiming Everloop had made misrepresentations about
Archipel's investments. Gray received a $650,000 settlement of the
claim in June, according to the SEC's lawsuit against him.

Instead of disbursing all of that settlement money, Gray in late
June transferred $350,000 of it to the people who had invested in
Twitter, to give them their expected return on investment, the SEC
lawsuit said. Gray also used a $5 million investment from an
investor to pay the Twitter investors, the lawsuit said.

The investor assumed his $5 million was going to be used to buy
stock in Uber Inc., the SEC said. When one investor sought proof
from Gray that his money was being used to buy Uber stock, Gray
sent him a fabricated stock transfer agreement that bore a cut-
and-pasted signature from a previous purchase of stock, the SEC
lawsuit said.

The SEC accused Gray of using money from three investment funds to
pay "fictitious returns" to investors in another fund.

The SEC has frozen the assets of Gray's company. The criminal case
against Gray is being prosecuted in federal court in New York
City.


AUTOLIV INC: No Timeline for Class Cert. in Canadian Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there is currently no
timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian
cases.

The Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors are
defendants in a total of eighteen purported antitrust class action
lawsuits filed between July 2012 and October 2013. Fourteen of
these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have been consolidated
in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile
Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability,
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL, subject to
final approval by the MDL court following notice to the settlement
class, an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement, and
a fairness hearing. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the
Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser
settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class,
and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of
$65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of
2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and
the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims
regarding their U.S. purchases that were or could have been
asserted on behalf of the class in the MDL.

In July 2014, the three settlements received preliminary court
approval. Following notice to the direct purchaser settlement
class and the receipt of opt-out notices from members of that
class, the class settlement amount was by the terms of the
settlement agreement reduced to approximately $35.5 million.
Following a fairness hearing on December 3, 2014, the MDL court on
January 7, 2015 entered an order granting final approval to the
direct purchaser class settlement. Notices to the settlement
classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class
settlements have been deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL court
for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost
of giving notice to large settlement classes. The three class
settlements will not resolve any claims of settlement class
members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any
purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise
included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.

In March 2015, Autoliv reached agreements regarding additional
settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global
(including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not
covered by its U.S. direct purchaser settlement described above.
The total amount of these additional settlements is $81 million.
Autoliv has expensed during the first quarter of 2015
approximately $77 million as a result of these additional
settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued for in
2014. In entering into these agreements, Autoliv did not admit any
liability and settled for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of potential litigation or other
adversarial proceedings and in the interest of maintaining
positive relationships with its customers.

The other four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in
Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January
18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18,
2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP,
Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of
Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The
Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both
direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The
Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits and
intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable that
the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian
antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases
currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a
loss has been recorded as of March 31, 2015. There is currently no
timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian
cases.


BAKER HUGHES: Agreement in Principle Reached in Merger Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in the class
action lawsuits on the Company's pending merger with Halliburton
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Case.

The following lawsuits have been filed in Delaware in connection
with the Company's pending merger with Halliburton:

* On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder of
the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") against Baker
Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red
Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton ("Red Tiger"
and together with all defendants, "Defendants") styled Gary R.
Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et al., Case No. 10390-CB.

* On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity Fund
and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.

* On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

* On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.

All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our
shareholders in connection with the merger negotiations by
entering into the merger agreement and by approving the merger,
and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red Tiger aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  More specifically,
the lawsuits allege that the merger agreement provides inadequate
consideration to our shareholders, that the process resulting in
the merger agreement was flawed, that the Company's directors
engaged in self-dealing, and that certain provisions of the merger
agreement improperly favor Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding
or impeding third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, among other things.  The lawsuit filed by Annettee
Shipp also alleges that our Board of Directors failed to disclose
material information concerning the proposed merger in the
preliminary registration statement on Form S-4.

On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding
similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary
registration statement on Form S-4.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, and rescission of
the merger agreement, among other relief.

On January 23, 2015, the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under
the caption In re Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case"). Pursuant
to the Court's consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on February 4, 2015, which alleges
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief to that raised in the six individual complaints, except
that while Baker Hughes is named as a defendant, no claims are
asserted against the Company.

On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making
certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement
remains subject to certain conditions, including consummation of
the merger, final documentation, and court approval.


BAKER HUGHES: Court Dismissed "Rovner" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has entered
an order dismissing the Rovner class action lawsuit without
prejudice.

On November 26, 2014, a seventh class action challenging the
merger with Halliburton was filed by a purported Company
shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston Division).  The lawsuit, styled Marc
Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416 ("the
Rovner lawsuit"), asserts claims against the Company, most of our
current Board of Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger.  The
lawsuit asserts substantially similar claims and seeks
substantially similar relief as that sought in the Delaware
lawsuits.  On March 20, 2015, counsel for Mr. Rovner filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal, and on March 23, 2015, the Court
entered an order dismissing the Rovner lawsuit without prejudice.


BAKER HUGHES: Parties in Ciamillo Case Agreed to Settle
-------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Ciamillo class action have agreed to settle the lawsuit.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in various labor claims
including the following matters. On April 28, 2014, a collective
action lawsuit alleging that we failed to pay a class of workers
overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
was filed titled Michael Ciamillo, individually, etc., et al. vs.
Baker Hughes Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Alaska ("Ciamillo"). During the fourth quarter of
2014, the parties agreed to settle the Ciamillo lawsuit, including
certain state law claims, for $5 million, subject to final court
approval."

"On December 10, 2013, a class and collective action lawsuit
alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers
overtime in compliance with the FLSA and certain state laws was
filed titled Lea et al. v. Baker Hughes, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division
("Lea"). During the second quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to
settle the Lea lawsuit, subject to final court approval, and we
recorded a charge of $62 million, which includes the Lea
settlement amount and associated costs and an amount for
settlement of another wage and hour lawsuit."


BERKS CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared N. Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Berks Credit & Collections, Inc., and Does 1
Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-02647-JFL (E.D. Pa.,
May 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


BP PLC: Payments to Lee County Claimants Has Exceeded $83MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Ruane, writing for USA Today, reports that a fiery oil-
drilling rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010,
left 11 dead and millions of gallons of oil in the gulf.  And, in
the months that followed, grim images flashed across the globe,
showing tar-ball-dotted beaches and oil-slicked, sick and dying
marine life.  None of these horrors from the Deepwater Horizon
disaster actually touched Southwest Florida's coast, which is
hundreds of miles from the explosion site.  Public misconceptions,
however, proliferated.  As BP's Macondo well continued to leak for
months, advance bookings at hotels and resorts far from the actual
damage, dropped off more sharply than usual, even for the slower
summer months.

This had a ripple effect throughout Southwest Florida, where
tourism accounts for employment of an estimated one in five people
in Lee and Collier counties.  Five years have passed since the
blast.  While many businesses substantially rebounded during the
nation's economic recovery, an unknown number are seeking at least
partial compensation.  Many more people might be eligible.

One avenue remains for most kinds of private businesses and
individuals: a class-action lawsuit settlement with a June 8 final
deadline for applying.

"I hope people will get off the fence.  I think Southwest Florida
has millions of dollars in gross claims that are still out there,"
said Fort Myers attorney Frank Aloia, who has assisted dozens of
companies -- mostly small businesses with no direct ties to
tourism.

As of April 16, the Deepwater Horizon Claims Center reports:

   -- Settlement payments to claimants in Lee County totaled just
      more than $83 million; and

   -- Payments in Collier County topped $29.6 million.

Altogether, the claims center has paid out about $5 billion since
starting to process claims in June 2012, said New Orleans-based
spokesman Nick Gagliano.  That makes the Southwest Florida
payments look puny, but Gagliano noted the settlement covers
claimants in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and portions of
Florida and Texas.

BP reports it has spent $28 billion on the oil disaster, including
the response, clean-up, early restoration work and claims
payments.

                      Class-Action Settlement

The class-action settlement that's playing out excludes state and
local governments from making claims.  Lee and Collier's county
governments filed other, separate lawsuits, which are yet
unresolved.  Shortly after the oil spill, area tourism promoters
saw their bed tax collections dwindle, and rushed to reassure
potential visitors worldwide that local beaches were unblemished.

Lee charges a 5% tax on rentals of short-term accommodations. The
clerk of court's audit department estimated tourist tax revenue
lost from the Deepwater Horizon disaster at more than $836,000.

"Lee County experienced a big upswing in tourism at the start of
2010.  But business dropped off dramatically immediately after the
Deepwater Horizon event and didn't begin to recover until after
the leaking well was capped," said Tamara Pigott, executive
director of the Lee County Visitor & Convention Bureau.

"By then, we had lost not only a lot of bookings, but also the
momentum we began at the start of the year.  Recovering from that
double impact was difficult at best," Pigott said.

The convention bureau pulled $750,000 from its own bed tax
reserves to run a television commercial campaign assuring
consumers local beaches were "still pristine."

Lee's visitor bureau ultimately got two BP-related grants,
totaling $1 million.

                      Collier County's Woes

Collier tourism promoters weren't so fortunate.  At some point,
the county got $125,000 from a multistate lawsuit settlement, said
Jack Wert, executive director of the Naples, Marco Island, and
Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau.  That amount didn't begin
to compensate for lost bed tax revenue or for other spending such
as emergency management's purchase of booms in case oil actually
did reach the local coast.  Collier's convention bureau filed a
claim for more than $390,000 on three different occasions -- and
struck out each time.

That Collier claim covered more than $281,700 in estimated lost
tourist tax revenue and more than $108,700 in emergency bed tax
reserves the visitor bureau spent on previously unscheduled
advertising "to overcome the misinformation out there," Wert said.

At Red Coconut RV Resort on Fort Myers Beach, co-owner Fran Myers
initially held back from filing a claim.

"I thought, there's no oil on our beaches -- and I felt so bad for
the people in Louisiana and the (Florida) Panhandle."

About two years ago, Myers changed her mind, realizing her
business income wasn't what it could have been in the months after
the oil rig explosion.  And, as a member of the Tourist
Development Council, she'd heard research indicating that at one
point, a significant percentage of potential European visitors
mistakenly "thought the whole coast of Florida" was oil-soaked.

To date, Myers hasn't been notified whether her claim is eligible
for payment, although "several months ago, we had to submit more
paperwork."  If she were to receive the settlement money, Myers
said, "We've been thinking about putting in a swimming pool at the
park.

"I'm not counting on the money."


BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removes "Cooper" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cooper v. Brahmin Records, LLC, et
al., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-21803-RNS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 347-7337
          Facsimile: (305) 347-7837
          E-mail: rgl@shutts.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
American Depositary Shares of Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
(NYSE:BPI) between August 7, 2012 and May 30, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Bridgepoint American Depository Shares between August 7,
2012 and May 30, 2014, your rights may be affected by this action.

To get more information, click here:
http://zlk.9nl.com/bpi-infosheet
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the
Company had applied an improper revenue recognition methodology to
assess collectability of funds owed by students; (b) as a result,
the Company's revenues and financial results were overstated; (c)
the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and (d) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

If you suffered a loss in Bridgepoint you have until April 27,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph
E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972 FREE, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/bpi-infosheet.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. For more information, please
feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

The firm may be reached at:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street -- 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (866) 367-6510


CANADA: Marijuana Patients File Privacy Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Ross, writing for International Business Times, reports
that medical-marijuana patients in Canada who say the government
breached their privacy are taking their complaints to a Federal
Court judge in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Attorneys for the two lead
plaintiffs, who have been identified only by pseudonyms, will
propose in June a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the country's
40,000 medical pot users who received Health Canada mailings that
named the marijuana program on the front of the envelopes
alongside the recipients' names, according to the Chronicle Herald
in Halifax.

Sent in November 2013, the mailings were delivered to participants
in Canada's government-run medical-marijuana program -- patients
who have been approved to use marijuana for medical purposes -- as
well as licensed cannabis growers.  Many criticized the mailings
as careless and said they exposed patients' private medical
information.  To add insult to injury, some of the envelopes meant
for program participants were accidentally delivered to neighbors'
homes.

Before the 2013 mailings, all correspondence between Health
Canada, the agency in charge of the country's national health-care
system, and participants in the program were sent in plain
envelopes that did not include the program's name or any reference
to marijuana on their exteriors.  Health Canada acknowledged that
including the name of the program on the envelopes was a mistake.

"As soon as it was discovered, my phone started ringing off the
hook with individuals who were very upset," David Fraser --
david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com -- a lawyer with the Halifax firm
McInnes Cooper, told the Chronicle Herald on April 22.  "This
exposed their name and their connection with the Marijuana Medical
Access Program . . . We've heard a number of cases where the
individual piece of mail was misdirected and went to the
neighbor's house. This is very sensitive, private information."
McInnes Cooper is one of four law firms handling the case.

Canada paved the way for medical marijuana in 2000 after a court
overturned a law barring patients from accessing marijuana.
However, the drug remains illegal in the eyes of the federal
government.  Most medical pot users get their marijuana from
Health Canada directly through the mail. They pay between $5 and
$12 per gram, according to Leaf Science.

Despite the drug being illegal, Canadian authorities generally
don't prioritize marijuana law enforcement, and many cities in the
country have taken a lax approach toward the plant.  Dozens of
illegal medical-marijuana dispensaries have cropped up in
Vancouver in recent years, but the city's police department has
said it won't be shutting them down.


CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Lead Counsel Labaton
Sucharow LLP regarding the In re Celestica Inc. Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE CELESTICA INC. SEC. LITIG.

Civil Action No.:  07-CV-00312-GBD

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF CELESTICA INC. ON A UNITED STATES STOCK EXCHANGE DURING
THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2005 AND JANUARY 30, 2007,
INCLUSIVE , AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that New Orleans
Employees' Retirement System and Drywall Acoustic Lathing and
Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves, Lead
Plaintiffs, and the Class, on the one hand, and Celestica, Stephen
W. Delaney, and Anthony P. Puppi, on the other hand, have reached
a proposed Settlement in the above-captioned action in the amount
of $30,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable George B. Daniels of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 10:00 a.m. on
July 28, 2015 to, among other things, determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated April 17, 2015; (3) the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount and any
interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and
Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or
expenses approved by the Court should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (4) the application of Class Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be
approved.  The Court may change the date of the hearing without
providing another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim
and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website:

In re Celestica Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10180
Dublin, OH 43017-3180
(888) 345-0866
www.celesticasecuritieslitigation.com
info@celesticasecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the aforementioned documents or
for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Class Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
James W. Johnson, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
(888) 219-6877
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked or received no later than September 17, 2015.
If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof
of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than July 7,
2015.  If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from
the Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
must be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice, such that they are received
no later than July 7, 2015 and filed with the Court no later than
July 7, 2015.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE,
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CLASS COUNSEL AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED ABOVE.

DATED: June 1, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


CARVER BIBLE: Faces "Gardner" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Gardner, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Carver Bible College, Inc., Robert W.
Crummie, Sr., Thomas G. Fritz, Frank Oakley and Terry Alexander,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01799-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 19, 2015) seeks relief
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Eliot DeWoskin, Esq.
          Sam S. Han, Esq.
          DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 14263
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Telephone: (404) 987-0026
          Facsimile: (404) 378-0717
          E-mail: dan@atlantatrial.com
                  prof.sam.han@gmail.com

               - and -

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


CNA FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Asserting Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen B. Daluge, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CNA Financial Corporation and Continental Casualty
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00297-slc (W.D. Wis., May 18, 2015)
asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
          DEBOFSKY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          200 West Madison Street, Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 561-4040
          Facsimile: (312) 929-0309
          E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com

               - and -

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


CNOOC LIMITED: No Appeal Filed in Class Suit Prior to Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cnooc Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that appellant in a aclass
action complaint did not appeal within the Appeal Period. In
accordance with the laws of the United States, all the claims
brought by the Appellant at the Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals are dismissed in their entirety.

On October 11, 2012, the Company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed by Sam Sinay, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated (the "Plaintiff") in the Unites
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Trial Court") (the foregoing legal action is therein below
referred as the "Complaint"). The Complaint was lodged against the
Company and certain of its officers, which alleged that during the
period between January 27, 2011 and September 16, 2011, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
its business and financial results and the oil spill accidents
occurred at the Penglai 19-3 oilfield.

On December 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint in the Trial Court.

On April 4, 2013, the judge of the Trial Court approved the
Plaintiff's voluntarily dismissal, without prejudice, to its
claims against the officers of the Company.

On May 6, 2013, the judge of the Trial Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in the entirety with prejudice. On June 5, 2013,
the Plaintiff (i.e. the Appellant) appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals").
On February 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued a summary order
which found the Appellant's argument without merit and affirmed
the Trail Court's judgment. After the issuance of the summary
order, the Appellant was able to appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States within 90 days (namely, on or before May 5,
2014, New York time) (the "Appeal Period"). The Appellant did not
appeal within the Appeal Period. In accordance with the laws of
the United States, all the claims brought by the Appellant at the
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals are dismissed in their
entirety.


CREDIT BUREAU: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Reynolds, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C. J. Tighe, Case No.
8:15-cv-00168-JFB-TDT (D. Neb., May 12, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Ahmeti, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Credit
Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Credit
Collection Services and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No.
2:15-cv-02677-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


CUSTOM CLIMATE: "Smith" Suit Moved From N.D. to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Smith, et al. v. Custom Climate
Concepts, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00144, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville).  The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-00614-MMH-JRK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Phillip T. Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, PA
          8511 Bull Headley Rd., Suite 405
          Tallahassee, FL 32312
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW PC
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael F. Coppins, Esq.
          COPPINS, MONROE, ADKINS & DINCMAN, PA
          1319 Thomaswood Dr.
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          Telephone: (850) 422-2420
          Facsimile: (850) 422-2730
          E-mail: mcoppins@coppinsmonroe.com


DAIMLER BUSES: SLF Transit Buses Are Defective, Port Arthur Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Port Arthur v. Daimler Buses North Carolina, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00186 (E.D. Tex., May 12, 2015) alleges that the
exhaust and cooling system of Daimler Chrysler SLF Transit Buses,
also known as 2005 Orion SLF Transit buses, were negligently and
defectively designed and manufactured by the Defendant.

The City of Port Arthur, is a resident of Jefferson County, Texas.
In December 2004, the City approved and subsequently purchased 10
DaimlerChrysler SLF Transit buses for the Port Arthur Transit
system for the cost of $2,981,950 from Daimler Chrysler Commercial
Buses North America.

Daimler Buses North Carolina, Inc., is a foreign corporation
organized in New York but is authorized to do business in Texas.
The Company manufactured and sold the subject buses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe J. Fisher, II, Esq.
          PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          490 Park Street
          P. O. Box 4905
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409)835-6000
          Facsimile: (409)813-8609
          E-mail: jfisher@provostumphrey.com


DES MOINES, IA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Meinch, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
Des Moines' traffic cameras on Interstate Highway 235 produced
4,681 citations in March.  That tallies up to roughly $304,000 in
fines.

The cameras -- one for each eastbound lane -- are mounted on a
sign above the interstate near Waveland Golf Course.  Two Polk
County women filed a federal lawsuit in March in the U.S. District
Court in Iowa's southern district that aims to shut the cameras
down.

Five people joined the class-action petition against the city of
Des Moines and Gatso USA, the company that operates the cameras,
according to court documents.  Polk County residents Sarah Brooks
and Michelle Bullock are joined by Zoea Warnick, Francis
Livingood, Paul Wolf, Jason Fett and Kris Olds.  All of the
plaintiffs have received citations from the I-235 traffic cameras
between 56th and 42nd streets, according to the complaint prepared
by attorney James Larew.

Mr. Larew said neither he nor his clients could comment on the
lawsuit.  The class-action effort comes on the heels of a March
ruling from the Iowa Department of Transportation that the Des
Moines cameras need to be shut down.

The DOT ordered that 10 of 34 automated traffic enforcement
cameras on or near Iowa's major highways be turned off because
they did not make the roads safer.  Communities affected by the
decision include Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs,
Davenport, Muscatine and Sioux City.

The city of Des Moines appealed the DOT ruling, which allows the
I-235 cameras to keep rolling until a final judgment is reached by
the court.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Walker" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lashay Walker, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01170-
CEH-EAJ (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


E. I. DU PONT: 37 Lawsuits Pending Related to Imprelis(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that about 37
lawsuits are pending claiming property and related damage at March
31, 2015, related to Imprelis(R).

The company has received claims and lawsuits alleging that the use
of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused damage to certain trees. Sales of
Imprelis(R) were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last
applied during the 2011 spring application season. The lawsuits
seeking class action status were consolidated in multidistrict
litigation in federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In
February 2014, the court entered the final order dismissing these
lawsuits as a result of the class action settlement.

As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 million in
plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is
providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use
of Imprelis(R) on class members' properties through May 2015.

Certain class members opted out of the class action settlement and
made independent claims or filed suit in various state courts, the
majority of which were removed to federal court in Philadelphia.
In the third quarter 2014, the company settled or reached
settlements in principle for the majority of these claims and
lawsuits. About 37 lawsuits are pending claiming property and
related damage at March 31, 2015. This represents a decrease of 3
from the number of lawsuits pending at December 31, 2014.

The company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

DuPont recorded income of $35 million for insurance recoveries,
within other operating charges in the interim Consolidated Income
Statements, for the three months ended March 31, 2015. At March
31, 2015, DuPont had an accrual balance of $231 million related to
these claims and insurance receivables of $25 million.

Insurance recoveries are recognized when collection of payment is
considered probable. The remaining coverage under the insurance
program is $300 million for costs and expenses. DuPont has
submitted requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs
associated with this matter. The timing and outcome remain
uncertain.


E. I. DU PONT: Drinking Water Case Trials to Begin Sept. and Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trials
in the Drinking Water Actions are scheduled to begin in September
and November 2015.

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

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

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

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.  In January 2012, the
company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical
monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.  The court
appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2015, there were
approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various federal and state
courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 600 over
December 31, 2014. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the
third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have
been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district
litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on information
currently available to the company the majority of the lawsuits
allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.  There
are 32 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. While attorneys for the
plaintiffs have indicated that additional lawsuits may be filed,
the company expects the rate of such filings to substantially
decrease. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for
individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in
September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously.


EOS CCA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Leblanc" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Izabella Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EOS CCA and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03357-
FLW-LHG (D.N.J., May 15, 2015) is brought over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


ESKATON VILLAGE: Mediation Set for Homeowners' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keri Brenner, writing for The Union, reports that parties in a
class action suit brought by private homeowners at Eskaton Village
in Grass Valley against the luxury senior community's corporate
management have agreed to a mediation session.

The session, mediated by Retired California Court of Appeals Judge
Fred K. Morrison, was set to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 29 at
the Sacramento office of JAMS, an alternative dispute resolution
service.

"The mediation is confidential and private," said attorney David
A. Diepenbrock, who represents lead plaintiffs Ronald Coley and
Karen Lorini, owners of two of 130 private "Patio Homes" at the
42-acre residential community.

Attorney Rod Bayardine, representing Sacramento-based defendants
Eskaton Village Grass Valley, Eskaton Properties Inc., Eskaton
Village Grass Valley Homeowners Association and four Eskaton
corporate officers, could not be reached for comment on April 24.

Coley and Lorini have accused the defendants of nine causes of
action, including breach of fiduciary duties, financial elder
abuse, unfair business practices and negligence.  Most of the
allegations, Coley said, stem from alleged improprieties in the
handling of budgeting, fees and services for the 130 private
homeowners represented by the Eskaton Village Grass Valley
Homeowners Association.

According to a copy of the class action lawsuit, filed in amended
form Jan. 5 in Sacramento County Superior Court, the finances and
operations of Eskaton Village Grass Valley's separate assisted
living apartment complex have been intertwined with those of the
130 private Patio Home homeowners.  The result, the lawsuit says,
is that homeowners, who are a separate unit from the assisted
living complex, have allegedly been forced to pay a
disproportionate fee for common services, such as the security
patrol and landscaping.

According to the lawsuit, homeowners were overcharged more than
$500,000 in fees between 2005 and 2013 for their shares of a
landscaping contract and of an environmental program director's
salary.  The suit also claims unfair charges relating to the
campus security patrol services and a fitness/wellness program
director.

In all those instances, the homeowners paid more than their
allotted shares than the assisted living center, even though the
homeowners, in some cases, received less services, the suit
states.

"Plaintiffs have recently learned that campus patrol employees
(who are primarily responsible for furnishing the
security/emergency response and on-site shuttle service) have
devoted no more than 25 percent of their time serving the Patio
Home owners (who are paying more than 50 percent of the cost),"
the suit says.

The lawsuit attributes the alleged discrepancies in fees and
services to the setup of the Eskaton Village Grass Valley
Homeowners Association.  According to the suit, the HOA board is
controlled by corporate officers of Eskaton Corp. or Eskaton
Properties Inc., instead of by homeowner members.

"Eskaton has controlled and dictated the policies of EVGV and the
HOA policies since the Village was created in such a way as to
benefit its own interests at the expense of the HOA and the Patio
Home owners," the suit states.  "Eskaton has done this by, among
other things, approving, renewing, and overseeing the Management
Services Agreement so as to impose excessive, unjust and unfair
financial burdens on the Patio Home owners."

Other than the alleged intermingling of the financial operations
and alleged overlapping of some services, the allegations in the
homeowners' suit do not reflect on conditions or operations at
Eskaton Village Grass Valley's assisted living complex.

The facility includes 57 one-bedroom assisted living apartments
that provide personal care and medication management, as well as
such services as meals, housekeeping and laundry.

By contrast, the Patio Homes are privately owned and operated;
homeowners contract for services, such as landscaping the common
areas, through the HOA.

The four corporate offices named in the suit are Eskaton CEO Todd
Murch, Chief Operating Officer Betsy Donovan, Operations Director
Mark Cullen and former COO Trevor Hammond.  Pending the outcome of
mediation, the parties have set a case management conference for
May 21 in Sacramento County Superior Court.


FANNIE MAE: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in N.D. Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------
Three Iowa shareholders sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency
and the U.S. Treasury last week.  Their complaint challenges the
legality of the government's use of the profits of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac under what is known as the Third Amendment Sweep, and
does so in a couple of ways not fully explored in similar earlier
lawsuits by GSE shareholders.  The complaint initiating Saxton v.
FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa), tells the Court in broad
terms:

"Plaintiffs bring this action to put a stop to the federal
government's naked and unauthorized expropriation of their
property rights. . . .  Treasury's violation of HERA is
straightforward: the Net Worth Sweep, by changing the fundamental
economic characteristics of Treasury's investment, created a new
security, and HERA forbade Treasury from acquiring Fannie and
Freddie stock in 2012.  This Court must set aside the Net Worth
Sweep and restore to Fannie's and Freddie's private shareholders
the property rights the federal government has unlawfully
expropriated for itself."  While that general overview sounds
familiar, the 49-page, 146-paragraph document contains some
details not found in other shareholder lawsuits.

A spokesperson for the Iowa shareholders and their lawyers said,
"this is the first suit by individual shareholders in Iowa and the
first suit filed since Treasury documents leaked earlier this year
raised serious questions about whether judges lacked relevant
information before ruling in similar cases related to the Third
Amendment Sweep."  As reported by HousingWire.com, one leaked
document -- dated Jan. 4, 2011, and posted at
http://bit.ly/1RvKntV-- is a planning memo by then undersecretary
for domestic finance at Treasury, Jeffrey A. Goldstein, on the
disposition of the GSEs.  The Goldstein Memo was not provided to
shareholders, Housing Wire observes, going on to explain that this
is most notable because critics of the Treasury say it makes the
argument that Treasury should disregard the federal Housing and
Economic Recovery Act rules that circumscribe its duties in the
conservatorship.

As previously reported in the Troubled Company Reporter and Class
Action Reporter, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $187.5
billion from Treasury between Nov. 2008 and June 2012.  The GSEs
have returned $230.7 billion to Treasury to date, earning
taxpayers a 23% return on their money so far.  A similar lawsuit
by Continental Western Insurance Co. in the Southern District of
Iowa challenging Treasury's endlessly increasing rate of return by
sweeping all of the GSEs' profits each quarter was dismissed by
Judge Pratt earlier this year, and Judge Lamberth in the District
of Columbia dismissed several similar lawsuits in Sept. 2014.
Both judges said the government acted within the boundaries
established by the Congress when it voted to approve HERA.  Judge
Lamberth's decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Briefing in the D.C. Circuit might
be completed by early-October 2015.

"It does seem peculiar that Treasury did not provide [shareholders
with a copy of the Goldstein Memo].  It raises the question of
whether, or what, other documents were not disclosed, and why,"
prolific Graham, Fisher & Co. analyst Josh Rosner told Housing
Wire.  "[Additionally,] it suggests that they fully appreciated
what HERA required and chose to circumvent the spirit, if not the
letter, of [the] law."  An earlier memorandum from Mr. Goldstein
to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner-- dated Dec. 20, 2010 and
posted at http://nyti.ms/1HCgIZ2that was turned over to
shareholders -- unambiguously spoke about "the Administration's
commitment to ensure existing common equity holders will not have
access to any positive earnings from the GSEs in the future,"
notwithstanding the absence of any provision in HERA making that
decree.

InvestorsUnite.org observes that the Saxton case in the Northern
District of Iowa won't be encumbered by Judge Lamberth's ruling in
the District of Columbia or Judge Pratt's decision in the Southern
District of Iowa dismissing similar lawsuits.  Chief Judge Linda
R. Reade -- appointed to the federal bench by President George W.
Bush in 2002 -- is free to take a fresh look at the facts and
applicable law in the Saxton case and make her own independent
findings of fact and conclusions of law about whether the
government went too far when Treasury and FHFA executed the Third
Amendment and how that overreaching should be reformed.

The Saxton plaintiffs say in paragraph 68 of their Complaint that:

     "A senior executive at one of the Companies . . . discussed
     the reversal of the deferred tax assets valuation allowance
     with Treasury on eve of the Net Worth Sweep."

That factual assertion doesn't appear to have bubbled to the
surface in other GSE litigation to date and is inconsistent with
these statements appearing in the Declaration submitted by FHFA
Advisor Mario Ugoletti in Perry Capital v. Lew, Case No.
13-cv-01025 (D.D.C.), Doc. 27, Tab 1, par. 20 at 9-10:

     "At the time of the negotiation of the Third Amendment, the
     Conservator and the Enterprises had not yet begun to discuss
     whether or when the Enterprises would be able to recognize
     any value to their deferred tax assets.  Thus, neither the
     Conservator nor Treasury envisioned at the time of the Third
     Amendment that Fannie Mae's valuation allowance on its
     deferred tax assets would be reversed in early 2013,
     resulting in a sudden and substantial increase in Fannie
     Mae's net worth, which was paid to Treasury in mid-2013 by
     virtue of the net worth dividend."

Retired Fannie Mae lobbyist Bill Maloni wondered aloud yesterday
at http://timhoward717.com/-- the self-described "Fannie Mae-
Straight Talk" blog unaffiliated with J. Timothy Howard, Vice
Chairman and CFO of Fannie Mae until 2004 and author of "The
Mortgage Wars" -- if former Fannie Mae CFO Susan R. McFarland
might be the executive to which the Saxton Plaintiffs make
reference.  Mr. Maloni thinks he recalls something about Ms.
McFarland threatening to resign her CFO post if Fannie Mae didn't
make changes in the way it accounted for its deferred tax assets
before she departed in 2013.

Paragraph 11 of the Saxton Plaintiffs' Complaint touches on a
question about the GSEs' actual need for cash injections from
Treasury from 2008 to 2012.  The GSEs created and recorded large
loan loss reserves in 2008 and additional eye-popping loan loss
reserves in 2009.  Those feared losses never materialized and were
reversed after the Net Worth Sweep was put in place.  While the
large non-cash losses created by those write downs adversely
affected the GSEs' balance sheet solvency, there's no indication
that the GSEs ever faced a liquidity problem or needed Treasury's
cash injections to meet their day-to-day expenses and obligations.
"By 2012," the Saxton Complaint says in paragraph 59, "the housing
market was already recovering and both Fannie and Freddie had
returned to profitability.  In August 2012, the Companies and FHFA
knew or should have known that previously anticipated losses far
exceeded their actual losses.  These excess loss reserves
artificially depressed the Companies' net worth.  Upon reversal of
these loss reserves, Fannie's and Freddie's net worth increases
accordingly."  Paragraph 67 of the Saxton Complaint charges that
"[t]he Companies, FHFA, and Treasury knew or should have known in
August 2012 that the Companies would reverse substantial loss and
deferred tax reserves and reap substantial profits from lawsuits
and sources other than their day-to-day business operations."

The Saxton Plaintiffs assert these five claims for relief in their
Complaint:

     (A) FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory authority as
Conservator;

     (B) Treasury's conduct exceeded its statutory authority;

     (C) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: Treasury's
conduct was arbitrary and capricious;

     (D) breach of contract against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie
and Freddie; and

     (E) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie;

and ask the Court to grant these six forms of relief:

     (1) Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are
not in accordance with and violate HERA . . . , and that Treasury
acted arbitrarily and capriciously . . . by executing the Net
Worth
Sweep;

     (2) Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep . . . ;

     (3) Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and
agents to return to FHFA as conservator of Fannie and Freddie all
dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing a portion of such payments as a
pay down of the liquidation preference and a corresponding partial
redemption of Treasury's Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;

     (4) Enjoining [FHFA and Treasury from] taking any action
whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;

     (5) Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents
from acting at the instruction of Treasury or any other agency of
the government and from re-interpreting the duties of FHFA as
conservator under HERA; and

     (6) Awarding Plaintiffs damages . . . , including . . .
contractually-due dividends on the preferred and common stock for
each quarter when a dividend based on the net worth of the
Companies was paid to Treasury.

Referring to the Sweep, plaintiff Tom Saxton of Cedar Rapids,
said, "I've invested a fair amount of money in Freddie Mac.  What
the government has done is wrong, and I'm filing this lawsuit to
protect my property."

Bill Ackman at Pershing Square Capital Management LP suggested at
the 2015 Harbor Investment Conference earlier this year that
Fannie and Freddie's common shares have one of the most attractive
risk-reward profiles in the markets today.  To put some meat on
those bones today, FNMA shares trade at less than $3 per share,
which is a slight discount to their book value for all authorized,
issued and outstanding shares.  If one of the shareholder suits
were successful in reforming the Third Amendment and
recharacterizing the GSE's payments to Treasury, the book value of
FNMA common shares, for example, would rocket to more than $50 per
share, and preferred shares in the GSEs would be expected to
rebound to their par value.  According to regulatory filings,
Pershing Square owns more than 100 million shares of FNMA common
stock and more than 60 million shares of FMCC common stock at an
average cost of just under $2.25 per share.  Regulatory filings
disclose that Fairholme Capital Management, Icahn Associates
Corp., Third Avenue Management, and Seamans Capital Management
also oversee large positions in the GSEs' publicly traded
securities.

A full-text copy of the Saxton Complaint is available from GSE
Links -- described as "Your Starting Point for GSE News,
Resources, and Information" -- at no charge at:

     http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0001.pdf

The Saxton Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexander M. Johnson, Esq.
     Sean P. Moore, Esq.
     BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS,
     BASKERVILLE AND SCHOENEBAUM, P.L.C.
     666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000
     Des Moines, IA 50309-2510
     Telephone: 515-242-2400
     E-mail: ajohnson@brownwinick.com
             moore@brownwinick.com

An updated chart is available at no charge at:

     http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201505.pdf

to help organize information about the many lawsuits challenging
the Third Amendment and Net Worth Sweep, including the cases
challenging the sweep as a confiscation of private property for
public use by our government without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before
Judge Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  At this time,
jurisdictional discovery is underway in Fairholme v. U.S., Case
No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), and (subject to further extensions),
jurisdictional discovery is currently scheduled to wrap up by June
29, 2015.  Completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme --
on whatever date it actually happens -- will unleash a flurry of
activity in Judge Sweeney's court including Fairholme filing its
response to the government's motion to dismiss its complaint and
other pre-trial filings by the government and other aggrieved
shareholders.


FINANCIAL CORP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Gindi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Corporation of America and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03407-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May 18, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


FLOWERS BAKING: Removes "Porreca" Class Suit to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Porreca, et al. v. Flowers Baking
Co. of California, LLC, et al., Case No. 2013935, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00732-MJS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica Ryan Galletta, Esq.
          Matthew Mellen, Esq.
          MELLEN LAW FIRM
          411 Borel Avenue, Suite 230
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (650) 638-0120
          Facsimile: (650) 638-0125
          E-mail: hollenbachj@gmail.com
                  mellenlaw@yahoo.com

Defendant Flowers Baking Co. of California, LLC is represented by:

          Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
          Robert Allen Jones, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com
                  robert.jones@ogletreedeakins.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Klein, writing for Markets Daily, reported that the Rosen
Law Firm announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all purchasers of ForceField Energy Inc. securities from
September 16, 2013 through April 15, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for ForceField investors under the federal
securities laws.

The law firm may be reached at:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Kevin Chan, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com


FORTUNE BRANDS: Shareholder Suits Block Norcraft Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Esler, writing for Woodworking Network, reported that the
acquisition of Norcraft Companies, Inc. by MasterBrand parent
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc., though it seems likely to go
through, could be blocked by shareholder lawsuits.

Robbins Arroyo LLP, a law firm specializing in shareholder
litigations, says it is seeking litigants. While Fortune Brands
Home & Security first announced it had signed an agreement to
acquire Norcraft Cabinets March 31, Norcraft included a
description of the tender offer in its December 31, 2014 annual
report -- though that wasn't filed with the March 30, 2015. That
points to the offer being under discussion, and under wraps, at
least during the last quarter of 2014.

FBHS offered $25.50 per share, for a total of $600 million, for
Norcraft, which reported sales of $376 million in its annual
report. If the deal doesn't go through, Norcraft must pay $20
million to Fortune Brands.

In its annual report filing, Norcraft Cabinets notes:

"The Merger Agreement contains provisions that could discourage or
make it difficult for a third party to acquire us prior to the
completion of the Fortune Brands tender offer and the merger. . .
These provisions include our agreement, following the expiration
of the thirty -- five day go -- shop period, not to solicit or
initiate any additional discussions with third parties regarding
other proposals for our acquisition, as well as restrictions on
our ability to respond to such proposals subject to fulfillment of
certain fiduciary requirements of our board of directors. The
Merger Agreement also contains certain termination rights,
including, under certain circumstances, a requirement for us to
pay to Fortune Brands a termination fee of approximately $20.0
million, or approximately 3.3% of the purchase price.

"Subject to the provisions and restrictions in the Merger
Agreement, in the event that the company terminates the Merger
Agreement prior to May 29, 2015 to pursue a competing proposal
with a party that submitted such proposal during the thirty --
five day go -- shop period, the termination fee will be $10.0
million, or approximately 1.7% of the purchase price.

Historically, following the announcement of a proposed merger,
securities class action litigation has often been brought against
a company and its board of directors. Litigation may be filed
against us and the members of our board of directors challenging
the Fortune Brands tender offer and merger and an adverse judgment
in any such lawsuit may prevent the Fortune Brands tender offer
and merger from being completed within the expected timeframe or
at all."

Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo said it would
investigate litigation on the same day the proposed acquisition of
Norcraft Companies, Inc. by Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.
was announced.

Robbins Arroyo says its investigation focuses on whether the board
of directors at Norcraft is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

"As an initial matter, the $25.50 merger consideration represents
a premium of only 11.4% based on Norcraft's closing price on March
27, 2015," the law firm said.  "This premium is significantly
below the average one day premium of nearly 54.7% for comparable
transactions within the past five years."

Building its case, Robbins Arroyo says that on March 30, 2015,
Norcraft reported strong earnings for its fourth quarter and full
year 2014. In the fourth quarter of 2014, Norcraft reported a net
sales increase of $13.5 million, or 16.7%, to $94 million.
Norcraft also reported that its income from operations in the
fourth quarter of 2014 increased 62%, to $7.4 million.

"We ended 2014 with a firmly established platform to continue
expanding Norcraft's customer base with a broad range of higher-
end, semi-custom cabinetry within the truly exceptional dealer
channel," said Norcraft Companies CEO Mark Buller in announcing
fourth quarter earnings.

"In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining
Norcraft's board of directors' decision to sell the company now
rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the
company's continued success and future growth prospects."

The firm may be reached at:

          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B St., Ste. 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: 619.525.3990


FREDERICK J HANNA: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin C. Dispennett, an individual; on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates,
P.C., a Georgia Professional Corporation, and John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 2:15-cv-00636-MPK (W.D. Pa.,
May 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in N.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
Three Iowa shareholders sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency
and the U.S. Treasury last week.  Their complaint challenges the
legality of the government's use of the profits of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac under what is known as the Third Amendment Sweep, and
does so in a couple of ways not fully explored in similar earlier
lawsuits by GSE shareholders.  The complaint initiating Saxton v.
FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa), tells the Court in broad
terms:

"Plaintiffs bring this action to put a stop to the federal
government's naked and unauthorized expropriation of their
property rights. . . .  Treasury's violation of HERA is
straightforward: the Net Worth Sweep, by changing the fundamental
economic characteristics of Treasury's investment, created a new
security, and HERA forbade Treasury from acquiring Fannie and
Freddie stock in 2012.  This Court must set aside the Net Worth
Sweep and restore to Fannie's and Freddie's private shareholders
the property rights the federal government has unlawfully
expropriated for itself."  While that general overview sounds
familiar, the 49-page, 146-paragraph document contains some
details not found in other shareholder lawsuits.

A spokesperson for the Iowa shareholders and their lawyers said,
"this is the first suit by individual shareholders in Iowa and the
first suit filed since Treasury documents leaked earlier this year
raised serious questions about whether judges lacked relevant
information before ruling in similar cases related to the Third
Amendment Sweep."  As reported by HousingWire.com, one leaked
document -- dated Jan. 4, 2011, and posted at
http://bit.ly/1RvKntV-- is a planning memo by then undersecretary
for domestic finance at Treasury, Jeffrey A. Goldstein, on the
disposition of the GSEs.  The Goldstein Memo was not provided to
shareholders, Housing Wire observes, going on to explain that this
is most notable because critics of the Treasury say it makes the
argument that Treasury should disregard the federal Housing and
Economic Recovery Act rules that circumscribe its duties in the
conservatorship.

As previously reported in the Troubled Company Reporter and Class
Action Reporter, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $187.5
billion from Treasury between Nov. 2008 and June 2012.  The GSEs
have returned $230.7 billion to Treasury to date, earning
taxpayers a 23% return on their money so far.  A similar lawsuit
by Continental Western Insurance Co. in the Southern District of
Iowa challenging Treasury's endlessly increasing rate of return by
sweeping all of the GSEs' profits each quarter was dismissed by
Judge Pratt earlier this year, and Judge Lamberth in the District
of Columbia dismissed several similar lawsuits in Sept. 2014.
Both judges said the government acted within the boundaries
established by the Congress when it voted to approve HERA.  Judge
Lamberth's decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  Briefing in the D.C. Circuit might
be completed by early-October 2015.

"It does seem peculiar that Treasury did not provide [shareholders
with a copy of the Goldstein Memo].  It raises the question of
whether, or what, other documents were not disclosed, and why,"
prolific Graham, Fisher & Co. analyst Josh Rosner told Housing
Wire.  "[Additionally,] it suggests that they fully appreciated
what HERA required and chose to circumvent the spirit, if not the
letter, of [the] law."  An earlier memorandum from Mr. Goldstein
to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner-- dated Dec. 20, 2010 and
posted at http://nyti.ms/1HCgIZ2that was turned over to
shareholders -- unambiguously spoke about "the Administration's
commitment to ensure existing common equity holders will not have
access to any positive earnings from the GSEs in the future,"
notwithstanding the absence of any provision in HERA making that
decree.

InvestorsUnite.org observes that the Saxton case in the Northern
District of Iowa won't be encumbered by Judge Lamberth's ruling in
the District of Columbia or Judge Pratt's decision in the Southern
District of Iowa dismissing similar lawsuits.  Chief Judge Linda
R. Reade -- appointed to the federal bench by President George W.
Bush in 2002 -- is free to take a fresh look at the facts and
applicable law in the Saxton case and make her own independent
findings of fact and conclusions of law about whether the
government went too far when Treasury and FHFA executed the Third
Amendment and how that overreaching should be reformed.

The Saxton plaintiffs say in paragraph 68 of their Complaint that:

     "A senior executive at one of the Companies . . . discussed
     the reversal of the deferred tax assets valuation allowance
     with Treasury on eve of the Net Worth Sweep."

That factual assertion doesn't appear to have bubbled to the
surface in other GSE litigation to date and is inconsistent with
these statements appearing in the Declaration submitted by FHFA
Advisor Mario Ugoletti in Perry Capital v. Lew, Case No.
13-cv-01025 (D.D.C.), Doc. 27, Tab 1, par. 20 at 9-10:

     "At the time of the negotiation of the Third Amendment, the
     Conservator and the Enterprises had not yet begun to discuss
     whether or when the Enterprises would be able to recognize
     any value to their deferred tax assets.  Thus, neither the
     Conservator nor Treasury envisioned at the time of the Third
     Amendment that Fannie Mae's valuation allowance on its
     deferred tax assets would be reversed in early 2013,
     resulting in a sudden and substantial increase in Fannie
     Mae's net worth, which was paid to Treasury in mid-2013 by
     virtue of the net worth dividend."

Retired Fannie Mae lobbyist Bill Maloni wondered aloud yesterday
at http://timhoward717.com/-- the self-described "Fannie Mae-
Straight Talk" blog unaffiliated with J. Timothy Howard, Vice
Chairman and CFO of Fannie Mae until 2004 and author of "The
Mortgage Wars" -- if former Fannie Mae CFO Susan R. McFarland
might be the executive to which the Saxton Plaintiffs make
reference.  Mr. Maloni thinks he recalls something about Ms.
McFarland threatening to resign her CFO post if Fannie Mae didn't
make changes in the way it accounted for its deferred tax assets
before she departed in 2013.

Paragraph 11 of the Saxton Plaintiffs' Complaint touches on a
question about the GSEs' actual need for cash injections from
Treasury from 2008 to 2012.  The GSEs created and recorded large
loan loss reserves in 2008 and additional eye-popping loan loss
reserves in 2009.  Those feared losses never materialized and were
reversed after the Net Worth Sweep was put in place.  While the
large non-cash losses created by those write downs adversely
affected the GSEs' balance sheet solvency, there's no indication
that the GSEs ever faced a liquidity problem or needed Treasury's
cash injections to meet their day-to-day expenses and obligations.
"By 2012," the Saxton Complaint says in paragraph 59, "the housing
market was already recovering and both Fannie and Freddie had
returned to profitability.  In August 2012, the Companies and FHFA
knew or should have known that previously anticipated losses far
exceeded their actual losses.  These excess loss reserves
artificially depressed the Companies' net worth.  Upon reversal of
these loss reserves, Fannie's and Freddie's net worth increases
accordingly."  Paragraph 67 of the Saxton Complaint charges that
"[t]he Companies, FHFA, and Treasury knew or should have known in
August 2012 that the Companies would reverse substantial loss and
deferred tax reserves and reap substantial profits from lawsuits
and sources other than their day-to-day business operations."

The Saxton Plaintiffs assert these five claims for relief in their
Complaint:

     (A) FHFA's conduct exceeds its statutory authority as
Conservator;

     (B) Treasury's conduct exceeded its statutory authority;

     (C) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: Treasury's
conduct was arbitrary and capricious;

     (D) breach of contract against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie
and Freddie; and

     (E) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against FHFA as Conservator of Fannie and Freddie;

and ask the Court to grant these six forms of relief:

     (1) Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are
not in accordance with and violate HERA . . . , and that Treasury
acted arbitrarily and capriciously . . . by executing the Net
Worth
Sweep;

     (2) Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep . . . ;

     (3) Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and
agents to return to FHFA as conservator of Fannie and Freddie all
dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or,
alternatively, recharacterizing a portion of such payments as a
pay down of the liquidation preference and a corresponding partial
redemption of Treasury's Government Stock rather than mere
dividends;

     (4) Enjoining [FHFA and Treasury from] taking any action
whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;

     (5) Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents
from acting at the instruction of Treasury or any other agency of
the government and from re-interpreting the duties of FHFA as
conservator under HERA; and

     (6) Awarding Plaintiffs damages . . . , including . . .
contractually-due dividends on the preferred and common stock for
each quarter when a dividend based on the net worth of the
Companies was paid to Treasury.

Referring to the Sweep, plaintiff Tom Saxton of Cedar Rapids,
said, "I've invested a fair amount of money in Freddie Mac.  What
the government has done is wrong, and I'm filing this lawsuit to
protect my property."

Bill Ackman at Pershing Square Capital Management LP suggested at
the 2015 Harbor Investment Conference earlier this year that
Fannie and Freddie's common shares have one of the most attractive
risk-reward profiles in the markets today.  To put some meat on
those bones today, FNMA shares trade at less than $3 per share,
which is a slight discount to their book value for all authorized,
issued and outstanding shares.  If one of the shareholder suits
were successful in reforming the Third Amendment and
recharacterizing the GSE's payments to Treasury, the book value of
FNMA common shares, for example, would rocket to more than $50 per
share, and preferred shares in the GSEs would be expected to
rebound to their par value.  According to regulatory filings,
Pershing Square owns more than 100 million shares of FNMA common
stock and more than 60 million shares of FMCC common stock at an
average cost of just under $2.25 per share.  Regulatory filings
disclose that Fairholme Capital Management, Icahn Associates
Corp., Third Avenue Management, and Seamans Capital Management
also oversee large positions in the GSEs' publicly traded
securities.

A full-text copy of the Saxton Complaint is available from GSE
Links -- described as "Your Starting Point for GSE News,
Resources, and Information" -- at no charge at:

     http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Saxton/15-00047-0001.pdf

The Saxton Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexander M. Johnson, Esq.
     Sean P. Moore, Esq.
     BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS,
     BASKERVILLE AND SCHOENEBAUM, P.L.C.
     666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000
     Des Moines, IA 50309-2510
     Telephone: 515-242-2400
     E-mail: ajohnson@brownwinick.com
             moore@brownwinick.com

An updated chart is available at no charge at:

     http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201505.pdf

to help organize information about the many lawsuits challenging
the Third Amendment and Net Worth Sweep, including the cases
challenging the sweep as a confiscation of private property for
public use by our government without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before
Judge Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  At this time,
jurisdictional discovery is underway in Fairholme v. U.S., Case
No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), and (subject to further extensions),
jurisdictional discovery is currently scheduled to wrap up by June
29, 2015.  Completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme --
on whatever date it actually happens -- will unleash a flurry of
activity in Judge Sweeney's court including Fairholme filing its
response to the government's motion to dismiss its complaint and
other pre-trial filings by the government and other aggrieved
shareholders.


GAZIT-GLOBE: Response to Certification Motion Due
-------------------------------------------------
Gazit-Globe Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the deadline for the
Company to file its response to the amended unified certification
motion was May 7, 2015.

In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the
Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court
requesting class action certification against Dori Construction,
Dori Group, their directors and officers and their auditors, as
well as against Gazit Development and Gazit-Globe itself. The
motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the shareholders of
Dori Construction and/or Dori Group, respectively, as a result of
the publication of allegedly erroneous information by Dori
Construction, including in its financial statements, and as a
result of its alleged failure to report, at the required time,
material adverse information concerning the financial results and
the financial position of Dori Construction and, in turn, Dori
Group.

The basis for the claims in the aforementioned motions include
provisions under the Israel Securities Law, 1968, specifically the
inclusion of erroneous details in the financial statements and
deficient and erroneous reporting, a tort of negligence under the
Israel Torts Laws, breaches of statutory duties, all with respect
to the public reporting of Dori Construction. The Company itself
was named as a defendant on the basis of a claim that it, as the
controlling shareholder, had breached its duties with respect to
the public reporting of its subsidiaries. The amounts of the
claims range from NIS 13 million to NIS 75 million (subject to
quantification of the exact damage in the course of the hearings),
which are not material for the Company.

On November 9, 2014, the court ordered the plaintiffs in the class
actions to file a single unified motion (apart from certain,
specific suits that were dismissed). On December 28, 2014, the
amended unified motion was filed by the plaintiffs to certify
lawsuits as a class action. Currently, the deadline for the
Company to file its response to the amended unified certification
motion was May 7, 2015. The Company cannot asses the chance of the
lawsuit's success at this preliminary stage.


GENCO SHIPPING: Levi & Korsinsky Mulls Suit Over Baltic Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All Persons or Entities Who Purchased Baltic Trading Limited
Stock Prior to April 8, 2015.

You Are Hereby Notified that a class action lawsuit has commenced
in New York Supreme Court challenging the fairness of the sale of
Baltic Trading Limited to Genco Shipping & Trading Limited for
0.216 of a Genco common share for each Baltic Trading share.  To
learn more about the investigation and your rights, go to:

http://zlk.9nl.com/baltic-trading-balt

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities lawsuits and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. For more information, please
feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below.  Attorney
advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Grants Motion to Stay Document Unsealing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that General Electric is
challenging a federal judge's order to unseal court documents
regarding its analysis of consumer injuries and complaints over
microwave ovens with glass doors that are allegedly prone to
shattering.

Lawyers from the firms Tycko & Zaveeri and Izard Nobel, who are
representing plaintiffs in a proposed class action over the
microwaves, convinced U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton on
April 23 to reverse his previous ruling sealing the documents.
But on April 24, Judge Eginton granted a motion from GE,
represented by Robinson & Cole, to stay the unsealing while it
sought reconsideration.


GOOGLE INC: Wallet Privacy Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Carole J. Piovesan and Ana Badour, in an article for Mondaq,
report that despite efforts to dismiss a potential class in which
it is alleged that Google breached the terms of its Terms of
Service, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman has ruled in
Svenson et al v. Google Inc et al. that most of the claims
asserted by the plaintiff, Alice Svenson, against Google Inc. and
Google Payment Corporation may proceed.

Background

Ms. Svenson, an Illinois resident, is the lead plaintiff in this
putative class action against Google.  Ms. Svenson alleges that
Google breached the terms of its Google Wallet Terms of Service by
sharing personal information of Google Wallet users with app
developer, YCDroid, thus increasing users' risk of identity theft,
among other things.  Ms. Svenson asserts that Google ceased its
practice of disclosing personal information about users to App
Vendors only after she filed the lawsuit.  Ms Svenson is seeking
class-action status, damages of $1,000 per violation, punitive
damages and other remedies.

Significance of the Case

This action is in the early stages of proceeding.  Appeal of this
decision is anticipated, but it is a case to watch on the expected
direction of the court in protecting individual privacy.

This case comes as the mobile wallet wars heat up in the United
States, with Google currently competing with offerings from, among
others,  Apple (Apple Pay), Samsung (Samsung Pay), and most
recently Microsoft (Microsoft Wallet), each aiming to capture the
dominant market share in the emerging mobile payment market.
Security and privacy will be important factors in determining the
success of mobile wallets and we can expect to see more focus on
privacy and security issues relating to these as they become more
popular.


GSCM VENTURES: Accused of Falsely Marketing "Libido For Her" Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Demison, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. GSCM Ventures, Inc. d/b/a
Pacific Naturals, a Nevada Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-01067-
CAB-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2015) alleges that the Defendant
falsely markets an over-the-counter homeopathic aphrodisiac drug
product called "Libido For Her" as a female libido enhancer
purportedly having beneficial health and aphrodisiac properties to
increase female sexual energy, provide the highest level of sexual
desire, and help women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder,
despite none of the ingredients in the Product, individually or in
combination, providing those benefits.

GSCM Ventures, Inc., doing business as Pacific Naturals, is a
Nevada Corporation that maintains its principal place of business
in Burbank, California.  GSCM is a leading manufacturer,
distributor, and marketer of a variety of health and beauty
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com


HEALTH ENHANCEMENT: August 27 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE HEPI FUND

By Order of the United States District Court of Arizona
(Securities and Exchange Commission v. Howard R. Baer and Kevin C.
Baer)

If you purchased Health Enhancement Products, Inc. ("HEPI") common
stock during the period of October 31, 2003 through and including
May 31, 2004, you may be eligible to share in the distribution of
the $1,400,000 HEPI Fund.

On March 15, 2012, the Honorable Frederick J. Martone, U.S.
District Court Judge for the District of Arizona, approved an
Amended Distribution Plant to distribute the HEPI Fund established
in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Howard R. Baer and Kevin
C. Baer, Case No. CV06-2792-PHX-FJM (the "Baer Action").  The Baer
Action alleges that Defendant Howard R. Baer violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Rules
10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13 and 13a-14 thereunder, and
that Defendant Kevin C. Baer engaged in acts that aided
abetted the violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon their materially false and
misleading statements and activities resulting in an artificially
high price for HEPI common stock during the Covered Period.  The
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has recovered
approximately $1.4 million (the "HEPI Fund").  The HEPI Fund will
be distributed to Eligible Claimants who submit valid Proof of
Claim Forms.

Who is eligible to participate in the HEPI Fund?

If you purchased or otherwise acquired HEPI common stock during
the Covered Period (October 31, 2003 through May 31, 2004), you
may be eligible to participate in the HEPI Fund and receive a
payment.

What do I need to do to receive a payment?

To qualify for a Distribution Payment, you must file a signed
Proof of Claim Form with the Distribution Agent.  You can get a
Proof of Claim Form at the website or by calling 1-855-460-1530.
Proof of Claim Forms must be postmarked no later than the Claims
Bar Date of August 27, 2015.

How much will I receive if my claim is eligible?

The Court has approved an Amended Distribution Plan that provides
a mathematical formula for the Distribution Agent to determine
each Eligible Claimant's Approved Claim based upon the number of
each Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss or Unrecognized Loss of
HEPI common stock.  The Available Distribution will be allocated
to Eligible Claimants pro rate based upon the ration of the
Approved Claim of each Eligible Claimant to the aggregate Approved
Claims of all Eligible Claimants (the "Distribution Payment").  No
distribution shall be made to an Eligible Claimant whose
Distribution Payment is less than $10.  All other distributions
shall be rounded down to the next lower $10 (i.e. a calculated
distribution of $26.90 would be rounded down to $20).  The Amended
Distribution Plan is available at www.sechepifund.com

Do I give up any legal rights by submitting a claim?

An Eligible Claimant will be bound by the Amended Distribution
Plan, and all orders and judgments entered by the Court regarding
the distribution.  By participating in the distribution of the
HEPI Fund, Eligible Claimants will not be releasing any rights or
claims they may have other than those specified in the Amended
Distribution Plan, orders, and/or judgments.

How do I get more information?

For more information you can contact the Distribution Agent by
calling the toll-free number, 1-855-460-1530; emailing your
inquiry to info@sechepifund.com; visiting the website at
www.sechepifund.com; or by writing to: HEPI Fund, c/o Rust
Consulting Inc, Inc., Distribution
Agent, P.O. Box 2253, Faribault, MN 55021-2436.


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael H. Frund, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Account
Resolution Services and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03366-
CCC-JBC (D.N.J., May 15, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces $3-Bil. Suit Over Aruba Networks Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Clarke, writing for The Register, reported that Hewlett-
Packard's proposed $3 billion purchase of wireless mobile
specialist Aruba Networks is facing a legal hurdle.  A case has
been filed in a US court against HP, Aruba, its management and
board members claiming HP's price drastically undervalues the
firm.  The case (5:15-cv-01502) claims the proposed deal is
unfair, because terms have been written in that block out other
potential bidders and give preferential treatment to HP.  It
points out the presence of the management team and board with
backgrounds at HP.

The case adds that Aruba's board are acting simply to unlock $144
million in stock and defendants filed a report with US financial
regulators that was misleading as it omitted details of the sale -
- those giving preferential treatment to HP.  The case was filed
by an Andrew Newfield in a court in the San Jose division of
California. He is seeking to rally Aruba shareholders by having
the case accorded class-action status.

Newfield essentially wants the HP deal put on hold, and for "a
transaction that is in the best interests of Aruba shareholders"
and for management not to enter into a sale or merger until "the
highest possible value is obtained".

HP said it would not comment on pending litigation, while Aruba
didn't return our requests for comment.

HP announced its plans to buy Aruba in March, for a price of
$24.67 a share, valuing the firm at $3 billion. The plan is for
Aruba, founded in 2002, to become an HP subsidiary led by current
chief executive Dominic Orr and co-founder Keerti Melkote. Aruba
will become part of HP's Enterprise Group and the transaction
expected to close sometime between May and October.

According to the filing, the deal "significantly undervalues"
Aruba. It cites four Wall Street analysts who'd set the Aruba
price at between $27 and $34 a share.  The deal is also said to
include a no-solicitation provision that stops Aruba talking to
bidders other than HP.  In the event of a fresh bid, Aruba must to
deliver HP confidential, non-public information about the
competing proposal so HP could match it and Aruba would have to
pay HP a $90 million termination fee should it withdraw from the
deal.

These are the terms the court filing claims were withheld from its
proxy filing.

The suit claims a bias towards HP in Aruba's management: Orr is a
former HP staffer, although he's worked at a number of other tech
firms, too, while a number of Aruba's board of directors also have
time spent at HP on their CVs.


HOME DEPOT: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.8 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a $1.8
million class action settlement has been reached to resolve
charges against Home Depot over allegedly violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by not having proper background check forms
for its job applicants.

A motion for preliminary approval was filed in a California
federal court on April 20 by plaintiff Irene Fernandez, detailing
the terms of the class action settlement.

"Following protracted negotiations, the parties, with the
assistance of [U.S. District Judge Howard Wiener], were able to
reach an agreement on all material terms of the proposed relief to
the class," the Home Depot class action settlement says.

According to the agreement, Class Members will receive anywhere
from $15 to $100.  The proposed class includes about 120,000
individuals who applied for jobs with Home Depot, in which the
alleged illegal background check forms were used, beginning in
April 24, 2011 to May 11, 2015.  Class Members who fail to submit
a Request for Exclusion on time and don't submit a claim will be
sent $15.  Class Members who do submit a Claim Form by the
deadline will receive $35 to $100. The amount received by the
Class Members will depend the number of Class Members who file
claims.

The $1.8 million allotted for the class action settlement only
covers 120,000 Class Members receiving $15 without having to file
a claim.  Home Depot has agreed to pay an additional $630,000 to
cover Class Members who file a claim.  The minimum they will
receive is $35.  The maximum is $100.

"In addition to this monetary relief, Home Depot has agreed to no
longer use the offending forms, and to use a background check form
that complies with the FCRA," the motion to approve the Home Depot
class action settlement says.

The proposed attorneys' fees is $995,000, which the motion says
that Home Depot will not oppose.

Ms. Fernandez says that "there is no dispute that Home Depot used
forms that included both the disclosure form and a release of
liability on one document," which is an alleged violation of the
FCRA, which says that the disclosure form is supposed to be "in a
document that consists solely of the disclosure."

However, she contends that there would still be challenges trying
to win this class action in court because she would still have to
prove intent and that "Class Members suffered an 'actual injury.'

"In light of the risks of continuing with this litigation,
plaintiff submits that the proposed settlement, which guarantees
that all Settlement Class Members will be paid, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate," the Home Depot background check class
action settlement agreement says.

Ms. Fernandez claimed in her class action lawsuit filed two years
ago that when she applied for a job with Home Depot on April 25,
2011 that she "signed two background check authorization forms"
that contained more than just the required disclosure when "the
form may not include any extraneous information, such as a release
of liability for the employer; any release must be separate from
the disclosure."

According to the Home Depot class action lawsuit, the retailer
"violated the FCRA by including releases of liability in their
preauthorization background and/or credit check disclosure forms."

The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L Lurie, Robert K. Friedl,
Tarek H. Zohby and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC.

Home Depot is represented by Shon Morgan --
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- and Joseph Sarles --
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan LLP.

The Home Depot Illegal Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is
Fernandez v. Home Depot USA Inc., Case No. 8:13-cv-00648, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Securities Suit Proceeds on Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Intuitive
Surgical Securities Litigation, will move forward on the claims
that remain.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013. The matter is now at an end.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead
counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and
denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have elected not
to further amend their complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26,
2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December
15, 2014. The case will move forward on the claims that remain. No
trial date has been set. Based on currently available information,
the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position or future results of operations.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 104 Product Liability Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 104 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements
further discussed. The Company has also been named as a defendant
in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court.

On November 26, 2014, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
three additional plaintiffs. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of 19 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 12 different
states. The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to
varying degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported
defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the
Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the
healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The
cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately
disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits
of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety
of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based
on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express
and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential
settlements in many of the filed cases. With certain exceptions,
including the Taylor case, the remaining filed cases generally are
in the early stages of pretrial activity.  Plaintiffs' attorneys
have engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking
patients dissatisfied with da Vinci Surgery. Among the
allegations, a substantial number of claims relate to alleged
complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of
Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments that included an MCS
tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in
2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in
2013. The Company has received a significant number of claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys that it believes are as a result of these
advertising efforts. In an effort to avoid the expense and
distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered
into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of
limitations for these claims and engaged in confidential mediation
efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of
2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the
costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be
appropriate. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company
recorded pre-tax charges of $82.4 million to reflect the estimated
cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered
by the tolling agreements.

During the first quarter of 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded
pre-tax charges of $7.2 million and $67.4 million, respectively,
related to these product liability claims. The Company's estimate
of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on
negotiations with attorneys for claimants who have participated in
the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is possible that more
claims will be made by additional individuals and that the
claimants who participate in the mediations, as well as those
claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to
pursue greater amounts in a court of law.  Consequently, the final
outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are
difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these
product liability claims may be materially different than the
amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, and future results of operations.  Although there is a
reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount
recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this
time.

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, a total of $39.7
million and $49.5 million, respectively, were included in other
accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Taylor" Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in the
Josette Taylor product liability action has filed a notice of
appeal.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff's
decedent's surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the
Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-
03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product
liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the
decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries
purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with
the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor
asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by
the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and
instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for
past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as
well as punitive damages. A trial commenced in the action on April
15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict,
finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered
in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013.  Plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Garza" Suit Over Xarelto-Related Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lou Garza, individually and Executrix of the ESTATE of ISRAEL
M. GARZA v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a Johnson and
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research And Development LLC; Janssen
Ortho, LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc, f/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc, f/k/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer
Corporation; Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Healthcare AG; and Bayer
AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-01699 (E.D. La., May 19, 2015) arises from
the alleged wrongful death of Israel Garza caused by the ingestion
of Xarelto(R).

Plaintiff Mary Lou Garza is the surviving spouse and Executrix of
the Estate of Israel M. Garza, deceased, per Mr. Garza's Last Will
and Testament.  Mrs. Garza brings the case as the Executrix, and
in her own name as spouse, both suffering damages, including Mr.
Garza's wrongful death, as a direct result of his ingestion of
Xarelto(R).  Mr. Garza died in a hospital in Corpus Christi,
Texas, on May 19, 2013.

The case is filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to
the Court's Stipulated Pre-Trial Order No. 9 addressing the direct
filing of the action in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban), MDL No. 2592.

Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as Johnson and
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC, is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a
principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in New
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey.

The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested,
advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Xarelto(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. McLeod, Esq.
          ELKUS SISSON & ROSENSTEIN, P.C.
          501 South Cherry St., Suite 920
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (303) 567-7981
          Facsimile: (303) 431-3753
          E-mail: smcleod@elkusandsisson.com


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Kolter" Injury Suit Over Use of Xarelto
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherman Ray Kolter v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a
Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC;
Janssen Ortho LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho-
McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson; Bayer
Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01645 (E.D. La., May 15, 2015) arises from alleged injuries
resulting from the Plaintiff's use of Xarelto.

Mr. Kolter is a resident of Floyd County, Indiana, who has
suffered loss as a result of his use of Xarelto.  He was
prescribed and used Xarelto, also known as rivaroxaban, to reduce
the risk of stroke and systemic embolism associated with non-
valvular atrial fibrulation.

Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as Johnson and
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC, is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a
principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in New
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey.

The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested,
advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Xarelto.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM
          111 East Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 673-1555
          Facsimile: (334) 699-7229
          E-mail: JoeLane@Cochranfirm.com

               - and -

          Dana R. Kolter, Esq.
          P.O. box 2199
          Louisville, KY 40201
          Telephone: (502) 584-3000
          Facsimile: (502) 584-2491
          E-mail: dana@danakolter.com


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Roberts" Injury Suit Over Use of Xarelto
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bettina Smathers Roberts and Richard Henry Roberts v. Janssen
Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a Johnson and Johnson
Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC; Janssen Ortho LLC;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson; Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer Corporation; Bayer
Healthcare, LLC; Bayer Healthcare AG; and Bayer AG, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01641-EEF-MBN (E.D. La., May 15, 2015) arises from injuries
resulting from use of Xarelto.

Xarelto is an anticoagulant that acts as a Factor Xa inhibitor,
and is available by prescription in oral tablet doses of 20mg,
15mg, and 10mg.  Xarelto, also known as rivaroxaban, was
prescribed and used by Plaintiff Bettina Roberts for one or more
of these conditions: to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic
embolism associated with non-valvular atrial fibrulation; to treat
or prevent potential deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism;
to reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT, and for prophylaxis of
DVT.

According to the complaint, Ms. Roberts suffered serious and
dangerous side effects from her use of Xarelto, including life-
threatening bleeding, as well as other severe and personal
injuries.  Plaintiff Richard Roberts is the husband of Ms.
Roberts.

The case is filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to
the Court's Stipulated Pre-Trial Order No. 9 addressing the direct
filing of the action in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban), MDL No. 2592.

Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as Johnson and
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC, is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a
principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in New
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey.

The Defendants are in the business of and did design, research,
manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell and distribute
Xarelto and rivaroxaban to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic
embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, to
treat DVT and PE, to reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE,
and for prophylaxis of DVT for patients undergoing hip and knee
replacement surgery.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM
          111 E. Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 673-1555
          Facsimile: (334) 699-7229
          E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Defending Against "Gross" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Southern said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
defending against a securities class action.

On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The securities class action is
styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345-
BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative
actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is
named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri against
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v.
Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action
was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et
al., 4:14-cv-00509-BCW. The complaints allege, among other things,
that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose
certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal
year 2013. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable
relief. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company does not believe that, when resolved,
these disputes will have a material effect on its consolidated
financial statements. However, an adverse resolution could have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


LEE COUNTY, FL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mabel Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mike Scott, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lee
County, Florida, Case No. 2:15-cv-00303-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., May
12, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Civil Rights
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sawyer C. Smith, Esq.
          THE WILBUR SMITH LAW FIRM
          1415 Hendry St.
          PO Drawer 8
          Ft. Myers, FL 33902
          Telephone: (239) 334-7696
          Facsimile: (239) 334-3669
          E-mail: mmyers@wilburlaw.com


LEVY ACQUISITION: Faces Class Action Over Del Taco Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven R. Strahler, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reports
that an investor in a publicly traded company that in March agreed
to buy Mexican-American fast-food chain Del Taco is accusing CEO
and Chicago restaurateur Larry Levy and other insiders of limiting
the ability of other shareholders to elect directors and influence
key transactions.

The shareholder class action, filed on April 23 in Cook County
Circuit Court, said Levy, his son Ari, stepson Stephen Florsheim
and other defendants boosted their combined stake to about 40
percent from less than 20 percent when they caused Levy
Acquisition Corp. to sell control of the company to them.

Levy Acquisition declined to comment.  An attorney for the
plaintiffs did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The Del Taco acquisition by the "blank check company" that
Lawrence Levy founded in 2013 is expected to close in June.
Founded in 1964, Del Taco operates 547 restaurants in 16 states,
most in the West and Southwest.  The company said last year that
it plans to develop at least eight Del Taco restaurants in the
Chicago area starting in 2016.  Those restaurants will be
franchised and developed by Tasty Group Chicago.

The lawsuit alleged that defendants "concealed material
information" from other shareholders about alleged conflicts of
interest arising from the sale process.

Levy Acquisition stock trades at about $15 per share, up from $10
in early March, before the Del Taco acquisition was announced.


LLOYDS BANKING: Faces Class Suit Over 2008 HBOS Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------
ShareCast reported that Lloyds Banking Group is facing a legal
attack over its calamitous takeover of HBOS in 2008.  A class
action lawsuit, bringing together more than 6,000 investors that
owned shares at the time, has been planned to force the company to
release emails and other documents dating back to the deal, "to
find out who knew what", according to an inside source cited by
the Sunday Times.

The claimants, including major UK pension funds and asset
managers, believe they lost GBP400 million through the acquisition
as they were duped into approving the merger as crucial
information about the health of HBOS was withheld to ensure the
deal went ahead.

Fellow high street lender HSBC is expected to face a fiery
shareholder rebellion this, the Sunday Times reported, as the bank
puts a GBP7.6 million pay package for chief executive Stuart
Gulliver in front of investors at the annual meeting on. "I would
imagine there will be fireworks," said Martin Gilbert, chief
executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, whose fund owns 1.6% of
the lender. He suggested investors would welcome any move to
simplify the globe-spanning lender, with the board likely to be
under pressure to speed its retreat from overseas markets.

This news may be drowned out by the wails around Tesco as the
supermarket giant unveils an 'eye-watering' GBP4 billion to GBP5
billion loss on, the biggest in its 96-year history as well as
revealing that it will have to pump around GBP250 million per year
into its huge pension scheme. These payments are needed to plug a
pension deficit that is forecast to have inflated to nearly GBP5
billion, the Sunday papers all reported, citing the grocer's house
brokers Deutsche Bank and Barclays. The company's interim results
in October showed a deficit of GBP3.4 billion after tax, but the
latest triennial review of the scheme, which is expected to be
revealed alongside Tesco's annual results, will show that the
deficit has grown close to GBP5 billion, requiring the board to
commit additional hundreds of millions of pounds to the scheme
every year in order to close the gap.

Shareholder votes

Further interest in City general meetings may come as the battle
for Asia Resource Minerals, the company formerly known as Bumi,
rumbles on, the Sunday Times said, ahead of the company's
shareholder vote on. A GBP98 million bid from Indonesian
conglomerate Sinar Mas could be launched on that would threaten a
rival proposal from deposed Bumi co-founder Nat Rothschild, on
which investors are due to vote. The paper said Sinar Mas's 41p-a-
share offer would be contingent on investors rejecting
Rothschild's plans for a rescue rights issue.

What was predicted as a one-sided shareholder vote has been shaken
up by the Scottish publisher of the Beano and Dandy cartoons,
which has offered to stand up to Alliance Trust chief Katherine
Garrett-Cox in her battle with aggressive American hedge fund
Elliott Advisers, the Sunday Times said. DC Thomson, whose
publications also include the free Shortlist magazine and numerous
local Scottish papers, is Alliance Trust's third-biggest investor,
and is, like the trust, also based in Dundee. Ahead of the annual
meeting, Elliott has proposed installing three new non-executive
directors, but Thomson said it was "satisfied" that the Alliance
board was addressing the key issues of its concern.

Struggling oil explorer Afren is understood to be close to
completing a $200 million interim funding deal from its lenders,
according to the Sunday Telegraph. The refinancing was agreed and
announced , but has since been delayed, with strong opposition by
many of the group's investors, who will face an 89% dilution if
the deal goes ahead. The interim financing was due to be put in
place ahead of a $300 million recapitalization that will give the
lenders majority control of the company.

A less controversial deal has been struck by MoneySavingExpert,
the consumer finance website set up by journalist Martin Lewis and
now part of FTSE 250-listed Moneysupermarket.com.  The Sunday
Telegraph wrote that the group has bought into complaint
resolution website Resolver.co.uk, which provides a free service
that replaces the need for claims management companies. The
company has taken a 24% stake for free as it looks to integrate
Resolver into its website. Currently pre-revenue, Resolver is
expected to eventually make money by selling data on consumer
complaints to companies keen to improve their understanding of
where their customer services are failing.

Metro Bank, one of several 'challenger' banks that are looking to
shake up British high-street lending, has drawn up firm plans for
a GBP1 billion London stockmarket float in summer, according to
the Sunday Telegraph. The move, just five years after Metro was
formed, is part of American founder Vernon Hill's ambitious aim to
mount a serious challenge to the long-standing dominance of the
big four banks. Metro is understood to have be poised to begin
lining up investment bankers to oversee the process in the third
or fourth financial quarter this year.

A new challenger is also set for the high street. Former Asda
chief executive Andy Bond is launching a new budget clothing chain
with the backing of billionaire South African retail magnate
Christo Wiese. The first branch of Pep & Co is currently being
fitted out in Northampton, with a speedy roll-out of 50 shop
openings this summer in secondary locations in the UK. The
company, subject of the Sunday Times interview, "hopes to do for
children and women's clothing what Aldi and Lidl have done for
food". Wiese and the Pep management team, including ex-Sainsbury's
Tu clothing executive Adrian Mountford, have together invested
GBP20 million into this first round of expansion, setting it up as
rival to the popular Primark and Matalan chains, as well as the
Asda George clothing label Bond ran for five year before becoming
group chief. Pep, which will be oriented towards childrenswear,
expects to hire 500 staff in the initial wave.

Slightly edgier fashion retailer New Look could be sold to Chinese
investors, the Sunday Times said. The high street chain's private
equity owners Apax and Permira have held talks with some of
China's largest investors, with Club Med owner Fosun and private
equity funds CDH and Citic Capital having all expressed an
interest, accoding to City sources. The talks are at a preliminary
stage, with a float seen as a back-up option.

Elsewhere in retail, the Mail on Sunday revealed two of those to
be let go in the cull Morrison's announced. The grocer, which said
it was to cut 720 head office jobs, has made fashion director Tim
Bettley, the former Peacocks boss who set up Morrison's Nutmeg
clothing label, redundant along with customer director Crawford
Davidson, who launched the grocer's Match & More loyalty card.

London property

Companies looking to expand in the capital are being forced to
move out of the traditional business districts as London's office
market boom hits heights not seen since before the financial
crash. The amount of office space taken by companies over the
jumped 42% to 8.2m sq ft, according to a study by the property and
hotels firm, Cushman & Wakefield cited in the Sunday Telegraph.
Areas such as Paddington, Kings Cross, Shoreditch and Fitzrovia
are becoming more popular with businesses as, although London is
cluttered with cranes, the majority of the development schemes are
conversions from former-offices or industrial buildings into
hotels and homes, as residential property commands a higher price
per sq ft.

London's booming residential property market is the subject of a
new investment for Sports Direct's entrepreneurial executive
chairman Mike Ashley, who the Sunday Times reported has swooped
onto a deal to build homes worth a total of GBP900 million. A pair
of Ashley's investment vehicles snapped up a storage depot in
Chelsea from John Lewis for GBP200 million, where there is
planning permission for 62 flats and seven townhouses. The paper
said it understood the money came from Ashley's personal company,
MASH Holdings, having raised cash in a series of share sales in
FTSE 100-listed Sports Direct that have cut stake in the retailer
from 69% to 55% since 2013.

The rapid overseas expansion and modernization of the once-dusty
and staid Lloyd's of London, the world's oldest insurance market,
is highlighted by the Sunday Times. Chief executive Inga Beale,
who believes global expansion is the key to the 327-year-old
market's future in the face of competition from hedge funds
setting up their own reinsurance divisions and the number of
Lloyd's syndicates having more than halved from above 200 in the
last 25 years. Lloyd's has opened offices in China and Dubai in
recent months and Beale hopes to open further offices in the
Middle East, Latin America and Asia by 2025.


LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Faces 6,027 Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 16, 2015,
6,953 product liability cases are pending against cigarette
manufacturers in the United States. Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in 6,027 of these cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-
defendant in 632 pending cases, and is a defendant in one case in
which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. A total of 3,417 of
these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases, described below. In
addition to the product liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in
some instances, Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases
and Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases.

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

The table lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases
pending against Lorillard as of the date listed:

                                       Total Number of Cases
                                       Pending against Lorillard
   Type of Case                        as of April 16, 2015

   Conventional Product Liability Cases              25

   Engle Progeny Cases                            3,417

   West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases    38

   Flight Attendant Cases                         2,546

   Class Action Case                                  1

   Reimbursement Case                                 1

   Filter Cases                                      57

   Tobacco-Related Antitrust Case                     1


LORILLARD INC: 3 Conventional Product Liability Cases for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 16, 2015,
neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in
any of the three Conventional Product Liability Cases scheduled
for trial in 2015.

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

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

On September 17, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a motion for a new
trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which
the Court denied on October 28, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for
trial court costs and pre-judgment interest on the damages award,
determining that pre-judgment interest accrued over an
approximately five year period, excluding an approximately six
year period during which the case was dismissed prior to re-
filing. On November 26, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco noticed an appeal
to the California Second District Court of Appeal from the final
judgment awarding compensatory damages and the order granting in
part trial court costs and pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff has
also noticed an appeal from the order denying in part pre-judgment
interest.

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

Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in
the ten other trials since January 1, 2010. Juries found in favor
of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in four of
these trials and also awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages in
one trial. Defendants appealed the verdicts in three of these
trials. The verdict in the first case was affirmed on appeal in
July 2013; judgment was satisfied and this case is concluded. As
of April 16, 2015 the appeal in the second case remains pending.
In September 2013, an agreement was reached between the parties in
the third case and no further appellate review was taken.

Satisfaction of judgment has been filed and this case is
concluded. The verdict in the fourth case was affirmed on appeal
in January 2015, the defendant satisfied the judgment and the case
is concluded. The plaintiff in another case was awarded $25
million in punitive damages in a retrial ordered by an appellate
court in which the jury was permitted to consider only the amount
of punitive damages to award. Defendant's appeal of the judgment
in this case remains pending. Juries found in favor of the
defendants in the five other trials. Three of these five cases
have concluded. Plaintiffs in two of the cases did not pursue
appeals. Plaintiff in the third case noticed an appeal, which was
affirmed in February 2013, and then did not seek any further
review. Plaintiff in the fourth case filed a notice of appeal to
the Alaska Supreme Court from the order denying plaintiff's motion
for a new trial and that appeal remains pending. Plaintiff in the
fifth case noticed an appeal and the appellate court reversed the
defense verdict and ordered the case returned to the trial court
for a new trial.

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

As of April 16, 2015, there were three cases scheduled for trial
in 2015. As of April 16, 2015, neither Lorillard Tobacco nor
Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in any of these cases. Trial dates
are subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Special Master to Oversee Accord in Engle Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
appointed a Special Master to oversee the administration and
completion of the tentative settlement agreement in the majority
of the Engle cases pending in Federal court.

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

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

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

On August 1, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of
Massachusetts took over responsibility for the Engle cases in the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Pursuant to
orders entered by Judge Young in 2013 and 2014, approximately
1,203 federal Engle cases were assigned trial readiness dates.
Since these orders were issued, Lorillard Tobacco was dismissed
from 771 cases.

On February 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida entered an order reflecting that
Lorillard Tobacco, Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds had
tentatively agreed upon a settlement in the majority of the Engle
cases pending in Federal court. Lorillard's share of the
resolution is $15 million, which was recorded as a component of
selling, general and administrative expenses during the first
quarter of 2015. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 387 of the
remaining pending cases that are subject to the tentative
settlement. All of the cases subject to the tentative settlement
are administratively closed for a period of 90 days to allow for
approval of the distribution process. This period may be
reasonably extended by the Special Master if necessary. During
this period, all deadlines, hearings, and trials pending in these
cases are canceled. Any of these cases may be reopened upon motion
of any party for any reason on or after May 27, 2015 or prior to
May 27, 2015 for good cause shown.

On April 6, 2015, the Court appointed a Special Master to oversee
the administration and completion of the tentative settlement
agreement. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 45 pending cases
not subject to the tentative settlement, including the Burkhart
and Harris cases. All deadlines remain in effect for these cases.
The parties had previously agreed to resolve 25 of these 45
pending cases, and these cases remain subject to those previous
resolution agreements.

On July 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from an order
dismissing 14 cases for failure to produce signed authorizations,
and that appeal is stayed pending final approval of the tentative
federal settlement, as of April 16, 2015. Other courts, including
state courts, have entered orders dismissing additional cases.


LORILLARD INC: 11th Circuit Court Issued Opinion in Graham Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals issued on April 8, 2015, an opinion in the
federal Graham case, reversing the Middle District of Florida's
denial of judgment as a matter of law. In that case, a jury
awarded plaintiff compensatory damages on his strict liability and
negligence claims. The Court held that strict liability and
negligence claims based on the findings of the jury in the
original Engle class action are preempted by federal laws
regulating cigarettes. The Court further held that basing strict
liability and negligence claims on the Engle findings implies that
all cigarettes sold during the class period were defective as a
matter of law and that therefore the only way that cigarette
manufacturers could not breach their duty would be to not sell
cigarettes, a result at odds with the objectives of Congress'
decision to regulate, and not ban, cigarettes.


LORILLARD INC: Fla. Supreme Court Issued Opinion in "Hess" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Florida Supreme
Court issued on April 2, 2015, an opinion in the Hess case,
reinstating a judgment awarding punitive damages that had been
reversed by an intermediate Florida appellate court. The Court
held that the Engle defendants are precluded from asserting a
statute of repose defense to an Engle plaintiff's fraud claim as a
matter of law. Three other cases in which punitive damage awards
were reversed, and which were stayed pending resolution of Hess,
are pending before the Florida Supreme Court. Neither Lorillard
Tobacco, nor Lorillard Inc. are defendants in Hess or the other
three cases pending before the Florida Supreme Court.


LORILLARD INC: Florida Supreme Court Upheld Russo Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Florida Supreme
Court in the Russo case upheld on April 2, 2015, the trial court's
decision to deny defendants' requested jury instruction on the
fraud statute of repose. The Florida Supreme Court held that the
requested jury instruction would have precluded the jury from
considering any evidence of reliance on defendants' statements
prior to the repose period. The Court reiterated its holding in
Hess. Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant
in Russo.


LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 21 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 16, 2015,
verdicts had been returned in twenty-one Engle Progeny Cases in
which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in one of these twenty-one cases at the time of verdict.
Juries awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in sixteen
of these cases. In four of the sixteen cases in which juries
awarded compensatory damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive
damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In another case, the court entered
an order following trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory
damages.


LORILLARD INC: Appeal in Mrozek Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal in the case,
Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company remained pending as of April
16, 2015.

In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth
Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3
million in punitive damages in March 2011. The jury apportioned
35% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 65%
to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial
court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff
$3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive
damages plus the applicable statutory rates of annual interest. In
December 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed
the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of the appellate court
opinion was denied in February 2013. In March 2013, Lorillard
Tobacco filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking
review of the appellate court decision.

On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant
review of this case. In March 2014, Lorillard Tobacco amended the
bond necessary to maintain a stay on payment of the final
judgment. On March 28, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition
with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due
process issue, and requested that the petition be held and
resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases,
also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9,
2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking
review. The trial court announced on June 25, 2014 that it had
granted Lorillard Tobacco's motion to determine the applicable
rates of post-judgment interest that were in dispute. On June 27,
2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $17,500,197 to satisfy
the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
post-judgment interest. On July 25, 2014, the court entered an
order confirming satisfaction of judgment.

On July 28, 2014, plaintiff appealed the order determining the
rate of post-judgment interest payable on the final judgment, and
that appeal remained pending as of April 16, 2015. The Florida
First District Court of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's
motion for intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees, ruling
that the trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the
trial court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees.

In June 2013, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
entitlement to trial court attorneys' costs and fees and also
determined that plaintiff was entitled to intermediate appellate
court attorneys' fees. As of April 16, 2015, the trial court had
not determined the amount of trial court or intermediate appellate
court fees to award. On February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme
Court provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees
in connection with the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, in the
amount of $2,500, conditioned on the trial court's determination
of entitlement.


LORILLARD INC: No New Trial Date Set in Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a new trial date had
not been set in the case Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
et al.

In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded
the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory damages and
awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of companionship in May
2011. The jury assessed 70% of the responsibility for the
decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to R.J. Reynolds and 10%
to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury did not award punitive damages to
the plaintiff. The final judgment entered by the trial court
reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff a total of
$109,298 from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest.

In June 2012, an agreement was reached between the parties as to
the amount of trial court costs and attorneys' fees incurred,
should the judgment be upheld on appeal, and plaintiff's motion
for costs and attorneys' fees was withdrawn. In November 2012, the
Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment
awarding compensatory damages and ordered the case returned to the
trial court for a new trial.

In January 2013, the appellate court denied a motion filed by the
plaintiff for rehearing of the decision reversing the judgment.
Both the plaintiff and defendants filed notices with the Florida
Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On
February 14, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant
review of this case. As of April 16, 2015, a new trial date had
not been set.


LORILLARD INC: Court Ruling on Counsel Fees in "Sury" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the trial court has
not yet determined the amount of plaintiff's attorneys' fees in
the case, Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), in November 2011,
the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and
assessed 60% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to
the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco and 20% to R.J. Reynolds.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether
punitive damages were warranted. In March 2012, the court entered
a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,000,000,
jointly and severally, plus 4.75% annual interest, declining to
apply the jury's comparative fault findings to causes of action
alleging intentional conduct.

On June 24, 2013, the Florida First District Court of Appeal
affirmed the final judgment. Defendants' motion for rehearing of
this decision with the Florida First District Court of Appeal was
denied in August 2013. The Florida Supreme Court declined review
of the intermediate appellate court decision in January 2014.

On March 28, 2014, defendants filed a petition with the United
States Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and
requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same
manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before
the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. On June
19, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $1,659,674 to
satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory damages plus post
judgment interest, trial level attorneys' fees and costs, and
Florida Supreme Court fees. The Court entered an order confirming
satisfaction of judgment on July 24, 2014.

In June 2013, the First District Court of Appeal determined that
plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees in connection with the
appeal to the First District Court of Appeal and directed the
trial court to determine the amount. As of April 16, 2015, the
trial court had not determined the amount.


LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Calloway Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Florida Fourth
District Court of Appeal has not ruled on a motion in the case, In
Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and a daughter of the decedent a total of
$20,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2012. The jury
apportioned 20.5% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to R.J. Reynolds, 25% to Philip Morris, 18% to
Lorillard Tobacco, and 9.5% to Liggett. The jury awarded
$12,600,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and
$42,250,000 from the other defendants, for a total punitive
damages award of $54,850,000. In August 2012, the court granted a
post-trial motion by the defendants and lowered the compensatory
damages award to $16,100,000. The court also ruled that the jury's
finding on the smoker's percentage of comparative fault would not
be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the
jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging
intentional conduct.

In August 2012, the court entered final judgment against
defendants in the amount of $16,100,000 in compensatory damages,
jointly and severally, and $54,850,000 ($12,600,000 from Lorillard
Tobacco) in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff
post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the
compensatory and punitive damages, which totaled approximately
$2.2 million as of April 16, 2015 based on the jury-apportioned
fault for Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment also granted
plaintiff's application for trial court costs and attorneys' fees,
but as of April 16, 2015, the trial court had not awarded an
amount. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment
to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.

On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida
Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in
connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of April 16,
2015, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not ruled on
this motion.


LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Evers Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Florida Second
District Court of Appeal had not ruled on a motion in the case
Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of
$3,230,000 in compensatory damages in February 2013. The jury
apportioned 31% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 60% to R.J. Reynolds and 9% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury
found that punitive damages against Lorillard Tobacco were not
warranted and awarded $12,362,042 in punitive damages from R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Court granted a post-trial motion by
R.J. Reynolds for a directed verdict on punitive damages and, as a
result, the jury's punitive damages award was set aside. The Court
denied a motion filed by the plaintiff to reconsider the directed
verdict. At a post-trial hearing, the plaintiff waived entitlement
to the jury's loss of services award which amounted to $280,000 of
the total compensatory damages award.

In May 2013, the court entered a final judgment that applied the
jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded plaintiff and
the estate of the decedent $2,035,500 in compensatory damages
($265,500 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of
interest. Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the final
judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff
also filed a motion for entitlement to trial attorneys' fees and
costs.

As of April 16, 2015, the trial court had not ruled on this
motion. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida
Second District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in
connection with the appeal to the Second District. As of April 16,
2015, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal had not ruled on
this motion.


LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Gafney Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Florida Fourth
District Court of Appeal had not ruled on a motion in the case,
Gafney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

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

Plaintiff has filed a motion with the trial court seeking
entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs. As of April 16, 2015,
the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On January 13, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection with the appeal to
the Fourth District. As of April 16, 2015, the Florida Fourth
District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this motion.


LORILLARD INC: "Chamberlain" Suit v. RJ Reynolds Has Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case Chamberlain
v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. has concluded.

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


LORILLARD INC: Motion for Attorneys' Fees Denied in Burkhart Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff's motion
for attorneys' fees and prevailing party costs was denied in the
case, Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages on May 15,
2014. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's
injuries to the smoker, 25% to R.J. Reynolds, 15% to Philip
Morris, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury awarded $500,000 in
punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $2,000,000 from the
other defendants for a total punitive damages award of $2,500,000.
The Court ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's
percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the
compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the
plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. On June 11,
2014, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants in the
amount of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and
severally, and $2,500,000 ($500,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in
punitive damages, plus the statutory rate of interest. The Court
denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On
October 10, 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the
final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
final judgment also granted plaintiff entitlement to trial court
costs, but as of April 16, 2015, the trial court had not awarded
an amount. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and prevailing
party costs was denied. This case is not subject to the tentative
federal settlement.


LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Harris Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not
ruled on a motion in the case, Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, et al.

In Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court,
Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on July 31, 2014, the
jury found that one of the smoker's alleged Engle qualifying
diseases did not manifest prior to the cut-off period for
membership in the Engle class, and that the smoker's other alleged
Engle qualifying disease was not caused by the smoker's addiction
to cigarettes containing nicotine. However, the jury awarded
compensatory damages on plaintiff's survival and wrongful death
claims in the total amount of $1,726,650. The jury apportioned 60%
of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 15% to
Philip Morris, 15% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco,
in connection with plaintiff's survival claims. The jury
apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 10% to Philip Morris, 10% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to
Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's wrongful death
claims. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the
claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not
entitled to punitive damages.

On August 13, 2014, defendants filed a motion for entry of
judgment in favor of all defendants, arguing that the jury's
findings establish that the smoker was not an Engle class member.
On December 17, 2014, the Court denied defendants' motion. On
December 18, 2014, the Court entered final judgment, awarding
$1,726,650 in compensatory damages in a lump sum against all
defendants. The jury's comparative fault determinations were not
applied despite the jury's finding in favor of the defendants on
the claims alleging intentional conduct.

On January 15, 2015, defendants filed additional post-trial
motions challenging the verdict and the final judgment. Plaintiff
does not oppose applying the jury's comparative fault
determinations to the final judgment. As of April 16, 2015, the
Court had not ruled on these motions. On January 2, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which
defendants have opposed. As of April 16, 2015, the Court had not
ruled on this motion. This case is not subject to the tentative
federal settlement.


LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Irimi" Case Filed Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
from the order granting a new trial in the case, Irimi v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff a total of $3,123,437 in compensatory damages on
August 28, 2014. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the
smoker's injuries to the smoker, 14.5% to Lorillard Tobacco, 14.5%
to R.J. Reynolds, and 1% to Liggett. Because the jury found in
favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional
conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages.
Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and
plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of
entitlement to punitive damages.

On December 18, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that
applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded
the plaintiff a total of $937,031 in compensatory damages
($452,898 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of
interest.

On January 27, 2015, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion for a new trial based on improper jury
selection procedures, which effectively vacates the final
judgment. Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing on February 4,
2015, which was denied on February 16th, 2015. On February 23,
2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth
District Court of Appeal from the order granting a new trial.


LORILLARD INC: Court Has Not Ruled on Fee Motion in Lourie Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court had not
ruled on a motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the case,
Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.

In Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of
$1,371,549 in compensatory damages on October 10, 2014. The jury
apportioned 63% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to Philip Morris, 7% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 3% to
R.J. Reynolds. The jury found that punitive damages were not
warranted against any of the defendants. The Court denied
defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict.

On November 6, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that
applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded
plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of $507,473 in
compensatory damages ($96,008 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the
statutory rate of interest. Defendants have noticed an appeal from
the final judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and costs. As of April 16, 2015, the Court had not ruled on this
motion.


LORILLARD INC: Perrotto Plaintiff Seeks to Disqualify Trial Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
case, Perrotto v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., filed a
petition with the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking
to disqualify the trial judge from further consideration of this
case.

In Perrotto v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida),
the jury awarded plaintiff a total of $4,087,339 in compensatory
damages on November 21, 2014. The jury apportioned 49% of the
fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to Philip
Morris, 20% to R.J. Reynolds, 6% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 0% to
Liggett. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the
claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not
entitled to punitive damages.

On December 4, 2014, the Court entered a final judgment that
applied the jury's comparative fault determinations and awarded
the plaintiff a total of $2,084,545 in compensatory damages
($245,240 from Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of
interest. Defendants have filed post-trial motions challenging the
verdict, and the plaintiff has filed a post-trial motion seeking a
new trial on entitlement to punitive damages. Plaintiff also filed
a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. As of April 16, 2015, the
Court had not ruled on these motions. On December 31, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a petition with the Florida Fourth District Court
of Appeal seeking to disqualify the trial judge from further
consideration of this case.


LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff Motion Pending in "Caprio" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Lorillard Tobacco was
a defendant in two trials that did not result in a complete
verdict:

* In Landau v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on February 18,
2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on
liability and awarded plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory damages.
The jury apportioned 75% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to
the smoker and 25% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury also determined
that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages. During the
Phase II portion of the trial, to determine the amount of punitive
damages, the case was resolved in its entirety by the parties.
This case is concluded.

* In Caprio v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), on
February 24, 2015, the jury returned an incomplete verdict form
that awarded plaintiff $559,172 in compensatory damages for lost
earnings and medical expenses. The jury apportioned 40% of the
fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 25% to Philip
Morris, 20% to R.J. Reynolds, 10% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 5% to
Liggett. The jury did not answer the question as to plaintiff's
amount of damages for pain and suffering, nor did the jury answer
the question as to whether punitive damages were warranted against
any of the defendants. The defendants have filed motions for
mistrial and for a new trial. The plaintiff has filed a motion to
retain the findings of the jury. As of April 16, 2015, the Court
had not ruled on these motions.


LORILLARD INC: Bids to Rehear Appellate Court Rulings Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that motions for rehearing
of appellate court rulings are pending in some Engle Progeny
cases.

As of April 16, 2015, verdicts have been returned in 140 Engle
Progeny trials since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006
ruling that permitted members of the Engle class to bring
individual lawsuits in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor
Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant at trial. Juries awarded
compensatory damages and punitive damages in 46 of the trials. In
45 of those 46 trials, the amount of punitive damages awarded has
totaled approximately $876.7 million and ranged from $20,000 to
$244 million.

In July 2014, punitive damages of $23.6 billion were awarded in
one of these cases. In that case, the Court granted in part a
post-trial motion filed by the defendant and reduced the punitive
damages to approximately $17 million. The defendant objected to
the amount awarded and the Court ordered a new trial on the amount
of punitive damages only.

In 39 of the trials, juries' awards were limited to compensatory
damages. In the 55 remaining trials, juries found in favor of the
defendants. Post-trial motions challenging the verdicts in some
cases and appeals from final judgments in some cases are pending
before various Florida circuit and intermediate appellate courts.

As of April 16, 2015, one verdict in favor of the defendants and
four verdicts in favor of the plaintiff have been reversed on
appeal and returned to the trial court for a new trial on all
issues. In ten cases, the intermediate appellate courts have ruled
that the issue of damages awarded must be revisited by the trial
court.  The Florida Supreme Court reinstated a punitive damages
award that had been reversed by an intermediate appellate court,
and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a judgment
awarding compensatory damages. Motions for rehearing of these
appellate court rulings are pending in some cases.


LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs in W.Va. IPIC Filed Certiorari Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that approximately 120 of
the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Case plaintiffs filed
a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States.

The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the "IPIC
Cases") were brought by individuals who alleged cancer or other
health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or
using smokeless tobacco products. In September 2000, there were
approximately 1,250 IPIC Cases, and Lorillard Tobacco was named in
all but a few of them. Lorillard, Inc. was not a defendant in any
of the IPIC Cases. Plaintiffs in most of the IPIC Cases alleged
injuries from smoking cigarettes, and the claims alleging injury
from smoking cigarettes were consolidated for a multi-phase trial.
The order that consolidated those claims for trial limited the
consolidation to cases that were filed by September 2000.

Approximately 645 IPIC Cases were dismissed in their entirety
before trial. Lorillard Tobacco was dismissed from approximately
565 additional IPIC Cases because those plaintiffs did not submit
evidence that they used a Lorillard Tobacco product. At the time
the Phase I trial began, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 31
of the then-pending IPIC Cases.

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

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

On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment and order in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia. The defendants did not file a separate appeal. On
November 3, 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued a Memorandum Decision affirming the Phase I judgment and
order. On November 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
rehearing asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on one of the
six grounds the plaintiffs had raised on appeal.

On January 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeals refused the
petition for rehearing, and on January 15, the Court issued its
mandate. On April 3, 2015, approximately 120 of the plaintiffs
filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of
the United States.

In response to a request from the Mass Litigation Panel, the
defendants have identified the 30 IPIC Cases that they believe
could be eligible to proceed to a Phase II trial on causation and
damages in the remaining failure to instruct claim. The defendants
did not identify Lorillard as a defendant against which the
plaintiffs in those cases could proceed in a Phase II trial
because, as stated, none of the plaintiffs in the IPIC Cases
included in the Phase I trial asserted that their injuries were
caused by smoking a Lorillard ventilated filter cigarette during
the relevant time period. Plaintiffs, however, have taken the
position that because many cigarette designs use some type of
ventilation, 322 cases (including seven in which it is asserted
that the smoker used Lorillard cigarettes during the relevant
period) are eligible to proceed to a Phase II trial. The trial
court has stated that it will decide the issue of what the phrase
"ventilated filter cigarettes" meant as used in the jury's 2013
verdict form. Plaintiffs have also indicated that some of them may
seek to assert that they used brands of cigarettes other than
those they identified before trial. If the court permits the
plaintiffs to do so, it is possible that an unknown number of
additional plaintiffs may assert that they have claims against
Lorillard that should proceed to a Phase II trial.

The trial court severed from the consolidated proceedings those
claims in the IPIC Cases that alleged injury from the use of
tobacco products other than cigarettes, including smokeless
tobacco and cigars (the "Severed IPIC Claims"). The Severed IPIC
Claims involve 30 plaintiffs. Twenty-eight of these plaintiffs
have asserted both claims alleging that their injuries were caused
by smoking cigarettes as well as claims alleging that their
injuries were caused by using other tobacco products. The former
claims were included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases,
while the latter claims are included in the Severed IPIC Claims.
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of the Severed IPIC
Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the Severed
IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs alleged only that their injuries were
caused by using tobacco products other than cigarettes, and no
part of their cases was included in the consolidated trial of the
IPIC Cases (the "Severed IPIC Cases"). Neither Lorillard Tobacco
nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the Severed IPIC Cases.

The trial court has indicated that it intends to defer any
consideration of the Severed IPIC Claims until after the
conclusion of Phase II of the consolidated action. None of the
Severed IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for
trial as of April 16, 2015.


LORILLARD INC: No Flight Attendant Cases Scheduled for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 16, 2015,
none of the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial.

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

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

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

As of April 16, 2015, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were
scheduled for trial. Trial dates are subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Remains Defendant in Smokers' Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Lorillard Tobacco but
not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one pending Class Action
Case, in which plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased cigarette
smokers, who reside in West Virginia. There has been no
substantive activity in this case since February 2001.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases.
Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some
of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party. In some of
these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters. On
December 17, 2013, in Caronia, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, the
New York Court of Appeals, answering a question certified to it by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
that current or former smokers that have not been diagnosed with a
smoking-related disease could not pursue an independent cause of
action for medical monitoring under New York law.


LORILLARD INC: Not Defendant in 16 "Lights" Class Action Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that neither Lorillard
Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in the approximately 16
Class Action Cases in which plaintiffs' claims are based on the
allegedly fraudulent marketing of "light" or "ultra-light"
cigarettes. Classes have been certified in some of these cases. In
one of these cases, Craft v. Philip Morris USA (Circuit Court,
City of St. Louis, Missouri, filed February 29, 2000), trial began
in September 2011. In November 2011, the court ordered a mistrial
when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The retrial of this
case commenced January 8, 2014, but was postponed until February
22, 2016. In another of the "lights" Class Action Cases, Good v.
Altria Group, Inc., et al. , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
December 2008 that neither the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act nor the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of
cigarettes' tar and nicotine disclosures preempts (or bars) some
of plaintiffs' claims. In 2009, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated various federal court
"lights" Class Action Cases pending against Philip Morris USA or
Altria Group and transferred those cases to the U.S. District
Court of Maine (the "MDL cases"). The court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification filed in four of the MDL Cases, and
a federal appellate court declined to review the class
certification order. Following the appellate court's ruling,
plaintiffs dismissed thirteen of the MDL Cases, including Good v.
Altria Group, Inc., et al. In April, 2012, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the four
MDL cases that remained pending to the courts in which each
originated. These four cases have since been dismissed. On
September 23, 2013, in the "Lights" Class Action Case Brown v. The
American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San Diego
County, California), the Court issued a Statement of Decision that
granted judgment in favor of the defendant. The Court held that
the defendant misrepresented the health benefits of its "light"
cigarette but that plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution or
injunctive relief. Final judgment was entered in favor of the
defendant on October 15, 2013. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal of the final judgment, and the appeal remains
pending. On April 29, 2014, in the "lights" Class Action Case
Price, et al v. Philip Morris Incorporated (Circuit Court, Madison
County, Illinois), the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate
Court of Illinois reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs'
petition for relief from judgment and reinstated a 2003 verdict
awarding damages. The defendant in this case filed a petition for
leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois and on September
24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.


LORILLARD INC: Tobacco Unit Defending 56 Filter Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 16, 2015,
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 56 Filter Cases.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of April 16, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 56 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$45.2 million in settlements to finally resolve 167 claims. One of
the resolved claims was in the case Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco
Company, et al., where a trial began on February 9, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On February 26, 2015, before the trial was concluded, the parties
agreed to resolve the matter. On March 30, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco
Company and Hollingsworth & Vose were dismissed with prejudice.
Since January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the
following three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company
and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court,
Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch
Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton
Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms
of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V
Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material),
Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose
for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and
claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard
Company that contained the filter material. In McGuire, tried in
the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky in
2012, the jury returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May
2012.

On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the
final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth &
Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's
petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for
discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court, and on
February 12, 2015, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's
motion. This matter is now closed.

On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a
verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the
court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17,
2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate
District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final
judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal
of the cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs
abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the
appeal was dismissed. This matter is now closed.

On September 13, 2013, the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor
of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict
liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is
responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on
November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on
November 18, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its initial brief on
January 6, 2015. Plaintiff's brief is due on June 5, 2015. As of
April 16, 2015, 27 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have
been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to
change.


LORILLARD INC: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Merger-Related Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Merger-Related Litigation.

On July 15, 2014, the Company, Reynolds American Inc., a North
Carolina corporation ("RAI"), and Lantern Acquisition Co., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI ("Merger
Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of RAI. At the effective time of the Merger, each
share of Company common stock (other than treasury stock held by
the Company or owned by a subsidiary of the Company, RAI or Merger
Sub and shares owned by shareholders of the Company who have
properly made and not withdrawn a demand for appraisal rights)
will be converted into the right to receive a unit consisting of
(i) $50.50 per share in cash and (ii) 0.2909 fully paid and non-
assessable shares of common stock of RAI. On January 28, 2015, the
Company's shareholders adopted the Merger Agreement, and RAI's
shareholders approved the issuance of RAI common stock in the
Merger. The transaction remains subject to regulatory approval and
the additional customary closing conditions contained in the
Merger Agreement.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, on July 15, 2014, RAI and
Lignum-2, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco
Group PLC ("Imperial"), which subsequently changed its name to ITG
Brands, LLC ("Imperial Sub"), entered into an asset purchase
agreement, pursuant to which Imperial Sub has agreed to purchase,
immediately following the completion of the Merger, the Kool,
Salem, Winston, Maverick and blu eCigs brands and certain other
assets for a total consideration of $7.1 billion in cash (subject
to certain adjustments). Also, on July 15, 2014, in connection
with the asset purchase, the Company and Imperial Sub entered into
a Transfer Agreement, pursuant to which Imperial Sub agreed to
acquire certain assets owned by the Company, including its
manufacturing and R&D facilities in Greensboro, N.C., and
approximately 2,900 employees. On January 28, 2015, the
shareholders of Imperial approved the asset purchase.

Although no assurance can be given if and when the transactions
will be completed because they remain subject to regulatory
approval and other customary conditions, the transactions are
expected to close in the first half of 2015.

Merger-Related Litigation

The Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, RAI
and British American Tobacco p.l.c. have been named as defendants
in putative class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery by shareholders of the Company challenging the proposed
merger with RAI (the "Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
of the Company by authorizing the proposed merger of the Company
with RAI. The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the
members of the Company's board of directors. On November 25, 2014,
the court granted a motion for consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single action captioned In re Lorillard, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation , C.A. No. 9904-CB and appointment of lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of their motion
for a preliminary injunction on January 9, 2015.

The Company and RAI believe that these lawsuits are without merit;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on January 15, 2015, the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding the settlement of the Delaware Actions.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Delaware Actions. In
consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the
Delaware Actions agreed, among other things, that the Company and
RAI would make certain supplemental disclosures to their joint
proxy statement/prospectus, dated December 22, 2014, all of which
are set forth in a Current Report on Form 8-K that the Company
filed with the SEC on January 20, 2015. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good
faith to agree upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to
the court for approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, or if the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be of no force and effect. The outcome of
this litigation will not, in the opinion of management, materially
affect Lorillard's results of operations or equity.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Water Dept Threatened by Suits Over Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
David Zahniser, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that
ratepayers have had reason to gripe in recent months about the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, whose fumbled rollout of a
new billing system in 2013 produced some breathtakingly inaccurate
charges for customers.

Still, the public does get something back from the DWP. Once a
year, the city-owned utility sends about a quarter of a billion
dollars to L.A.'s general fund budget, which pays for police
officers, firefighters and other city employees. Budget officials
describe that money -- currently 8% of the utility's electrical
revenue -- as surplus, available cash.

When Mayor Eric Garcetti unveils his yearly budget, he will almost
certainly rely on another DWP windfall to balance the books. But
that transfer, critics say, is now in jeopardy -- because of both
the city's billing debacle and an array of legal challenges.

A recent audit of the agency's troubled customer information
system found that, as of November, the utility had $681 million in
uncollected bills -- $245 million more than under the previous
billing system. If the DWP doesn't reach its revenue projections
this year, it "could end up not having any profits, and therefore
they couldn't have a transfer," said Jack Humphreville, a member
of the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council who writes about the
DWP for the website CityWatch.

Asked about the transfer, Garcetti referred The Times to DWP
officials, who dismissed the idea that the billing woes would have
any effect on payment to the city budget. Utility executives said
they have cut the amount of money not collected from customers for
more than 60 days by nearly 25%, or $70 million, over the last
three months.  That leaves the utility with $284 million in bills
that are more than 60 days overdue, or 5.1% of total yearly
revenue, utility officials said. More than a third of the
uncollected money, they added, is for non-DWP items on customers'
bills, such as sewer and trash pickup fees.

"DWP has sufficient revenues" to provide payment to the general
fund, Jeff Peltola, the utility's director of corporate
performance, said in an email.

As the DWP works to catch up on its collections, its ability to
send extra cash to City Hall faces other threats. Two lawsuits
filed this year have challenged L.A.'s annual transfers. Similar
cases involving city-owned utilities are in play as far away as
Shasta County.

Foes of the transfers contend they are back-door tax increases
designed to get around required approvals from voter. The
utilities raise rates, this argument goes, which generates surplus
revenue that is sent to city officials to use for general
government purposes.

Attorney Walt McNeill, who represents a ratepayer group in
Redding, Calif., said municipal utilities in L.A., Anaheim,
Riverside and elsewhere are legally barred from making such
transfers from their electrical utilities under Proposition 26, a
statewide initiative passed by voters in 2010. The measure says
government agencies cannot charge more for certain services than
they cost to provide.

The transfer is "a hidden tax in your electric bill," said
McNeill, whose clients won a court victory this year restricting
such uses of ratepayer funds.

In Los Angeles, the loss of the DWP transfer could blow a sizable
hole in the city budget, which already faces an array of pressures
and obligations. Garcetti's plan to cut the business tax would
remove $15 million from revenue. The City Council recently agreed,
as part of a legal settlement, to spend $31 million annually
fixing sidewalks. And city unions are attempting to repeal a
reduction in pension benefits that was supposed to save up to $70
million over five years.

The elimination of the transfer is "something the city could
survive," said City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana. "But
obviously it would make it difficult to provide the same level of
services."

Santana sees the DWP transfer as a dividend for the public, which
owns the utility. That payment sets the agency apart from
investor-owned utilities like Southern California Edison, which
are accountable to shareholders. But it also makes for some
treacherous City Hall politics.

In 2004, Mayor James K. Hahn came under fire for securing an extra
$60 million from the DWP to erase a budget shortfall. Before
approving the payment, one Hahn appointee to the utility's board
called the request "an abuse of this department's generosity."

Five years later, a judge struck down the DWP's practice of
sending nearly $30 million from its water operations to the
general fund. After that ruling, the utility expanded the size of
its transfer from its electrical system. This year, the transfer
totaled $265 million.

A major dispute over the transfer erupted in 2010. DWP officials
threatened to withhold roughly a third of the surplus after City
Council members refused to back a package of rate increases sought
by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The issue became a public relations
nightmare for the utility, which ultimately backed down.

An appellate court in Northern California ruled in January that
the annual payment made by Redding's electrical utility to the
city budget is a tax -- and therefore needs voter approval --
unless officials can show the money was directly related to the
cost of electrical service. That ruling has been appealed to the
state Supreme Court, McNeill said.

Cases also have been filed against the city of Glendale, whose
electrical utility sent $20.6 million to the general government
fund. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
18, which represents municipal utility workers in both Glendale
and L.A., has argued in one pending lawsuit that the yearly
transfer made by Glendale Water and Power requires approval from
two-thirds of city voters.  That position puts the union on the
same side as anti-tax activists, who have long criticized the
transfers from utility agencies.

In January, a resident of Mt. Washington filed a separate lawsuit
challenging L.A.'s transfers. And in April, a law firm in San
Diego filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Patrick Eck, a 30-
year-old West Hills resident also seeking to overturn the DWP
practice of supporting the city general fund.

Eck wants the DWP to refund ratepayers an amount equal to the
payments made to the city's budget since February 2014, attorney
Eric Benink said.

"L.A.'s transfer is illegal, so it's just a matter of time before
that is struck down," Benink said.

A spokesman for Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer declined to
comment.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Baldwin" Suit in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Baldwin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holding, Inc., and Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00061-FPS (N.D. W.
Va., May 14, 2015) arises from Lumber Liquidators' Chinese-made
flooring products that emit formaldehyde levels above the
formaldehyde standards set by the California's Air Resource Board.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
          THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          118 Capitol St., Suite 400
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 343-2900
          Facsimile: (304) 343-2942
          E-mail: troy@thewvlawfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Udit" Suit in Virginia District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Udit, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00291-REP (E.D. Va., May 13, 2015) is brought under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliott Matthew Buckner, Esq.
          Stephanie Elaine Grana, Esq.
          CANTOR STONEBURNER FORD GRANA & BUCKNER
          7130 Glen Forest Dr., Suite 400
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 644-1400
          Facsimile: (804) 644-9205
          E-mail: ebuckner@cantorarkema.com
                  sgrana@virginiatrialfirm.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Abshier" Liability Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Abshier and Brandon Abshier, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02045-GLF-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 18, 2015) asserts
product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC, WILES, BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLP
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com


MANN PUBLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nast Assia Murray-Brooks, Monica McLure And Tiffany Neumann v.
Mann Publications Inc., Jeffrey Mann, Individually, and Gary
Esposito Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-03676-SAS (S.D.N.Y.,
May 12, 2015) is brought to seek redress for the Defendants'
alleged willful and blatant violation of federal wage and overtime
laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs for the overtime
hours that each Plaintiff earned during the relevant time period.

Mann Publications Inc. is a professional corporation with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are officers, managers, employees or agents
of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bennitta Lisa Joseph, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 791-5396
          E-mail: Bennitta@employeejustice.com


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Sued by Kentucky for Fixing Price of Gasoline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. Attorney General, Jack Conway v.
Marathon Petroleum Company, LP, Case No. 3:15-cv-00354-DJH (W.D.
Ky., May 12, 2015) is brought for violation of the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Act, and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, gasoline is an integral part of the
Kentucky economy, powering all types of family and commercial
automobiles that make the state economy function.  For many years,
Kentucky residents and resident businesses purchasing gasoline as
a necessary good have endured elevated and unpredictable prices at
retail locations around the state.

Many in Kentucky have wondered why our retail gasoline prices seem
so often irrationally disconnected from those of our border
states, frequently resulting in Kentucky citizens paying more to
get to work and take their children to school than similarly
situated individuals residing outside the Commonwealth, the
Plaintiff says.  The answer appears in the unlawful,
anticompetitive business activities engaged in by Marathon, he
alleges.

Jack Conway, as the duly elected Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, is responsible for the enforcement and
administration of Kentucky law, including the Consumer Protection
laws set forth in the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

Marathon Petroleum Company, LP, is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company registered to do business in Kentucky.  The Company is
engaged in the business of petroleum refining and marketing and
lists a principal office address in Findley, Ohio.  Marathon is
the largest supplier of gasoline in the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
and largest supplier of Reformulated Gasoline in the Louisville
and Northern Kentucky markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean J. Riley, Esq., Chief Deputy Attorney General
          Robyn R. Bender, Esq., Assistant Deputy A.G.
          Laura S. Crittenden, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
          700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
          Frankfort, KY 40602
          Telephone: (502) 696-5300
          Facsimile: (502) 564-8310
          E-mail: sean.riley@ky.gov
                  robyn.bender@ag.ky.gov
                  laura.crittenden@ky.gov

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ungar Natter, Esq., Assistant A.G.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION
          1024 Capital Center Drive
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Telephone: (502) 696-5300


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21,
2015, that Meadowbrook and the other defendants have entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the class
action litigation providing for the settlement of the Litigation
upon entry of a final order by the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan approving the settlement.

On December 30, 2014, Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., a
Michigan corporation (the "Company" or "Meadowbrook"), entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among the Company, Miracle Nova II (US), LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), and Miracle Nova III (US),
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for, subject to the satisfaction
or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of the Company
by Parent at a price of $8.65 per share in cash pursuant to a
merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into the Company.

Two purported shareholders of Meadowbrook each filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a purported class of
shareholders, which were subsequently consolidated naming
Meadowbrook, each current director of Meadowbrook, a former
director of Meadowbrook, Fosun International Limited, Parent and
Merger Sub as defendants (the "Litigation").

On April 20, 2015, Meadowbrook and the other defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Litigation providing for the settlement of the Litigation upon
entry of a final order by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan approving the settlement. In the
Memorandum of Understanding, Meadowbrook agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement of
Meadowbrook dated March 25, 2015 relating to the Merger and the
Merger Agreement (the "Proxy Statement").

Meadowbrook believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However, to
avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the consummation of the Merger, and to minimize
the expense of defending the Litigation, Meadowbrook has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, to make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement. The
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement are set forth
below. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject
to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The settlement contemplated by the parties will be
subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the
Merger, certification of the class, and court approval following
notice to Meadowbrook's shareholders. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the presiding court, such settlement will
resolve and release all claims that were, or could have been,
brought in any of the actions challenging any aspect of the
Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal made by
shareholders of Meadowbrook in accordance with the Michigan
Business Corporation Act), pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to shareholders of Meadowbrook prior to final approval
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. If the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan does not approve the settlement, such
proposed settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, may be terminated.


MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------

John Lauriello et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

CVS Health et al.,
Defendants.

No. CV-03-6630
Class Action

If you bought MedPartners, Inc., common stock between October 30,
1996, and January 7, 1998, you may be a member of a certified
class.

Case Background. This Action, which was initially filed on October
22, 2003, arises out of the settlement of a nationwide
class action styled Griffin v. MedPartners, Inc., et al.
(Jefferson County, Alabama, Circuit Court; CV-98-00297, etc.).
The Griffin case consolidated more than 20 securities and
derivative lawsuits alleging that MedPartners had made a series of
false and misleading statements concerning a planned merger
between MedPartners and PhyCor Inc. and concerning MedPartners'
overall financial condition.  In 1999, a court approved
the settlement of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation for
$56 Million.

What Is This Case About? Plaintiffs here allege that during the
course of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation,
they were told that liability insurance coverage was limited.
Effective September 30, 1998, American International
Specialty Lines Insurance Company issued to MedPartners the
"AISLIC Policy" -- the excess insurance policy that is at issue in
this Action.  The AISLIC Policy provided additional liability
insurance coverage for the 1998 MedPartners Security Litigation.
In this current certified class action, Plaintiffs' Complaint
alleges two counts: (1) that Defendants misrepresented the amount
of insurance available to settle the 1998 MedPartners Security
Litigation; and (2) that Defendants suppressed information
concerning the AISLIC Policy.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs'
allegations and have raised a number of affirmative defenses.  The
Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or
Defendants' defenses.

Who Is Included? The class is defined as, "All Persons who (i)
purchased MedPartners, Inc. common stock (including, but not
limited to, through open market transactions, mergers or
acquisitions in which MedPartners issued common stock, acquisition
through the company's employee stock purchase plan, and any other
type of transaction in which a person acquired one or more shares
of MedPartners stock in return for consideration) during the
period from October 30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive
(MedPartners employees who purchased shares through the ESPP in
January 1998 being deemed to have purchased their shares on
December 31, 1997); (ii) purchased call option contracts on
MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996
through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iii) sold put option
contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October
30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iv) purchased
MedPartners threshold appreciation price securities in the
September 15, 1997, offering or thereafter through January 7,
1998; or (v) tendered shares of Talbert Medical Management
Holdings Corporation to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and
September 19, 1997; excluding all those members who opted out of
the 1999 Class Settlement."

What Are Your Options? If you believe that you may be a member of
the Class, more detailed information about this Action and its
potential effect on you and your rights is available online at
AIGCVSClassAction.com or by calling toll-free to 1-888-564-1149.
If you are a member of the Class and you want to exclude yourself
from the Class and keep your right to sue the Defendants, you must
take further action before June 30, 2015.  By that date, you must
request exclusion in writing to this address: AIG-CVS Class Action
Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San
Rafael, CA 94912-8040.  Please do not telephone or address
inquiries to the Court.  If you choose to be excluded from the
Class, you will not be bound by any judgment in this Action, nor
will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be
obtained in this Action.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Class Actions Dismissed in 1st Qtr
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
21, 2015, that beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with
various mortgage lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been
named as a defendant in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class
actions, filed in various U.S. District Courts. The complaints in
all of the cases allege various causes of action related to the
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders,
including that the lenders' captive reinsurers received excessive
premiums in relation to the risk assumed by those captives,
thereby violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which
is commonly known as RESPA.

Seven of those cases had been dismissed prior to February 2015
without any further opportunity to appeal. The remaining five
cases were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2015
pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiffs.


MICHAEL JACKSON: 2 Former Child Stars Sue Estate Over Sex Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inquisitr.com reported that amidst the new allegations of child
molestation against Michael Jackson, the superstar singer's
children are set to clear his name again against rumors they say
are untrue. The newest accusations come from two former child
stars who are suing the Jackson estate in a pending class action
lawsuit.

Both Prince Jackson and Paris Jackson, the "Thriller" singer's
oldest children, are not taking the allegations against their
father lying down. Both children want to defend their father from
the recent allegations brought forth by former child stars Wade
Robson and James Safechuck.

Blanket Jackson, 13, the pop superstar's youngest child,
reportedly also wants to take the stand alongside his siblings.
Given his age and sensitive nature, however, there is speculation
that his family may not allow it.


MISTRAS GROUP: Removes "Viceral" FLSA Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Viceral v. Mistras Group, Inc.,
Case No. CGC-15-545291, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
02198-EDL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Complaint includes eight causes of action, alleging failure to
pay overtime, among other allegations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hanna Betty Raanan, Esq.
          Louis Michael Marlin, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92602
          Telephone: (714) 669-4900
          Facsimile: (714) 669-4750
          E-mail: hraanan@marlinsaltzman.com
                  louis.marlin@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Alan Schwachter, Esq.
          Richard Keith Chapman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: jschwachter@littler.com
                  kchapman@littler.com


MITEL NETWORKS: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
-----------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, that the
parties to the class action lawsuit entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement.

As disclosed in Mitel's offer to exchange included in its
registration statement relating to Mitel's pending acquisition of
Mavenir, two purported stockholder class actions challenging the
merger were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"). On March 23, 2015, these two actions were
consolidated into an action styled In re Mavenir Systems, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. Case No. 10757-VCP (the
"Consolidated Action"). An amended complaint in this action (the
"Amended Complaint") was filed on April 7, 2015.

On April 20, 2015, following expedited discovery, the parties to
the Amended Complaint entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "Memorandum of Understanding") reflecting the terms of an
agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain
other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, defendants agreed to, among other
things, amend certain provisions of the agreement and plan of
merger and waive certain provisions of the tender support
agreements.

Additionally, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Mavenir
has agreed to make certain amended and supplemental disclosures to
its Solicitation/Recommendation Statement. Mavenir does not admit
any wrongdoing and does not admit that the amended and
supplemental disclosures are material or required by law to be
made. The Memorandum of Understanding further provides that, among
other things, (a) the parties will negotiate a definitive
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the
Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (b) the
Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Consolidated Action
with prejudice; (c) the Stipulation will include a general release
of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the
exchange offer, the merger and the agreement and plan of merger;
and (d) the settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
consummation of the offer and the merger, completion of
confirmatory discovery, class certification and final approval by
the Court after notice to Mavenir's stockholders. The foregoing
description of the Memorandum of Understanding is not complete and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the
Memorandum of Understanding.

Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the
Consolidated Action are without merit and, if the settlement does
not receive final approval, intend to defend them vigorously.
Defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will
not affect the timing of the exchange offer or merger or the
amount of consideration to be paid in the exchange offer or the
merger.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Moves Iron Workers Suit to District of Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Iron Workers District Council of
New England Pension Fund v. MoneyGram International Inc., et al.,
Case No. N15C-04-144-WCC, was removed from the Delaware Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
00402-UNA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants asserting various
securities claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2530
          E-mail: cazar@labaton.com

Defendants MoneyGram International Inc., Pamela H. Patsley, W.
Alexander Holmes, J. Coley Clark, Victor W. Dahir, Antonio O.
Garza, Peggy Vaughan and W. Bruce Turner are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq.
          John Patrick DiTomo, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 North Market Street
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 351-9294
          Facsimile: (302) 425-3013
          E-mail: knachbar@mnat.com
                  jditomo@mnat.com

               - and -

          John C. Wander, Esq.
          Andrew E. Jackson, Esq.
          Kimberly R. McCoy, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
          Trammell Crow Center
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201-2975
          Telephone: (214) 220-7700
          Facsimile: (214) 220-7716
          E-mail: jwander@velaw.com
                  ajackson@velaw.com
                  kmccoy@velaw.com

Defendants Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P., Thomas H. Hagerty, Seth W.
Lawry and Ganesh Rao are represented by:

          David Evan Ross, Esq.
          Bradley Ross Aronstam, Esq.
          ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
          100 S. West Street, Suite 400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 576-1600
          Facsimile: (302) 576-1100
          E-mail: dross@ramllp.com
                  baronstam@ram-llp.com

               - and -

          Kevin B. Huff, Esq.
          Joshua D. Branson, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: khuff@khhte.com
                  jbranson@khhte.com

Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. and William Blair &
Company L.L.C. are represented by:

          Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
          John M. Seaman, Esq.
          ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 778-1000
          Facsimile: (302) 573-3501
          E-mail: abrams@abramsbayliss.com
                  seaman@abramsbayliss.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          Daniel Roeser, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800
          E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com
                  droeser@goodwinprocter.com


MVM INC: Faces "Bonilla-Ramirez" Suit Alleging Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Bonilla-Ramirez v. MVM, Inc. d/b/a MVM Security, Inc.
and/or a/k/a MVM International Security, Inc., U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement a/k/a ICE, Department of Homeland
Security, Jeh Johnson, Elpidio Nunez, Christopher Martin McHale,
Corporation B, Loretta E. Lynch and the United States Department
of Justice, Corporation B, ABC Insurance Company, X, Y, and Z all
of the above named Defendants acting in their official and
individual capacities, Case No. 3:15-cv-01586 (D.P.R., May 14,
2015) alleges that MVM and ICE officials discriminated against the
Plaintiff based on gender and asserts that the Defendants'
officials retaliated against her for filing a charge of
discrimination.

MVM, Inc., doing business as MVM Security, Inc., also known as MVM
International Security, Inc., is a foreign for-profit-corporation
registered with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  MVM is
headquartered in Ashburn, Virginia.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a division
ascribed to the Department of Homeland Security, at all relevant
times, shared supervisory responsibility for MVM security
employees at the Luis Munos Marin International Airport.  The U.S.
Department of Justice is included to comply with Procedural Rules,
with regards any lawsuit filed against a United States Government
and its officials, in this case the Department of Homeland
Security bureau known as "ICE."  The Individual Defendants are
officers, managers or employees of the MVM and the Government
Entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Humberto Cobo-Estrella, Esq.
          COBO-ESTRELLA H Law, LLC
          PO Box 366451
          San Juan, PR 00936-6451
          Telephone: (787) 200-2715
          Facsimile: (787) 529-7140
          E-mail: hcobo@hcounsel.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Duerson's Family to Appeal Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that the family of the late NFL safety
Dave Duerson plans to appeal terms of the class-action concussion
settlement "sooner rather than later."

Family lawyer Thomas Demetrio objects to the exclusion of future
awards for CTE, the brain trauma that some call "the signature
disease of football."  Lawyers involved in the settlement say an
appeal could hold up payments to thousands of players.  Some are
suffering from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease and stand to get
$1 million or more.  The average award would be about $190,000 for
late-in-life dementia.

A Philadelphia judge approved the settlement on April 22.  It
resolves claims the NFL long hid what it knew about concussion-
related brain damage.

The 50-year-old Duerson took his life in 2011.  He played in the
NFL for 11 seasons, mostly for the Bears.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Forge ParkFeldman Shepherd lawyers Alan M. Feldman, Daniel
J. Mann and Edward S. Goldis have commenced a lawsuit on behalf of
the family of Fenjin He, who was fatally injured on May 17, 2014
in the area of the shuttered Port Kennedy train station in Valley
Forge, Pa.  Mr. He and a friend, Zoujun Lin, were taking nature
photographs early that Saturday morning when a Norfolk Southern
freight train traveling in a westbound direction approached them
from behind.  Despite having a clear view of Mr. He and his friend
on the tracks in front of them, neither the engineer nor the
conductor sounded the train's horn in order to warn the
pedestrians of the train's approach.  They were killed instantly.

Fenjin He was well-respected in the Chinese-American communities
not only in Philadelphia, but in New York City, New Jersey,
Delaware and Washington, D.C. Coming to the United States from a
rural area of China, Mr. He became Vice President and CEO of
Nature Soy, a company employing nearly 100 people and
manufacturing a variety of soy products.  Mr. He had a Master's
Degree from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. from Utah State
in Food Science.  In addition to his business activities, he was a
singer in the Philly Pops Orchestra and a sponsor of many
charitable activities and Chinese-American cultural events.

Fenjin He is survived by his wife Sunfei Ye and his daughters Lily
He and Marilyn He.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jared N. Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and Does 1 Through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02648-RB (E.D. Pa., May 13, 2015)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


NYFACS PTO CORP: Accused of Gender and Pregnancy Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenah Veszi v. NYFACS PTO Corporation d/b/a New York French
American Charter School, Case No. 1:15-cv-03738-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May
14, 2015) alleges that the Defendant engages in gender and
pregnancy discrimination and other unlawful practices.

NYFACS is a domestic not for profit corporation with its principal
place of business located in New York City.  NYFACS is the former
employer of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marsha Mozammel, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW P.C.
          450 SeventhAvenue, Suite 1408
          New York, New York 10123
          Telephone: (646) 790-3851
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: marsha@lawicb.com


ORGANO GOLD: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Delaware District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. Organo Gold Int'l Inc.,
et al., Case No. N15C-03-157-CCLD, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00390-UNA to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged personal injury suffered by
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Thomas Edwards, Esq.
          Kelley Marie Huff, Esq.
          MURPHY, SPADARO & LANDON
          1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 472-8109
          E-mail: pedwards@msllaw.com
                  khuff@msllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colm F. Connolly, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1007 Orange Street, Suite 501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 574-3000
          Facsimile: (302) 574-3001
          E-mail: cconnolly@morganlewis.com


ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duty in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Reuss, Dr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00805-JA-GJK
(M.D. Fla., May 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of breaching its
fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          700 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 552-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 552-6608
          E-mail: jml@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Scott Tufts, Esq.
          TUFTS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          111 S Maitland Ave., Suite 101
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 872-0757
          Facsimile: (407) 641-8082
          E-mail: stufts@tuftslawfirm.com


PARADISE SHOWGIRLS: Strippers Win $6.5MM Payout in Dance Tip Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Moran, writing New York Daily News, reports that strippers in
California have won an eye-popping $6.5 million payout from their
club after a judge ruled they'd been stiffed over their private
dance fees.

Some 249 exotic dancers launched the class-action lawsuit against
the Paradise Showgirls venue in Industry, reports the Los Angeles
Times.  They claimed bosses illegally took large slices of their
wages after they performed intimate routines.  The nude, semi-nude
and bikini-clad dancers alleged they were forced to pay a rental
fee of $14 to hire a lap dance booth or $100 for a VIP booth.  It
significantly ate into their earnings, they claimed, and left them
with just $26 after giving a regular dance and $200 following the
more discreet performance.  They claimed that they were employees
and not independent contractors.  Therefore, they said, they were
entitled to all wages -- which included tips.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury agreed with the dancers
on April 22.  And it ruled that the club's rental fees were
illegal -- and that it now owes the strippers $6.5 million.  It
works out to just over $26,000 for each performer, if they all
receive the same amount.

"We're thrilled and delighted to have had such a conscientious and
thoughtful jury," K.L. Myles, who was representing the dancers,
told KABC.

Ernest Francheschi, the attorney for Paradise Showgirls, argued
that the club was entitled to rental fees.

"It's just like renting stage time. We operate kind of like a
theatre, so that's what it is.  A jury found they were tips under
the court's instructions, which we take issue with," he added.

He now plans to appeal the verdict.

"We think this classification violates equal protection so there's
going to be a constitutional challenge on appeal," he said.


POST PAINTING: Irregularly Paid Black Painter, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jajuan Fitzgerald v. Post Painting, Inc. and Louise Post, Case No.
1:15-cv-00955 (N.D. Ohio, May 14, 2015) alleges that during the
Plaintiff's employment, he was paid irregularly and, at one time
going as long as three months without payment, because of his
race.

Mr. Fitzgerald is African American and has approximately 20 years
of experience as a painter.  He is a resident of the city of
Bedford, County of Cuyahoga, state of Ohio.  He is a former
employee of Post Painting.

Post Painting Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Ohio.  Post Painting is engaged in
painting-related activities.  Louise Post is the owner or
president of Post Painting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


PREMERA: Faces "Kaihoi" Suit Asserting Insurance-Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendal L. Kaihoi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Premera, a Washington Non-Profit Corporation, and
Premera Blue Cross, a Washington Non-Profit Corporation, trading
as Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00013-RRB (D. Alaska, May 14, 2015) asserts claims for breach of
insurance contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & COLEMAN, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, 15th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Toll Free: (866) 466-5789
          Telephone: (215) 792-6153
          Facsimile: (215) 609-1351

               - and -

          John Foster Wallace, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN & WALLACE
          711 Gaffney Road, Suite 202
          Fairbanks, AK 99701
          Telephone: (907) 452-2211
          Facsimile: (907) 456-1137
          E-mail: foster@mzwlaw.com


RASPUTIN RECORDS: Fails to Offer Accessible Facilities, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven potter v. Rasputin's Records, Inc.; Kenneth Sarachan; and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-02156-LB (N.D. Cal.,
May 13, 2015) involves the alleged denial of accessible public
facilities, including interior paths of travel, service counters,
merchandise displays, restrooms, and related facilities, to the
Plaintiff and other similarly disabled persons at the Rasputin's
Music store located in Berkeley, California.

Mr. Potter is a "person with a disability" or "physically
handicapped person" under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  He
requires the use of a wheelchair for locomotion.

The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees of
the business, property, buildings or portions thereof located in
Berkeley, California, and known as Rasputin's Music.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul L. Rein, Esq.
          Celia McGuinness, Esq.
          Catherine M. Cabalo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN
          200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 832-5001
          Facsimile: (510) 832-4787
          E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com
                  cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com
                  ccabalo@reinlawoffice.com


RELIANT CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Lee Downs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Reliant Capital Solutions LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00546-
M (W.D. Okla., May 19, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave.
          D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: TCLG@consumerlawinfo.com


RICHARD & RICE: Removes "Gonzalez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gonzalez v. Richard & Rice
Construction Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-009880-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-21856-UU to the proceeding.

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

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angelo Marcello Filippi, Esq.
          KELLEY KRONENBERG GILMARTIN FICHTEL & WANDER
          8201 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 370-9970
          E-mail: afilippi@kelleykronenberg.com


RITE AID: Class Suit Filed Over PIN Disclosure
----------------------------------------------
Shawn Miller, writing for Stock Transcript, reported that blind
customers can't use touch-screen check-out devices at Rite Aid
Corporation (NYSE:RAD)'s stores and have to tell their personal
identification number to another person in order to make purchases
with their debit cards, according to a proposed class action filed
in New York federal court.


ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Keough and Thomas Kidera, in an article for JD Supra,
reports that on April 15, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative investor class
action against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).  The plaintiffs
had brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that RBS induced them
into buying American Depository Shares (ADSs) of RBS between
October 2007 and January 2009 by misrepresenting the scope of
RBS's investment exposure to subprime mortgage-backed securities
at that time.

The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal on all
grounds, holding that certain of the alleged misstatements could
not serve as the basis for the investors' claims because they were
made in August 2007, before the class period began, and that other
alleged misstatements, concerning RBS's acquisition of Dutch Bank
ABR AMRO, likewise could not sustain a claim because they
constituted inactionable puffery.


SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Blake Escott, writing for Street Wise Report, reported that
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action court case against SanDisk
Corp. as well as certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, and
docketed under 15-cv-01455, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased SanDisk securities between
October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Lawsuit Filed by Australian Travelers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mathieson, writing for the Choice, reported that hundreds
of disillusioned Australian travellers have formally joined a
class action against a luxury cruise and tour operator.  Sydney
law firm Somerville Legal announced in Fairfax media on April 6
that more than 120 passengers affected by extensive flooding in
Europe during April and May 2013 planned to sue operator Scenic
Tours.

CHOICE can reveal a further 80 to 90 passengers expressed their
intention just over a week later to also seek compensation and/or
damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment and the
lost opportunity to cancel their trips.

Somerville Legal said court documents reveal that up to 1730
possible claimants from 16 separate cruises are entitled to be a
part of the class action in the NSW Supreme Court.  The law firm,
which will contact all remaining passengers who travelled with
Scenic Tours in Europe between May 10 and June 14, 2013, initiated
the legal action after founding partner Tim Somerville was one of
the disaffected passengers on a cruise in southern France.

Cruises disrupted

Many Australian travellers paid Scenic Tours up to $20,000 to
travel on the Rhine, Saone, Rhone and Danube rivers throughout
Germany and France.  But they claim they spent hours every day
riding "substandard" coaches and stayed some nights in "low-budget
hotels" after heavy rainfall in France and Germany over six weeks
caused water levels to rise and flood.

In a statement of claim, Scenic Tours is accused of breaching
Australian consumer law by failing to cancel or delay cruises,
offer alternative tours, or warn of expected disruptions.

Benjamin Hemsworth, for Somerville Legal, said some rival cruise
operators cancelled their itineraries and refunded passengers
their money.  Many Scenic customers from Europe cancelled well in
advance of their trips.

"Even when Scenic knew that river cruises were likely to be
disrupted by flooding, they allowed passengers to travel all the
way from Australia without giving them any information about the
likely disruptions," Mr Hemsworth said.

"It appears that the aim was so that Scenic could claim that the
passengers had received a percentage of what they paid for."

Scenic's defence

Scenic Tours, defending the case against liability for any loss,
cost or damage, said the standard terms and conditions of its
contract allowed it to alter itineraries.  It said the onus was on
its independent contractors, who are employed to conduct river
cruises on behalf of Scenic Tours.

"Unfortunately, we have no control over the weather," Damian
Thomas, chief operating officer of Scenic Tours, said in a
statement.

"These were extreme circumstances with this level of flooding only
occurring every 100 years.

"We do, however, always respond as best we can in these
challenging circumstances."

Scenic Tours lodged a statement to the court, pointing to its
terms and conditions to defend its case.

These included:

   * "Cruise itineraries may be varied due to high or low water
levels, flooding . . . for any other circumstances beyond our
control."

   * "We may substitute (at the nearest reasonable standard)
another vessel or motor coach for all or part of the itinerary and
also provide alternative accommodation, where necessary."

   * "Where we make a variation to the Itinerary, we are not
liable to you for such variations."

Costs to claimants

Many of the Scenic Tour cruise passengers have already claimed up
to $2500 in consumer tribunals; however, they are not prohibited
from joining the class action.  Claimants must consider the legal
costs in such a class action when taking into account fair and
reasonable compensation.  In addition to claimants paying a share
of the legal costs encountered by Somerville Legal, the legal firm
will also take up to 33% of the 'Proceeds of the Claim paid or
provided by the Defendant' (15% plus additional 18% if payment by
Scenic Tours is made after 20 November 2014).

The end result could be that the smaller the class action, the
higher costs each claimant will have to contribute to Somerville
Legal.  The case returns to court in July and a full hearing will
take place in April 2016.


SEADRILL LIMITED: Judge Consolidated Fuchs and Heron Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Seadrill Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December 2014, a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit, Fuchs et al. v.
Seadrill Limited et al., No. 14-cv-9642 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in
US Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York,
alleging, among other things, that Seadrill and certain of its
executives made materially false and misleading statements in
connection with the payment of dividends.  In January 2015, a
second purported shareholder class action lawsuit, Heron v.
Seadrill Limited et al., No. 15-cv-0429 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in
the same court on similar grounds. The judge has entered an order
consolidating these cases.

"We cannot predict the outcome of these cases, nor can we estimate
the amount of any possible loss. Accordingly, no loss contingency
has been recognized within the financial statements," the Company
said.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaiting Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that lawsuits are now
pending in the Northern District of Texas, and SEI is awaiting a
ruling on its motion to dismiss.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition,
another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC
and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in
all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing
back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions
allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise
participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Payment Supported by Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sequans Communications S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all payment under
the class action settlement agreement have been directly supported
by the insurance company.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
UBS Limited and Jefferies & Company Inc, the lead underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering. This action, Donald Dean
Johnson v. Sequans Communications S.A., et al, alleges violations
of the U.S. federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's initial public offering. A substantially similar
complaint was filed on October 25, 2011, also in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December
13, 2011 the Court consolidated the two actions, and appointed
lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On January 31, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws, which seeks
unspecified damages. On May 14, 2012, the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Following oral argument, on January 17, 2013, the Court granted
the Company's motion and gave lead plaintiffs 20 days leave to
move to amend their complaint. On February 7, 2013, plaintiffs
brought a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, on March
15, 2013, the Company filed an opposition, and on April 16, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a reply. The parties subsequently engaged in
settlement discussions and stayed the litigation pending
mediation. Following mediation, on June 21, 2013, the parties
informed the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle
to settle the action, subject to the negotiation of a mutually
agreeable settlement agreement.

A settlement agreement was executed on November 7, 2013, and the
Court gave final approval on April 9, 2014. All payment under the
settlement agreement, including payment of most of the Company's
attorneys' fees and expenses, was directly supported by the
insurance company.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Receives Pro-Rata Disbursement in TiO2 Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2015, for
the period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company received a pro-
rata disbursement net of all fees of approximately $21.4 million
in the settlement of the Titanium dioxide suppliers antitrust
class action lawsuit.

The Company is a member of the plaintiff class related to Titanium
Dioxide Antitrust Litigation that was initiated in 2010 against
certain suppliers alleging various theories of relief arising from
purchases of titanium dioxide made from 2003 through 2012. The
Court approved a settlement less attorney fees and expense, and
the Company timely submitted claims to recover its pro-rata
portion of the settlement. There was no specified deadline for the
claims administrator to complete the review of all claims
submitted.

In October 2014, the Company was notified that it would receive a
disbursement of settlement funds, and the Company received a pro-
rata disbursement net of all fees of approximately $21.4 million.
The Company recorded this settlement gain in the fourth quarter of
2014.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Defense Lawyers' Bill Reach $41 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
defense lawyers for Sino-Forest Corp. and some of the collapsed
forestry firm's former directors and senior executives have billed
$41-million in legal costs over the past four years, an amount
that lawyers for burned shareholders call "staggering" and
"astonishing."

The once $6-billion Chinese forestry company listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange sank after a short-seller alleged it was a "Ponzi
scheme" in June, 2011, resulting in fraud allegations from the
Ontario Securities Commission and a $9-billion class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders.

The legal bills in the high-profile case came up in a Toronto
courtroom as lawyers for Sino-Forest's former shareholders clashed
with representatives of the defunct company's insurers, who are
actually paying the costs.

At stake is whether investors will ever get a share of the rapidly
depleting pot of money that is Sino-Forest's insurance policies,
which include coverage of only $62-million.  For some of the
defendants in the class-action case, plaintiffs would only see any
recovery from them out of this insurance money.  But Sino-Forest's
China-based founders, Allen Chan and Kai Kit Poon, face unlimited
liability, court heard.

Kirk Baert, a lawyer with Koskie Minsky LLP who acts for Sino-
Forest shareholders, told court that since January, 2014, lawyers
for the Sino-Forest defendants had billed $26-million, with $18-
million of that charged since July, 2014, alone.  He called the
increase in that burn rate "troublesome."

He alleged in a written submission that defence counsel spent
"unnecessary time" on the class-action case, dropping opposition
at the last minute to the plaintiffs' motion to have the case
certified by a judge in January and attending 19 witness cross
examinations, some as far away as Hong Kong and in some cases
without asking "any substantive questions."

Sino-Forest is represented by Bennett Jones LLP, which also acts
for some of the former executives. Other firms involved in the
defence include Rueter Scargall Bennett LLP; Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP; Davis LLP; and McMillan LLP.

The issue came up when lawyers for one of Sino-Forest's four
insurance providers sought an order from Justice Geoffrey Morawetz
of the Ontario Superior Court to fix what they call a "clerical
error."

Sino-Forest's four insurers each have about $15-million in
liability. When one hits their maximum, the next one in line takes
over.  Mary Margaret Fox, a lawyer acting for Chubb Insurance Co.
of Canada, told court that due to a internal error, Chubb
accidentally paid out about $1-million that the next insurer in
line, Travelers Insurance Co. Of Canada, was supposed to pay.

Ms. Fox asked for an order that would allow Travelers to cover
that amount.  She also wanted the court to declare that the
amount, and all other funds paid out by Chubb, counted as "loss"
under Sino-Forest's insurance.  She also said the legal bills had
been scrutinized by the insurers involved.

Mr. Baert argued her request went too far as it required Justice
Morawetz to declare that all of the legal bills paid by Chubb were
"reasonable and necessary," something the court could not do
without being able to examine what legal work was done and whether
it was needed.  Justice Morawetz reserved his decision.


SONUS NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Stock Transcript reported on April 20, 2015, that Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that a federal securities class
action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased securities of Sonus Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:SONS) The
class period is between October 23, 2014 through March 23, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").


SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerta Ahmeti and Astrit Ahmeti, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., d/b/a
Apollo Health Street d/b/a Patient Financial Services; Apollo
Health Street, Inc., d/b/a Apollo Health Street, d/b/a Patient
Financial Services; Apollo Health Street; Patient Financial
Services and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02678-
LFR (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


TARGET CORP: US Banks, Credit Unions Challenge $19MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerin Mathew, writing for International Business Times, reports
that a group of US banks and credit unions that suffered from the
2013 data breach at Target is seeking to block the proposed $19
million (GBP12.6 million, EUR17.7 million) settlement between the
retailer and MasterCard, claiming the amount is meager as compared
to actual costs and losses.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion against the settlement
in the US District Court of Minnesota, asking the court to issue a
preliminary injunction to void the scheme and require class
members to be notified of Target's and MasterCard's "misleading
and coercive acts".  The motion also seeks class action status.

The complaint reads the settlement was reached "without the
involvement, review or approval of the court or the court-
appointed counsel for the class of financial institutions".

"Target's 'settlement' with MasterCard conspires to extinguish the
financial institutions' claims against Target for extremely low
amounts, despite the fact that Target's direct exposure to the
financial institutions is much greater than what MasterCard's ADC
Program and Security Rules create," it says.

It adds: "The total losses actually suffered by card-issuing
financial institutions are astronomically higher than the $19
million offered under the proposed settlement."  It also noted
that the lead counsel would have asked to participate in the
negotiations in the hope of obtaining a global settlement, or
would have immediately brought this issue to the court if Target
or MasterCard had disclosed to the lead counsel and the court that
they were negotiating a settlement that would completely eliminate
class action liability against Target.

The motion was scheduled to be heard in the federal court on
April 27.

Target earlier said the settlement covers costs that banks
incurred to reissue credit cards and debit cards as a result of
the breach, as well as some of the fraud that resulted from the
exposure of customer information.

Security breach

Target discovered a major security breach in December 2013.
Payment data from about 40 million credit and debit cards were
stolen from Christmas shoppers at its stores over 19 days between
November 27 and December 15.  It has since been revealed that a
further 70 million customer records with sensitive information
such as names, telephone numbers and email addresses were also
stolen.

The retailer is facing a number of lawsuits over the data breach,
and its senior management was called before Congress to explain
about the data breach and preventive measures undertaken to ensure
customer security.


TEVA: Settles Suit Over Delayed Generics for $512 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Megan Thompson, writing for PBS Newshour, reports that the
pharmaceutical maker Teva has agreed to a settlement of $512
million in a class action lawsuit over the wakefulness drug
Provigil.  Drug wholesalers and retailers claimed a generic
version of the drug was delayed to market by so-called "pay for
delay" agreements between generic makers and the brand drug
manufacturer, Cephalon, which Teva bought in 2011.

In a story last summer, PBS NewsHour profiled Karen Winkler, who
has multiple sclerosis and has used the Provigil for years to
treat her extreme fatigue.  In 2005, Winkler's doctor told her
there would be a generic version coming, but it didn't end up
happening for several more years.

In 2006, Cephalon paid $200 million to four different generic
manufacturers (including Teva), while agreeing to allow the drug
to go generic in 2012.  The companies said the deal allowed the
generic to come to market before its patent would expire.  But
critics say the patent was weak, and the drug could have gone
generic sooner, had the companies not entered the agreement.

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate lawsuit over
Provigil, and other lawsuits over a similar deal with the drug
Androgel.  It contends these so-called "pay for delay" agreements
cost consumers millions of dollars in potential savings.

In a statement to the NewsHour, Teva spokeswoman Denise Bradley
said, "Teva is pleased with the terms of the settlement."

Michael Carrier, a law professor at Rutgers University and expert
on antitrust law, told NewsHour the settlement's size -- more than
double any other in similar litigation -- is significant.  "The
size of the settlement should put future parties in pay-for-delay
cases on notice that the prospect of significant antitrust
liability and damages is real," Carrier said.

The FTC had no comment about the settlement. Its lawsuit is
expected to go to trial later this year.


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Quebec Court Affirms Ruling on 121851 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the spring of 2010, Theratechnologies inc. (Thera) was awaiting
the approval of the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for a new drug to reduce excess abdominal fat among HIV
patients. As its application proceeded, Thera regularly updated
its shareholders and the Commission des valeurs mobilieres du
Quebec about developments in the FDA process. It also regularly
informed its shareholders about the results of its clinical trials
measuring the safety and efficacy of the drug, including potential
side effects. The trials indicated that the benefits of the drug
could be "achieved without significant side effects."

As is common during the new drug approval process, the FDA
referred a number of questions about this drug to an expert
Advisory Committee, including questions about its potential side
effects. The FDA also made these questions public as part of a
package of briefing materials on its website. Thera believed the
briefing documents it had already provided to the FDA and the
clinical results it had already made public to its investors
offered a comprehensive response to the specific questions the FDA
had posed. When the questions were publicized by stock quotation
enterprises, the price of the company's shares dropped.

121851 Canada inc., a holding company, sold its shares in Thera
during this period. Ultimately, the drug was approved by the FDA
and Thera's share price recovered.

121851 sought authorization under s. 225.4 of the Securities Act
to bring a class action for damages against Thera, claiming that
the information about the potential side effects of the drug and
the FDA's questions about those side effects amounted to a
material change in Thera's business, operations or capital,
triggering timely disclosure obligations under s. 73 of the
Securities Act.

Under s. 225.4, the court is a gatekeeper, and grants
authorization "if it deems that the action is in good faith and
there is a reasonable possibility that it will be resolved in
favour of the plaintiff". The Motions Judge concluded that the
authorization mechanism in s. 225.4 of the Securities Actimposed a
higher threshold than art. 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which deals with the authorization of class actions generally, but
found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that 121851's
action had a reasonable possibility of success. The Court of
Appeal agreed with the Motions Judge that the screening mechanism
under s. 225.4 was more stringent than for the authorization of a
class action under art. 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
required more than a mere possibility of success. It also agreed
that the threshold was met in this case.

Held (7:0): The appeal should be allowed.

Section 225.4 of the Securities Act is part of a new regime to
address breaches of continuous disclosure obligations in the
secondary market, the market in which a company's shares are
traded publicly after they have been issued or distributed by the
company. The reforms were inspired by the recommendations of the
Allen Committee, suggested after a number of high profile
misrepresentations at publicly traded companies. The Committee
concluded that the remedies available to investors injured by
misleading disclosure in the secondary trading market were so
difficult to pursue, that they were largely illusory. As a result,
it recommended the creation of a statutory civil liability regime
that would help investors sue issuers, directors, and officers who
violated statutory disclosure obligations.

Under Quebec's new regime, when a security is acquired or
transferred at the time of a false declaration or omission of
information that should have been disclosed, the fluctuation in
the value of the security is presumed to be attributable to that
fault. Investors are thereby released from the burden of
demonstrating that the variation in the market price of the
security was linked to the misinformation or omission, and from
demonstrating that they personally relied on that misinformation
or omission in buying or transferring the security. In order to
discourage the kind of strike suits that had become common in the
United States under more investor friendly regimes, the Quebec
scheme established an authorization mechanism -- s. 225.4 -- to
permit only actions in good faith and with a "reasonable
possibility" that the claim would be resolved "in favour of the
plaintiff". The regime reflected an attempt to strike a balance
between preventing unmeritorious litigation and strike suits and,
at the same time, ensuring that investors have a meaningful remedy
when issuers breach disclosure obligations.

The "reasonable possibility" that the claim would be resolved in
favour of the plaintiff required under s. 225.4 sets out a
different and higher standard than the general threshold for the
authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Under art. 1003, the court seeks only to identify
whether "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions
sought", that is, whether the applicant has established "a good
colour of right". The Quebec legislature used different language
in s. 225.4 to create a more meaningful screening mechanism in the
securities context so that costly strike suits and unmeritorious
claims would be prevented. The threshold requires that there be a
reasonable or realistic chance that the action will succeed.

A case with a realistic chance of success requires the claimant to
offer some credible evidence in support of the claim. Courts must
therefore undertake a reasoned consideration of the evidence to
ensure that the action has some merit, but the authorization stage
under s. 225.4 should not be treated as a mini trial. If the goal
of the screening mechanism is to prevent costly strike suits and
litigation with little chance of success, it follows that the
evidentiary requirements should not be so onerous as to
essentially replicate the demands of a trial. A full analysis of
the evidence is unnecessary. What is required is sufficient
evidence to persuade the court that there is a realistic chance
that the action will be resolved in the claimant's favour.

121851 claims that Thera breached s. 73 of the Securities Act,
which requires issuers to provide timely disclosure of material
changes to investors. A material change has two components. There
must be a change in the business, operations or capital of the
issuer and the change must be material, which means it would
reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the market
price or value of the securities of the issuer. 121851 argues that
when Thera received the FDA briefing materials for the Advisory
Committee, it should have issued a responsive press release. But
121851 has not pointed to any evidence that could qualify as a
change in Thera's operations, capital or business as described in
s. 5.3 of the Securities Act. The results of the clinical trials,
including potential side effects, were disclosed to shareholders
as they became available. There was no new information about the
side effects of the drug that required timely disclosure when the
FDA mentioned those side effects in the briefing materials.

Nor has 121851 pointed to any evidence to suggest that the
questions the FDA posed to its advisory committee about these side
effects, or the contents of its briefing package more generally,
departed in any way from the regular and routine process through
which the FDA assesses whether a drug should be approved. Rather,
they are a routine step in the FDA's work to determine whether a
drug's benefits outweigh its risks. It is difficult to
characterize these questions as any kind of change to Thera's
business, operations, or capital requiring a reassuring public
response from Thera.

Because the evidence does not credibly point to a material change
that could have triggered disclosure obligations, there is no
reasonable possibility that 121851's action under s. 73 of the
Securities Act could succeed.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Mickendrow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection, Corp., Case No.
3:15-cv-03437-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May 19, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
          1669 East 12th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 339-0856
          E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com


TRANSUNION CORP: "Young" Suit Moved From California to Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Young, et al. v. TransUnion
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01473, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01802-MHC-GGB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Plaintiff Jeffrey
N. Young obtained a mortgage loan from the Sun Trust Defendants in
Palm Beach County, Florida.  The mortgage was to purchase a home
located in Palm Beach, Florida.  The Complaint further alleges
that, despite accomplishing a short sale of this real property,
the Sun Trust Defendants erroneously reported to the three major
credit bureaus that a foreclosure proceeding had been commenced or
completed.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Greenfield, Esq.
          THE GREENFIELD LAW FIRM, APC
          4425 Bayard Street #128
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 581-1400
          Facsimile: (858) 581-2400
          E-mail: lawapg@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Steven Frederick Grover, Esq.
          STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
          Wells Fargo Tower
          One East Broward Blvd., Suite 700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0005
          E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com

Defendants TransUnion Corp., TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and
Transunion L.L.C. are represented by:

          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (303) 358-9900
          Facsimile: (305) 789-9302
          E-mail: bfrontino@stroock.com

Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC is represented by:

          Michelle L. Burton, Esq.
          SHOECRAFT BURTON LLP
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 794-2280
          Facsimile: (619) 794-2278
          E-mail: mburton@sbcivillaw.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., Case No.
1:15-cv-02901 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


UTICA, NY: Faces Class Action Over Refugee Segregated Schools
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pizzi, writing for Al Jazeera America, reports that public
schools in Utica, New York, are unlawfully depriving refugee
students of a normal high school education by segregating them
from their peers into "inferior" alternative schools that do not
grant high-school diplomas, civil liberties groups argued in a
class-action lawsuit.

The New York Civil Liberties Union and Legal Services of Central
New York filed the suit on behalf of six refugee students and a
"class of similar immigrant students" who say the city is
violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act -- under which a
school district may not discriminate on the basis of national
origin or immigration status -- by excluding refugees between the
ages of 17 and 20 with limited English proficiency from normal
schools.

"These immigrants are coming from countries where they've already
been limited because of persecution or violence," said
Phil Desgranges, an attorney with the NYCLU who is working on the
case.  "They come to the United States for the American dream, to
become doctors or teachers, and they're being told, 'No, you can't
go to school.'"

According to the lawsuit, the Utica City school district since
2007 has been diverting newly arrived refugees above age 16 into
one of two programs.  Those with particularly poor English skills
are sent to study English at the Newcomer program, which does not
offer normal school subjects -- like math, history and science --
and does not issue diplomas or prepare students for General
Educational Development (GED) high school equivalency tests. That
puts higher education out of reach, Mr. Desgranges said.

Plaintiff Suk Maya Rai, whose family escaped persecution in
Bhutan, said she had studied six subjects while living in a
refugee camp in Nepal.  In Utica, she learns only English.  "I
heard this country offers a great education," she said.  "My
ambition is to become a nurse, and I hope that I will be able to
take classes like science."

Others students are sent to the Alignment of Pathways and Programs
for Learners of English (APPLE) program, in the nearby town of
New Hartford, where they may prepare for a GED but don't have the
opportunity to mingle with American students, the NYCLU said.
APPLE students don't get to take advanced courses or electives
like art or to play on sports teams -- opportunities that are
available at the city's public high school, Proctor High.

"I came to the United States hoping to go to school so that I
might become a medical doctor," said APPLE student Patrick
Tuyizere, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, who was born in a
refugee camp in Rwanda and came to the U.S. when he was 17.  "All
I want to do is go to school and work hard to achieve my goals,
but right now all I feel is that I am falling behind and it makes
me very sad."

Utica schools Superintendent Bruce Karam's office did not respond
to Al Jazeera's request for a comment in time for publication.  In
an email to news website Syracuse.com published on April 23,
however, Karam said, "From what I have been advised, the
allegations are totally unfounded and without merit . . . We have
never denied any student entry into our schools.  We provide a
quality education to all our students."

Howard Mettelman, the superintendent of the Oneida-Herkimer Board
of Cooperative Educational Services, which hosts the APPLE
program, told The Utica Observer-Dispatch that the specialized
programs afford refugee students the opportunity to "climb the
ladder to success" in a different way. Some students,
Mr. Mettelman said, "were not being successful when placed in
traditional all-Regents programs without those foundation skills."
Students may also transfer out of, or between, the Newcomer and
APPLE programs, he added.

But Mr. Desgranges said that refugee students in Utica were not
being tested annually to see if their English had improved, as
mandated under New York state law.  He added that the school
district had no grounds to discriminate on the basis of age
either, since all students under 21 are guaranteed schooling in
New York.

Utica, a city of 60,000 in upstate New York, has earned the
moniker of "the second-chance city" for its high refugee
population -- approximately 1 in 6 residents, according to the
NYCLU.  It isn't clear how many refugee students have been locked
out of Proctor High, though more than 50 are currently enrolled in
either Newcomer or APPLE, the NYCLU said.

Separately on April 23, a spokesman for New York state Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman announced that prosecutors had begun
their own civil rights investigation into the claims, according to
Syracuse.com.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Removes "Bernstein" Class Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bernstein v. Virgin America,
Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-15-544804, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-02277-DMR to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay
minimum wage; (2) failure to pay San Francisco minimum wage; (3)
failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay wages for hours
worked; (5) failure to provide required meal periods; (6) failure
to provide required rest periods; (7) failure to provide accurate
wage statements; (8) failure to pay waiting time penalties; and
(9) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Alison Kosinski, Esq.
          Emily Thiagaraj, Esq.
          KOSINSKI AND THIAGARAJ, LLP
          22 Battery Street, Suite 888
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 230-2860
          Facsimile: (415) 723-7099
          E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com
                  emily@ktlawsf.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: rhendricks@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Tomlin, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: jtomlin@morganlewis.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tali Beneli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:15-cv-03358-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., May 15, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Tinsley" Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Barry Tinsley, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00041-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., May 13, 2015) asserts personal injury-
related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Runft Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          1223 Jackson Ave., Suite 203
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 307-7000
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net


WALGREENS BOOTS: June 9 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Application
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Lee, writing for Markets Daily, reported that Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have
until June 9, 2015, to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Walgreens Boots Alliance,
Inc. (NASDAQ:WBA) if they purchased the Company's securities
between the expanded period of March 25, 2014 and August 5, 2014,
inclusive.

This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The firm may be reached at:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Tel: (504) 455-1400
          Fax: (504) 455-1498


WEGMANS FOOD: Seeks Dismissal of Baked Bread Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Craig, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that Wegmans
Food Markets wants a New Jersey lawsuit dismissed that claims the
supermarket does not always sell fresh baked bread as advertised.

Late last year several New Jersey residents sued the Gates-based
supermarket chain, seeking to initiate a class-action lawsuit over
baked bread.  At seven Wegmans stores in New Jersey, the lawsuit
alleged, the breads were advertised as freshly baked but included
bread pre-baked elsewhere, brought to the stores, frozen, then
reheated.  The practice, the lawsuit contended, violated consumer
protection laws in New Jersey.

In a response filed earlier in April, attorneys for Wegmans urged
that the lawsuit be dismissed, claiming it is vague and absent of
facts legally required with a consumer complaint.

"Indeed, a complaint alleging consumer fraud must do more than
assert generalized facts; it must allege facts specific to each
plaintiff," the Wegmans response states.

The lawsuit, however, lacks the "essential factual background,"
namely the "who, what, when, where and how' of the events at
issue," the legal response states.

The New Jersey residents alleging fraud don't say what goods they
purchased that were not baked in the store and "fail to identify
any specific products that they ever purchased from Wegmans," the
response states.

The original lawsuit was brought in state court in New Jersey then
moved to federal court.


WILSON COUNTY, NC: Pet Advocates to Sue Over Animal Privilege Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Jimison, writing for The Wilson Times, reported that a local
animal advocate in Wilson County, in North Carolina, is putting
together a group of attorneys to potentially represent the 179
people served with criminal summonses for not paying their animal
privilege fee.

There were 179 criminal summonses recently issued for delinquent
county pet owners. A warning had previously been issued in writing
to 550 people and almost 200 didn't respond.

Many people who have animals have not paid their fees saying the
money has not gone to build an animal shelter as they were
promised by Wilson County officials years ago.  Instead, the
$850,000 raised so far went to the county's general fund. Animal
advocates and others vowed not to pay the fee until the money was
directed where they say it was promised.

Wilson attorneys Will Farris, Robert Rountree and Paul Blake III
have all either taken cases or agreed to do so.

Further, Max Fitz-Gerald, co-owner of For the Love of Dogs, is
working to coordinate a legal defense fund for those pet owners
who started out with a $10 unpaid pet fee and now face criminal
prosecution. Fitz-Gerald is hoping to add two more attorneys.  He
made a request to the Wilson County Sheriff's Office for the names
of the original 550 people who hadn't paid. As of, he hadn't
received the names. On, he plans to make a public records request
as allowed under N.C. General Statutes.

Rountree, of Narron & Holdford, is willing to take on a portion of
the clients. Some might want a quick resolution while others might
want to fight in court, Rountree said.

"I think there is a great message to be sent in having multiple
attorneys," Rountree said.

Fitz-Gerald's actual goal is a class-action lawsuit, but these
attorneys haven't been retained for that purpose at this time. He
wants the $850,000 collected in the past seven years redirected to
a new animal shelter.  Personally, Rountree believes the pet fee
passed in 2008 was under suspicious auspices.

"Yes, the voters were fed a line," Rountree said.

Rountree noted the great expense it takes the state just to run a
courtroom for a day -- $6,000.

"We're not trying to slow down the court system, but we will stand
up to keep them from rolling over these people," Rountree said.

Fitz-Gerald said he wants to help any and all of the 179 people
who have not paid.

"All I'm trying to do is help these people because it's wrong," he
said.

Farris, of Farris & Farris Attorneys, said he's already
representing several of the residents.  If the true intent is to
help with animal control then monies should go to the sheriff to
help build a shelter, Farris said.

"I do not think the monies should go into the general fund,"
Farris said. "Rather, I think they should separate these monies
into an account until enough is raised for a shelter for the
sheriff. The sheriff is stuck in a tough position and has done his
best to improve the shelter conditions, but it is past time for a
new and better facility."

County commissioners have said they are going to address the
animal shelter issue, among other county issues.  Commissioners
have planned an Animal Control Committee meeting. That meeting
will be held. Animal advocates pushing for a new shelter have said
they plan to attend the meeting.

Commissioner Chris Hill said in terms of the meeting, his
expectation is commissioners will make a decision on the shelter,
specifically whether or not to build a new one.  "It is time to
move forward," Hill said.

Commissioner Bill Blackman also wants to move forward.  "I get a
lot of calls from citizens all of the time asking me what you
commissioners are going to do. . . ." Blackman said. "I think it
is time to let's do something. This topic has been sitting on the
table for eight years and it is time to move forward."

The majority of commissioners serving -- including Blackman and
Hill -- weren't in office when the ordinance was passed.

Ron Hunt, assistant county manager, has said everyone is aware it
is a topic many residents care about.  Hunt said ordinance
enforcement falls under the Wilson County Sheriff's Office.

A sheriff's office official said the criminal summons is a form of
enforcing the county's adopted ordinance for those who haven't
paid the fee in three years.   County government officials point
out Section 32 of the Animal Control Ordinance. It states anyone
who violates the ordinance may have a misdemeanor and criminal
charges brought against them.

Some residents have expressed concern that a criminal summons is a
heavy-handed approach to collect a pet fee. There are also court
costs and fines that could run the dollar amount to $500 for what
started as a $10 annual fee, according to the ordinance. Other
residents have simply refused to pay regardless of the
circumstances while others have said doing so will now result in a
criminal record.

"When people feel there is an unjust policy they will perform an
act of civil disobedience," Rountree said.


YOUNG ADULT: Sued for Denying ERISA Funds to Female Plan Member
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Wegman v. Young Adult Institute, Inc., and Trustees of the
Supplemental Pension Plan for Certain Management Employees of
Young Adult Institute, Case No. 1:15-cv-03815-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
May 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's
funds due and owing under an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act benefits plan base upon sex discrimination.

Young Adult Institute, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-profit
corporation headquartered in New York City.  YAI provides health
and human services to individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.  Trustees of the Supplemental Pension
Plan for Certain Management Employees of Young Adult Institute are
the administrators of the "Supplemental Pension Plan for Certain
Management Employees of Young Adult Institute Trust."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Saul David Zabell, Esq.
          ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          1 Corporate Drive
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
          E-mail: szabell@laborlawsny.com


* Civil Procedure Code Amendment Allows Class Suit in Thailand
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilleke & Gibbins, writing for the Lexology, reported that the
National Legislative Assembly has passed a bill amending the Civil
Procedure Code to allow class action legal proceedings in
Thailand. Class action lawsuits were not previously available in
Thai proceedings, so this marks a notable development in the
country's court system. The Thai class action legislation contains
basic similarities to class actions in jurisdictions such as the
United States, albeit with significant differences in both
substance and procedure.

The bill has received royal endorsement and will become effective
in December 2015 (240 days after publication in the Royal Gazette
dated April 8, 2015).  The amended provisions provide for the
following:

   * Cases involving a group of persons who have the same
interests and rights related to tort, breach of contract, and
other laws including environment, consumer protection, labor,
securities and stock exchange, and trade competition can petition
to be filed as class actions by a plaintiff, which is a class
member, together with the complaint.

   * The Court has the power to allow, define the scope or
characteristics of a class, inquire into, and terminate a class
action.

   * Class members may opt-out of the class action and pursue
individual claims.

   * A judgment binds all parties and members of the group. A
plaintiff (or attorney) has the power to proceed with execution of
the judgment on behalf of all members of the group.

Defendants may be held liable for plaintiffs' attorney fee awards
not exceeding 30% of the judgment amount. Historically, the
lawyers' fees assessed by Thai courts have been very low. The new
class action law attempts to increase judicial efficiency by
aggregating a large number of individualized claims into one
lawsuit where judgments will be binding on all class members.
However, it also opens up opportunities to aggregate small claims
that would otherwise not be cost effective to litigate


* Cummings Manookian Mulls Class Suit Over Graded Diamond
---------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli Diamond Industry said Tennessee-based law firm
Cummings Manookian will begin filing a number of class action
lawsuits centered on "the dumping of billions of dollars of
intentionally over-graded diamonds on hundreds of thousands of
consumers", Rough & Polished reports.  The lawsuits will be filed
in rounds with the first round expected in early June.

According to attorney Brian Cummings, "Because of the widespread
nature of the fraud and the availability of triple damages and
attorney's fees, this may be the largest consumer action to ever
hit the jewelry industry".


* Possible Class Suit vs NZ Insurers Gains Support
--------------------------------------------------
SCOOP News reported that around 400 people packed into the
Transitional Cathedral in New Zealand to hear about the
possibility of a group action against insurers.

Former Cantabrian now Auckland based litigation lawyer Kalev
Crossland and a current director of a litigation funding company,
Bruce Sheppard told the gathered audience that they were confident
there was a case for the insurance companies to answer and be
working to gather more information to inform any decision.

"We don't know everything that has been going on post-quake," says
Crossland who returned to Christchurch to talk to weary insurance
claimants after a meeting in Mt Pleasant several weeks ago. "It
was clear from that meeting people were being delayed in resolving
their claims, having to pay for expert opinion for which they
should be reimbursed, being offered low amounts to settle or
repair (low balling) and a number of other issues which all, we
believe, is a breach of utmost good faith -- a key tenant of
insurance law."

Crossland and Sheppard say they were particularly taken aback by
the number of people in the room who have not had their claims
settled yet.

"We asked for a show of hands around to indicate who had had
repairs completed unsatisfactorily, who had been cashed out
unsatisfactorily and who was still stuck -- 90% of the audience
put their hands up then. After four years it is unconscionable
that people are still waiting for a satisfactory resolution."

Kalev Crossland has met with a number of people since the night
meeting and says more information has come to hand which he says
will make a significant difference in the due diligence being
carried out to assess whether there is case for Insurance
Companies to answer related to utmost good faith.

"All I can say is we have plenty of work to do around reviewing
the information we have been given by claimants, find correct
answers to questions raised at the meeting on night and I know
Bruce will be reporting back to LPF", says Kalev Crossland.

LPF is New Zealands largest litigation funder however Bruce
Sheppard attended the Christchruch meeting as an individual not a
representative of LPF but he will be speaking to his colleagues at
the company in the coming week.

"LPF does not fund litigation that they are not more than
confident they can win," he says. "We have a sense of justice and
want to right wrongs but we are also a business and unless we are
prudent in our decision making around what we fund and what we
don't, we won't be around long enough to right as many wrongs as
we can," says Sheppard.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cases in New Zealand May Have Peaked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Johnston, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that
the asbestos epidemic, which is expected to cause up to 12,000 New
Zealand cancer deaths, may be reaching its long-predicted peak.
Case numbers of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer linked to
asbestos inhalation, are reproduced in a report reviewing the
risks of home exposure to the deadly fibres.

The Health Ministry sought the review because of concerns over the
exposure of Cantabrians during the earthquake-linked destruction
and repair of buildings containing asbestos.  The review by the
Royal Society and the Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science
Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman found the risks were generally low. The
science on exposures from the kinds of remediation works done in
Canterbury "indicates that they are unlikely to result in a
significant increase in risk to homeowners and occupants of
damaged houses, unless they were performing the work themselves
without taking proper precautions such as wetting the surfaces and
using a respirator".

Using power tools, dry scraping or sanding can generate
significant amounts of airborne fibres, creating risks if such
work is done repeatedly.

The clean-up and home remediation works "did not always follow
appropriate guidelines" for avoiding exposure but exposure level
of workers and the public were uncertain, the report says.

A simulation study in some Christchurch houses was done to
replicate typical dust exposures from removal work in the first
year after the earthquakes, "before stricter procedures for
asbestos monitoring and abatement were fully operational".

The results were well below the permissible workplace standard.

". . . it was therefore concluded the risk to occupants -- who
would have experienced only short duration exposures during this
time -- would have been extremely low."

Asbestos was widely used last century including to insulate pipes,
decorate ceilings and in roofing tiles, wall claddings and in the
backing of floor lino.  Exposure to asbestos is linked to many
cancers, including lung and ovarian tumours, as well as
asbestosis. Mesothelioma, which is incurable, occurs in the
membrane around the lungs. It can take 30 years after exposure to
cause symptoms.

A study in 2000 predicted up to 12,000 people in New Zealand,
mostly former building industry tradesmen, would die of asbestos-
related cancers. The researchers tracked imports of crude
asbestos, which peaked in 1974 and fell to zero by 1992 and said
with the time lag of asbestos disease development, the epidemic
would likely peak between 2010 and 2015 before tailing off.

Asbestos Disease Register 2012 data reproduced in the report shows
a peak of 102 new mesothelioma cases in 2005, with the annual
number subsequently hovering between 80 and 97.

A survey for the Environment Ministry last year found few uses of
asbestos-containing products.  Only one -- parts for some aircraft
-- was considered indispensable and a marine company indicated
minor imports of asbestos-containing exhaust gaskets would be
needed.

New cases of mesothelioma
1970 -- 1
1980 -- 16
1990 -- 29
1995 -- 55
2000 -- 60
2005 -- 102
2010 -- 89


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Bowling Alley
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Webster, writing for The Register Citizen, reported that
the first steps in the demolition process for the former bowling
alley on Main Street, in Torrington, Connecticut, has begun.
Plans to demolish the blighted building at 518 Main St. were
announced June 2014, but for a number of reasons, the demolition
process is just getting started, nearly 12 months later.

Mayor Elinor Carbone said one of the issues the city was faced
with was environmentally related. The building is positioned right
on the bank of the Naugatuck River and has asbestos. Concern for
how to remove the asbestos without contaminating the river has
taken contractors and the property owner more time than
anticipated, but Carbone said she still considers the process a
success story.

Trucks and caution tape were placed outside of the two-story
commercial property indicating that asbestos abatement is underway
by Asbestos Management Co.  Though the process of removing the
asbestos has begun, Carbone said there is no hard date for the
actual demolition to begin.  The property owner is out of state,
which makes the process more challenging, she said.  The mayor
said she is happy that the process is gaining momentum. The
demolition of the building is in the area's best interest, she
said.

"I feel like this is one of those properties that does have a
significant impact on the neighborhood," said Carbone.

According to Torrington's online tax database, the property at 518
Main St., owned by Bowling Development, LLC, has more than $81,000
in outstanding taxes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traverls Must Pay $9-Mil. in Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that a New York
federal judge accepted a magistrate's recommendation that
Travelers Indemnity Co. shell out more than $9 million in legal
fees, costs and interest to two companies facing liability from
asbestos claims against a subsidiary, overruling Travelers'
objections.

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted in full Magistrate
Judge James C. Francis' report and recommendation, which called
for Travelers to pay $235,000 in fees that Atlas Copco North
America LLC incurred in the instant suit over the insurer's duty
to defend.

The case is Danaher Corporation v. The Travelers Indemnity Company
et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00121 (S.D.N.Y.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Aussie Walking Area
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that deputy general manager Sharon Hutch of the
Broken Hill Council, in Australia, said inspections found asbestos
scattered throughout a site on the eastern side of the road.

"The asbestos is in the non-friable form reducing the risk of wind
borne fibres, however open access to the site may increase the
risk of exposure," Ms Hutch said.

Ms Hutch said the Council will work with the Environment
Protection Authority on remediation options.

"We are in the process of putting signage in the area and we are
also making arrangements to have the area fenced," she said.

The Council's requested that the public stay away from the site
while the clean-up process gets underway.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust to Be Removed from NJ School
---------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Bruggemann, writing for North Jersey, reported that project
to remove asbestos from pipes in the boiler room at Highland
School, in New Jersey, is being planned for spring recess.

The Board of Education approved a $119,800 contract with GL Group
Inc. of Bloomingdale for labor, materials and disposal of the
asbestos.  The proposal lists work in the boiler room, art room,
flooring and ceiling tiles.

Business Administrator Stacy Garvey told the board at its March 17
meeting that workers would perform the task "around the clock."

"They will have three shifts of workers and will work 24 hours to
get this job done," said Garvey. "They will begin on March 27 when
schools close."

She said the work would be completed by April 1, and an air
sampling and environmental inspections would be performed April 2.

"We will also need to get a certificate of occupancy from the
building department," she said.

Trustee James Canellas asked how an inspection would occur on
April 3, or Easter weekend, when borough offices are closed.
Construction Code Official Mark Berninger said he does not have
any paperwork on the project.

"I am sure we can work something out," said Berninger.

Trustees continued to question whether the abatement would be
completed when school reopened.

"I have my doubts," said trustee Robert Schiffer. "That's an
aggressive plan."

Garvey said she remained confident.

"They have no fear that they won't get this done on time," Garvey
said of the contractors.

School officials did not announce a contingency plan should
schools be unable to reopen on April 6.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurors Reject Fibro-related Pollution Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that jurors in Connecticut have
rejected pollution-related asbestos exposure claims, agreeing with
the defendant that the community exposures were so slight that
they could not have caused the decedent's mesothelioma.

The Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of
Fairfield reached the verdict on March 12 after two hours of
deliberations and a five-week trial. Judge Dale W. Radcliffe
presided over the trial.

Marsha Lagerberg brought the claims as executor of the estate of
Erick Lagerberg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Shuts Down Virginia Preschool
---------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Rothstein, writing for ARL Now, reported that the Trinity
Episcopal Church's School of Early Learning in Arlington, Virgina,
sent out a letter to parents confirming the presence of asbestos
dust in the air at the school.

The church's rector, Rev. Kim Coleman, also serves as the school's
headmaster and said the more than 100 students will not be allowed
to enter the building for an "indeterminate amount of time."

"We are presently looking for a temporary site for the school and
as soon as we have more information we will let you know," the
letter states. "Please know that we are sorry for these unexpected
developments and hope you understand that the measures we are
taking we consider to be in the best interest of our students and
staff."

When reached by ARLnow.com, Coleman declined to comment before she
could speak to the church's board. A tipster, who sent us
Coleman's letter, said volunteers were cleaning the preschool when
they ripped up flooring, releasing asbestos dust into the air.
"Chaos ensued when folks figured out what had happened," the
tipster wrote. "School was canceled indefinitely. Testing
occurred, it came back positive, and now 100-plus kids don't have
a daycare to go to. Who knows if the church has the money to
remediate asbestos."

Coleman's letter said the church has "consulted a professional
asbestos remediation company" and was hoping for an estimate. The
Trinity Church building was built in 1957, and the congregation is
111 years old. Trinity traces its origins back to a chapel for
local slaves built by George Washington Parke Custis in the early
1800s, according to the church's website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Tribunal Seeks List of Fibro Mines
---------------------------------------------------------
DNA India reported that the National Green Tribunal in India has
directed the Environment Ministry and Indian Bureau of Mines to
submit a complete list of asbestos mines in the entire country
with their status.

A bench headed by Justice U D Salvi directed MoEF and the Bureau
to inform about the present status of the mines, specifically with
regard to their scientific closure and produce complete records in
relation to it. "The MoEF and Indian Bureau of Mines shall file
list of asbestos mines located in the entire country and their
present status, particularly as regards scientific closure of such
mines. . . . Asbestos mining not only gives rise to asbestos
related cancer but also to the asbestosis.

"Even if the asbestos mining activity has been closed, scientific
closure of such mines remains in question. Odisha is directed to
answer whether the asbestos mines in the state have been
scientifically closed or not, and further answer whether there
have been cases of asbestosis," the bench said.

The Tribunal also directed the state governments of Rajasthan,
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand government to file a
report regarding scientific closure of the asbestos mines and the
instances of asbestosis in the states.

The matter was listed for next hearing on April 16. Perturbed by
illegal and unscientific asbestos mining across the country, the
Tribunal had earlier pulled up the Environment Ministry for
providing a "vague and uncertain" response in its affidavit.

The Tribunal was hearing pleas by NGO Environics Trust and Amar
Singh seeking directions to appropriate authorities to immediately
stop all asbestos mining operations in the country and ensure
their scientific closure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Library to Remove Toxic Dust
------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for The Island Now, reported that the Board
of Trustees of the Great Neck Library in New York voted at their
meeting to spend an additional $70,500 on asbestos removal at the
library's Main Branch after construction workers found more
asbestos than originally thought within the past month.
Library Business Manager Neil Zitofsky said $286,864 was
originally allotted for asbestos removal.

Once construction workers opened up the walls at Main, they found
pipe elbows covered in asbestos. He also said asbestos was found
beneath the floor.

Library Interim Director Chris Johnson said VRD Contracting, the
Holbrook, N.Y., contractor hired for the renovation of the Main
Branch, estimated the additional asbestos abatement can be done
for about $200,000.

Zitofsky said the will be taken from a $455,000 contingency fund
included in the $10.4 million bond approved by voters in the Great
Neck library system to fund Main Branch's renovation. He said this
is the first time the library is drawing from that fund.

"When they were moving the floor they found three layers of
asbestos tiling and the original flooring beneath that was also
covered in asbestos," Zitofsky said. "We knew going into this
project that we were not going to know what was behind the walls
and beneath the floors. We knew there would be additional money
spent. We just did not know how much."

Johnson said in her report to the board the areas the new asbestos
was found were not exposed during the original asbestos survey of
the Main Library.

About five years ago, home inspectors from Insight Environmental
Inc. did the original asbestos survey, but did not tear up the
floors or the walls to find asbestos, Zitofsky said.
He said the removal will only take days and will not disrupt the
renovation schedule.

The Main Branch, located at 159 Bayview Ave., will be closed for a
year so repairs can be made to the building.  To allow for a new
construction contract for asbestos removal, the board also voted
to eliminate the $10,000 limit in the library policy -- voted on
in May -- that enables the board to accept construction contracts
with a vote of four trustees.

In doing so, the board raised the minimum number of trustees
needed to approve contracts to five.  Some board members said they
were concerned about lifting the $10,000 cap on contracts.

Zitofsky said he would not make a recommendation to accept a
contract if the amount is more than the he knows the board could
afford.

Francine Krupski, board vice-president and chair of the library's
Director Search Committee, also said at the meeting the first
candidate for library director will be interviewed.  She said the
committee is putting together a list of about 20 questions to ask
the candidate, who was proposed by Pro Libra Associates, a library
service company out of Summit, N.J., that the board hired in
December to search for a new library director.  A second candidate
was to be interviewed on March 30, Krupski said.

Chris Johnson was appointed the interim library director in
December, replacing Laura Weir, who had served as interim director
since January 2013. Weir joined the library system in 2002 as
assistant director.

Weir was named interim director after former director Jane Marino
resigned on Dec. 28, 2012. Marino's resignation followed the
defeat of a $20.8 million bond referendum to renovate the Main
Branch.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Fines Co. for Fibro Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Hillsboro Tribune reported that the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality fined Summit Natural Energy Corporation
$4,000 for storm water violations at its ethanol facility at 535
N. Fourth Ave., in Cornelius.

The company failed to submit an adequate revised storm water
pollution control plan as required by its storm water permit.

Benchmark exceedances at the facility indicate the presence of
harmful levels of industrial pollutants in storm water discharge
that pose a risk to aquatic life and recreational uses of rivers
and streams, according to a DEQ press release. DEQ also issued an
order requiring the company submit a revised plan that includes
the required additional treatment measures by March 31.

DEQ also fined AAM Inc. $19,200 for asbestos violations during a
residential asbestos abatement project at 262 N.E. 18th Ave., in
Hillsboro. The company failed to adequately wet friable, or
breakable asbestos materials and to enclose the area where the
materials were removed before abatement.

DEQ issued this penalty because these violations could have
released asbestos fibers into the air and exposed workers and the
public to asbestos. AAM Inc. has appealed the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fife Man Sues for Toxic Dust Exposure
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dinnie, writing for The Courier, reported that a terminaly
ill man is taking legal action against his former employer after
claims he was exposed to asbestos.

Brian Houghton, 80, of Tayport, in England, could win up to
GBP100,000 if his action against Babcock International is
successful.  The Fife man raised the legal action after being
diagnosed with incurable mesothelioma cancer.

Brian worked for the company as an engineer in the '60s at the now
decommissioned Kincardine coal-fired power station and believes he
was exposed to asbestos at that time.

The father-of-four said: "Unfortunately, there's no cure. At the
moment they don't have a clue how long I'm going to live, but at
the last scan things hadn't changed too much, which is good.

"All I know is I'm stage four and they can't do anything for me."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that is almost always caused by
exposure to asbestos.

Brian says he may not live to see the legal action through, but in
the meantime he wants to enjoy the time he has left.  He said: "I
might not be here if I receive compensation, but I've made sure it
will go to my family instead.

"I have four children and other family, so everything is arranged
for them to receive it. I'm also about to start arranging my
funeral as well.

"I'm just enjoying myself at the moment. I've booked a holiday
with my two sisters for a bus trip down to York and Harrogate and
I'm looking to go to Berlin on my own too."

Despite the illness, Brian says he does not have any animosity
towards his former employers.  He added: "I don't have any ill
feelings towards the company.

"There wasn't the same health and safety back then as there is
today. In those days it was very basic."

Babcock Doosan, which is handling the claim, was repeatedly
contacted for comment but did not respond.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust to Be Removed from Cork River
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Browne, writing for The Corkman, reported that carcinogenic
material, which may have been in the river and along the
embankment near Cahirmee Bridge, in Ireland, for up to a
fortnight, will have to be removed and disposed of by a specialist
team -- with the taxpayer having to foot the estimated EUR1,800
bill.

Stephen O'Sullivan of Cork County Council's environment section
slammed whoever dumped the asbestos sheets, many of which had
broken into smaller pieces, describing them as "incredibly
irresponsible."

"That someone would knowingly dump this highly dangerous material
in a river simply beggars belief. This had the potential to be a
major health scare had it not been reported to us and properly
dealt with," he said.

"When these sheets break up they pose a severe health hazard. They
have to be specially wrapped and disposed of and there are only a
small few private companies that have a licence to do that. This
is an expensive job that has to be paid for through the council's
own funds," added Mr O'Sullivan.  He said the authority hoped to
have all of the asbestos removed and disposed of.

"We are obviously keen to get this job done as quickly as possible
to avoid the possibility of contamination to the environment.
Whoever did this acted in the most incredibly irresponsible manner
imaginable and we have launched an investigation in a bid to find
out who did this," said Mr O'Sullivan.

He appealed for the public's help in tracing exactly where the
asbestos sheets came from.

"Someone, somewhere must know of a shed or building that has been
demolished over the past few weeks or know of somewhere where an
old roof has been replaced.

"It is in everyone's interest to catch and if possible prosecute
the person or people who did this. Anyone with information can
contact me through the county Hall on 021 4276891. Any information
we receive will be treated in the strictest of confidence," said
Mr O'Sullivan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit over Jackson Courthouse Seeks Millions
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hendricks, writing for The Kansas City Star, reported that
dust and grit coated nearly everything in Jeanne Morgan's office
on the fifth floor of the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas
City.  It blew out of the air vents after workmen sawed through
old heating pipes insulated with asbestos, court records said. The
men tracked the dust through the building as they hauled the
pieces of pipe down the freight elevator and out to a dumpster in
the parking lot.  They took no precautions, witnesses would later
testify. No masks, no gloves, no warning signs.

"The particles would be . . . all over the papers," Morgan
testified at a hearing last year. "The dust from their boots and
their work shoes was on the stairway and in the hallways."

One of Morgan's friends and co-workers, Nancy Lopez, died in 2010
at age 56 from the complications of inhaling the asbestos fibers
that she contended were in the dust that swirled around the
courthouse during that renovation project in 1983 and 1984.  Her
heirs won a $10.4 million settlement from the county and the firm
that did the work, Kansas City-based U.S. Engineering Co.

But should Morgan and others who breathed courthouse air back then
and in the decades since be entitled to a big damage award, too,
even if they show no symptoms of disease?

That's Kansas City lawyer Lou Accurso's contention. He filed the
class-action lawsuit that claims Morgan, another former courthouse
worker named David Elsea and potentially thousands of other people
should be entitled to free medical testing for the rest of their
lives.

The Missouri Court of Appeals reinstated the case after a lower
court denied it class-action status at the insistence of the
county and U.S. Engineering. Both say there's no proof the
courthouse air was tainted with toxic levels of asbestos.

The suit seeks more than $40 million for a medical monitoring fund
to benefit courthouse workers, jurors or anyone else compelled to
spend much time in the courthouse over the past 30 years.

The Missouri Supreme Court several years ago opened the way for
such lawsuits, but since that ruling no case of this size has
gotten this far.  That 2007 ruling allows groups of people exposed
to toxic substances to be compensated for chest X-rays and other
tests for decades, even if they show no sign of illness. The idea
was that it would be more costly and potentially deadly to wait
until a disease like the one that killed Lopez, mesothelioma,
presents itself.

In most personal injury cases, the person filing suit must first
prove he or she has suffered some injury or loss.  The class-
action lawsuit Accurso filed also seeks unspecified punitive
damages that could boost the final total millions more, if the
plaintiffs win.

Regardless of how it turns out, legal experts say, this case could
end up setting a precedent in Missouri.

A settlement or judgment in the plaintiff's favor would open the
way for more medical-monitoring cases in a state known for its
liberal standard for allowing such lawsuits.

"The only state that has medical monitoring as broad as Missouri
is West Virginia," said attorney Victor Schwartz, an expert on
tort law who works in the Washington, D.C., office of Kansas City-
based Shook Hardy & Bacon, which has no direct interest in this
case.

Local attorneys representing the county and U.S. Engineering hope
to derail the courthouse class action before it gets to trial.

Jim Griffin, the lead attorney representing U.S. Engineering, said
his client is "evaluating all options for further appeal" of the
appellate court ruling.

Dennis Dobbels, who represents Jackson County, promises an appeal
to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Such a challenge could be iffy, legal experts say, given the high
court's reputation for siding with the rights of plaintiffs over
those of corporate defendants. For that reason, the American Tort
Reform Association lists the Missouri Supreme Court No. 6 on its
list of seven "Judicial Hellholes" in the nation.

Accurso happens to have a personal interest in the case, he says.
Back in 1983, when the dust was flying at the courthouse, he was
working in the county prosecutor's office and remembers being on
the freight elevator with the workers ferrying those dusty pipes.

"There's a whole lot of people, including me," he said, "who were
down there and got the same exposure."
No precautions

While the case centers on whether the facts add up to the
requirements for a class-action lawsuit, the court record leaves
few doubts about the origin of the dust at the courthouse.

In 1954, Kansas City-based U.S. Engineering installed asbestos
insulation on valves, fittings, water piping and other parts of
the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system throughout
the then-20-year-old Jackson County Courthouse.

At the time, asbestos was the standard.

Some 30 years later, the same firm was awarded a nearly $2 million
contract to cut, remove and replace many of those same pipes it
installed in the '50s.

But by then, asbestos was reclassified. Not only was it no longer
used for insulation, it was also a known killer. When released
into the air, asbestos fibers never break down and can hang around
for decades.

When inhaled, the fibers burrow deep into human lungs, creating
scar tissue and causing tumors to grow. It can take decades for
symptoms to show themselves, after which the survival rate is low.

Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009 and died the
following year.

According to court testimony by one of its former top executives,
U.S. Engineering did nothing to keep asbestos fibers from entering
the airstream as workers wrenched or cut sections of the pipe
covered in asbestos during the 1983 courthouse project.

Dan Oxler, a former U.S. Engineering vice president, said that
when he bid the job he didn't know his firm had installed the
asbestos, and no one at the county said anything about there being
asbestos in the building.

"We believed there was no asbestos at the time," Oxler said in a
sworn deposition.

But Oxler acknowledged that buildings of that age normally have
asbestos in them, and that it was his company's duty to check for
asbestos but it did no testing.

Nor was the county ignorant of the material's presence throughout
the building -- the federal Environmental Protection Agency noted
it in a letter sent to a county official three years before the
1980s retrofit project.

The county's lead engineer at the time, Thor Danielson, testified
that he pestered his boss and U.S. Engineering's job foreman
repeatedly about the need to safely remove asbestos before
proceeding with the project.  But his warning went unheeded, and a
supervisor told him not to come to weekly project meetings because
he asked too many questions, he said.

"It wasn't being handled properly," he testified at a hearing in
February 2014, "and it was being spread through the building."

When he asked his boss, Thomas F. Lillis, the director of county
buildings and general services, whether he should turn off the air
handling units during the demolition work so the dust wasn't blown
into offices, his request was denied, Danielson said.

Lillis provided no sworn testimony and was initially a defendant
in the Lopez case. But in a phone conversation, Lillis, now
retired and in his 80s, said he had no memory of Danielson's
warnings.

"I wasn't even working there at the time," he said.

Oxler said the job foreman who ran those weekly meetings is dead.
Air now "safe"

Neither Jackson County nor U.S. Engineering acknowledge that
asbestos was released during the retrofit project all those years
ago. And no test of the courthouse air was done until much later.

The county also disputes the class-action lawsuit's claim that
dangerous levels of asbestos remain in the courthouse air today.

"The courthouse has been tested two times with general air
sampling since the initial allegations arose," Dobbels, an
attorney at the Polsinelli law firm, wrote in an email. "Both sets
of testing demonstrated that the air quality in the courthouse was
safe."

Griffin, the attorney for U.S. Engineering, had no comment on the
presence of asbestos in the building or other details.

Accurso disputes the accuracy of one of those tests, saying it
should have been done on a workday when the air handling units
were on and people were kicking up the dust as they moved about.
Instead, it was done on a Saturday, when the building was empty
and the air units were off.

Today's air quality, however, is not the main thrust of the case.
At its center is the claim that thousands of people were exposed
to unsafe asbestos levels previously and are, according to the
plaintiffs, deserving of compensation for medical monitoring.

Last year, a circuit court judge ruled that the case did not meet
the definition of a class-action lawsuit. There were not enough
common factors among members of the proposed class -- people who
worked in or were compelled to visit the courthouse, such as
jurors, for two continuous weeks or more since the 1983 project
began.

People close to the work being done in 1983, such as Lopez, would
have suffered greater exposure to asbestos near where the work was
being done at the time it was done, the court ruled, versus
someone visiting the courthouse years later.  A number of
asbestos-removal projects were done safely at the building during
the 1990s and 2000s.  That lack of "commonality" was one reason
Circuit Court Judge Jack Peace said the case failed the test for
class-action lawsuits. People who get sick because of alleged
asbestos exposure at the courthouse would be free to sue
individually, but not as a group.

A three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals said Peace
had it wrong. The whole point of a medical-monitoring case, the
ruling said, is to provide compensation before people get sick so
they can get treatment.

As attorneys for the county and U.S. Engineering planned their
next moves, Accurso chatted with a visitor in his office near the
Country Club Plaza.

While discussing his options, an assistant entered the room with a
thick stack of depositions and court transcripts in a brown
accordion folder that form the foundation of the lawsuit.

The time for legal maneuvering is past, he feels.

"This case is ready for trial," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that an electrician from Hampshire,
England, died from cancer aged 50 after a decade of asbestos
exposure, an inquest heard.

Antony Bulpitt, from West Wellow, near Romsey, spent "months at a
time" working in roof voids caked in the deadly substance, at a
time when its threat was known.

In a statement taken before his death in February, read to
Winchester Coroner's Court, Mr Bulpitt said he fitted cabling
across the south for Southamp-ton-based electrical firm Gale
Kemish from 1980 to 1991.

During ten-hour days he would crawl through "cramped" spaces to
fit cabling for new IT systems, rubbing against asbestos coating
and getting it on his clothes.  He added that his father, fellow
electrician Antony Bulpitt Sr, joined asbestos "snowball fights"
and would take his overalls into the home and family car, exposing
his child to the dust.

Mr Bulpitt was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strongly
associated with asbestos exposure, in 2011. He died on February 7.

A verdict of death due to industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Charged with Improper Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------
emissourian.com reported that a federal indictment charged a man
with improperly disposing of asbestos from a former school
building in Owensville, Missouri.

Daniel T. Wright, according to the indictment, was contracted in
August 2013 to remove and properly dispose of asbestos from a
former school building located at 412 E. Madison St. in Owensville
for $104,000.

Wright solicited and received a verbal bid for asbestos abatement
and disposal from GEHM Environmental for $86,000. However, Wright
ultimately decided to employ workers who were not licensed or
trained to work with asbestos to complete the abatement, according
to the U.S. attorneys office. The crew consisted mostly of local
people, including high school students, according to the
allegations.

After being advised by the city of Owensville that he needed to
obtain a demolition permit, Wright obtained a demolition package,
which included a notice that he needed to comply with all state
and federal guidelines and required notifications. A demolition
permit was granted by the city.

The day after receiving the permit, the project was shut down by
the Owensville Police Department following complaints from local
citizens. The indictment alleges that Wright continued unpermitted
demolition activities and asbestos removal at the building even
after being informed by the city that the building contained
asbestos and that demolition activities were banned. Wright failed
to ensure that the asbestos insulation was deposited at an
approved waste disposal site. Instead, Wright had the untrained
workers dispose of the material in large boxes that remained on
the property and in rented dumpsters that sat behind the school.

Wright is charged in the federal grand jury indictment with three
felony counts of violation of the Clean Air Act relating to the
removal and disposal of asbestos.  The charges carry a maximum
penalty of five years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000. In
determining the actual sentences, a judge is required to consider
the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide recommended
sentencing ranges.

This case was investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Owensville Police
Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Dianna Collins is handling the
case.  Charges in an indictment are merely accusations and do not
constitute proof of guilt, the U.S. attorneys office explained.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Fibro Illness Predicted in Asia
--------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo News reported that poor understanding about the danger of
asbestos means it is widely used in Asia and will result in
thousands of cases of illness in the next few decades, researchers
say.

Asia is responsible for two-thirds of global asbestos consumption,
totalling more than one million tonnes a year, the West
Australian-led study says.  Although some countries such as Japan,
Korea and Singapore have lessened the use of asbestos, other Asian
countries such as China continue to mine, import and use the fibre
with little occupational protection.  A major reason for its use
is that asbestos products are more affordable compared with other
alternatives.  The fear of unemployment in poverty-stricken areas
is also perhaps a greater concern than developing asbestos-related
lung diseases, the researchers say.

Without early intervention, it is predicted that Asia, which has a
population of about 4.3 billion people, will see a "tsunami" of
asbestos-related illnesses in the next few decades.  The report
concluded that reducing the risk of disease would require less
asbestos usage, improved training for diagnosis, and co-operation
from government and non-government groups in preventing sickness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library to Close Due to Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------
Shoreham Herald reported that the temporary closure of the library
in Saint Mary's Road, in Shoreham, England, is planned to allow
for the removal of asbestos and updating of the lighting.

In a report to West Sussex County Council's cabinet member for
residents' services, Amanda Anderson, director customer services,
said: "The lighting in Shoreham library is in need of replacement
and updating.

"During initial investigation works into the replacement, asbestos
was discovered in the ceiling. This will involve more complex work
to be undertaken, including the removal of the asbestos,
replacement of the ceiling and the installation of the new
lighting."

The works, costing GBP40,000, will include upgrading emergency
lighting, which was found to be deficient in a fire risk
assessment.  Loan periods will be extended during the closure.
Alternative arrangements will be made for the collection of Blue
Badges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Seeks Relief From Bankruptcy Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that fallout
from a 2014 landmark ruling has led to Pittsburgh Corning's
insurer asking a bankruptcy court for relief from an earlier
decision because, it claims, asbestos plaintiffs attorneys have
been engaging in fraud.

On March 26, Mt. McKinley asked a federal bankruptcy court in
Pittsburgh for relief from its approval of a $3 billion trust
designed to compensate asbestos victims.

Pittsburgh Corning has faced claims that it exposed individuals to
Unibestos, a particularly dangerous material.

"Since this Court's confirmation ruling, stunning new evidence
became public showing that multiple law firms voting hundreds of
millions of dollars in claims in this bankruptcy have engaged in a
systematic practice of fraud, telling two different stories
concerning their clients' asbestos exposures," says the motion,
which was also filed by Everest Reinsurance Company.

"While they certify exposure under the penalty of perjury in this
and other bankruptcy cases, they conceal or deny such exposures in
tort litigation against non-bankruptcy defendants.

"Regardless of whether they are telling the truth in the
bankruptcy cases, or in tort cases, this pervasive fraudulent
conduct warrants relief . . ."

The motion refers to conduct uncovered in Garlock Sealing
Technologies' bankruptcy in a Charlotte, N.C., federal court.

In January 2014, Judge George Hodges ruled that asbestos
plaintiffs attorneys had been gaming the system by waiting until
their clients had recovered the most amount possible in lawsuits
against Garlock before filing bankruptcy trust claims with other
companies.  Doing this allowed the asbestos plaintiffs lawyers to
tell two different versions of how their clients were exposed to
asbestos.  Also that month, Garlock filed racketeering lawsuits
against four plaintiffs firms.

The evidence was originally sealed, but Legal Newsline appealed
and eventually earned a ruling that made the information public.
It is that information on which Mt. McKinley and Everest
Reinsurance rely.

"The New Evidence further shows that asbestos plaintiffs' firms
are using the separateness of the bankruptcy and tort systems (and
the confidentiality provisions to which Mt. McKinley objected in
PCC) to hide the fact that they are telling two different stories
about their clients' asbestos exposures depending on the
audience," the motion says.

"The New Evidence shows that the law firms make calculated
decisions to vote ballots and file trusts claims certifying their
clients' exposure to bankrupt companies' asbestos products,
including PCC, after previously denying or subsequently denying
those very same exposures in tort litigation.

"In short, officers of the court are telling two conflicting
stories, often under penalty of perjury, in order to better line
their products."

The insurers say plaintiffs firms that voted nearly $650 million
in claims have been committing fraud.

Those firms are Waters & Kraus, The David Law Firm, Shein Law
Center, Early Lucarelli and Motley Rice.

The insurers believe a full investigation and discovery will
potentially reveal more fraud. Garlock was allowed full discovery
into less than 20 cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alresford Man Dies Due to Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a man from Alresford, England,
died of an industrial disease, an inquest heard.

John Barton, of Orchard Close, worked in various construction jobs
throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, often in contact with asbestos.
He died at home on February 8 of mesothelioma, which he had
suffered from for some time.

In a statement compiled before his death, he said that he received
no advice from his employer about the dangers of the material, nor
was he given protective clothing.

Assistant coroner for central Hampshire Sarah Whitby ruled a
verdict of industrial disease due to exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Illegally Dumped in Orangeville
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Chenoweth, writing for Wollondilly Advertiser, reported that
Bobs Range Road in Orangeville, Australia, has become the latest
victim of illegal dumpers.  The Advertiser was alerted to several
large piles of waste containing asbestos that had been dumped on
the road within 50 metres of a nearby house.

Wollondilly Council confirmed the NSW Environment Protection
Authority was investigating the incident.  A spokeswoman from the
NSW EPA urged witnesses or anyone with information to call the
131555 tip line.

"EPA officers are investigating illegal dumping on both private
property and a road verge in Orangeville," she said.

"The investigation into the circumstances surrounding the dumping
is ongoing [so] we are not able to provide specific details at
this time.

"We can confirm that the waste dumped does contain asbestos and
Wollondilly Council has already completed make-safe works on the
stockpiles in response to a request from the EPA.

"This is a timely reminder to landowners to be wary of offers for
cheap or free filling.

"There is a risk that waste operators acting illegally will take
advantage and bring contaminated fill and/or continue to dump on
property after the initial agreed quantity has been received."

Northern ward councillor and deputy mayor Simon Landow recently
said towns in the northern part of the shire such as Warragamba
and Silverdale had been continuously targeted by illegal dumpers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council Sentencing Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoie O'Brien, writing for Guardian, reported that the sentencing
of Waltham Forest council, England, for failing to protect staff
from asbestos has been delayed.

Representatives from the authority were due to attend Southwark
Crown Court to receive sentence but the court has announced it has
to set another date.  The council has already pleaded guilty to
four counts of failing staff and contractors by ignoring asbestos
warnings.

All three kinds of asbestos, including deadly dust, were found in
the town hall basement in 2012 after a Freedom of Information Act
request was submitted by a member of the public.  A warning was
given to the council in 2002 after asbestos was found -- but it is
not known when it was disturbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Flips Ruling on Motion for Nonsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Virginia Supreme Court
has reversed an order granting a motion for nonsuit filed by an
asbestos plaintiff, saying that the plaintiff was not entitled to
such relief since the case had already been submitted to the
circuit court for final disposition.  In the April 16 order, the
high court found that the case was in the hands of the trial judge
at the point the motion for nonsuit was filed, since demurrers to
the lawsuit had already been briefed and argued.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Common Law Rules Fibro Claims, Not CBA
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a federal judge in
Philadelphia has ruled that asbestos claims lodged against Mack
Trucks Inc. by a former worker's estate were not preempted by law
giving federal courts jurisdiction over suits stemming from
violations of contracts between employers and labor unions.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno agreed that Mack's duty to
provide a safe workplace to Frank Schaffer, a former worker who
died in May 2014 after developing mesothelioma, were rooted in
common law and not from any special duties contained in a series
of collective bargaining agreements between the company and
Schaffer's union.

"Defendant points to workplace safety clauses in the CBAs and
asserts that complete preemption must apply to plaintiffs'
negligence claims. This argument fails," the judge said in a
decision remanding the case to the Court of Common Pleas of
Northampton County. "The court does not have to interpret any of
the clauses in the CBAs in order for plaintiffs to establish the
scope of duty."

Schaffer and his wife filed suit in the Northampton County Court
of Common Pleas against a group of defendants in February 2013
over alleged asbestos-related injuries he sustained while working
for Mack.

According to the opinion, Schaffer was a member of the United
Automobile Workers during his tenure with the company.

Mack removed the case in September 2014 on grounds that the U.S.
Labor Management Relations Act gave the federal court in
Philadelphia jurisdiction over the matter. In support of its
removal, the company argued that Schaffer's claims would
ultimately live or die based on the court's interpretation of the
union's CBAs pursuant to the LMRA.

In support of its argument, the company pointed to provisions of
the CBAs establishing a joint health and safety committee to
monitor and maintain safe workplace conditions, and provisions
requiring employees to wear various protective gear.

The opinion, however, noted that none of the provisions of the
CBAs related to workplace safety did anything to modify its
preexisting obligations under common law.

"Defendant has not pointed to any portion of the CBA that somehow
modifies -- either by enlarging, diminishing or even refining --
the duty imposed by the common law," Judge Robreno said. "Even if
the common law duty was somehow expanded by the CBAs, plaintiffs
are not basing their claim on any expansion because there is no
reference to a CBA in their complaint."

The opinion also rejected arguments that Schaffer's strict
liability claim was preempted because Mack's duty to the plaintiff
stemmed from the CBAs.

"Mack had a duty to make and/or market its product free from a
defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer . . .
yet none of the portions of the CBAs cited by defendant relate at
all to the scope of this duty as imposed under strict liability,"
the opinion said.

An attorney for Mack did not immediately return a message seeking
comment.

Mack is represented by John McMeekin of Rawle & Henderson LLP.

The case is Rita Stellar etc., v. Allied Signal Inc. et al., case
number 5:14-cv-05083, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Can't Raise New Fibro Defense
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reported that Travelers
Casualty & Surety Co. missed its chance to distinguish between
asbestos and products that contain the material in a $120 million
dispute over coverage under its policies, General Refractories Co.
told a Pennsylvania federal court in a motion for declaratory
judgment.

GRC said that Travelers has tried to make that distinction because
U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo eliminated the insurer's
sole defense against tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims
when he ruled in March that those claims aren't barred by an
exclusion written into Travelers' excess insurance policies.

"In essence, having lost on the only defense that Travelers raised
when it first was put on notice of GRC's asbestos-related claims
over twenty years ago, Travelers would now charge GRC with putting
on evidence that 31,440 separate settlements 'trigger' the
Travelers policies, and were for claims alleging exposure to
'asbestos-containing products' rather than 'asbestos,'" GRC said.

Travelers argued for the first time that GRC's "decade-long"
settlement process is flawed after Judge Restrepo's order and
needed to assert that defense earlier for it to be valid, GRC
said.

In a motion filed March 13, Travelers told the court that GRC must
provide complaints and evidence from discovery to show that the
thousands of claims in its queue fall under Travelers' policies
and said GRC hasn't provided an updated queue for "several years."

Mike Conley of Offit Kurman, an attorney for GRC, told Law360 that
the company's motion aimed to avoid playing "Whac-a-Mole" with new
defenses.

"It's been 10 years," Conley said. "[Travelers] lost on the
defense they've been relying on. We believe we're entitled to a
final judgment."

Counsel for Travelers did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

GRC, which produced heat-resistant products for the steel
industry, countered that it put the insurer on notice in the 1980s
of its belief that the asbestos claims were covered as well as its
methods of settling the claims, and Travelers offered only the
exemption defense.

Since Travelers never previously raised the argument that
"asbestos-containing products" weren't covered and wrongfully
denied coverage for more than 10 years, the insurer can't argue
with way the claims were handled, GRC said.

Further, GRC said it only sold products containing asbestos rather
than the material itself and has never settled a claim for
exposure to asbestos independent of its products.

"For GRC to have to put on evidence of this for every claim when
Travelers never previously raised this defense and there is no
evidence that even a single claim was settled because of exposure
to asbestos is nothing other than another delay tactic by
Travelers," GRC said.

GRC sued Travelers and several other insurers in 2004 for denying
coverage of the asbestos claims and said that it has more than
$120 million in remaining settlements.

Travelers' excess liability policies kick in after damages exceed
$51 million, according to GRC.

The insurer had argued that its policies excluded all asbestos-
related claims, but Judge Restrepo found that the Travelers never
defined "asbestos."

The judge said GRC's position that the policies covered claims
"arising out of asbestos" was objectively reasonable, and sided
with the company because the exclusion was ambiguous.

GRC said that it should be awarded the full limits of Travelers'
policies as well as interest.

GRC is represented by Michael Conley and Meghan Finnerty of Offit
Kurman.

Travelers is represented by Samuel J. Arena Jr., Daniel T. Fitch
and William T. Mandia of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP.

The case is General Refractories Co. v. First State Insurance Co.
et al., case number 2:04-cv-03509, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworker Can't Revive Suit vs. Crane Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court upheld the dismissal of an asbestos suit against
P&H Mining Equipment Inc., saying that a former Bethlehem Steel
Corp. worker couldn't show that P&H cranes that he had worked on
contained asbestos.

In a published decision, the state appeals court agreed with a
lower court that appellant Norman J. Sterling hadn't shown
sufficient evidence that parts of cranes that he had worked around
had contained asbestos, saying that P&H's concession that it sold
some equipment with parts with small amounts of asbestos wasn't
enough to establish if Sterling had worked on that equipment.

The appeals panel said that the testimony of other former
Bethlehem Steel workers also didn't provide any information about
the "frequency, regularity or proximity" of Sterling's alleged
asbestos exposure from P&H equipment.

"Appellants thus failed to adduce evidence sufficient to support
an inference that Appellant Mr. Sterling inhaled asbestos from
component parts of P&H cranes," the appeals court said.
"Therefore, the court properly entered summary judgment in favor
of P&H."

Sterling sued P&H and 57 other defendants in 2012, claiming that
he had developed lung cancer from being exposed to asbestos while
he was working at Bethlehem Steel from 1952 to 1979, according to
the opinion.

Sterling claimed that he was exposed to asbestos in component
parts of P&H cranes used in the Bethlehem Steel shipping yard, the
appeals court said. Sterling said that he had worked on cranes,
including P&H cranes, for about 10 years of his employment with
Bethlehem Steel, according to the opinion, but he admitted that he
mostly worked on cranes supplied by other companies.

According to the opinion, Sterling worked as a chain man and crane
man at Bethlehem Steel and he testified to the lower court that he
saw dust coming from wheels of the cranes.

As a crane man, Sterling claimed that he was also required to
assist repairmen who regularly performed dust-producing
maintenance on the brakes, according to the opinion.

However, "Sterling did not testify to any information as to the
nature of the dust, how far he was from the dust, whether he
inhaled the dust, or whether the dust he observed contained
asbestos," according to the opinion.

The appeals court rejected his argument that he had shown
sufficient evidence for a jury to decide if he had proven a causal
connection between P&H cranes and his lung cancer.

According to the appeals court, Sterling had said that he saw dust
coming from the cranes' brakes but conceded that there multiple
sources of dust in the shipping yard.

The trial court had found there was no factual basis to support an
inference that Sterling breathed the dust or that the dust
contained asbestos and that Sterling had "guessed he was exposed
to dust from crane brakes merely because he saw some type of dust
emanating from the wheels of operating cranes," according to the
opinion.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Sterling is represented by Lamont G. McClure, Jr.,  Constance K.
Nelson and Michael Albanese of Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC.

P&H is represented by Joan P. Depfer and Carol Ann VanderWoude of
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin PC.

The case is Sterling  v. P&H Mining Equipment Inc. a/k/a Joy
Global Surface Mining Inc., case number 1006 EDA 2014 in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Governor Signs Bill on Fibro Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has
signed into law a bill she says clarifies the state Department of
Labor's role in asbestos removal projects in buildings and
structures.

The measure signed eliminates language related to asbestos
abatement in private and public facilities. It clarifies that the
Department of Labor is the primary authority for asbestos
abatement on job sites.

In addition, the agency has signed a cooperative agreement with
the Department of Environmental Quality clarifying jurisdictional
authorities in asbestos cleanup projects.

Fallin says communities across the state have worked to restore
historic buildings and structures that have fallen into disrepair,
but they often contain asbestos that must be removed to protect
public health. She says the legislation will reduce the regulatory
burden on contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Horrified Over Fibro Find at Mill
------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas and Aisha Dow, writing for The Age, reported that
residents in New South Wales, Australia, whose homes and gardens
were "coated" with construction dust from an Alphington building
site are horrified they have only just found out about the
discovery of asbestos there months ago.

The former Amcor Paper Mill on the Chandler Highway is being
redeveloped and thousands of houses being built for almost 5000
residents.

Yarra Council's manager of city strategy emailed a resident
working group to say that the demolition of a large chimney had
been halted last October after asbestos was discovered.  Although
the council said no risk has been posed to the workers or the
community -- as the asbestos was identified before it was
disturbed -- residents are angry they were not informed sooner.

Natasha Biltoft said she first heard about the asbestos through
the neighbourhood grapevine.  "I am horrified that potentially
we've been exposed to [asbestos]. I can't believe that nobody
bothered to tell us about it," she said.

Ms Biltoft lives in a house on the Chandler Highway with her two
young children and said dust from the site had peppered the
family's washing line, edible plants and trampoline.

"Should I be letting my kids play outside? What is the risk? We
have no idea."

The asbestos discovery came as a surprise to the council which had
been advised in the same month that initial investigations did not
detect any. It is understood that the material -- which can cause
a range of health problems including Mesothelioma if breathed in
-- was discovered in the pipework after the demolition had begun.

But Yarra mayor Phillip Vlahogiannis said that the council always
expected there could be some contamination of the site, as
asbestos was a common building material used in buildings of a
similar age to the paper mill.  He said the community had been
informed of the need for remediation "from the very outset", with
the developer required to follow a remediation action plan
overseen by an environmental auditor.

"This specific incidence of asbestos came to light last October
and, as a result, work on that particular location was suspended.
In the meantime, the relevant players [including the developer and
WorkSafe] have determined the best way to deal with it," Cr
Vlahogiannis said.

However, Yarra councillor Stephen Jolly believes residents should
have been told about the find months earlier, when the council was
informed by the project's developers, Alpha Partners and Glenvill
Homes, of the issue.

"They haven't told anyone," he said. "Councillors only got wind of
it [last] week."

Cr Jolly works in construction and has previously been a health
and safety representative for a construction union. He said the
regularity with which asbestos was found on former industrial
sites meant residents who lived nearby needed to be kept informed.

"We discover it every day, and people deal with it. But for Yarra
Council, apparently, they have got the transparency of Kim Il-
sung."

The West Alphington Residents group are calling for the chimney
and a boiler house also on the site to be removed.

"Those buildings have asbestos right through them and in all the
machinery that was in them and the partial demolition has just
stirred it all up and made it far more dangerous than it was while
intact," said committee member Harold Cole.

Anyone who has concerns or questions about the remediation of the
site is asked to contact Yarra council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Fears for Man After Fibro Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hull Daily Mail reported that a man from England who had suspected
asbestos found in his home claims he has now developed a lung
problem because it was not removed for months.

Daniel Roberts, 24, had a cupboard filled with suspected asbestos
discovered by electricians in his council house in September.
They left it on his front door and said it would be removed in the
coming days.  But, despite numerous calls to the city council, Mr
Roberts, who lives in Axminster Close, says it has still not been
removed from his property.  He now says he has developed a lung
problem and had to be taken to hospital.

"Electricians were round and discovered some asbestos in some of
the cupboards," Mr Roberts said.

"They left it outside the front door of the property and they said
to me they would get somebody to come and remove it.

"I thought they would do it but I am still waiting to this day."

He said he was concerned the potential asbestos had damaged his
health.

"I am now really worried because I have started to develop
problems with my right lung," he said.

"I went to the doctors and they said I have got something wrong
with my right lung.

"I was struggling to breathe, and had to go to hospital, and now I
have to go back to see my GP.

"I am worried because I have seen all the asbestos-related
illnesses and it is quite daunting. I do not really want to think
about it."

Mr Roberts lives at the council-owned property with his partner,
Samantha Richardson.  He said he was annoyed nothing had still
been done.

"The first phone calls I made they said somebody from the asbestos
team would come out, identify it and remove it," he said.

"I think it is now about seven months later, and I have called
them since but not had anything.

"I have now had to move it from my front door myself. I am not too
sure what is going on."

A spokesman for Hull City Council said: "We are unable to comment
on specific cases. However, Hull City Council has asbestos
policies in place that are designed to deal safely with any
asbestos that might be within our properties.

"We are investigating the circumstances of this case and will be
making contact with Mr Roberts."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Ordered to Pay GBP10,000 After Fibro Find
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth Herald reported that a waste company has been ordered to
pay almost GBP10,000 after asbestos was found at its site near
Plymouth, pitting staff at risk.

Wilco's Waste Management Ltd, of Trevol Business Park, Torpoint,
breached environmental permits, including accepting waste
containing asbestos.  The company pleaded guilty to failing to
take measures to prevent pollution between April 4, 2012 and June
4, 2014 in respect of the storage of waste; failing to ensure
technically competent persons were on site to oversee waste
management activities between June 4 and September 1, 2014; and
accepting wastes containing asbestos on September 1.

Counsel Ms Pakeeza Rahman, prosecuting on behalf of the
Environment Agency, said that the mini-skip business had acquired
a standard-type permit in March 2012 but there were breaches of
this including the use of an inadequate structure made of
scaffolding and plastic sheeting, with a corrugated roof, to store
waste.

"Waste was spilling out and the Agency says this was not a
building," said Ms Rahman.

On September 1, 2014, a "significant" amount of asbestos was found
at the site. Ms Rahman said that most waste stations received some
asbestos by mistake but this was "not consistent with a mistake.

"Wilco's staff were being put at risk by asbestos; therefore this
was reported to the Health and Safety Executive," said Ms Rahman.

She said that in addition the firm was supposed to have a
technically competent person on site and there had been a delay in
achieving this.

Andrew Maitland, for the defence, said that from small beginnings
the business had not got going properly until 2012-13.

The owner had taken down the scaffolding structure which was not
compliant with Agency regulations and had since made changes to an
original building so that its entrance was wide enough for it to
act effectively as a tipping shed.

While he was studying to be a technically competent manager he
employed a woman with the necessary qualifications but he accepted
there was a short gap between when she left and when he achieved
this.

Regarding the asbestos, Mr Maitland said there was a serious
problem with asbestos being tipped by builders and sometimes it
was buried at the bottom of skips.

Wilco's drivers now made more thorough inspections of skips when
they were collected and the site manager would assess them again
before they were tipped.

Any asbestos would be returned to whoever had sent it for them to
dispose of correctly.

Wilco's, as a hazardous waste carrier, could take it to a site at
Swindon to be dealt with but it would no longer be retained on
site at Torpoint beforehand.

If asbestos was found, the HSE would be notified and employees
required to wear special clothing and masks.

Mr Maitland pointed out that when the HSE visited the site it had
not made any reference to or complaint about asbestos.  He also
stated that no environmental damage caused by Wilco's activities
had been cited in the prosecution's papers.

Furthermore, in a letter to Wilco's from the EA on December 12,
2013, reference had been made to its "significant efforts in
complying".

District Judge Kevin Gray said that the company had been "learning
on the hoof and tried to run before it could walk". Its actions
had not been reckless but had been negligent.

The company had no previous convictions and had taken steps to
rectify mistakes although it had received a number of warnings.
It was fined a total of GBP3,000 with GBP6,688.22 costs and a
GBP100 victim surcharge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Congress Urged to Restore Removal Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reported that school
districts in the United States have long been on their own when it
comes to dealing with asbestos, a new report from the
Environmental Working Group Action Fund found.

According to EWG, which has been a vocal supporter of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill introduced by Sens.
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), it's been
more than 20 years since Congress set aside funds to help schools
address asbestos exposure.

"Many schools built before the early 1980s almost certainly
contain asbestos, and almost every week brings another story of
asbestos found in schools -- disrupting education, displacing
students and disturbing parents," the report's author and EWG
Action Fund advisor Bill Walker said in a release. "It's a
national problem that demands a national solution, starting with a
total ban on asbestos."

The report comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill debate how best to
reform the nation's toxic chemical laws with two competing bills
in the Senate.

Environmentalists have widely opposed the bill introduced by Sens.
Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) despite the fact that
it appears to have enough bipartisan support to be the winning
legislation.

EWG's report said 1984 was the last time the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a nationwide survey to determine
the extent of the potential dangers asbestos posed to students,
faculty and other school employees.

Of the 2,600 public school districts and private schools sampled,
EWG said EPA estimated that 15 million students and 1.4 million
teachers, administrators and other employees -- in almost 35,000
schools -- were at risk of exposure to deadly airborne asbestos
fibers.  The report calls on Congress to restore funding to school
districts for asbestos abatement and enact a total ban on the
toxic substance, which can be attributed to more than 10,000
deaths a year.

In a statement, US EPA said the agency is reviewing the report.

During a press conference, Boxer called on Udall and Vitter to
"fix their toxic chemical bill before it goes to mark-up."

Boxer said the Udall-Vitter bill is worse than the current TSCA
law because it only provides for the assessment of 25 chemicals
over five years, it "eviscerates states rights to protect their
people from cancer-causing chemicals and "it does nothing to
address asbestos."

"The bill doesn't even mention the word asbestos," she said. "And
experts say regulation of asbestos under the Udall-Vitter bill
will never, ever happen."

In a response, Udall's office called those statements "blatantly
false."

"It is blatantly false to say that Senator Udall's bill would
prevent the regulation of asbestos," Udall's Spokeswoman Jennifer
Talhelm said in a statement. "Senator Udall's bill specifically
corrects the flaws in current TSCA to finally give EPA the ability
to regulate asbestos as well as BPA, styrene, and many other
dangerous chemicals. If we don't act -- or if we hold out for an
unworkable proposal -- these chemicals will continue to flow
through commerce unregulated, and our kids will never have the
protection they need to be safe."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leisure Center Shuts Down Due to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------
Belfast Telegraph reported that a leisure centre transferring to
Belfast, Ireland, new super-council as part of local government
reforms is to close indefinitely over safety concerns about
asbestos.

The Robinson Centre, off the Castlereagh Road in the east of the
city, sits within the part of the old Castlereagh Borough Council
area which is being absorbed into the reconfigured Belfast
council.  It is being transferred over to the enlarged Belfast
council at midnight but both Castlereagh Borough Council and
Belfast City Council (BCC) have been involved in a dispute over
the hand-over.

The issue ended up in the High Court, with Belfast council
challenging a decision by Environment minister Mark H Durkan that
the transfer of the property, and its past liabilities, should be
completed on schedule.  The matter will now be subject to full
judicial review at a later date. Belfast City Council said it did
not succeed in obtaining an interim order to stop the transfer of
the building.

However, the council said an interim judicial direction was made
to the effect that the liabilities will sit with the new Lisburn
Castlereagh Council for the time being.

The building was temporarily closed by Castlereagh council earlier
this year when previously undocumented asbestos was discovered in
parts of the structure during a pre-transfer survey by BCC.  It
has since reopened on a partial basis, with the swimming pool
remaining closed.  But the doors will not open when the trust that
runs Belfast council leisure services takes over.

A meeting with the 35 plus employees has been scheduled in the
morning to discuss the situation. They will be paid by Belfast
council and deployments in other centres will be considered.

A spokesman for Belfast City Council said: "The Robinson Centre
will not open and will be closed indefinitely as BCC will be
carrying out a more detailed survey as soon as possible so that it
could take an informed decision about the future of the centre.

"We appreciate that one of the most sensitive issues is the
outcome for the staff who work in the Robinson Centre. They have
been advised by BCC by letter this afternoon that the centre will
not open in the morning and a meeting has been arranged which will
be attended by BCC management and recognised trade union
officials."

He added: "Belfast City Council is committed to providing good
value leisure services in all parts of the city, including those
areas joining Belfast. The Council has already agreed to invest
GBP105 million in its leisure facilities at no additional cost to
the ratepayer and it is set to agree how this investment will be
made. This is likely to include significant investment in the east
of the city, including the future replacement Robinson centre.
This would ultimately be a significant enhancement to the
facilities in that part of the city.

"In the meantime, we are working to ensure that those who
currently use the Robinson Centre can continue to have access to
leisure services during the indefinite closure that the Robinson
Centre may face. "

A spokesman for Mr Durkan said: "It would not be appropriate to
comment further as this is subject to a judicial process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Legislature OKs Bill on Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sunnucks, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reported that
the Arizona Legislature has approved a bill making it harder for
workers to file asbestos lawsuits.

House Bill 2603 was approved by Republican majorities at the
Legislature and is now on Gov. Doug Ducey's desk.  The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce backs the measure, which requires attorneys
representing sick workers to disclose whether they have filed
claims with bankruptcy trusts as well various companies who used
asbestos in building and industrial materials.

Asbestos, which is banned in some countries, causes cancer and
other serious illnesses.

Opponents -- including plaintiffs attorneys -- say the measure
will delay asbestos lawsuits.

The U.S. Chamber contends it makes the lawsuit process around such
suits fairer to defendant companies.

"This bill will help combat fraud and abuse in asbestos
litigation, discourage 'double dipping' by plaintiffs' lawyers,
and ensure that companies and bankruptcy trusts both pay their
fair share of recoveries to claimants," said Lisa Rickard,
president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

Rickard said several others states including Ohio, West Virginia
and Wisconsin have approved similar bills.

There were more than 18,000 deaths related to asbestos causing
cancers in the U.S. between 1999 and 2005, according to the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most of the victims are white men, according to the CDC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher's Family Launches Legal Bid
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Wheatstone, writing for Mirror, reported that the family
of an art teacher who died of asbestos-related lung cancer caused
by years of pinning pupils' work to classroom walls are planning
legal action.

Jennifer Barnett spent 17 years at Archway School in Stroud,
Gloucestershire, in England, where she regularly pinned kids' work
onto walls containing the deadly material.  The mum-of-four left
the profession in the 90s but was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in 2013 and died, aged 60, just 14 months later.  An
inquest into her death heard concluded she had died of malignant
mesothelioma due to industrial disease how she was regularly
exposed to asbestos while working at between 1980 and 1997.

Husband Nigel, from Painswick, Gloucestershire, has now instructed
asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law to investigate the case.
He said: "I am hoping former teachers or ex-pupils will come
forward who may have some knowledge about the asbestos ceiling
tiles at Archway School or know of any other asbestos products or
materials that were used there."

Helen Grady, an asbestos disease solicitor at the law firm said
solicitors are seeing a growing number of cases involving
teachers.  She said:"It is alarming that we are seeing more and
more cases involving teachers.

"Asbestos was widely used in the UK as a building material for
fireproofing and insulation from the 1950s up until 1985, when
most types were banned.

"It was banned completely from new buildings in 1999 but, sadly
the damage had already been done for thousands of victims who have
paid the ultimate price for going to work every day."

Jennifer worked at Archway School in Stroud, Glos., between 1980
and 1997 where she was known as Miss Shonk and became a much-loved
head of art.  Her family said she often pinned artwork to walls
and ceilings which contained asbestos, as well as using cupboards
lined with the harmful boards.  She left teaching aged 42 to have
her youngest daughter, but carried on working as an artist even
after she was diagnosed with cancer of the lining of the lungs in
July 2013.  Her proud family said she remained positive during
"gruelling" chemotherapy treatment, but died the day after
celebrating her 30th wedding anniversary, in September 2014.

Phil Ashbee-Dobbins, Gloucestershire County Council asbestos
administration officer, said: "Buildings built in the 1960s and
1970s, and even up until the late 90s often have asbestos in them.

"It doesn't pose a risk unless it is disturbed, and we help
schools under local authority control keep their own accurate
records and to make sure it is treated properly and safely.

"Archway School has been extensively renovated in recent years. In
addition, regular asbestos audits are completed as part of
standard health and safety procedures."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Gets Nod with $325M Asbestos Trust
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi, writing for Law360, reported that a Delaware
bankruptcy judge gave defunct manufacturing company Yarway Corp.
the nod for a Chapter 11 plan that would pay $325 million into a
trust to handle thousands of asbestos-related injury claims, with
the bulk of the money coming from nondebtor parent Tyco
International Ltd.  At a hearing in Wilmington, U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Brendan L. Shannon gave his approval to the plan, which
attorneys for Yarway said came together through more than two
years of negotiations and which will now head to the Delaware
District.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Settles Navy Repairman Death Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Fischler, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge dismissed an asbestos suit against Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., signing off on its settlement with the family of a
U.S. Navy worker who died from asbestos-induced cancer.

The terms of the settlement between Goodyear and Patrick Donlon's
widow and son are confidential, a lawyer for widow Patti Donlon
told Law360 in an email.

Goodyear and defendants United Technologies Corp. and Curtiss-
Wright Corp. reached an agreement with Patti Donlon on Jan. 12
that was slated to be finalized.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Says Garlock "Fishing" in RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reported that mesothelioma law firm
Belluck & Fox LLP fought a North Carolina magistrate judge's order
allowing defunct gasket company Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
to subpoena information on 157 asbestos litigants in a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit against the law
firm, saying the order was "clearly erroneous and contrary to
law."

Belluck & Fox moved for a protective order in the adversary suit
hoping to block 24 third-party subpoenas served by Garlock seeking
documents from 55 bankruptcy trusts and claims processing
facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Settles GBP150,000 Compensation Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Douglas, writing for Inside Housing, reported that a
terminally ill man seeking GBP150,000 for end of life care from a
social landlord after contracting cancer through his work with
asbestos has settled his claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Mulls Changes After Sheldon Silver Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that New York's
special court system for hearing asbestos cases will be on trial
as defense lawyers make their case for reforms in the wake of
former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's indictment on
allegations he accepted millions of dollars in kickbacks from one
of the most prominent asbestos plaintiff firms in the state.

Judge Peter Moulton, incoming administrative judge in charge of
the New York Consolidated Asbestos Litigation docket, or NYCAL,
will hold a "town hall meeting" to discuss the rules governing how
thousands of asbestos cases are handled in New York City courts.
Moulton replaces longtime Administrative Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler, who oversaw changes that defense lawyers say made it
easier for plaintiffs to win cases in NYCAL courts and
specifically benefitted Weitz & Luxenberg, the law firm that
allegedly paid Silver, a part-time employee, more than $5 million
for client referrals from a cancer physician who secretly received
money from a state fund Silver controlled.

Weitz & Luxenberg and Silver have both denied wrongdoing. Defense
lawyers have long complained that Weitz & Luxenberg had special
privileges at NYCAL under Heitler, however. As the firm with the
largest number of asbestos cases on the docket, defense lawyers
say, Weitz & Luxenberg was able to cherry-pick which cases went to
trial and got first shot at juries in a court system overloaded
with more than 10,000 asbestos lawsuits.

"When Weitz & Luxenberg had an asbestos case up and needed a jury,
it didn't matter who else needed a jury, they got their jury,"
said one defense lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity given
the contentiousness of the issue and the changes that appear to
have occurred since Silver's indictment.

In a March 31 letter that will be discussed at a meeting, defense
lawyers asked for a temporary stay of proceedings until NYCAL can
consider changes to the Case Management Order, a comprehensive set
of rules first enacted in 1988 that dictate how courts handle
asbestos cases within NYCAL. Defense lawyers object to a string of
modifications Heitler made to the CMO, including an April order,
issued at the request of Weitz & Luxenberg, restoring punitive
damages in asbestos trials.

Heitler's predecessor, Judge Helen Freedman, had eliminated
punitive damages from NYCAL in 1996, determining they drained
money from defendants that could be used to pay other deserving
claimants and made little sense since they were punishing behavior
that in most cases had ended decades before. (Crane Co., for
example, argued punitive damages are inappropriate since the U.S.
Navy gave it exact specifications for manufacturing the gaskets it
made for World War II-era ships that pipefitters later accused of
making them sick.)

Heitler also had liberal rules for combining multiple lawsuits
into a single trial to save time and money. The efficiency measure
is used in other court systems flooded with sick and dying
asbestos plaintiffs, but defense lawyers say NYCAL's practice,
combined with punitive damages, gives them an unfair disadvantage
since plaintiff lawyers can mix very different cases together
making it difficult for companies to mount a coherent defense.
Mesothelioma, for example, is a cancer of the chest wall lining
that is strongly correlated with asbestos exposure and tends to be
a sure ticket for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in
damages including punitives. Lung cancer, on the other hand, has
been linked to asbestos exposure in some disputed medical studies
but is much more closely tied to smoking.

By mixing different cases together, defense lawyers say, jurors
can be overwhelmed, leading to large awards against everybody.

In one 2012 case, seven mesothelioma cases involving plaintiffs
with different exposures and legal theories were combined in a
single trial that yielded a jury award of $51 million. The
following year, Weitz & Luxenberg won a $190 million verdict for
five plaintiffs including three plumbers, a painter and a
steamfitter.

The average mesothelioma verdict in NYCAL now is $16 million,
defense lawyers say, citing research by Bates White Economic
Consulting, more than double the national average. Defendants win
three out of five individual cases in NYCAL, but that drops to one
in five for consolidated cases.

Another change Heitler made makes it easier for plaintiff lawyers
to hide pending claims against trusts set up by bankrupt asbestos
manufacturers that may weaken their cases in NYCAL against solvent
companies. In a November 2012 order, Heitler said lawyers only
have to report "intended" claims against trusts before trial, not
claims they "may not anticipate filing," leaving the door open for
them to prepare those claims in advance -- while their client is
still alive, it must be noted -- and file them after their case is
over.

This complaint was documented in the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, where a judge examined 15 lawsuits against Garlock
and found in each case lawyers had withheld evidence of exposures
that might have hurt their case against Garlock until after those
cases were settled.

Plaintiffs also don't have to identify which products supposedly
made them sick until deep in the discovery process. "As a result,"
corporate defendants complain in their March 31 letter, they "may
not know until late in the proceeding as a result of depositions
whether they are legitimately in the case at all."

Plaintiff lawyers led by Weitz & Luxenberg, in their own letter to
the court, say the defendants' modest proposal "utterly disregards
several decades of judicial and appellate oversight, and is little
more than an opportunistic attempt to misrepresent New York toxic
tort law and procedures as some sort of anomaly." While NCAL has
delivered its share of multimillion-dollar verdicts, those are
frequently reduced on appeal. Plaintiff lawyers also list a number
of huge awards in other districts including a $208 million verdict
in California in 2010 and $89.6 million for a single plaintiff in
Illinois in 2011. The real anomaly, those lawyers say, was NYCAL
was the only court system in New York where asbestos couldn't get
punitive damages until Heitler changed the rules.

The plaintiff lawyers also dismiss the "lengthy and disreputable
paragraph" of the defense letter accusing NYCAL of allowing them
to cherry-pick and steer cases through the system. Lawyers pluck
cases from the trial docket for many reasons including the death
of the plaintiff, pending settlement negotiations, or discovery
that the plaintiff's claims aren't mature enough, they say.

"The victims of reckless marketing of ultrahazardous asbestos-
containing products, without any warnings whatsoever, are dying
and in need of seeing their day in court," the plaintiff lawyers
say in their letter.

While plaintiff lawyers say NYCAL's rules are designed to speed
justice for clients who are frequently dying of incurable
asbestos-related diseases, critics say NYCAL seems more than
willing to take on more cases. It has adopted liberal forum
requirements that allow plaintiffs to sue in New York on the
barest of connections to the state, for example. In one case a
plaintiff sued in NCAL because he claimed to have spent three days
aboard a ship docked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

NYCAL also has accepted hundreds of asbestos lawsuits based on
lung cancer, including the lawsuit of nurse-turned-Congresswoman
Carolyn McCarthy, who says she got sick from stray asbestos fibers
carried into her home on her father's clothing instead of her
pack-a-day smoking habit. Weitz & Luxenberg sued more than 70
companies on McCarthy's behalf.

The meeting comes after plaintiff and defense lawyers failed to
work out changes on their own. The CMO is ideally a negotiated
agreement, but ultimately judges make the rules for their courts
and can hand down changes if lawyers can't.

In the talks between plaintiff and defense lawyers over these
issues so far, my source on the defense side told me, there has
been "literally no progress."

"What this tees up is, there needs to be some progress," that
person said. "Because left to ourselves, we are getting nowhere."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Gracie Mansion Roof
--------------------------------------------------------
CBS New York reported that asbestos has been discovered in
the roof at Gracie Mansion and work to remove the potentially
cancer-causing materials from New York City's mayoral residence
has begun.

The hazardous material was discovered in March as crews prepared
to replace the mayoral mansion's leaky roof.

"There's definitely been some live leaks at Gracie Mansion, and I
mean leaks where water drips down from the roof, not the other
kind of leaks," Mayor Bill de Blasio joked, WCBS 880's Rich Lamb
reported.

Officials do not believe the work poses any health risk to de
Blasio and his family, who will remain in the home during the
renovation.

"Gracie Mansion is one of Manhattan's oldest structures built more
than 200 years ago, and as with any older homes, maintenance is
necessary," mayoral spokesman Peter Kadushin said.  "Beginning
[April], Gracie Mansion will undergo asbestos abatement and some
long-needed roof repairs."

The cost of removing the asbestos will be about $250,000, and the
contract was awarded this week to Regional Management Inc.,
officials said. The replacement of the mansion's 30-year-old roof,
which is being done by Nicholson and Galloway, should cost an
additional $3.4 million, officials said.

"Here, we'll hopefully have a long-term solution that will fix the
roof, but also get the asbestos out," the mayor said.

The roof was frequently overmatched during rainstorms, forcing
city work crews to be dispatched to patch problem areas multiple
times this winter, officials said. The two projects will be
undertaken concurrently and should be completed by October or
November, officials said.

A storage shed also is being built on the mansion's property. And
officials said that about 10 of the building's windows were
undergoing upgrades to become energy efficient at the cost of
another $13,000.

De Blasio's predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, earmarked $3 million
to the Parks Department capital budget in 2012 to replace the
tired roof. Bloomberg never lived in the mansion during his 12
years in office. He instead opted to remain at his tony Upper East
Side townhome, but oversaw extensive renovations to the mansion,
which he used for meetings and ceremonial events.

After considering remaining in his Brooklyn home, de Blasio, his
wife and their two children moved into Gracie Mansion last July.
The home, which is managed by the nonprofit Gracie Mansion
Conservancy, was built in 1799, at which time it sat in the
countryside more than five miles north of what was then a very
small New York City.

The mansion was seized by the city in 1896 after its owner failed
to pay taxes. It became the official mayoral residence in 1942.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Opposes Subpoenas in Racketeering Case
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal News Line, reported that the New
York asbestos firm Belluck & Fox is fighting to keep the company
that has accused it of racketeering from gathering more
information.

After a federal magistrate judge decided Garlock Sealing
Technologies' recent subpoenas were relevant to the racketeering
lawsuit it filed against the firm, Belluck & Fox has filed an
objection that says the order is "clearly erroneous."

"Ignoring its own allegations, Garlock is now seeking through
third-party subpoenas the confidential trust claim information of
157 individuals who are not mentioned anywhere in the complaint,"
attorneys for the firm wrote in its objection.

"Yet Garlock has never alleged -- whether in the complaint or
otherwise -- that Belluck & Fox made any misrepresentations to
Garlock about any of those 157 individuals. Nor could it."

Garlock began the bankruptcy process in 2010 to set up its own
trust to compensate asbestos victims.  While doing so, the company
alleged plaintiffs lawyers had been manipulating evidence of their
clients' exposures by telling one story in civil lawsuits against
the company and telling another to asbestos trusts of other
companies after the lawsuits resolved.  This had the effect of
driving up settlements with and verdicts against Garlock, the
company claimed. A federal bankruptcy judge agreed in January 2014
after the company was allowed full discovery into 15 cases.

The judge ordered Garlock to put $125 million in its trust -- more
than $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had requested.
About the same time as the judge's ruling, Garlock filed four
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act lawsuits against
Belluck & Fox, Waters & Kraus of Dallas, Shein Law Center of
Philadelphia and Simon Greenstone in Dallas.

Garlock used the evidence obtained from discovery into the 15
cases as the basis of the cases.

Now, according to Belluck & Fox, Garlock has issued 24 subpoenas
to 55 trusts and claims processing facilities seeking information
on Belluck & Fox clients.

Cayer denied Belluck & Fox's motion for a protective order on
March 23.

The firm's objection says Garlock typically sought to resolve
cases all of the firm's cases at one time each year.

"Garlock never asked Belluck & Fox, during these inventory
settlement negotiations, to represent or prove whether the firm's
client had been exposed to other companies' products; that issue
was simply not part of the settlement discussions," the objection
says.

By 2009, the settlement values were determined by a matrix. The
Belluck firm Garlock did this to avoid the costs of discovery.  It
called Garlock's stance during its bankruptcy estimation trial an
"about-face."

"Under Garlock's own theory, bankruptcy trust claims matter only
because they purportedly show that the discovery responses were
false," the objection says.

"Garlock does not -- and cannot -- allege that bankruptcy trust
claims, in and of themselves, are fraudulent, or that there is
anything wrong in principle with a claimant settling with a
solvent defendant and also making a claim to a bankruptcy trust."

Specific objections to the order, as written by the firm's
attorneys, are:

  -- Trust claims of 157 individuals who are not alleged to have
made any misrepresentations to Garlock are not relevant;

  -- The creation and internal deliberations of the trusts are not
relevant;

  -- The trusts' communications with firms or individuals with no
connection to the lawsuits are not relevant;

  -- Discovery into the trust claims of the 157 individuals is
unreasonably cumulative and duplicative;

  -- Evidence of the trusts' procedures can be obtained from more
convenient sources; and

  -- The burden and expense of including discovery into the 157
cases outweigh any likely benefit


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge to Study Defense Qualms in Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that Manhattan Supreme
Court Administrative Judge Peter Moulton told asbestos attorneys
that he would preside over asbestos trials to assess defendants'
concerns that they are being unfairly lumped together in New York
City asbestos litigation.  Judge Moulton, who has taken over the
asbestos litigation from Judge Sherry Klein Heitler since her
retirement, told a group of asbestos defense and plaintiffs
attorneys at a town hall meeting that he would look into
defendants' claims that they are being unfairly lumped together
despite being different types of businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three More York Deaths Linked to Toxic Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
York Press reported that the asbestos timebomb in York, England,
was linked to three more deaths at inquests held in the city.

Acting senior coroner Jonathan Leach ruled that the deaths of
Raymond 'Nev' Waterworth and George Robinson were due to
mesothelioma -- a lung cancer caused by exposure to the chemical.
He added that although a third pensioner, James Simpson, died due
to a heart problem, asbestos had also played its part.

Staff at the former York Carriageworks, where Mr Waterworth was
employed between 1966 and 1986, have been among the worst affected
by mesothelioma in the area.  The grandfather died at his home in
Whitethorn Close, Huntington, aged 74, last September.  A letter
he had written as part of a compensation claim before his death
was read to the court. Mr Waterworth, who started out as an
asbestos sprayer, wrote: "We were provided with masks, which
fitted badly.

"When we stopped for lunch there was no special shop to sit in.
There was asbestos all around in the atmosphere. There were around
eight others doing this job and all of them have now died."

Mr Leach said: "It is clear that it was that exposure that
resulted in the mesothelioma that killed him."

Mr Robinson, a retired electrician, died at St Leonard's Hospice,
in York, last November, aged 88, having lived in York Road,
Strensall.  Between 1947 and 1985, he worked for the Department of
the Environment, coming into contact with asbestos at various
Yorkshire sites.  The court heard he had also written a similar
letter before his death, in which he said: "At the time, none of
them knew that asbestos was dangerous. It was mixed and placed by
hand."

Mr Leach told the inquest which was held at the Barbican in York:
"My conclusion is that this death is one of industrial disease."

Mr Simpson, a retired plumber, from Lister Way, York, died from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aged 80 in September last
year.  Although the court heard Mr Simpson had a series of medical
problems, Mr Leach concluded: "It is clear that Mr Simpson was
exposed to asbestos and it was a result of that he died."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imo Industries Wants Out of Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reported that pump manufacturer
Imo Industries Inc. asked a Delaware federal judge to boot it from
a former U.S. Navy shipyard worker's suit against dozens of
government contractors, saying there is no evidence it's
responsible for the plaintiff's alleged asbestos exposure and
resulting mesothelioma.

Imo Industries, which manufactured and supplied turbines for ships
at the Ingall's Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, maintains
there is absolutely no evidence that plaintiff Charles D. Malone
worked with or around any asbestos-containing products
manufactured or supplied by Imo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Causes Death of Emsworth Engineer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chichester Observer reported that a heating engineer who died in
February passed away as a result of coming into contact with
asbestos 30 years ago, a coroner ruled.

Peter Edwards, 57, of Commonside, Westbourne, in England, died on
February 19 in St Wilfrid's Hospice. His inquest was held at Edes
House, in Chichester, on April 7.

Mr Edwards was told he had mesothelioma in 2014, described at the
inquest as 'absolutely devastating' for him and his family'.  He
was apprenticed at 15 in Emsworth and worked at installing,
maintaining and repairing boilers in the area, including at the
barracks on Thorney Island.

The inquest heard Mr Edwards was not told of the dangers of
working with asbestos at the time and no protective clothing was
issued to him.  He lived a healthy life, did not smoke and had
never been to hospital prior to the effects of the mesothelioma.

Senior coroner for West Sussex Penelope Schofield recorded a
conclusion of industrial disease as cause of death -- a result of
his exposure to asbestos in the 1970s and 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Gov. Signs Bill Modifying Fibro PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Van Velzer, writing for Brandenton Herald, reported that
attorneys representing victims of asbestos exposure say a bill
Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law will limit victims' ability to
recover losses.

Ducey said he signed the measure to increase transparency and
fairness in asbestos litigation.

"While victims are entitled to compensation, we must prevent
double recovery from occurring in the process. I want to ensure
we're doing everything possible to create an environment of
transparency and fairness in Arizona's legal system..." he said in
a signing statement.

Ducey signed the bill just two days after the end of a national
awareness week to promote information about asbestos-related
illness. Asbestos inhalation can result in asbestosis and lung
cancer such as mesothelioma, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

House Bill 2603 by Rep. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City,
requires people who file personal injury lawsuits for asbestos
exposure to provide a sworn statement of every asbestos-related
claim they've made or plan to make. The law also allows companies
being sued to ask a judge to delay proceedings if they believe the
injured person may be able to make a claim with one of dozens of
asbestos-injury trusts created by companies.

The Arizona Trial Lawyers Association says the measure places new
legal hurdles for Arizona residents with asbestos-related
illnesses including asbestosis and lung cancer such as
mesothelioma. Advocates say Arizona already has laws preventing
victims from getting more than their share of recovery.

"The goal of this bill is clear -- to delay asbestosis and
mesothelioma claims, to make them more expensive for victims and
to make sure no victim survives his or her asbestosis or
mesothelioma long enough to testify in court," said Janice
Goldstein, executive director for the association.

The conservative pro-business group known as the American
Legislative Exchange Council has been pushing similar legislation
in states around the country.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Spa Resort Demolition Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skip Descant, writing for The Dessert Sun, reported that
demolition of the Spa Resort hotel in downtown Palm Springs,
California, has taken a different turn as workers discovered
asbestos in the 1960s-era building.

The 229-room hotel and spa, owned by the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians, closed in June. Demolition began in September,
much to the dismay of local historic preservationists who wanted
to see the building re-purposed.

Despite the findings and efforts to remove the asbestos, tribal
officials say demolition is still on track to be complete by mid-
summer.

"We're actively in demo right now and we have been for, obviously,
some time now," said Kate Anderson, a spokeswoman for the Agua
Caliente.

"Sometimes when you're working with older buildings, you come
across things that, you know, change gears."

Anderson would not say where the asbestos was discovered, only
describing it as being "encased by other building material."  She
described the finding as "a real normal process when you're going
through demolition" and stressed that the public is not at risk.

"The area is a fully contained construction site. And the building
itself has been completely sealed. So there's absolutely no risk
whatsoever to the outside," Anderson said.

"We've done air-monitoring, so we know exactly what the air is
looking like out there. There's nothing to be concerned about
whatsoever if you're walking down the sidewalk or enjoying
downtown Palm Springs. Everything is fully contained inside of the
building."

The asbestos is being removed according to standards set by the
Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Anderson said.

Neither the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
nor the California Department of Toxic Substances Control were
aware of the asbestos discovery, according to representatives from
both agencies.

"We do not have any jurisdiction in tribal land so we would not
have any involvement," said Dottie Ellis-Merki, a public
information officer with the county environmental health
department.

And because the demolition is taking place on tribal trust land,
it is not a federal or state undertaking. Therefore, it is not
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act or the California
Environmental Quality Act.

The hotel, a classic example of desert modernism, was designed by
William Cody, Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison -- all well-known
names in the region's architecture community.

In November, Agua Caliente officials announced JCJ Architecture of
San Diego had been commissioned to master-plan the 22-acre
downtown site that will serve as the tribe's next hotel
entertainment district.

The site extends from the corner Tahquitz Canyon Way and Indian
Canyon Drive to the corner of Indian Canyon and Amado Road, and
east to El Segundo Road. The Hilton Palm Springs is not included
in the master-planning site, according to tribal officials.

It's not yet clear what level of development Agua Caliente has in
mind, how many rooms the new hotel will include or if any
expansion to the existing Spa Casino is envisioned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Magnet Joinery Worker Appeals for Fibro Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keighley Online reported that a cancer-suffering former Magnet
Joinery worker who fears he was exposed to asbestos at the site is
appealing for ex-colleagues' help in his legal battle.

Geoffrey Dawson, 79, of Keighley, in England, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in January this year after he started to suffer from
back pain and breathing problems in late 2014.  He believes that
he was exposed to asbestos while working for Magnet Joinery Ltd
between the 1970s and 2001 and that has caused his incurable
cancer.

Geoffrey has instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers at
Irwin Mitchell to investigate the working conditions at the
company and whether more could have been done by his employers to
protect him from the deadly dust and fibres which caused his
mesothelioma.

Both Geoffrey and his legal team are appealing to his former
colleagues at Magnet Joinery Ltd, where he worked from 1973 until
his retirement in 2001, to come forward with any information about
the presence of asbestos and whether measures were taken to
prevent employees being exposed to asbestos.

Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Leeds office, representing Geoff, said: "Mesothelioma
is an aggressive and incurable cancer which causes so much
distress for people like Geoff who worked in industries where
asbestos was regularly used.

"Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of
asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is. We hope
that former employees of Magnet will come forward to help us with
our investigations.

"The company was an integral part of the town of Keighley during
the period it was based there and it's important that we now help
Geoff and his family get answers about his exposure to the deadly
dust."

During his working life at Magnet Joinery Limited Geoff regularly
worked in and around areas where it was very dirty and dusty in
the factory. Magnet manufactured several products at the site that
are likely to have contained asbestos.

Geoff said: "My wife, Barbara and I were shocked and devastated by
my diagnosis and are struggling to come to terms with it. I have
always been fit and healthily throughout my life and enjoyed an
active lifestyle.

"I never knew that the work that I did so many years ago would
affect my life now. I can no longer do the things I used to enjoy
and I'm very concerned about what the future holds for us.

"I really hope that my former work colleagues and employees of
Magnet Joinery Ltd will now help the team at Irwin Mitchell and
provide any information about the conditions that I worked in so
my family and I can get the justice that I deserve."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Affirms $1.6-Mil. Talc Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reported that a New Jersey appellate
court has affirmed a $1.6 million verdict entered against a raw
talc supplier, finding in part that the plaintiffs had presented
enough evidence to satisfy the frequency, regularity, and
proximity test.

In the March 27 order, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey
Superior Court also opined that the trial court did not err when
it refused to preclude the testimony of several plaintiff experts.

Plaintiffs Steven G. Kaenzig and Linda Kaenzig filed the asbestos-
related suit against a number of defendants, including Whittaker,
Clark & Daniels Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naval Veteran Dies After Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Geddes, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that a
Hedge End naval veteran died after asbestos exposure during
construction of a power plant near Southampton.

Alan Maynard, of Lynton Road, England, inhaled fibres whilst
working as a pipe lagger on Marchwood Power Station in the 1960s,
an inquest heard.  The 76-year-old was diagnosed last year with
malignant mesothelioma, a cancer strongly linked to asbestos
exposure, Winchester Coroner's Court was told.  He died on New
Year's Eve.

Grahame Short, senior coroner for central Hampshire, recorded a
verdict of death by industrial disease.  He said he "suspected" Mr
Maynard was also exposed to asbestos during his time on HMS
Bulwark in the 1950s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Directed to Pay $9M in Fibro Row
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that a New York
federal judge accepted a magistrate's recommendation that
Travelers Indemnity Co. shell out more than $9 million in legal
fees, costs and interest to two companies facing liability from
asbestos claims against a subsidiary, overruling Travelers'
objections.  U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted in full
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis' report and recommendation,
which called for Travelers to pay $235,000 in fees that Atlas
Copco North America LLC incurred in the instant suit over the
insurer's duty to defend.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Wins GBP176,000 Fibro Compensation Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bristol Post reported that the widow of a plasterer from
Bristol, England, who died from cancer after being exposed to
asbestos whilst refurbishing a string of high street banks has won
more than GBP176,000 in damages.

Colin Sheppard died in October 2010, aged 65, from mesothelioma,
an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs, caused by
breathing in asbestos fibres.  What started with a trip to his GP,
suffering from a "slight dry cough", swiftly developed into
agonising pain and breathlessness in the months before his death.

But Mr Sheppard was well enough to sign a witness statement before
he died, pointing the finger of blame at bank refurbishment jobs
he did between 1978 and 1992.  He said he remembered being exposed
to asbestos whilst stripping suspended ceilings from Abbey
National and Barclays branches.

His widow, Barbara Jean Sheppard, sued his employers at the time,
Bristol-based C.W. Duke & Sons Ltd, and CDWT Properties Limited,
of Bradley Stoke.

The companies denied Mr Sheppard had suffered asbestos exposure on
the job, but Judge Graham Robinson found that he probably had.  He
awarded Mrs Sheppard GBP176,779 compensation, including GBP75,000
for the acute pain and suffering her husband endured before his
untimely death.  The judge said that, as an experienced plasterer,
Mr Sheppard would have been able to distinguish between fibre
board ceilings and tiles containing asbestos.

The companies' claims that there was never asbestos present in the
ceilings he stripped out was 'incredible and incapable of belief',
he ruled.  He was probably exposed on three or four occasions and
that made a 'material contribution' to the onset of his fatal
cancer many years later.  His exposure breached statutory
regulations, codes of practice and health and safety guidelines
which were in force at the time.

The judge said: "I conclude that Mrs Sheppard has established that
her late husband was exposed to asbestos whilst in the employment
of the defendants".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Wilde" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remanded to the in the Civil
District of Orleans the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled MARY JANE WILDE v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET AL., SECTION
"L"(5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1486 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Fallon's order and reasons dated May 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/bz1omkfrom Leagle.com.

Mary Jane Wilde, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc. formerly known as Avondale
Marine Ways, Inc., Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates (New Orleans), Michael Kevin Powell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP.

Eagle Inc, formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., formerly known as Todd
Shipyards Corporation formerly known as Todd-Johnson Dry Docks,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene Fendler, Esq. --
sgfendler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis (New Orleans), Charles B.
Wilmore, Esq. -- cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis (New
Orleans), Joseph T. Wilson, Esq. -- jtwilson@liskow.com -- Liskow
& Lewis (New Orleans), Scott C. Seiler, Esq. --
scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis (New Orleans) & Tracy C.
Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis (New
Orleans).

Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., formerly known as Louisiana Power &
Light, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. (New Orleans) & Walter Scott Brown, Entergy
Services, Inc. (New Orleans).

Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
(Metairie), Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale (Metairie), Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale (Metairie) & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale (Metairie).

CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation formerly known as Viacom
Inc. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Third
Party Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot
L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Foster Wheeler LLC, Third Party Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens Illinois Inc, doing business as O-I, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins,
Krutz & Tardy, LLP (New Orleans), Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP (New Orleans) & Mary Reeves
Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP (Jackson).

McCarty Corporation, Third Party Defendant, represented by Susan
Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

General Electric Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill (Houston), Jamie M
Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill (Baton Rouge), Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill (Houston) & Jennifer
D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill (Houston).

Bayer CropScience, Inc., as successor to Rhone-Poulenc AG Company
formerly known as Amchem Products, Inc. formerly known as Benjamin
Foster, Third Party Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New Orleans),
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New
Orleans), Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC (New Orleans), McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New Orleans), Melissa M.
Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New
Orleans), Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC (New Orleans), Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New Orleans) & Perrey S. Lee,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC (New Orleans).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment OK'd in "Landry" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated
May 21, 2015, granted defendant Huntington Ingalls Inc.'s motion
for partial summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled AGNES LANDRY, ET AL. v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY
COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION: "H" (3) (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Milazzo's Decision is available at http://is.gd/PERarUfrom
Leagle.com.

Agnes Richard Landry, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Brent Joseph Landry, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Brenda Landry Fanguy, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.
Deborah Landry Naquin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. formerly known as Avondale Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Avondale Shipyards, Inc. formerly known as Avondale
Marine Ways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier,
Blue Williams, LLP (Metairie), Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP (Metairie), Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue
Williams, LLP (Metairie), Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP
(Metairie), Laura M. Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP (Metairie) &
Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP (Metairie).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Exclusion Motion in PI Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued
an order on May 26, 2015, denying plaintiffs Graham Yates and
Becky Yates' motion to strike defendant Ford Motor Company's
Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Arnold Brody.

Judge Flanagan held that the "defendants have been sufficiently
diligent in complying with scheduling deadlines regarding motions
in limine pertaining to Dr. Brody, where they filed motion
challenging the expert by the March 31 deadline initially set for
motions in limine, and have made clear in subsequent conferences
and filings that they did not intend to abandon their challenge.
Plaintiffs' protests of suffering prejudice from the filing of the
Ford's May 8 Motion are not well-taken, given that plaintiffs have
been made well-aware of defendants' opposition to this expert's
reliance on "every exposure" theory since at least March 31.  The
court finds good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to
allow defendant Ford's May 8 Motion."

The case is GRAHAM YATES and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, No.
5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/T97sy0from Leagle.com.

Graham Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Becky Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica
Floyd Middlebrooks, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb, Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP, Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP & Shepherd D. Wainger, Esq. --
swainger@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick,
LLP, Bruce T. Bishop, Esq. -- bbishop@wilsav.com -- Willcox &
Savage, PC, Holly A. Hempel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP, Jason Larry Walters, Esq. -- jwalters@davisandhamrick.com --
Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P. Greene, Willcox & Savage, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Modifies WCB Ruling in "Beck" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, in a memorandum and order dated May 28, 2015, modified
the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed Jan. 24,
2013, which ruled, among other things, that the employer and its
third-party administrator were not entitled to reimbursement from
the Special Disability Fund.  The Appellate Division modifies the
decision by reversing so much thereof as denied reimbursement from
the Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law
Section 15 (8) (ee); the matter remitted to the Workers'
Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with
the Court's decision.

In this case, in 1997, Dorothy Beck's husband established a claim
for workers' compensation benefits for asbestos related pleural
disease and chronic irritative bronchitis, resulting from
prolonged asbestos exposure at work.  Following his death from
lung cancer in 2005, the claimant applied for death benefits.  The
employer and its third-party administrator opposed and, in the
alternative, sought reimbursement for the death benefits from the
Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law
Section 15 (8).  The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately
awarded claimant death benefits and determined, among other
things, that reimbursement from the Fund was inappropriate.

The case is DOROTHY BECK, as Widow of EDWARD BECK, Deceased,
Claimant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., et
al., Appellants, and SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND, Respondent. WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, 517808 (N.Y. Sup. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated May 28, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/wfjeFGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of 4 Cos. in "Malone" Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the Court
grant summary judgment in favor of defendants Crane Co., Ingersoll
Rand Company, Velan Valve Corp., Zurn Industries, Inc., and Pfizer
Inc., and dismiss each defendant with prejudice as fact discovery
is closed and there is no opposition by plaintiffs Charles D.
Malone and Elizabeth Malone.

The case is CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-406-SLR-SRF (D. Del.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate
Fallon's report and recommendation dated May 22, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/EdenaWfrom Leagle.com.

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

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

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

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert
Alexander Ranieri, Esq. -- rranieri@dmclaw.com -- Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote, P.C..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopeman Brothers Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Stokes Nolte,
Esq. -- rnolte@rjm-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC,
Stephanie S. Levitsky, Esq. -- slevitsky@rjm-law.com -- Reilly
Janiczek & McDevitt PC & Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Esq. --
kharmon@rjm-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowserve US Inc. Solely as Successor to Edward Valves, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Willard F. Preston, III, Goldfein &
Joseph.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Djokic" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, Zoran Djokic's former employer,
moves to dismiss the complaint against it under CPLR Section 3211
for failure to state a cause of action based on New York State's
Workers' Compensation Law.  The Defendant asserts that the
plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy against US Steel is workers'
compensation benefits and not a common law action, citing Section
53 of the New York State Workers' Compensation Law.  US Steel also
asserts that discovery was stayed when it filed this motion, and
CPLR Section 3407 is inapplicable to Mr. Djokic because he died on
December 14, 2014.  US Steel also seeks to adjourn all depositions
if the court grants its motion to dismiss or, if the depositions
proceed, defendant argues they should be held inadmissible against
it.

In a decision dated May 20, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion,
holding that US Steel has not demonstrated that New York has any
interest in the application of this State's Workers' Compensation
Law to the action.  Conversely, Pennsylvania has a great interest
in the application of its law as the state where the injury
occurred (potentially, over a period of three years) and where the
plaintiff also worked for the defendant in Pennsylvania throughout
that time.  Judge Moulton held that Pennsylvania's Legislature has
clearly and unequivocally expressed that State's interest in
having its workers' compensation law apply to all industrial
accidents that occur within its borders.

Further, because US Steel is domiciled in Pennsylvania, that state
has a strong interest, "in enforcing the decision of its
domiciliaries to accept the burdens as well as the benefits of
that State's loss distribution rules," Judge Moulton ruled.  The
fact that New York is the forum state does not displace the
normally applicable rule, the judge pointed out.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
VENETIA KONTOGOURIS, as Administratrix for the Estate of ZORAN
DJOKIC, and VENETIA KONTOGOURIS, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, INC. et al. Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190397/2014 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/Dvqc9tfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Show Cause Ordered in "Hall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a memorandum
and order dated May 26, 2015, directed asbestos plaintiffs James
Hall and Maryilyn Hall to show cause why Defendants CBS
Corporation, Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., Goulds Pumps,
Inc., and J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co. should not be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of timely service.  Judge Ross pointed
out that the record contains neither proof of service nor entry of
appearance of behalf of the Defendants.

The case is JAMES HALL and MARYILYN HALL, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATIONS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-
1737-JAR (E.D. Mo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Ross' Decision is
available at http://is.gd/ZnOV4Yfrom Leagle.com.

James Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND
BERN & Sophie Zavaglia, NAPOLI AND BERN.

Marilyn Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND
BERN & Sophie Zavaglia, NAPOLI AND BERN.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, represented by James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. McGuire, Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND
TIVIN, LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER
BROOM.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine,
SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Megan A. Schwarz, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE & Megan Ashley Schwarz,
SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
& Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew R. Fields, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl
J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.
John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
& Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Young Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL
AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO Coverage Suit Junked as to Gen. Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the action involving an insurance coverage dispute between
Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc. -- a company which for decades
engaged in the business of handling, installing, disturbing,
removing, and selling asbestos-containing insulation materials --
and several of its insurers, Senior Judge William M. Nickerson of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the
motion for voluntary dismissal of the action as to General
Insurance Company of America.

General Insurance and WECCO entered into a confidential settlement
agreement on December 15, 2014, resolving all claims between them
in the action and the parallel action in the D.C. Superior Court.
Pursuant to that agreement, General Insurance has or will transfer
the settlement amount to the qualified settlement fund established
by WECCO.  In exchange, WECCO has: (1) withdrawn all outstanding
tenders of claims to General Insurance for defense and indemnity;
(2) agreed not to tender any further claims to General Insurance;
and (3) agreed that any judgment or award obtained by WECCO
against any non-settling insurer will be automatically reduced by
the amount, if any, that a Court determines General Insurance
would have been liable to pay that insurer as a result of a
contribution claim made by that insurer against General Insurance.

In their joint motion, General Insurance and WECCO are seeking an
Order that: (1) all claims by and between General Insurance and
WECCO in this action are dismissed with prejudice and without
effect on WECCO's claims against the remaining parties; (2) any
judgment or award obtained by WECCO against any other insurer will
be automatically reduced by the amount, if any, that a Court
determines by judgment General Insurance would have been liable to
pay such other insurer(s); and (3) WECCO be substituted for
General Insurance as the proper counterclaim defendant in this
case.

The case is GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. THE WALTER E.
CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. et al., CASE NO. WMN-12-3307 (D. Md.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Nickerson's memorandum dated May 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/HfoGUKfrom Leagle.com.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, Counter
Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin Rodes Dryden,
Esq. -- bdryden@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, Ana M
Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP &
Michael Thompson, Esq. -- mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley and
Lardner LLP.

The Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brandon D Almond, Esq. -- brandon.almond@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair, Esq. --
tom.blair@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Prashant
Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Brandon D
Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Thomas Blair, Troutman
Sanders LLP & Prashant Kumar Khetan, Cause of Action.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C Cohn,
Gordon and Rees LLP & William Patrick Shelley, Gordon & Rees.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees LLP, Jacob C Cohn, Gordon
and Rees LLP & William Patrick Shelley, Gordon & Rees.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Defendant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Steven E Leder, The Leder Law Group LLC,
Danielle S Rosborough, Shipman and Goodwin LLP, James Pio Ruggeri,
Shipman and Goodwin LLP, Joshua P Mayer, Shipman and Goodwin LLP &
Julie Furst Maloney, The Leder Law Group LLC.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Harry Lee, Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Catherine Cockerham,
Steptoe and Johnson LLC.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company,
Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Allison R Radocha,
Christie Sullivan & Young, P.C., John C Sullivan, Christie
Sullivan & Young, P.C. & Vincent Candiello, Post and Schell PC.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by
Catherine Cockerham, Steptoe and Johnson LLC.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey S Raskin, Esq. -- jraskin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP & William Brad Nes, Esq. --
bnes@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Albert J Mezzanotte, Jr, Whiteford
Taylor and Preston & Gardner M Duvall, Whiteford Taylor and
Preston LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer Winter Persico, Gordon and Rees
LLP, Jacob C Cohn, Gordon and Rees LLP & William Patrick Shelley,
Gordon & Rees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Eaton Corp. Insurance Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in
a decision dated May 28, 2015, affirmed a trial court's denial of
First State Insurance Company's motion for stay pending
arbitration of its asbestos insurance coverage dispute with Eaton
Corporation.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court properly denied
First State's motion for stay, because the claims for which Eaton
sought the trial court's ruling were not within the ambit of the
arbitration provision in the Cuttler-Hammer Agreement.

The Court of Appeals also ruled that although both parties devote
considerable time discussing whether First State waived its right
to arbitrate, that question need not be our focus because the
underlying claims -- the subject of Eaton's declaratory judgment
action -- did not implicate the arbitration provision in the
Agreement.

The appeals case is EATON CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES [Appeal by
First State Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants], NO. 101654
(Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/I6o7HWfrom Leagle.com.

Timothy D. Johnson, Esq. -- tjohnson@cavitch.com -- Gregory E.
O'Brien, Esq. -- gobrien@cavitch.com -- Cavitch, Familo & Durkin
Co., L.P.A., 1300 East Ninth Street, 20th Floor, Cleveland, Ohio
44114; James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin, L.L.P., 1875 K Street,
N.W., Suite 600, Washington D.C. 20006, Attorneys for Appellant.

Julie A. Perkins, Anthony J. Lacerva, Tim L. Collins, Collins &
Scanlon, L.L.P., 3300 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland,
Ohio 44113; Kay M. Brady, Samantha L. Brutout, John T. Waldron, K
& L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15222, Attorneys for Appellees, Eaton Corporation.

Michelle J. Sheehan, Esq. -- msheehan@reminger.com -- Reminger
Co., L.P.A., 101 West Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400, Midland
Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Allstate Insurance Company.

Alba General Insurance Co., et al., c/o Mendes & Mount L.L.P., 750
Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019., Alba General Insurance
Co., et al.

John I. Grossbart, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, L.L.P., 8000
Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois 60606, David Ross, Holly M. Wilson,
Reminger Company, L.P.A., 1400 Midland Building, 101 West Prospect
Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115., Arrowood Indemnity Company.

Michael J. Baughman, Cohn & Baughman, 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite
900, Chicago, Illinois 60606, David J. Fagnilli, Davis & Young,
1200 Fifth Third Center, 600 Superior Avenue, E., Cleveland, Ohio
44114; Richard C.O. Rezie, Gallagher Sharp, Bulkley Building,
Sixth Floor, 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Century
Indemnity Company.

John R. Gerstein, Esq. -- jack.gerstein@troutmansanders.com --
Merril J. Hirsh, Esq. -- merril.hirsh@troutmansanders.com --
Steven W. McNutt, Esq. -- steven.mcnutt@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders, L.L.P., 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000,
Washington, D.C. 20004., Columbia Casualty Company, et al.

Anna Marie Sosso, 5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15237., Employees Mutual Casualty Company.

Gary W. Johnson, Weston Hurd, L.L.P., The Tower at Erieview, 1301
East Ninth Street, Suite 1900, Cleveland, Ohio 44114., Executive
Risk Indemnity, Inc.

Robert D. Anderle, Esq. -- rdanderle@sseg-law.com -- Daniel F.
Gourash, Esq. -- dfgourash@sseg-law.com -- Jazmyn J. Stover, Esq.
-- jstover@sseg-law.com -- Seeley, Savidge, Ebert & Gourash
Company, L.L.P., 26600 Detroit Road, 3rd Floor, Cleveland, Ohio
44145, Federal Insurance Company.

James R. Murray, Esq. -- jmurray@tresslerllp.com -- Todd Rowe,
Esq. -- trowe@tresslerllp.com -- Trressler, L.L.P., 233 South
Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606, David A.
Schaefer, McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Company, 101 West
Prospect Avenue, 1800 Midland Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115,
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, et al.

Dennis J. Bartek, Natalie M. Niese, Bartek Law Office, 2300 East
Market Street, Suite E, Akron, Ohio 44312, Granite State Insurance
Company, et al.

Corrine O. Lane, Esq. -- clane@goodwin.com -- James P. Ruggeri,
Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin, L.L.P., 1875 K.
Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006, Edward B. Parks,
II, Danielle S. Rosborough, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Third
Floor, Suite A, Washington, D.C. 20036., Hartford Accident &
Indemnity Company.

National Casualty Company, 8877 North Gainey Center Drive,
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258, National Casualty Company.

New Hampshire Insurance Company, 175 Water Street, 18th Floor, New
York, New York 10038, New Hampshire Insurance Company.

Seth M. Jaffe, Laura S. McKay, Two Prudential Plaza, 180 North
Stetson Avenue, Suite 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60601., North River
Insurance Company, et al.

Carlos Del Carpio, Esq. -- cdelcarpio@cmk.com -- James J. Hickey,
Esq. -- jhickey@cmk.com -- Carroll, McNulty & Kull, L.L.C., 100
North Riverside Plaza, 21st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Larry
C. Greathouse, Gallagher Sharp, Bulkley Building, 7th Floor, 1501
Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, TIG Insurance Company.

Arthur M. Kaufman, Esq. -- amkaufman@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn, Loeser &
Parks, L.L.P., 200 Public Square, Suite 2800, Cleveland, Ohio
44114, Oliver J. Dunford, Thompson Hine, L.L.P., 3900 Key Center,
127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Travelers Casualty &
Surety Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: June 24 Conference Set in "Cotten" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California scheduled a
settlement conference for June 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in the
lawsuit captioned PATRICIA COTTEN, et al., Plaintiffs. v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-02124-JD
(JSC)(N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of Magistrate Corley's Order dated May 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/ZQN2rWfrom Leagle.com.

Patricia Cotten, as Successor-in-interest to and as Wrongful Death
Heir of Patrick Mahoney, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by David
R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell
LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP & Richard
Martin Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Maureen Duncan, as Wrongful Death Heir of Patrick Mahoney,
Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Michael Mahoney, as Wrongful Death Heir of Patrick Mahoney,
Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Colleen Hansen, as Wrongful Death Heir of Patrick Mahoney,
Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Christine Barros, as Wrongful Death Heir of Patrick Mahoney,
Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy
Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by
Christina M Glezakos, Brydon Hugo & Parker, Gregory Scott Rosse,
Hugo Parker, LLP, Thomas J Moses, Edward R. Hugo, Brydon Hugo &
Parker, Michelle M. Clowser, Selman-Breitman LLP & Paul M.
Bessette, Brydon Hugo Parker.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jane B Yee, Esq. --
jyee@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome Martin Ridley & Shawn Michael
Ridley, Esq. -- sridley@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome et al LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S.
Johnson, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth, Dylan Daniel Rudolph, WFBM, LLP
dba Walsworth & Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James
Kelly, Tucker Ellis LLP & Peggy S. Doyle, Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan,
Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP & Carla
Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz
LLP.

Owens Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Meghan R McMeel,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Mishan Raini Wroe, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff
Hardin LLP.

Parker Hannifin Corp., Defendant, represented by Joseph Blaise
Adams, Bassi Martini Edlin & Blum, LLP.

Triple A Machine Shop Inc., Defendant, represented by Arpi
Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz
LLP.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Todd Sheldon, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth, Derek S. Johnson,
WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Charles S. Park, Hugo Parker, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Inc. Had $927-Mil. NARCO Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., had $927 million NARCO-related
asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions related to two predecessor companies:

   (1) North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold
       in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement
       used in high temperature applications). Claimants consist
       largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO
       asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational
       setting.

   (2) Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix), which was sold in 2014,
       manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
       chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants
       consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
       asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
       vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

As of March 31, 2015, NARCO-related asbestos liabilities were $927
million.

In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30,
2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust
reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in
accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved
by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants
must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other
things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award
amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide,
input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO
claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the
claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of
the Trust Distribution Procedures.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. As of March 31, 2015,
Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual
Contribution Claims.

Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are expected to be paid during the initial years of trust
operations. Such payments are not subject to an annual cap.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims
($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO
filed for bankruptcy protection ($37 million) and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In
the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the
estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos
related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs,
based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous
bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical
assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing
rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust
Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims
submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies
estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range
of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe
that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any
other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount
in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making
long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual
carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis
of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell In'tl. Has $622MM Bendix Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., had $622 million Bendix-related
asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Had 9,193 Bendix Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
There were 9,193 unresolved asbestos-related claims against
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix division, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually
filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-
related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future
claims using average resolution values for the previous five
years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost
of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each
year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability
for future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $8MM Est. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation estimates its asbestos-related
aggregate liability at approximately $8,065,000, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $6,700,000 and $11,200,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March
31, 2015. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$8,065,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2015. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The diverse end users of the products are in a range
of industries, including manufacturing, power generation and
distribution, utilities, wind power, warehouses, commercial
construction, oil exploration and refining, among others.



                            *********

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  * * *