CAR_Public/150612.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 117


                            Headlines


2700 ALVINGROOM: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
ADRIANNA'S BANQUETS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending v. PM
ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Won't Certify Class in 18 "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Re-trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case
ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in Miner Case
ALTRIA GROUP: "Carroll" Plaintiffs Moved for Class Certification
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Price Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case

AMAZON.COM LLC: Removed "Chavez" Class Suit to N.D. California
AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 2016
AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 2016
APPLIED STORYTELLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
B & R FENCING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT

BANCO DE CHILE: Judgment on Claim Under Judicial Review
BANCO DE CHILE: Complaint Submitted by National Corporation
BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Class Action Against Trust in Early Stages
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Peripheral Vascular Patch Products
BCP IV: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale

BE-THIN INC: "Geismann" Suit Moved From Missouri to S.D. New York
BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" Suit Moved From California to N.D. Georgia
BEN WELL: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
BENEDETTI FARMS: Recalls Chicken and Turkey Sausage Products
BEST CASH: Recalls Green Raisin Products Due to Sulfites

BOULDER BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Pennsylvania Appealed Decision in AWP Litigation
BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,600 Plavix Claims Filed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuits by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan
BRISTOL-MYERS: 460 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending Over Byetta

BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Freed" Suit Over Company Merger
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Xu" Suit in Cal. Over Company Merger
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Jew" Suit Over Illegal Company Sale
BTI SERVICES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BURGER KING: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court

BUTLER & HOSCH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Act Notice, Suit Claims
CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miranda" Suit Says
CASTLE ROCK: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
CEMEX S.A.B.: New Hearing Set for July 7 in Israeli Class Action
CHARLES E. PHYLE: Faces "Dorr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CHC GROUP: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Cheryl Kater Class Action
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeals Court Denied Bid for Supervisory Review
CIRCLE BAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Cantu" Suit Claims
CLARFIELD OKON: Sued in N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA

CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on June 22
CLECO CORPORATION: Rapides Parish Court Entered Scheduling Order
CMS ENERGY: Faces Suit Alleging Age Discrimination in Michigan
CREATIVE WOODWORK: Faces "Abiche" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DEMES GOURMET: Recalls Poultry and Pork Products

DOCUMENT STORAGE: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DR PRAEGER'S: Recalls Gluten Free Veggie Burgers Due to Soy
ECOPETROL S.A.: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Pipeline Spill
ECOPETROL S.A.: May Still File Answer to BT Energy Case
ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Approved Settlement in "Berk" Case
FOUR R'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abuisneineh" Suit Says
FRESH DEL MONTE: Dismissal of Former Banana Workers Suit Affirmed
FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Circuit Court Appeal Still Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Decision of Hawaii Supreme Court Remains Pending

FRESH PROMISE: Bid to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment Okayed
FRONTIERE NATURAL: Recalls Elk Meat Products Due to E. Coli
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Levy" Suit Over Defective Microwave Oven
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Injury Suit Resulting From Zofran Use
GLOBAL MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilveti" Suit Says

GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota Faces Constitutional Action
GUO'S GARDEN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HEMISPHERE GROUP: Recalls Vietnamese Cashews Due to Salmonella
HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendant in 5 Class Actions
INOGEN INC: Christi and Holford File Securities Class Action

INTEL CORP: Nov. 6 Hearing on Amended Class Certification Bid
INTEL CORP: July 2015 Final Fairness Hearing in Antitrust Suit
INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Appeal in Mcafee Shareholder Suit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Unit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Medical Monitoring Claims

J.C. PENNY: Calif. Court Certifies False Advertising Class Suit
JEAN-GEORGES: Faces "Fine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM: Faces Princima Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Henry" Suit Moved From New York to California
KINDER MORGAN: Class Action Filed by Private Landowners in Calif.

KINDER MORGAN: "Allen" Case v. El Paso Now Closed
KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal Order Entered in Reorganization Case
KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Action Stayed Pending Capex Litigation
LIFE TIME: Settlement of TCPA Litigation Preliminarily Approved

LIFE TIME: Faces Suit by St. Clair Employees' Retirement System
LIFE TIME: Faces "Bell" Class Action
LIFE TIME: Faces "Lusk" Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guinane" Suit Over Flooring Products
LVNV FUNDING: Removed "Javan" Suit to New Jersey District Court

MATCH.COM LLC: Removes "Graf" Class Suit to C.D. California
MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Devi" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
MISSION LINEN: Faces "Fematt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L MILK PRODUCERS: Bid for Exclusion From Class Due July 14
NY AMSTERDAM NEWS: Fails to Accommodate Under ADA, Suit Claims

OAKLAND HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
OPENGATE CAPITAL: Faces "Mitra" Suit Over Termination Notice
OSI SYSTEMS: Securities Class Action at Early Stage of Litigation
PALL CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
PELLA CORPORATION: South Carolina Judge Tosses "Walters" Suit

PFIZER INC: Suit Over Side Effects of Parkinson's Drugs Settled
PORTLAND GENERAL: Trojan Investment Recovery Class Suits Pending
QUINCY STREET: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Contamination
RESTAURANTE EL GRAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wunstell & Blanchard Action
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defendants & Committee File Joint Report in MDL
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Himmerite Action
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hassett" Class Action

SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Keller" Suit in Georgia District Court
SIRIUS XM: Appeals Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters
SIRIUS XM: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suits Filed Motion to Transfer
SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Smart Lipo Capsules Due to Sibutramine
SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholder Files Class Action in N.J.

SPOKEO INC: Removes "Taylor" Suit to New Jersey District Court
SPRINGLEAF HOLDINGS: New Judge in W.Va. Consumer Finance Suit
SUNWATER LIMITED: Callide Dam Flood Victims to File Class Suit
SUPERVALU INC: To Defend Class Action Against Company, IOS
SUPERVALU INC: Filed Petition for Certiorari to Supreme Court

SUPERVALU INC: Payments to Class Members Completed in February
SUPERVALU INC: Expects Consolidated Complaint Will Be Filed
TFORCE ENERGY: "Eld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TIME WARNER: Entered Into MOU to Settle Comcast Merger Actions
TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Removed "Williams" Suit to N.D. California
TWO DIMITRIS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
UNITED AIRLINES: Removes "Ward" Suit to California District Court
US BANK: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation in Ohio

US SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
VALENTI MID-ATLANTIC: Sued Over Wheelchair Inaccessible Parking
VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in Interthinx Case Has Final Okay
VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of Amended ISO Complaint Affirmed
VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder et. al. v. ACORD Corp. Still Pending

VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
VISION HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Home Improvement Contracts
YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Wang" Class Action
YUM! BRANDS: Briefing on Plaintiff's Appeal Completed
YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Taco Bell Motion to Dismiss or Strike

YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims
YUM! BRANDS: Court Approved Settlement in "Smith" Class Action
ZUFFA LLC: Transferred "Kingsbury" Suit to Nevada District Court


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 65 Pending Suits as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $423.2-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 700 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,333 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 255 PI Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,229 Fibro Cases at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 1,046 New Fibro Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 7 Trial of "Masephol" and "Sydow" Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welch Paper Excluded as Evidence in "Yates" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bare Metal Defense" Wins in " Schwartz" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Meyers" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted to ZIC, AIU

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Says Service After 5Yrs. is Timely
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Handy" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Can Present Settlement Evidence at Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Doctor's Opinion in "Byer" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Junk "Bardone" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Summary Judgment in "Arendt" Suit


                            *********


2700 ALVINGROOM: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Garcia, Veroncia Vargas, and Veronica Mandujano v. 2700
AlvingRoom Court, L.P., Alton Management Corporation, E.C. REEMS
GARDENS APARTMENTS and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15772289 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who
suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of
rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants'
failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to
the subject premises.

The Defendants operates apartment units in County of Alameda,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


ADRIANNA'S BANQUETS: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alaa Abuisneineh, individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals v. Adrianna's Banquets, Inc. d/b/a
Adrianna's Sportsbar, Case No. 2015-CH-08743 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June
2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of sending
unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message calls to
the cellular telephones of consumers throughout Illinois and the
surrounding region.

Adrianna's Banquets, Inc. own and operate Adrianna's Sportsbar in
Markham, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com


ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending v. PM
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
a total of 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases against Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA") are pending in various U.S. state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of
April 20, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts.


ALTRIA GROUP: Courts Won't Certify Class in 18 "Lights" Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015,
in addition to the federal district court in the MDL proceeding,
18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by
a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case, although plaintiffs are seeking
reinstatement of the judgment. See The Price Case below for
further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010,
plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme
Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed
by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an
order by the trial court that refused to certify a class.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with
prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's
dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary
case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin October 19 in Aspinall Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is scheduled
to begin October 19, 2015, in the Aspinall case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary
judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment
on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to
deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed
further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In
March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the
order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against
Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.
In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts
Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court
denied. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Re-trial to Begin February 2016 in Larsen Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that re-trial is scheduled
to begin on February 22, 2016, in the Larsen case.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for partial summary judgment
regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In
April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an
element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In
June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior
ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim.
Re-trial is scheduled to begin on February 22, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in Miner Case
---------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no trial date has been
set in the Miner case.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL
proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December
2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a
class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court
granted class certification. The certified class includes those
individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010,
purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for
personal consumption in Arkansas. Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA") filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling
to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. On February 26,
2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's class
certification order. No trial date has been set.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Carroll" Plaintiffs Moved for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in December 2009, the
state trial court in Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) (pending
in Delaware) denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class
representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved
the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant
in the case. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs moved for class
certification.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Held in Price Case
----------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument was
scheduled for May 19, 2015, in the Price case.

Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January
2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff
class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0
billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA"). In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November
2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition
for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of
Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and
dismissed the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.

In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM
USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA's opposition to
the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to
reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court denied
plaintiffs' petition in December 2012. In January 2013, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. In
January 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme
Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. In
February 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion.
Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the Fifth Judicial District
was heard in October 2013. In April 2014, the Fifth Judicial
District reversed and ordered reinstatement of the original $10.1
billion trial court judgment against PM USA. In May 2014, PM USA
filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a petition for a supervisory
order and a petition for leave to appeal. The filing of the
petition for leave to appeal automatically stayed the Fifth
District's mandate pending disposition by the Illinois Supreme
Court. Also in May 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking recusal
of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices,
which PM USA opposed. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme
Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took no
action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order. Justice
Karmeier denied plaintiffs' motion seeking his recusal. On
February 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking recusal or
disqualification of Justice Karmeier. On March 11, 2015, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request that it order
the disqualification of Justice Karmeier and referred the recusal
request to Justice Karmeier to decide. Oral argument was scheduled
for May 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence in Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that UST LLC ("UST") and/or
its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other
individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability in these cases are based on various
theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection
statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including
compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief,
including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016.


AMAZON.COM LLC: Removed "Chavez" Class Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eric Chavez, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Amazon.com LLC, Case No.
CGC-15-545157, was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-02186-KAW to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Roger Markham, Esq.
      Janine Renee Menhennet, Esq.
      Peggy J. Reali, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 399-3995
      Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
      E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
              jmenhennet@markham-law.com
              preali@ck-lawfirm.com

         - and -

      James Jason Hill, Esq.
      Timothy Douglas Cohelan, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com
              tcohelan@ckslaw.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: admin@uelglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Theresa C. Mak, Esq.
      Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
      One Market
      Spear Street Tower
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 442-1354
      Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
      E-mail: tmak@morganlewis.com
              reisen@morganlewis.com


AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in the class
action lawsuit filed in connection with Amgen's acquisition of
Onyx has been set for April 28, 2016.


AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in the federal
securities class action has been set for July 12, 2016.


APPLIED STORYTELLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kruchko v. Applied Storytelling, Inc., Eric La Brecque and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG15772617 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a marketing firm with its corporate
headquarters located at 201 4th St, #lOlA, Oakland, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
      ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP
      2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 695-4913
      Facsimile: (925) 334-7477
      E-mail: Kevin@allenattomeygroup.com


B & R FENCING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Mendoza-Valdez v. Roland Villarreal dba B & R Fencing, dba
B & R Fencing Company, dba B & R Contractors, dba Hill Country
Bluebonnet Ranch, and dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch
Headquarters; and Elsa Villarreal dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Home
Decor & Imports, and dba Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch, Case No.
5:15-cv-00423 (W.D. Tex., May 21, 2015) is an action for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime, RICO visa fraud, and contract damages,
brought by the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants under
the federal H-2A visa guestworker program from 2011 to 2015.

Mr. Mendoza-Valdez is a citizen of Mexico, who was lawfully
admitted to the United States on a temporary work visa.

Defendant Roland Villarreal is a natural person doing business as
"B & R Fencing," "B & R Fencing Company," "B & R Contractors,"
"Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch," and "Hill Country Bluebonnet
Ranch Headquarters," all unregistered business entities with their
principal place of business in Kerrville, Texas.  Elsa Villarreal
is a natural person doing business as "Hill Country Bluebonnet
Home Decor & Imports," and "Hill Country Bluebonnet Ranch," both
unregistered business entities with their principal place of
business in Kerrville.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Wedemeyer, Esq.
          TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          902 E. 11th Street
          Del Rio, TX 78840
          Telephone: (830) 774-8300
          Facsimile: (830) 768-0997
          E-mail: jwedemeyer@trla.org

               - and -

          Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq.
          TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          300 S. Texas Blvd.
          Weslaco, TX 78596
          Telephone: (956) 447-4800
          Facsimile: (956) 968-8823


BANCO DE CHILE: Judgment on Claim Under Judicial Review
-------------------------------------------------------
Banco De Chile said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the judgment on the
Erroneous Electronic Forwarding of Bank Statements Claim was
appealed by the plaintiff and currently the claim is under
judicial review by the Court of Appeals of Santiago (Corte de
Apelaciones de Santiago)."

The Company said, "On August, 2012 Corporacion Nacional de
Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile (a Chilean consumer association)
filed a class action against Banco de Chile pursuant to Law No.
19,496, whereby the plaintiff demanded that we compensate 52,770
of our current account holders who were affected by erroneous
electronic forwarding of bank statements that occurred in July
2012. The plaintiff seeks total compensation of CLP$ 80,000
(approx. U.S.$ 170) for each account holder as well as the
reimbursement of maintenance fees charged on current accounts. On
September 17, 2014 a judgment was rendered rejecting the action.
The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff and currently the claim
is under judicial review by the Court of Appeals of Santiago
(Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago)."

"It is not possible to predict the outcome of this proceeding;
however, in any case it will not have a material impact on us."


BANCO DE CHILE: Complaint Submitted by National Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Banco De Chile said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was notified
of a complaint submitted by the National Corporation of Consumers
and Users of Chile.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, Banco de Chile was
notified of a complaint filed by the National Consumer Service
(Servicio Nacional del Consumidor, or "SERNAC") in the Twelfth
Civil Court of Santiago as a collective action pursuant to Law No.
19,496. The legal action challenges certain clauses that exists in
the Person Products Unified Agreement ("Contrato Unificado de
Productos de Personas") regarding fees on lines of credit for
overdrafts and the validity of tacit consent to changes in fees,
charges and other conditions in consumer contracts. The Bank has
answered the complaint and asked the court to dismiss all charges.
With regard to the same matter, on January 16, 2015 Banco de Chile
was notified of a complaint submitted by the National Corporation
of Consumers and Users of Chile ("Corporacion Nacional de
Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile" or "CONADECUS") in the Twenty-
Third Civil Court of Santiago as a collective action pursuant to
Law No. 19,496. The claims under this action are basically the
same as those alleged by SERNAC before the Twelfth Civil Court of
Santiago, along with a claim for the outsourcing of certain
services related to our clients' current account data."

"On December 10, 2014, Banco de Chile was notified of a collective
action submitted by the National Organization of Consumers and
Users of Chile ("Organizacion de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile"
or "ODECU") in the Fifth Civil Court of Santiago requiring the
Court to declare the invalidity of certain provisions of the
Person Products Unified Agreement which are alleged to be abusive.
These provisions refer to the use of banking cards, ID numbers and
passwords in order to execute certain services with us. The
plaintiff alleges that, in case of phishing or pharming, the bank
and not the client should be responsible for proving the client's
diligence in the use of self-service channel services.

"At this stage, the potential effects of a judgment in the claims
mentioned above cannot be quantified."


BANCOLOMBIA S.A.: Class Action Against Trust in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
Bancolombia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
there were four legal proceedings against the trusts managed by
Fiduciaria Bancolombia, including a class action claim because of
the alleged invasion this trust made to public space. As of
December 31, 2014, the process is still on its preliminary stages.
The claim is for an undetermined amount.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Peripheral Vascular Patch Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
four product codes of its VASCU-GUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch.
Baxter received customer complaints of difficulty in
distinguishing the smooth from rough surface of the VASCU-GUARD
patch as described in the labeled instructions for use. This is
due to a deviation in the surface texture of the vascular patch in
a new packaging configuration. Incorrect orientation of the patch
with the rough side toward the bloodstream may increase the risk
of vessel thrombosis and/or embolism.

To date, Baxter has received a limited number of adverse event
reports, including postoperative thrombosis and stroke, in which
the recalled product codes have been used. Baxter is continuing to
investigate these reports. There is an inherent risk of thrombosis
associated with vascular procedures in this patient population
with underlying vascular diseases. At this point, no causal
association has been established. Following are the product codes
affected by this recall:

  Product Codes      Product Description
  -------------      -------------------
  1504026            VASCU-GUARD TS 1x6cm
  1504028            VASCU-GUARD TS 0.8x8cm
  1504030            VASCU-GUARD TS 1x10cm
  1504032            VASCU-GUARD TS 2x9cm

Baxter's VASCU-GUARD Peripheral Vascular Patch is intended for use
in peripheral vascular reconstruction including carotid, renal,
iliac, femoral, profunda, and tibial blood vessels and
arteriovenous access revisions.

Baxter began notifying all U.S. customers on May 2, 2015.
Customers have been directed to locate and remove all affected
product from their facilities. Recalled products should be
returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare
Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time.
Customers can still order this product presented in a plastic jar
filled with sterile water and 1% Propylene Oxide; it is unaffected
by this recall.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using these products.

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

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

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, cancer, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions. As a global, diversified healthcare company,
Baxter applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BCP IV: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
-----------------------------------------------------
David Widlewski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen
Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky,
M. Catherine Morris, BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP, and Athena
Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., Case No. 11086 (Del. Ch., June 2,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
GrafTech International Ltd. to enjoin the proposed transaction to
to sell GrafTech to Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. at an
unfair price and on grossly unfair and inadequate consideration.

BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP is a Delaware limited partnership that
is in the business of manufacturing carbon and graphite products.

Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. is a Delaware corporation and
direct wholly owned subsidiary of BCP IV Graftech Holdings LP that
was created for the purpose of facilitating the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


BE-THIN INC: "Geismann" Suit Moved From Missouri to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Geismann v. Be-Thin, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00615, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03898-VSB
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
          Jesse B. Rochman, Esq.
          SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.
          600 Washington Ave., 15th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
          Telephone: (314) 231-3332
          Facsimile: (314) 241-7604
          E-mail: mdaesch@sandbergphoenix.com
                  jrochman@sandbergphoenix.com


BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" Suit Moved From California to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lopez v. Beavex Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00550, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern 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-01841-ELR-WEJ to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Defendant Beavex Inc. is represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, SF
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com

Defendant Lowers Risk Group, LLC is represented by:

          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com


BEN WELL: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Guzman v. Ben Well, Yoram Peleg, Barbara Peleg, Phat T.
Lam, Linda D. Tran, Ingrid Gonzalez and Does 1-30, is brought on
behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical
injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a
result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of
the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants operate apartment units in County of Alameda,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


BENEDETTI FARMS: Recalls Chicken and Turkey Sausage Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Benedetti Farms, Inc., a Sonoma, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 11,670 pounds of chicken and turkey
sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The chicken and turkey sausages were wrapped in hog and sheep
casings that were not listed on the labels. Hog and sheep casings
may elicit allergic reactions in the rare cases of individuals
known to be allergic to pork or sheep proteins.

The chicken and turkey sausage items were produced on various
dates from December 14, 2014 through June 4, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF Only)]

  --- 10-lb.case containing 5-lb. clipped bag packages of 1-oz.
      pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken Apple Sausage."
  --- 10-lb.case containing 5-lb. clipped bag packages of 2-oz.
      pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken Apple Sausage."
  --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of 3-oz.
      pieces of "Sierra Sausage Co. Chicken and Basil Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Chorizo Sausage."
  --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of
      "Willie Bird Turkey Apple Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Apple Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of 4-oz.
      pieces of "Willie Bird Turkey Apple Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of 1-oz.
      pieces of "Willie Bird Chicken Apple Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey 'Hot' Italian Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Cajun Style Sausage."
  --- 10-lb.case containing 2.5-lb. clipped bag packages of
      "Willie Bird Turkey Basil Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Breakfast Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Italian Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Basil Sausage with Sundried Tomato."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Jalapeno and Garlic Sausage."
  --- 20-lb.case containing 4-lb. clipped bag packages of "Willie
      Bird Turkey Habanero and Garlic Sausage."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-18216" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were
shipped to wholesale and institutional locations in California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS in-plant personnel during
routine label verification activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Greg Brodsky, Benedetti Farms, Inc. Manager at (707) 545-3308.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


BEST CASH: Recalls Green Raisin Products Due to Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------
Best Cash & Carry, 56-30 56 Street, Maspeth, NY 11378 is recalling
BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious of life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) comes in an un-
coded, 7 oz. plastic bag and was sold in New York, Connecticut and
New Jersey.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of BEST BRAND GREEN
RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) which did not declare sulfites on the label.
The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of the BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN (SUNDERKHANI) revealed
they contained 16.96 milligrams per serving.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased BEST BRAND GREEN RAISIN
(SUNDERKHANI) should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-718-492-4288.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449811.htm


BOULDER BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
purchasers of the securities of Boulder Brands, Inc. ("Boulder" or
the "Company") between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until May 31,
2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit.

Boulder is a natural consumer packaged food company. The Company's
health and wellness platform consists of brands that target
specific health trends: the Glutino and Udi's Gluten Free brands
for gluten free diets; the Earth Balance brand for plant-based
diets; the Level Life brand for diabetic diets; EVOL branded foods
for consumers seeking convenient foods made with pure and simple
ingredients; and the Smart Balance brand for heart healthier
diets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, by failing to disclose:
(1) that the Company was experiencing integration issues related
to the acquisition of EVOL and Udi brands; (2) that the Company's
Smart Balance product segment was under-performing; (3) that, as a
result of this and other issues, the Company's gross margins would
be lower than expected; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. After disclosing the issues with its gross
margins, internal operational issues, a material impairment charge
and a shift in product mix, the Company's shares declined sharply.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than May 31, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if
you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-201-
9150, by e-mail toshareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

The firm may be reached at:

          Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: 310-201-9150
          Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Pennsylvania Appealed Decision in AWP Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania has appealed a decision in the AWP Litigation to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys
general suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant
in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth
Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September
2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company appealed the decision to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and in June 2014, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth judge's decision and
remanded the matter back to the Commonwealth Court. In January
2015, the Commonwealth Court entered judgment in favor of the
Company. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed this
decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,600 Plavix Claims Filed
---------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of
individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming
personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*.
Currently, over 5,600 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well
as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in
state and federal courts in various states including California,
Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and
Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to
coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product
liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not
possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these
lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Lawsuits by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is one
of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs
claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan*
or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product
indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this
time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The
resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 460 Product Liability Lawsuits Pending Over Byetta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Amylin, a former
subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product
liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over
460 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,200 active
plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury
plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has
agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these claims. The
majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who
allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily
pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming
alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in
Federal Court in San Diego in a recently established multidistrict
litigation, with the next largest contingent of cases pending in a
coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a
substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional
liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be
shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to
reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding
or the potential impact on the Company.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Freed" Suit Over Company Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Freed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790699 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action
brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago
Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and
through a flawed sales process.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes
semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks,
streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Boyarsky, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lboyarsky@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      126 East 56th Street
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 905-0509
      Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
      E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Xu" Suit in Cal. Over Company Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhemin Xu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of
the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited
for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales
process.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes
semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks,
streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534- 2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Jew" Suit Over Illegal Company Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Jew, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015), is a class action brought on
behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies
Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed
sales process.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes
semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks,
streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BTI SERVICES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BTI Services, Inc., Warrior Energy Services,
Inc., Superior Energy Services, Inc., and Superior Energy
Services- North America Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01556
(S.D. Tex., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a
week.

BTI Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services,
Inc. that provides services to the oilfield industry.

Warrior Energy Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Superior Energy
Services-North America Services, Inc. that provides production
related services to all major US onshore and offshore producing
regions.

Superior Energy Services-North America Services, Inc. is a
subsidiary of oilfield services conglomerate Superior Energy
Services, Inc. that, upon information and belief, provides
oilfield services in North America.

Superior Energy Services, Inc. is an oilfield services
conglomerate providing drilling products and services, onshore
completion and workover services, production services, and subsea
and technical solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


BURGER KING: Removes "Rodriguez" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rodriguez, et al. v. Burger King
Corporation, Case No. Case No. 2015-009885 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).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21959-JAL to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts one cause of action for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that BKC failed to pay the
Plaintiffs their minimum hourly wages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          Michael S. Kantor, Esq. (90472)
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131-2374
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                  michael.kantor@jacksonlewis.com


BUTLER & HOSCH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Act Notice, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Regal and Gianna Hillis, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. Butler & Hosch, P.A., Case
No. 0:15-cv-61081-BB (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2015) seeks to recover
back pay and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant terminated more than 700
employees without proper legal notice as part of a mass layoff on
May 14, 2015, in Miami, Florida and the Defendant's other sites.
The Plaintiffs add that the Defendant failed to provide these
terminated employees with the days advance written notice that is
required by the WARN Act.

Butler & Hosch is a law firm specializing in the legal needs of
the mortgage banking industry.  Butler & Hosch practice areas
include Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Litigation, Loss Mitigation, REO,
Title, and Eviction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Farmer, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS
          & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: gary@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com


CACH LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Miranda" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna L. Miranda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CACH LLC and Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00627-LEK-RFT (N.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ANTHONY J. PIETRAFESA
          210 Bell Court
          Schenectady, NY 12303
          Telephone: (518) 218-0851
          Facsimile: (518) 514-1241
          E-mail: ajp@ajp1law.com


CASTLE ROCK: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Frias and Moises Frias v. Ingrid M. Merriwether, Rick
Williams, Keith Carroll, Castle Rock Realty and Does 1-30, Case
No. RG15772287 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought on
behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical
injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a
result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of
the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


CEMEX S.A.B.: New Hearing Set for July 7 in Israeli Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a new hearing has been
scheduled for July 7, 2015, in the Israeli Class Action
Litigation.

The Company said, "On June 21, 2012, one of our subsidiaries in
Israel was notified about an application for the approval of a
class action suit against it. The application was filed by a
homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by our
Israeli subsidiary in October 2010 (a same application was filed
against three other companies by the same legal representative).
According to the application, the plaintiff claims that the
concrete supplied to him did not meet with the "Israel Standard
for Concrete Strength No. 118" and that, as a result, our Israeli
subsidiary acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who
requested a specific type of concrete but that received concrete
that did not comply with Israeli standard requirements. As per the
application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged
non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non-financial
damages to those customers, including the plaintiff. We presume
that the class action would represent the claim of all the clients
who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete from our Israeli
subsidiary during the past 7 years, the limitation period
according to applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be
sought amount to approximately 276 million Israeli Shekels
(approximately U.S.$69.35 million as of March 31, 2015, based on
an exchange rate of 3.980 Israeli Shekels to U.S.$1.00). Our
Israeli subsidiary submitted a formal response to the
corresponding court. Both parties presented their preliminary
arguments. The applicant requested the court to join all claims
brought by him against all four companies, including our
subsidiary in Israel."

"In a hearing held on January 18, 2015, all four companies,
including our subsidiary in Israel, opposed the applicants request
to join the claims and the court decided to request its general
legal counselor for his response to the aforementioned application
(a common procedure in these cases). Hearings have taken place and
a new hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2015.

"As of March 31, 2015, our subsidiary in Israel is not able to
assess the likelihood of the class action application being
approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award
for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if
adversely resolved, we do not believe the final resolutions would
have a material adverse impact on our results of operations,
liquidity and financial condition."


CHARLES E. PHYLE: Faces "Dorr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Dorr, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Charles E. Phyle d/b/a Phyle
Inventory Control Specialists and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
RG15772362 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Phyle Inventory Control Specialists provides inventory gathering,
validation, and reporting services. It offers solutions for
convenience and petroleum store, grocery store, hardware store,
pharmacy and drug store, and apparel and soft lines inventories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


CHC GROUP: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action complaint has been filed against CHC
Group Ltd. ("CHC Group" or "the Company") on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between January 16, 2014 and July
10, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period").

CHC Group is a one of the world's largest commercial operator of
helicopters.  According to public filings, the Company's
helicopters are "primarily used to facilitate large, long-distance
crew changes on offshore production facilities and drilling rigs."
On January 16, 2014, CHC Group completed its Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") of common stock, selling shares of its common
stock to investors at $10.00 per share.  The class action
complaint alleges that the offering materials filed in connection
with the Company's IPO "omitted to disclose that one of CHC's two
largest customers, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ('Petrobras'), had
stopped making payments on its contracts with the Company." For
additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please
visithttp://www.ktmc.com/case/CHCGroup.

As detailed in the class action complaint, on July 10, 2014, CHC
Group's executive officers revealed that Petrobras had not made
payments on contracts to CHC Group since April 2013 --
approximately nine months prior to the Company's IPO.  On this
news, shares of CHC Group's stock declined $0.99 per share, or
11.5%, to close on July 10, 2014 at $7.63 per share.  The closing
price of the Company's common stock on July 10, 2014 represented a
decline of more than 23% from the price of the stock at the time
of CHC Group's IPO less than six months prior.

CHC Group shareholders who wish to discuss this notice, the class
action lawsuit and/or their rights and legal options are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren
J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.)
at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Members of the class may,no later than July 17, 2015, petition the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all CHC
Group shareholders in directing the class action litigation.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for
additional information about participating in this action, please
visit www.ktmc.com

The firm may be reached at:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Tel: (610) 667-7706
          Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Cheryl Kater Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 17, 2015,
Cheryl Kater, by and through counsel, filed a Complaint - Class
Action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated.
Plaintiff, Cheryl Kater, filed the purported class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court, for the Western District of
Washington, in Seattle, alleging, among other claims, that the
Company's "Big Fish Casino" violates Washington law, including the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful
gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the Company's
slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big
Fish Casino).  This litigation was just filed, and Plaintiff,
through counsel, did not specify or claim a specific amount of
damages in the Complaint. Therefore, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the magnitude of any settlement or potential
damages. As a result, the Company does not, at this time, know the
extent to which, if at all, this litigation will have a material
impact on its business or financial results.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeals Court Denied Bid for Supervisory Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 21, 2014,
John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for
Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages - Class
Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs
Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker
Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana.  The petition defines the "alleged plaintiff class" as
quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at
the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans,
Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and
specifically since 2008.  The petition alleges that Churchill
Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana
Video Poker Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds") have collected
certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute
monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental
purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair
Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets while La. R.S. 27:438
requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid
to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse
meets.  The petition requests that the Court declare that Fair
Grounds violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory
injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due
to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the
plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the
value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the
Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc.
("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also
liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds.  On October 9,
2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit,
including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking a referral
to the Louisiana Racing Commission.  By Judgment dated November
21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary
jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing
Commission.  On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory
review of the Judgment.  This matter is currently awaiting review
by the Louisiana Racing Commission.


CIRCLE BAR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Cantu" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cantu Jr., individually and for others similarly situated
v. Circle Bar A, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00468 (W.D. Tex., June 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Circle Bar A, Inc. owns and operates an oil field services company
doing business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLARFIELD OKON: Sued in N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
Henry A. Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus,
P.L. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03268
(E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
      180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (212) 675-6161
      Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


CLECO CORPORATION: One Claim Set for Trial on June 22
-----------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that one claim has been
remanded to the Court and is set for trial on June 22, 2015.

In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court)
on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees
alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the
basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under
applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the
workplace, and together, the plaintiffs requested monetary
compensation exceeding $35.0 million. In July 2010, the plaintiffs
moved to add an additional current employee alleging that Cleco
had discriminated on the basis of race. The additional plaintiff
sought compensation of no less than $2.5 million and became the
thirteenth plaintiff.

In April 2011, Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the
current employees which resulted in a dismissal of one of the
thirteen cases with prejudice. In September 2011, the Court ruled
on Cleco's summary judgment motions, resulting in eleven of the
twelve remaining plaintiffs having at least one claim remaining.
In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary
judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven
cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals
were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit).

In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two
of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in
support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August
through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court
judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases.

In April 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's summary
judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other
discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former
employee who served as one of Cleco's human resource
representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the
former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning
Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been
remanded to the Court and is set for trial on June 22, 2015.
Management does not believe the result of the remaining claim will
have a material effect on the Registrants' results of operations,
financial condition, or cash flows.


CLECO CORPORATION: Rapides Parish Court Entered Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in connection with the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and
among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and Cleco Corporation, four
actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the
Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions
in each action generally allege, among other things, that the
members of the Cleco Corporation Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly
inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that
allegedly undervalues Cleco, and failing to disclose material
information about the Merger. The petitions also allege that Cleco
Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases,
certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and
abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those
supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies,
including an injunction against the Merger and monetary damages,
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now
the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action
names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger
Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the
Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11,
2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages, which is now the operative petition
in that action. Each petition alleges, among other things, that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it does not
value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through
which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-
dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative
Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information
about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that Cleco, Cleco
Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for
preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and
Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special
Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for February 26, 2015, for
approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion. On April 14, 2015, the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish entered a scheduling
order under which the plaintiffs must file a second amended
petition by May 14, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of
the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions.


CMS ENERGY: Faces Suit Alleging Age Discrimination in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Williams v. CMS Energy Corporation, and Consumers Energy
Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-11866-NGE-APP (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2015)
is an age discrimination action brought pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Michigan's Elliot-Larsen
Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Andrea J. Johnson, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
          E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                  ajohnson@pittlawpc.com


CREATIVE WOODWORK: Faces "Abiche" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez Abiche, and all others similarly situated v.
Creative Woodwork of Miami, Inc. and Luis Sanchez, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22135-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in manufacturing of restaurant booth
and dining room furniture, that regularly transacts business
within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEMES GOURMET: Recalls Poultry and Pork Products
------------------------------------------------
Demes Gourmet Corp., a Fullerton, Calif., establishment is
recalling approximately 29,052 pounds of poultry and pork products
due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The chicken
sausages were wrapped in hog casings that were not listed on the
labels. Hog casings may elicit allergic reactions in the rare
cases of individuals known to be allergic to pork proteins.

The items were produced on various dates between Sept. 17, 2014,
and June 1, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 18 lb. cases of 12 oz. tray packs of "Pamana Sweet Chicken
      Longanisa."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"P-2888" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel conducting a routine
food safety assessment of the company's products. The
establishment produces their own in-house labels.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Ruby Phillips, Demes Gourmet Corp's office manager, at (714) 870-
6040 or at demesgourmetcorp@gmail.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


DOCUMENT STORAGE: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lenora R. Hayes, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Document Storage Systems, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-
80798-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Document Storage Systems, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing software and help desk support to its clients located
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


DR PRAEGER'S: Recalls Gluten Free Veggie Burgers Due to Soy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Praeger's Sensible Foods is recalling 950 retail cases of the
Gluten Free California Veggie Burger because it may contain
undeclared soy. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to soy run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.  Dr. Praeger's Gluten Free
California Veggie Burger has contained soybeans since its
introduction in 2007 and is safe for consumption by those who do
not have soy allergies.

The recalled products were distributed to select distributors in
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, with further
distribution to retail stores in nearby states.

The product is distinguishable as the California Veggie Burger
with a red Gluten Free banner below the word "burger". Each box is
marked with UPC code 080868000602, lot code F15BC and an
expiration date of 5/12/17.

Concern for the safety and satisfaction of its customers is a
priority for Dr. Praeger's. This action is being taken out of an
abundance of caution to inform consumers with soy allergies to
avoid eating this batch of Gluten Free California Veggie Burgers.
This is the only item impacted, and there have been no reports of
illness or injury.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the soy
containing product was packaged in boxes that did not reveal the
presence of soy. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's packaging
processes, which has been addressed.

Consumers who have purchased this product with sensitivities to
soy are urged to discard or return to the place of purchase for a
full refund. For more information, consumers can call Allison
Meyer, Director of Marketing, at (201) 703-1300 between Monday and
Friday from 8:00AM - 5:00PM US EST.

Dr. Praeger's Sensible Foods was founded in 1994 by two practicing
cardiothoracic surgeons. The doctors set out on a simple mission
-- to help people see nutritious food in a tasty new way. Today,
the family owned and operated Elmwood Park, N.J. company has grown
into a leader in the all-natural, vegetarian, vegan, gluten free,
and kosher frozen food categories, and is the exclusive veggie
burger provider for White Castle. The company's wide ranging line
of products includes veggie burgers, home-style veggie pancakes,
sustainable seafood items, Kid's Littles, and more. For more
information, visit www.drpraegers.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449695.htm


ECOPETROL S.A.: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Pipeline Spill
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A.
related to the Cano Limon-Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill, the
Company said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline ruptured
and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of crude oil
into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita River
that provides water to the city of C£cuta. The incident did not
cause any fatalities or injuries.

"We launched an internal investigation and hired a highly renowned
international consultant to investigate the causes of this
incident. The conclusion of the investigations was that the
rupture occurred as a result of an unusual movement of soil and
the tensioning of the pipeline," the Company said.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court of Cucuta has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in
the probatory stage.


ECOPETROL S.A.: May Still File Answer to BT Energy Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the period for Ecopetrol
to file the answer to the lawsuit related to the BT Energy
Challenger has not yet ended.

The Company said, "On October 22, 2014, we were served with a
class action suit against us seeking monetary damages of
approximately Ps$7.4 trillion related to an incident that occurred
on August 21, 2014, during the loading operations of the BT Energy
Challenger vessel. The claimants alleged possible damage to the
port area of Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine
and submarine areas and beaches that form the geographical area of
the Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under
investigation by the Harbour Master of Covenas. Ecopetrol filed a
motion requesting the judge to require the claimants to amend
their claim to more precisely set forth the facts and evidence it
believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability. As of the date of this
annual report, the judge has not decided on Ecopetrol's motion, so
the period for Ecopetrol to file the answer to the lawsuit has not
yet ended."


ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entropic Communications, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, the Current Report on Form
8-K in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization, dated as of February 3, 2015 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear"), Entropic
Communications, Inc. ("Entropic"), Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation ("Excalibur"), and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC.

As previously disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4
of MaxLinear, that was declared effective on March 30, 2015 (the
"registration statement"), and the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus that MaxLinear and Entropic filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015 (the "joint
proxy statement/prospectus"), Entropic, the board of directors of
Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC have
been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits brought
in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") by stockholders of
the Company challenging the proposed merger with MaxLinear (the
"Delaware Actions"). The complaints generally allege that, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear,
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing
to take steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its
stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection
devices in the merger agreement. The complaints further allege
that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger subsidiaries aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

MaxLinear and Entropic believe that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under
applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on April 24, 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 have agreed, among other things,
that Entropic will make certain supplemental disclosures to the
joint proxy statement/prospectus, all of which are set forth. 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.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Approved Settlement in "Berk" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, Jason
Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc.,
the parties reached an agreement to settle outstanding claims
under the matter, which settlement was approved by the court on
April 20, 2015.

On April 18, 2014, a complaint was filed by named employee, Jason
Berk, a current Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging:
(1) a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
for failure to pay wages and overtime; and (2) a class action for
breach of contract. On April 15, 2015 the parties reached an
agreement to settle outstanding claims under the matter, which
settlement was approved by the court on April 20, 2015. Under the
terms of the settlement, the case will be dismissed with the
Company receiving a release of all claims following administration
of the settlement terms.


FOUR R'S: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abuisneineh" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaa Abuisneineh, individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals v. "Four R's" Restaurant & Lounge,
Inc. d/b/a Ice Night Club, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08741 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., June 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of
sending unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message
calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout Illinois
and the surrounding region.

Four R's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
and bar in Bellwood, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              eturin@mcgpc.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Dismissal of Former Banana Workers Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Court of
Appeals has affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint
by former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines.

In February 2011, a group of former banana cooperative workers
from the Philippines filed a complaint in the Philippines against
two of the Company's subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). The trial court dismissed the
complaint against the Company's subsidiaries on October 3, 2011.
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On
March 9, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of the complaint.


FRESH DEL MONTE: 3rd Circuit Court Appeal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that an appeal filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is
pending related to eight actions.

The Company said, "On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were
filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or
near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala.
We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise
been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and
were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador
during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include
claimants who had cases pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed
on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a
motion to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds
that they have first-filed claims pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion
was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012, our
subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those
plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27,
2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and
entered summary judgment against all plaintiffs based on the
September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for
summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's
May 27, 2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in
favor of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of
the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district
court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on
September 22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, but the notice expressly limited the appeal to the claims
of 57 (out of the more than 2,400) plaintiffs."


FRESH DEL MONTE: Decision of Hawaii Supreme Court Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that in Hawaii,
plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme
Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March
2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the
trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition
and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to
whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The decision of the
Hawaii Supreme Court remains pending.


FRESH PROMISE: Bid to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Promise Foods Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has granted
the Defendants' motion to set aside any entry of default judgment.

The Company said, "We, together with certain other parties
(collectively, the "Defendants"), are currently involved in
litigation against Kyle Gotshalk, Leonard Gotshalk, Clinton Hall,
LLC, Richard Maher and Patrick O'Loughlin (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs"). On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint
with the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
alleging claims including securities fraud and breach of contract.
The Company believes these claims to be unfounded and the Company
is prepared to file an answer with the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, together with counterclaims
against the Plaintiffs. The Company is continuing to vigorously
defend itself against this lawsuit. On September 9, 2014, the
Court granted the Defendants' motion to set aside any entry of
default judgment."


FRONTIERE NATURAL: Recalls Elk Meat Products Due to E. Coli
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frontiere Natural Meats, LLC, a Denver, Colorado establishment, is
recalling 1,640 pounds of ground elk meat that may be contaminated
with Escherichia coli O157:H7 bacteria (E. Coli O157:H7). E. coli
O157:H7 causes a diarrheal illness often with bloody stools.
Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a week,
some people can develop a form of kidney failure called Hemolytic
Uremic Syndrome (HUS). HUS is most likely to occur in young
children and the elderly. The condition can lead to serious kidney
damage and even death.

The recalled ground elk was distributed to North Carolina, South
Carolina and Virginia through retail stores. The recalled ground
elk was packed in 205 eight pound cases containing 8 one pound
packages; each identified with a label that states "DK Natural
Meats All Natural Ground Elk" with a "Use or Freeze By 4-27-15" on
the back of each package.

Frontiere Natural Meats, LLC has received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product to date.

The potential contamination was noted after routine testing by the
company detected the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in two of four
sub lots of bulk ground elk. As all four lots came from the same
original batch Frontiere is recalling all lots associated with the
original.

Consumers who have purchased affected lots of DK Natural Meats All
Natural Ground Elk are urged to return the product to the place of
purchase for a full refund or to discard the product in a manner
that prevents humans or animals from potential consumption.
Consumers with questions may contact Frontiere Vice President Josh
Viola at 303-466-8826.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Levy" Suit Over Defective Microwave Oven
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Levy, David Mequet, and Lauren Harris, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. General
Electric Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00857 (D. Conn., June 4, 2015),
is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased a GE branded
microwave oven model number JEB1095, ZMC1090, and ZMC1095, that
are defectively designed and manufactured such that the glass on
the doors to these microwave ovens will shatter.

General Electric Company is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at 3135 Easton Turnpike, Fairfield,
Connecticut 06828. GE is one of the largest technology, media, and
financial services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      Seth R. Klein, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6202
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
              jnobel@izardnobel.com
              mkindall@izardnobel.com

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Anna C. Haac, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              ahaac@tzlegal.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Injury Suit Resulting From Zofran Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Cox and Jill Cox, each individually and on behalf of Jacob
Cox, their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company, GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, (Americas) Inc.,
Glaxo, Inc., and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00284-BRW
(E.D. Ark., May 21, 2015) arises from alleged injuries resulting
from use of Zofran.

Zofran is a prescription drug recommended for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea or vomiting.

Cory Cox is the husband of Jill Cox and the father of Jacob Cox.
Jill is the wife of Cory and the mother of Jacob.  She was
prescribed Zofran during the early stages of her pregnancy for the
treatment of morning sickness.  This is alleged to have caused
Jacob's birth defects.  Jacob is a minor, who sustained personal
injuries and damages as a result of birth defects and other
problems associated with the taking of Zofran.  He was born on
June 1, 2012, with a partial cleft lip.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's
sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, (Americas) Inc., which is
a Delaware corporation, and which has identified its principal
place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor
in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Hodges, Esq.
          DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM
          Centre Place Building
          212 Center Street, Fifth Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2429
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com


GLOBAL MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Zilveti" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Zilveti, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02494-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2015), seeks to put
an end on the Defendant's practice of making repeated autodialed
calls to the cell phones of consumers nationwide without consent
and to obtain redress and injunctive relief for all persons
injured by the conduct.

Global Marketing Research Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation
that is in the business of conducting telephone surveys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. O'Connor, Esq.
      O'CONNOR LAW
      420 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 398-4764
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: matt@oconnorlawsd.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota Faces Constitutional Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Banco de
Bogota, Banco de Occidente and Banco Popular are subject to two
relevant constitutional actions:

* A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on behalf
of the taxpayers of Cali, claiming that Banco de Bogota, Banco de
Occidente and Banco Popular, among other financial institutions,
unduly capitalized interest of certain obligations as creditors of
the municipality of Cali in connection with credit facilities
granted by such institutions, and therefore, are seeking the
reimbursement of interest paid by the municipality in excess of
the amounts due at June 30, 2009. We believe that the probability
of loss in connection with this constitutional action is low
(eventual) and, as such, have not recorded any provisions in
connection with this constitutional action.

* A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on behalf
of the Department of Valle del Cauca (Departamento del Valle del
Cauca) against several financial institutions, including Banco de
Bogota, Banco de Occidente, Banco Popular and Corficolombiana
claims that the Department has paid interest in a manner
prohibited by law, in connection with a credit facility granted to
the Department. In addition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the
defendants did not pay the alleged real value of the shares of
Sociedad Portuaria de Buenaventura and Empresa de Energ¡a del
Pac¡fico, on a sale transaction of said shares. We consider the
probability of loss in connection with this constitutional action
to be low (eventual) and, therefore, have not recorded any
provision.

Banco AV Villas is subject to constitutional actions brought
against several companies in the financial sector in Colombia in
connection with the recalculation of mortgage interests that
allegedly damaged several mortgage lenders. Banco AV Villas has a
comparatively small mortgage portfolio with respect to its main
competitors, and we believe that the probability of loss in
connection with these constitutional actions is remote.


GUO'S GARDEN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
De Ming Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Guo's Garden Restaurant Inc. d/b/a "Guo's
Garden Chinese Restaurant", Wei Gen Guo, "John Doe" and "Jane
Doe"# 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-04289-PAC (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1685 1st
Avenue, New York, NY 10128.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


HEMISPHERE GROUP: Recalls Vietnamese Cashews Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hemisphere Group, Inc. of Smithtown, NY, is recalling 14,000
lbs. of Vietnamese LP Cashews, because they have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The Vietnamese Cashews were distributed to direct customers in
Kalamazoo, Michigan; North Billerica, Massachusetts; Maspeth, New
York; plus Quebec and Scarborough, Canada. The direct customers
were instructed to notify their accounts if the cashews had been
distributed and to return them to The Hemisphere Group.

The following product is being recalled:

Product: Vietnamese LP Cashew Kernels (shelled)
Product: Vietnamese LP Cashew Kernels (shelled)
Net Weight: 50 lbs. bulk cartons
Packer: Hong Duc Company Limited
FDA No.: 16153193186 (on carton)
Hemisphere Code No. P95497

The firm has not received any reports of illnesses to date.

The recall was initiated as a result of a routine sampling program
by the US Food and Drug Administration which revealed that the
finished product was contaminated with the bacteria. The company
has ceased the distribution of the product as FDA and the company
continues their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers are urged not to consume the affected lot of Vietnamese
Cashew Kernels. Consumers who have purchased the affected lot of
Vietnamese Cashew Kernels are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
The Hemisphere Group, Inc. at 1-800-339-8846 extension 32, Monday
- Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, ET.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449074.htm


HOSPIRA INC: Named as Defendant in 5 Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Hospira and members of
its Board of Directors are named as defendants in five class
action lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger
Agreement. Pfizer and Merger Sub are also named as defendants. The
lawsuits, which seek to enjoin the proposed transaction, allege
generally that the Merger Agreement resulted from an unfair
process and fails to maximize value for Hospira stockholders. The
lawsuits were filed by the following named plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated: Robert J. Casey
II, Samuel Montini, Charles Zimmerman, Jason Chen, and Patricia
Takach.


INOGEN INC: Christi and Holford File Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on March 13 and March
19, 2015, plaintiffs Brad Christi and Roger D. Holford each filed,
respectively, a lawsuit against Inogen, Raymond Huggenberger,
Inogen's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Alison
Bauerlein, Inogen's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 12, 2014
and March 11, 2015. The complaints allege that Inogen, Mr.
Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and that Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaints allege that during the purported
class period our financial statements and disclosures concerning
internal controls over financial reporting were materially false
and misleading.  The complaints seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees
and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such
other relief as the court deems proper.  The deadline for motions
for appointment as lead plaintiff was May 12, 2015.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these
allegations.  We are currently unable to predict the outcome of
these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of
loss nor estimate a range of possible loss," the Company said.


INTEL CORP: Nov. 6 Hearing on Amended Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the hearing on
plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is set for November
6, 2015.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against the
Company by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (AMD litigation).

The Company said, "Like the AMD litigation, these class-action
lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing
discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor
customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that
allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its
microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches;
and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry
standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various
consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have
been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our
microprocessors. We dispute these class-action claims and intend
to defend the lawsuits vigorously."

"All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In
January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion
for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This
motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD
litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL
proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who
purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by
us. In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The
MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report,
and a hearing on those objections was held before the district
court in July 2013. In July 2014, the district court affirmed the
Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014,
plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the
district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. In
December 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the
claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs.

"All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs
in the California actions moved for class certification, which we
are in the process of opposing. At our request, the court in the
California actions agreed to delay ruling on this motion until
after the Delaware district court ruled on the similar motion in
the MDL proceedings. The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to
retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class
certification. The court granted plaintiffs' request in February
2015 and the hearing on plaintiffs' amended class certification
motion is set for November 6, 2015. Given the procedural posture
and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from these matters."


INTEL CORP: July 2015 Final Fairness Hearing in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the final fairness
hearing is scheduled for July 2015, in the In re High Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation.

Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe
Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in
the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had
entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their
employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and in September
2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The
plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in
the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and
subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies
named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to
cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there
was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs
assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and
Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold
call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants'
alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as
provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act,
restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting
of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so-
called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former
technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants.
In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the court denied in March 2014.

In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, but in August
2014, the district court denied preliminary approval of the
settlement. In September 2014, defendants filed a petition for
writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The Ninth
Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled a March 2015 hearing date
on the writ petition. Defendants have withdrawn the petition for
writ of mandamus in light of the settlement agreement.

In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which the court
preliminarily approved in March 2015; the final fairness hearing
is scheduled for July 2015.

"We continue to dispute the plaintiffs' claims, but have agreed to
settle this lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and
diversion of resources from continued litigation. Our operating
expenses for 2014 reflect accruals for this proceeding and we
believe reasonably possible losses in excess of the accrued amount
are not material to our financial statements," the Company said.


INTEL CORP: Filed Opposition to Appeal in Mcafee Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that Intel, McAfee, and
McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's
appeal in December 2014 in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had
agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee)
for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08."

"In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class
action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January
2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs
appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of
directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December
2014.

"Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims
and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2015, for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, that in March
2015, a putative class action litigation was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was
divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business.
The company and three of its officers are named as defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Medical Monitoring Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2015, for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, that the company
is a defendant in numerous actions filed after January 1, 2008 in
the Supreme Court for the State of New York, county of Broome, on
behalf of hundreds of plaintiffs. The complaints allege numerous
and different causes of action, including for negligence and
recklessness, private nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs in these
cases seek medical monitoring and claim damages in unspecified
amounts for a variety of personal injuries and property damages
allegedly arising out of the presence of groundwater contamination
and vapor intrusion of groundwater contaminants into certain
structures in which plaintiffs reside or resided, or conducted
business, allegedly resulting from the release of chemicals into
the environment by the company at its former manufacturing and
development facility in Endicott. These complaints also seek
punitive damages in an unspecified amount.


J.C. PENNY: Calif. Court Certifies False Advertising Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
judge certified a class-action lawsuit that accuses J.C. Penney
Company Inc. of marking up retail prices on apparel and
accessories to trick shoppers into believing they were getting big
discounts when the items were advertised on sale.

In a decision on, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los
Angeles said it was possible "in one stroke" to determine whether
J.C. Penney's advertising practices caused shoppers in California
to buy items at discounts that proved illusory.

The complaint accused the company of running a "massive, years-
long, pervasive campaign" to deceive shoppers about its pricing
for private-label brands, and for outside brands such as Liz
Claiborne, sold exclusively by the retailer.

Lead plaintiff Cynthia Spann said she discovered this after buying
three blouses for $17.99 each, a 40 percent discount from the
"original" $30 price, only to learn the price was never above
$17.99 in the prior three months.  By letting shoppers sue as a
group, the decision could help them obtain greater compensation at
lower cost from the Plano, Texas-based retailer than if they sued
individually.

"We're thrilled with the decision," said Matthew Zevin, a lawyer
for the plaintiff class, which he said could number hundreds of
thousands. "Price comparisons are not illegal, but it is deceptive
if there is no basis for the original price."

J.C. Penney spokeswoman Kate Coultas said the retailer does not
discuss pending litigation.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against retailers such as Kohls
Corp. and Men's Wearhouse Inc.'s Jos. A. Bank unit.

Judge Olguin certified a class of plaintiffs who bought private-
label or exclusive items from J.C. Penney in California from Nov.
5, 2010 to Jan. 31, 2012 at discounts of 30 percent or more.
These shoppers accused the retailer of violating state consumer
protection laws.

The Federal Trade Commission has said retailers are supposed to
sell items at original prices for a "reasonable length of time"
before marking them down if they wish later to provide the
original prices to consumers who compare prices.

J.C. Penney moved away from discounts in 2012, when Chief
Executive Officer Ron Johnson adopted a strategy of "fair and
square" everyday low pricing.  It resumed discounting after sales
plunged, a decline that contributed to Johnson's ouster the
following year.

The case is Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp et al, U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, No. 12-00215.


JEAN-GEORGES: Faces "Fine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Fine, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Jean-Georges of Pound Ridge, LLC d/b/a The Inn at Pound Ridge, and
Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Case No. 1:15-cv-04320 (S.D.N.Y., June
4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 258
Westchester Avenue, Pound Ridge, NY 10576.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM: Faces Princima Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delem Princima, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.,
Case No. 603534/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. provides
rehabilitation care to individuals in New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Henry" Suit Moved From New York to California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ron Henry, et al. v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 14-CIV-7176 (AJN), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles).  The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03895-BRO-JPR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have willfully engaged
in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct and policies by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs in accordance with federal
and state law by failing to: (a) properly record all hours worked
by Plaintiffs; (b) maintain accurate records with respect to all
hours worked by Plaintiffs; and (c) pay Plaintiffs minimum wages
and all overtime compensation owed for hours that the Defendants
permitted or suffered the Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael DiChiara, Esq.
          JOSEPH AND HERZFELD LLP
          757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: md@jhllp.com

               - and -

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com


KINDER MORGAN: Class Action Filed by Private Landowners in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a
purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case No. 01842) by
private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners
of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) or SFPP, L.P.  The suit, which is
brought purportedly as a class action on behalf of all landowners
who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad
easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located within the State
of California, asserts claims against UPRR, SFPP, Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc., and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory
judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment,
accounting, and alleged unlawful business acts and practices under
California law arising from defendants' alleged improper use or
occupation of subsurface real property.


KINDER MORGAN: "Allen" Case v. El Paso Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a ruling in the case,
Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et al., has been
affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, and the matter is now
closed.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or
EPB filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging both derivative and non-derivative claims, against EPB,
and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in the
lawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal
Defendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to
EPB of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. On June 20, 2014,
defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing
the case in its entirety. On February 25, 2015, this ruling was
affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, and the matter is now
closed.


KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal Order Entered in Reorganization Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the Kinder Morgan,
Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, the Court has entered an
order on the EPB plaintiff and the defendants' stipulation and
proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims
brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead
plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the
putative EPB class.

Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMP
and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed five putative
class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the
Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-
VCL). The plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of
the proposed Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on
November 5, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
Verified Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which
purports to assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB
unitholders and the former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff
alleged that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the
general partner of EPB, and the directors of EPGP breached duties
under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB
Transaction; (ii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual
defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E
Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously
interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to
breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement.

The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual
defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement,
including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by
entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately
disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided
and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub
LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the
rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP
partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under
the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory
relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable,
reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On December
30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants submitted a
stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss
all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the
EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of
the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on April 2,
2015.

The defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit,
and they intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


KINDER MORGAN: To Defend Against Capex Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. intends to vigorously defend Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants KMI,
KMGP and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or
KMEP on February 5, 2014 and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v.
Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No.
9318) and Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P.,
Inc. et al (Case No. 9479) respectively. The cases were
consolidated on April 8, 2014 (Consolidated Case No. 9318). The
consolidated suit seeks to assert claims both individually and on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of
KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date
of the filing of the complaints. The suit alleges direct and
derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership
agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other
things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any distributions
to Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI and
any related entities, beyond amounts that would have been
distributed in accordance with a "good faith" allocation of
maintenance capital expenses, together with other unspecified
monetary damages including punitive damages and attorney fees.
Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Action Stayed Pending Capex Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.
et al. is stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, Kinder Morgan, Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan
Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC or KMR, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A.
Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal
defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMEP. The suit
was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and
alleges derivative causes of action for alleged violation of
duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and
"gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of
distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion
capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The
suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages,
attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified
equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. Defendants believe
this suit is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. By
agreement of the parties, the case is stayed pending further
resolution of the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex
Litigation.


LIFE TIME: Settlement of TCPA Litigation Preliminarily Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties have
agreed to a class settlement of the TCPA Litigation which was
preliminarily approved by the Court on March 9, 2015.

On April 17, 2014, a putative class action was filed against LTF
Club Operations Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Life
Time Fitness, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri. On June 13, 2014, LTF Club Operations Company, Inc.
removed this action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. On April 23, 2014,
a second putative class action was filed against Life Time
Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota. On April 23, 2014, a third putative class action was
filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On July
1, 2014, a fourth putative class action was filed against Life
Time Fitness, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. These actions are collectively referred to
as the "TCPA Actions" or "TCPA Litigation." The TCPA Actions have
all been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings ("MDL"). (On January 26, 2015, a fifth putative class
action was filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, but after transfer to the MDL Court the matter was
resolved by the parties and dismissed by the Court.)

The Company said, "The TCPA Actions allege that we violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when we, or a
third party on our behalf, sent marketing text messages to
plaintiffs' cellular telephones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without plaintiffs' consent. Each plaintiff seeks
certification of the class, injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and an award of damages available under
the TCPA, which include actual damages and statutory damages of
$500 per violation or $1,500 per violation if the violation was
willful. We deny the allegations."

"The parties have agreed to a class settlement of the TCPA
Litigation which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March
9, 2015. In the settlement we agreed to pay all costs of the
settlement, including class notice, claims administration, court-
awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, court-awarded service awards,
and awards to class members. Class members may claim either a cash
award of $100 or a membership award that lets them pick either a
free three-month single Gold membership or a $250 credit toward
any access membership that covers the class member. The total
settlement amount, as calculated under the agreement, is subject
to a minimum of $10 million and a maximum of $15 million.

"Depending on the total number of claims submitted and the amount
of attorneys' fees awarded, the amounts of the cash award and
membership award may be adjusted up or down to bring the total
settlement amount within that range. For purposes of calculating
the total settlement amount, every membership award that is timely
and validly claimed counts as a payment of $250 (subject to
adjustment).

"Because our cost to service a membership is less than the
membership award, the amount of our reasonably estimable loss does
not directly correspond to the amount of the total settlement
amount as calculated under the agreement. Further, the amount of
attorneys' fees, the claims rate, and the mix of cash and
membership awards all remain unknown at this time, and, therefore,
we believe our reasonably estimable loss is a range. Based on
reasonable estimates of these factors, we recorded a liability in
the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $4.7 million, which we
believe represents the minimum amount of the range."


LIFE TIME: Faces Suit by St. Clair Employees' Retirement System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 30, 2015, a
putative class and derivative action was filed by a purported Life
Time shareholder in the First Judicial District Court of the State
of Minnesota, County of Carver, captioned St. Clair County
Employees' Retirement System v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-CV-15-358. On April 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a First
Amended Shareholder Derivative and Direct Class Action Complaint
for Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Waste of Corporate Assets, and
Abuse of Control.

Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation as a class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of Life Time Fitness, Inc.
("Life Time"), and as a derivative action on behalf of nominal
defendant Life Time. The Amended St. Clair Complaint names as
defendants the individual members of the Board of Directors
("Board"); LTF Holdings Inc. ("Parent"); LTF Merger Sub., Inc.
("Merger Sub"); Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. ("Leonard Green");
TPG Capital, L.P. ("TPG"); and LNK Partners ("LNK"). The Amended
St. Clair Complaint names Life Time as a nominal defendant. The
Amended St. Clair Complaint generally alleges that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties to Life Time shareholders in
connection with the merger because, among other reasons, the Board
failed to fully inform itself of the market value of Life Time;
the Board failed to maximize shareholder value; the Board failed
to promptly form a committee of disinterested directors under
Minnesota Statute section 302A.673; certain individual defendants
are interested in the merger; and certain provisions in the merger
agreement unfairly preclude a third party from making an offer for
Life Time. The Amended St. Clair Complaint alleges that Defendants
Bahram Akradi, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK aided and abetted the
Board's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Amended St. Clair
Complaint also alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to
disclose material information to stockholders in connection with
the merger. In particular, among other things, the Amended St.
Clair Complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to
disclose material information in the Preliminary Proxy regarding
the background of the merger and financial information that
shareholders need to fully consider the merits of the merger. The
Amended St. Clair Complaint seeks, among other things, equitable
relief under Minnesota Statute section 302A.467, including to
enjoin the closing of the merger, to direct disclosure of all
material information concerning the merger prior to the
shareholder vote, and to award plaintiff's costs and
disbursements, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and the Board
believe that the action is without merit, and intend to vigorously
defend against all claims asserted.


LIFE TIME: Faces "Bell" Class Action
------------------------------------
Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, a
second putative class action was filed by a purported Life Time
shareholder in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Minnesota, County of Carver, captioned Bell v. Akradi, et al.,
Case No. 10-CV-15-392.

Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation as a class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of Life Time. The complaint
names as defendants Life Time, the members of the Board, Parent,
Merger Sub, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK. The complaint generally
alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to Life Time
shareholders in connection with the merger because, among other
reasons, the terms of the merger are not entirely fair to Life
Time shareholders in terms of price or process; the Board retained
conflicted financial advisors in connection with the merger;
certain individual defendants are interested in the merger; and
certain provisions in the merger agreement unfairly preclude a
third party from making an offer for Life Time. The complaint also
alleges that Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material
information to stockholders in connection with the merger. In
particular, among other things, the complaint alleges that Life
Time and the Board failed to disclose material information in the
Preliminary Proxy regarding the background of the merger and
financial information that shareholders need to fully consider the
merits of the merger. The complaint also alleges that Parent,
Merger Sub, Leonard Green, TPG and LNK aided and abetted the
Board's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further
alleges violations of Minnesota Business Corporation Act sections
302A.467 and 302A.255, as well as violations of the Minnesota
Securities Act section 80A.68, section 80A.69, and section 80A.76.
The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the closing of
the merger, to award unspecified damages, and to award plaintiff's
costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and
the Board believe that the action is without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted.


LIFE TIME: Faces "Lusk" Class Action
------------------------------------
Life Time Fitness, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 10, 2015, a
third putative class action was filed by a purported Life Time
shareholder in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota, captioned Lusk v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-01911. Plaintiff purports to bring the litigation
as a class action on behalf of the shareholders of Life Time. The
complaint names as defendants Life Time and the members of the
Board. The complaint alleges that Life Time and the Board violated
Section 14(a) of Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and that the Board violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because the Preliminary Proxy is allegedly false and
materially misleading. In particular, the complaint alleges that
Life Time and the Board failed to disclose material information in
the Preliminary Proxy regarding the background of the merger and
financial information that shareholders need to fully consider the
merits of the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, to
enjoin the closing of the merger, unspecified damages, and to
award plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees. Life Time and
the Board believe that the action is without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted.

The Shareholder Actions are in their early stages, and thus the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate any potential material
loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of
these actions. While they could impact consummation of the merger,
Life Time and the Board intend to vigorously defend the Actions,
denying any and all violations of state or federal law alleged
therein.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guinane" Suit Over Flooring Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Guinane, David Guinane, Nicole Alonso and Miguel Alonso,
individually and o/b/o their respective minor children and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.,
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01235-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2015) alleges
that the Defendants has been selling composite laminate flooring
products that emit formaldehyde that exceeded the California Air
Resources Board limits for formaldehyde emissions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          Clay H. Barnett, III, Esq.
          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Garcia, Esq.
          AG LAW, INC.
          742 South Village Circle
          Tampa, FL 33606-2563
          Telephone: (813) 259-9555
          Facsimile: (813) 254-9555
          E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com


LVNV FUNDING: Removed "Javan" Suit to New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled John Javan, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Niagara Credit
Solutions, Inc., and Frank Salvini, Case No. MID-L-001841-15 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to
the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Trenton). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-03347-PGS-LHG to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN
      75 Raritan Ave., Suite 220
      NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08904
      Telephone: (732) 937-9400
      Facsimile: (800) 931-2408
      E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com

         - and -

      Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joann Needleman, Esq.
      CLARK HILL PLC
      One Commerce Square
      2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 640-8536
      Facsimile: (215) 640-8501
      E-mail: jneedleman@clarkhill.com


MATCH.COM LLC: Removes "Graf" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Graf v. Match.com, LLC, Case No.
15CV-0216, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Luis Obispo to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
03911 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts fraud-related claims.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert H. Platt, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: rplatt@manatt.com


MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Devi" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Syama Devi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenix, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., &
Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1-15-CV-281298 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 1, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the
shareholders of Meru Networks, Inc. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Meru by Fortinet, Inc. Limited for grossly
inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process.

Meru Networks, Inc.is a company engaged in the supply and service
of wireless local area networks.

Fortinet, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that sells
high performance network security products and services including
their flagship integrated network security solution, the FortiGate
firewall.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534- 2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


MISSION LINEN: Faces "Fematt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Fematt, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Mission Linen
Supply and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG15772522 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Mission Linen Supply owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks,
industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites in Alameda County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San DDiego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


NAT'L MILK PRODUCERS: Bid for Exclusion From Class Due July 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP regarding the Fresh Milk Antitrust Litigation: UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Matthew
Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, Case No. 11-cv-
04766

TO: CONSUMERS OF MILK AND OTHER FRESH MILK PRODUCTS
Your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit regarding
your purchase(s) of milk and certain other fresh milk products.
The lawsuit is pending before Judge Jeffrey S. White in federal
court in Oakland, California ("Court"). This Notice is not an
expression by the Court of any opinion as to the merits of any of
the claims or defenses asserted by either side in this lawsuit.

What is this about?

This is an antitrust lawsuit alleging a nationwide conspiracy to
limit the production of raw farm milk, thus artificially inflating
the price of milk and other fresh milk products. In a class
action, one or more individuals, called Plaintiffs, file suit on
behalf of others with similar claims, called "the Class" or "Class
Members." The Court has certified plaintiff classes as described
in the section below. Plaintiffs allege that defendants National
Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together
("CWT"), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc.,
Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc. (collectively,
"Defendants") and its members have engaged in a nationwide
conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk, through
"early herd retirements," and thus increased the price of raw
milk. Plaintiffs allege that this conspiracy artificially
inflated, and continues to artificially inflate, the price of milk
and other fresh milk products as listed below. Defendants deny any
wrongdoing or liability for the claims alleged.

Who is a class member?

You are a class member if you are a consumer who, from 2003
through 2012, as a resident of Arizona, California, the District
of Columbia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,Vermont,
West Virginia, or Wisconsin, indirectly purchased milk and/or
other fresh milk products (including cream, half & half, yogurt,
cottage cheese, cream cheese, and/or sour cream) for your own use
and not for resale. To be a class member, you must have purchased
the milk indirectly, for example, through a grocery store or
retailer.

How do I participate in this class action?

If you fall within the definition of one of the classes set forth
above, you are a class member. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A CLASS
MEMBER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. As a class
member, you will be bound by any judgment or settlement, whether
favorable or unfavorable, in this lawsuit. Thus, you may
participate in any monetary settlement or judgment that is
favorable to the classes, and you may submit a Proof of Claim
following such a settlement or judgment. No judgment or settlement
has occurred at this time. You will also be bound by any
unfavorable judgment which may be rendered in favor of Defendants.
You may not have the right to seek exclusion from the class at the
time of settlement or judgment.

The Court has appointed the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, Washington98101 to
represent the Class ("Class Counsel"). You will not be charged
separately for these lawyers.

Any class member who does not request exclusion from being a class
member may also enter an appearance through their own counsel at
their own expense.

How do I exclude myself from the classes?

To be excluded, you must send a written request for exclusion from
class membership to

Fresh Milk Products Antitrust Litigation Exclusions
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 6002
Larkspur, CA 94977-6002

Your request must be received by July 14, 2015. After that date,
you will not have the right to be excluded from class membership.
In order to be valid, your request for exclusion must (i) set
forth the name and address of the person or entity requesting
exclusion, (ii) state that such person or entity requests
exclusion from the classes in this lawsuit, and (iii) be signed
and dated by such person or entity.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE EXCLUDED: (1) you will NOT be entitled to
share in any recovery from any settlement or judgment that may be
paid to class members as a result of trial or other resolution of
this lawsuit; (2) you will NOT be bound by any judgment or release
entered in this lawsuit; and (3) at your own expense, you MAY
pursue any claims that you have by filing litigation.

How can I get more information?

This Notice does not fully describe all of the claims and
contentions of the parties. Further information, including the
operative complaint and court documents related to the
certification of the class, is available at the Notice
Administrator's website,www.freshmilkpricefixing.com or by calling
toll-free 1-877-417-4561.  You may also contact Class Counsel by
calling 1-206-623-7292 or visiting www.hbsslaw.com.
Please do not contact the Court for information about this
lawsuit.

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel(213) 330-7150
          Fax(213) 330-7152
          http://www.hbsslaw.com/


NY AMSTERDAM NEWS: Fails to Accommodate Under ADA, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Del Toro v. New York Amsterdam News, Penda Howell, and
Elinor Tatum, Case No. 1:15-cv-03978 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015)
alleges, among other things, failure to accommodate under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State and the New
York City Human Rights Laws.

Amsterdam News is a weekly newspaper with a principal place of
business in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are
employees or agents of Amsterdam News.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Seltzer, Esq.
          Paul J. Sagar, Esq.
          YUEN ROCCANOV A SELTZER P.C.
          11 Hanover Square, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 608-1178
          Facsimile: (212) 608-2913
          E-mail: sseltzer@yrsslaw.com
                  psagar@yrsslaw.com


OAKLAND HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nelson v. Oakland Housing Authority and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG15772557 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2015, is brought on behalf of
the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury,
over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants operate apartment units in County of Alameda,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


OPENGATE CAPITAL: Faces "Mitra" Suit Over Termination Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Malloy Mitra, Brenda Manos, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. Opengate Capital LLC,
Opengate Capital Group LLC, Opengate Capital Management LLC, and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 30-2015-00790797 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide any written notice of the impending facility closure and
terminations and failure to pay employees all wages due and owing
at the time of discharge.

The Defendants operate PennySaver publication, providing
advertising services to advertisers and consumers throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com


OSI SYSTEMS: Securities Class Action at Early Stage of Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action against OSI Systems, Inc. is at the
early stage of litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the
"Securities Class Action"). The Amended Complaint in the
Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
facts concerning the status of the Security division's efforts to
develop automated threat recognition software and the alleged use
of unapproved parts in its baggage scanning systems in violation
of its contract with the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration (the "TSA"). The Amended Complaint also asserts
that the individual defendants allegedly sold stock based on
material non-public information. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees, costs, and other unspecified relief.

Two shareholder derivative complaints (the "Derivative Actions")
have also been filed in the Court purportedly on behalf of the
Company against the members of the Company's Board of Directors
(as individual defendants).  One, filed on April 15, 2014, is
captioned Hagan v. Chopra, et al., and the other, filed on
December 29, 2014, is captioned City of Irving Benefit Plan,
Derivatively on Behalf of OSI Systems, Inc. v. Deepak Chopra, et
al. The Derivative Actions generally assert the same factual
allegations as those at issue in the related Securities Class
Action and purport to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties
and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants on behalf
of the Company. Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions seek
unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys'
and experts' fees, costs, expenses, and other unspecified relief.

While the Company believes that the Securities Class Action and
the Derivative Actions are without merit and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously, it expects to incur costs associated with
defending the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions.
At this early stage of litigation, the ultimate outcomes of the
Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions are uncertain
and the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes,
or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or their effect, if any,
on its financial statements.


PALL CORPORATION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Scheiner as custodian for Benjamin Scheiner and Hannah
Scheiner, and Baruch Halberstam as custodian for Malka Halberstam
and Hannah Halberstam, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pall Corporation, et al., Case No.
603517/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is bright on behalf of
all the public stockholders of the common stock of Pall
Corporation against Pall's Board of Directors fir breaches of
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's agreement to
sell the Company to Danaher Corporation and Pentagon Merger Sub,
Inc. for inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Pall Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 25 Harbor Park Drive, Port
Washington, NY. Pall manufactures and markets filtration,
separation and purification products, and integrated systems,
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


PELLA CORPORATION: South Carolina Judge Tosses "Walters" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the
case BRIAN WALTERS and MIRTA BIEL-WALTERS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-03491-DCN
(D.S.C.)

Plaintiff Andrew Pohutsky purchased Pella Architect and Designer
Series windows to install in his home when it was constructed in
2000. The windows were purchased directly from K.C. Company, Inc.
(KC), one of the largest Pella retailers in the country, and
shipped directly to Pohutsky. Plaintiff noticing signs of water
leaks in his windows in 2005, 2008 and 2013 respectively.
Plaintiff contacted KC and KC only applied caulk and indicated the
problems were resolved.

Pohutsky alleges that the windows suffer from various design
deficiencies, including a defect in the glazing pocket, the
aluminum cladding, the crank hardware and the frame to sash joint.
Pohutsky alleges that these defects cause leaks and allow water to
be trapped between the aluminum and the operable wood frame
causing damage to the windows and other property within the home.
Pohutsky alleges that Pella was or should have been aware that its
windows were defective and that Pella concealed its knowledge of
repeated product defects.

On August 13, 2014, Pohutsky filed a class action complaint
against Pella in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Maryland, alleging jurisdiction based on the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The
complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) breach of express
warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and (4) declaratory relief.
On August 29, 2014, the United States Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the case to the present court as part of
the consolidated multidistrict litigation. Pella filed a motion to
dismiss.

Judge Norton granted defendant's motion and dismisses without
prejudice all of plaintiff's causes of action against Pella.

A copy of Judge Norton's order dated May 19, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/dclEEjfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew Pohutsky, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E Mason -- at
Mason Law Firm; Scott A George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at
Seeger Weiss; Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield
Bryson and Mason; Joel R Rhine at Rhine Law Firm PC

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L Morrow --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J Winebrenner --
joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels


PFIZER INC: Suit Over Side Effects of Parkinson's Drugs Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Wipond, writing for Mad in America, reported that an
Australian class action lawsuit about Pfizer Parkinson's drugs
that caused severe gambling and sex addictions in 172 people has
been settled, but delayed by a judge concerned that the plaintiffs
were not fully informed of their rights, reported Financial
Review.AboutLawsuits.com reported that the antipsychotic Abilify
could become a target for similar lawsuits.

"Many claimed to have gambled away hundreds of thousands of
dollars, amounting to their entire life savings, after taking the
drugs despite having no pre-existing gambling problems," reported
Financial Review.

As many as 18% of people taking dopamine agonists for Parkinson's
could become victims of compulsive behavioral side effects, stated
AboutLawsuits.com. "There are six FDA-approved dopamine agonists
currently on the market in the United States. The Parkinson's
disease drugs Mirapex and Requip were most strongly linked to
incidents of impulse control problems among the dopamine receptor
agonists, leading to gambling addictions and hypersexuality, and
even compulsive shopping. However, a safety signal was also seen
for Abilify gambling and impulse control problems, with at least
37 reports found specifically involving this one medication."


PORTLAND GENERAL: Trojan Investment Recovery Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Trojan Investment Recovery Class Actions remain pending.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Oregon. In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that
granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of
its remaining investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE
to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were
completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by
the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the Oregon
Supreme Court in October 2014.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in
Marion County Circuit Court against PGE on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings. The Oregon Supreme
Court concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

The October 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted
that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request
to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is
evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court
decision has reduced the risk of a loss to the Company in excess
of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. However,
because the class actions remain pending, management believes that
it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could
result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have
a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is
currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss.


QUINCY STREET: Recalls Pork Sausage Products Due to Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quincy Street, Inc., a Holland, Mich. establishment, is recalling
approximately 49,308 pounds of pork sausage products that may be
contaminated with foreign materials, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The pork sausage items were produced on April 22, 2015 through
April 23, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Skin On Sausage
      Links" with reorder number 466301.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Pork Sausage
      Patties" with reorder number 313963.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of "Skin On
      Sausage Links" with reorder number 505361.
  --- 12-lb. packages containing 1.5-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Quincy Street Soy Patties" with item number 012010.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Sausage
      Links" with reorder number 245852.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Buffet
      Style Links" with reorder numbers 266876.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Skin On Buffet
      Style Links" with reorder numbers 161100.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Skin On Breakfast Links with Sage" with item
      number 55571.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Mild Skin On Sausage Links" with item number
      55545.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Mild Skin On Sausage Links" with item number
      55522.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Skin On Pork Sausage Links with Sage" with item number
      55521.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Quincy Street Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number
      12008.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.5-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Breakfast Patties with Sage" with item number
      55544.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Breakfast Patties with Sage" with item number
      55572.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 0.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Blackstone Skin On Pork Sausage Links with Sage" with item
      number 55517.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Skin On Breakfast Links" with item number 010716.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 5.3-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Bold n' Spicy Sausage Patties" with item number 010749.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "Quincy Street Bold n' Spicy
      Bulk Pork Sausage" with item number 010745.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 2-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Pork Sausage Patties" with item number 010706.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Russ' Own Special Blend Pork Sausage Links" with item
      number R10702.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Skin On Breakfast Links" with item number 010716.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number 010702.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 1.8-oz. pieces of fully cooked
      "Quincy Street Skin On Pork Sausage Links" with item number
      010781.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing 5.3-oz. pieces of "Quincy Street
      Bold n' Spicy Sausage Patties" with item number 010749.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
18963" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to institutions nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the establishment during routine
verification activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Ron Potts,
Quincy Street, Inc. Director of Food Safety/Quality, at (616) 738-
5303. Media with questions about the recall can contact Jeff
Feirick, Quincy Street, Inc. Vice President Corporate Planning, at
(765) 564-7278.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


RESTAURANTE EL GRAN: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Cardona, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. d/b/a El
Conquistador Restaurant and Silvio Mendia a/k/a Silvio Memdia,
Case No. 7:15-cv-03943-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Wage
and Hour Laws.

Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. is a New York business
corporation headquartered in Peekskill, New York.  Silvio Mendia
is the chief executive officer of the Company.  The Defendants
own, operate or control two restaurants located in Peekskill and
in Danbury, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SANTA BARBARA SMOKEHOUSE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Santa Barbara Smokehouse of Santa Barbara, CA is voluntarily
recalling all smoked salmon EXCLUDING HOT SMOKED SALMON from March
1st to April 8th 2015, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Cold Smoked Salmon was distributed within the United States
through retail stores and food wholesaler.

The following brands affected in the VOLUNTARY RECALL: Cambridge
House, Coastal Harbor, Harbor Point, North Shore S.F. Specialty,
Channel Islands and Santa Barbara. Along with the following batch
range of 1015 - 3949.

No illnesses have been reported to date for this VOLUNTARY RECALL.

The safety of Santa Barbara Smokehouse product is the primary
concern to them, therefore Santa Barbara Smokehouse has tested and
received certificates of analysis showing negative results for
products in question during that time period. All fresh product
has a use by dates of April 29th to May 6th 2015. The company is
recommending as a precautionary measure to pull frozen product
produced on or before April 8, 2015.

Even though Santa Barbara Smokehouse has positive releases on
these products they are taking proactive steps to ensure the
safety of their products.

Just to clarify this is just a precautionary step.

The company has corrected the above reference issue and continues
their rigorous sanitation programs and Food Safety Programs and
positive release of products.

If any of the products listed above are still in possession do not
consume and contact Santa Barbara Smokehouse for pick up.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-805-966-
9796.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm449916.htm


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wunstell & Blanchard Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. will continue to vigorously defend the
action, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by ORM
during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the overall
multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also
seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to
those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no
merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the
Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL, discussed further
below. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential
exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not
expect it will have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defendants & Committee File Joint Report in MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Clean-Up Responder
Defendants and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the MDL
submitted a joint report to the Court regarding claimants'
compliance with the pretrial order.

On December 15, 2010, NRC, a subsidiary of the Company prior to
the SES Business Transaction, and ORM were named as defendants in
one of the several consolidated "master complaints" that have been
filed in the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL").  The
"B3" master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on
behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning
the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants
specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed
as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The
Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in
the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM
and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master
complaint on legal grounds.

On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended
decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several
grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original
order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced
master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did
recognize the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied
preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM
and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to
support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The
Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other
claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint,
and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to
allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited
discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in
accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary
judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied
preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on
July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision.

On July 17, 2014, the Court issued a pretrial order that
established a protocol for disclosures clarifying the basis for
the "B3" claims asserted against the Clean-Up Responder
Defendants, including ORM and NRC, in the MDL. Under this
protocol, Plaintiffs who satisfy certain criteria and believe they
have specific evidence in support of their claims, including that
any Clean-Up Responder Defendant(s) failed to act pursuant to the
authority and direction of the federal government in conducting
Deepwater Horizon oil spill remediation and clean-up operations,
must submit a sworn statement or face dismissal. Plaintiffs'
deadline to serve such sworn statements in support of their claims
was September 22, 2014, with the exception of several Plaintiffs
who were granted an extension until October 10, 2014.

On November 14, 2014, the Clean-Up Responder Defendants and the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the MDL submitted a joint report
to the Court regarding claimants' compliance with the pretrial
order.  In this joint report, the parties (i) explained how they
complied with the notice requirements of Court's July 17, 2014
pretrial order, (ii) noted that they had received 102 sworn
statements in connection with this pretrial order, and (iii)
provided the Court with an assessment of the sworn statements
received. An additional sworn statement was received after the
joint report was submitted. Procedures and next steps in
connection with the "B3" claims will now be addressed by the
Court.

In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to
contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible
party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to
indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims
in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate the
potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the
Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Himmerite Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that ORM recently settled
three collective action lawsuits that asserted failure to pay
overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). These cases: Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's
Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-
01533) (the "Himmerite Action"); Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's
Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the
"Prejean Action"); and Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's
Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-
01716) (the "Singleton Action") were brought in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response. In the Singleton action, on February 13, 2014, the
parties reached a full and final settlement agreement with respect
to all of the Plaintiffs' individual claims for an undisclosed
immaterial amount. On April 11, 2014, the Court approved the
parties' settlement and dismissed the Singleton Action with
prejudice in its entirety, which extinguished the tolling of
claims that had been in place for absent putative plaintiffs.
In the Prejean action, the parties reached a full and final
settlement agreement on November 6, 2014 with respect to all of
the Plaintiffs' individual and collective action claims for an
undisclosed immaterial amount. The Court approved the settlement
and dismissed the Prejean Action with prejudice in its entirety on
November 19, 2014.

In the Himmerite action, the parties reached a full and final
settlement agreement on February 19, 2015 with respect to all of
the Plaintiffs' claims for an undisclosed immaterial amount. The
Court approved the settlement and dismissed the Himmerite Action
with prejudice in its entirety on March 25, 2015, which also
extinguished the tolling of claims which had been in place for
absent putative plaintiffs.


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shabnam Vafaee, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03926
(C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015) alleges violation of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Babak Semnar, Esq.
          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          SEMNAR AND HARTMAN LLP
          400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209
          Vista, CA 92081
          Telephone: (951) 293-4187
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
                  jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com


SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hassett" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March
19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc.,
styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030
(E.D. Michigan).

"Process was served on our agent on March 25, 2015 and received by
us on March 27, 2015," the Company said.  "The lawsuit alleges
that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader TPMS installed on
Chrysler vehicles model years 2007 through 2014. It alleges breach
of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan
consumer protection act and the federal Magnuson-Moss warranty
act, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the
size of the class and the damages sought are unspecified."

"We have received an extension for filing an answer, which is now
due May 15, 2015. We do not believe a loss is probable, and
accordingly, as of March 31, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual
related to this matter," the Company said.


SENTINEL OFFENDER: Faces "Keller" Suit in Georgia District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chester L. Keller, III, Shellie K. Reaves a/k/a Shellie Keller,
and Wyndel Herndon, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated
v. Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00060-LGW-RSB
(S.D. Ga., May 21, 2015) alleges civil rights violation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Randall Clark, Esq.
          JASON CLARK, PC
          2225 Gloucester Street
          Brunswick, GA 31520
          Telephone: (912) 264-1999
          Facsimile: (912) 262-0285
          E-mail: jason@jasonclarkpc.com

               - and -

          John C. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          457 Greene Street
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7552
          E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com

               - and -

          John B. Long, Esq.
          TUCKER, LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7028
          E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com

               - and -

          John Ryd Bush Long, Esq.
          JOHN R.B. LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 3928
          Augusta, GA 30914
          Telephone: (706) 868-8011
          Facsimile: (706) 868-8041
          E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com


SIRIUS XM: Appeals Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Xm Holdings Inc. is appealing the decisions issued by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, in the Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in three class action suits
and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and
September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via
satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior
to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida
law.  The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in
excess of $100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with
unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief.   Accordingly,
at this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to
prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial
defenses to the claims asserted.  We are defending these actions
vigorously."

"In September 2014, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive
ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's
copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public
performances of the sound recording.  The court further found that
the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated
California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and
conversion.  In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central
District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under
California's copyright statute.  That Court did not find that the
unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated
California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and
conversion.  In November 2014, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ruled that sound recordings
fixed before February 15, 1972 were entitled under various
theories of New York common law to the benefits of a public
performances right.  We are appealing the decisions issued by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, and intend to appeal the decision of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

"These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
et al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.),
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-
5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional
information concerning each of these actions is publicly available
in court filings under their docket numbers.

"In addition, in August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia alleging that we underpaid royalties for statutory
licenses during the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the
regulations established by the Copyright Royalty Board for that
period.  SoundExchange principally alleges that we improperly
reduced our calculation of gross revenues, on which the royalty
payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenue
attributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenue
that is not "separately charged" as required by the regulations.
SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages of not less than
$50,000,000 and up to $100,000,000 or more, payment of late fees
and interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

"In August 2014, the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia granted our motion to dismiss the complaint without
prejudice on the grounds that the case properly should be pursued
before the Copyright Royalty Board rather than the district court.
In December 2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the
Copyright Royalty Board requesting an order interpreting the
applicable regulations.  At this point we cannot estimate the
reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be
incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but
we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted.
We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

"This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio,
Inc.. No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates and
Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital
Audio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No.
2006-1 CRB DSTRA.  Additional information concerning each of these
actions is publicly available in filings under their docket
numbers.


SIRIUS XM: Plaintiffs in TCPA Suits Filed Motion to Transfer
------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Xm Holdings Inc. Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in
certain of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suits have filed
a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly
related cases, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

"We are a defendant in several purported class action suits, which
were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015 and
April 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, and the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
that allege that we, or certain call center vendors acting on our
behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"),the Company
said.  |The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other
things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and,
in one of the actions, that we violated the TCPA's call time
restrictions.  The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various
forms of relief, including statutory damages of five-hundred
dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative,
treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing
and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief
prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future.  Plaintiffs in
certain of these suits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer these purported class
actions, and other allegedly related cases, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings.  We believe we
have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions,
and we intend to defend them vigorously."

"We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against
these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or
former agreements with us.  We believe we have valid contractual
claims against certain call center vendors in connection with
these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to
recover from these entities."

These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis
W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.),
Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal) and Yefim Elikman v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093
(N.D. Ill.).  Additional information concerning each of these
actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket
numbers.


SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Smart Lipo Capsules Due to Sibutramine
------------------------------------------------------------
SmartLipo365 is voluntarily recalling 122 lots of Smart Lipo (800,
900, 950 mg) capsules, to the consumer level. FDA received samples
of 800 and 900mg capsules of Smart Lipo and the lab results found
the Smart Lipo products to contain undeclared sibutramine,
desmethylsibutramine, and phenolphthalein.

Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the
U.S. market in October 2010. Sibutramine is known to substantially
increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may
present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary
artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke.
Phenolphthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the-
counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it
is not currently approved for marketing in the United States.
Health risks associated with phenolphthalein could include
potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use. These undeclared
ingredients make these products unapproved new drugs for which
safety and efficacy have not been established. These products may
also interact in life-threatening ways with other medications a
consumer may be taking.

Smart Lipo is marketed as a dietary supplement and is packaged in
bottles of 30 capsules, with 22 bottles of 800mg, 77 bottles of
900mg, and 23 bottles of 950mg.The affected Smart Lipo products
include the following expiration dates: 800mg capsules -
9/15/2017, 900mg capsules - 7/30/2017, 950mg capsules - 7/30/2017
& 7/30/2018. Smart Lipo was sold in stores, Centro Naturista in
Richardson, TX, SmartLipo365 in Arlington, TX, as well as
distributed nationwide via the Internet,
SmartLipo365.comdisclaimer icon

SmartLipo365 is notifying its distributors and customers by e-mail
and letter and will not continue the distribution of Smart Lipo.
Consumers, distributors, retailers that have Smart Lipo which is
being recalled should stop using the recalled product and asked to
please dispose it.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
SmartLipo365 by 1-(800)-547-6365 or info@smartlipo365.com on
Monday through Friday from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. (Central time).
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product.

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

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholder Files Class Action in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that on April 6, 2015, Ming
Huang, a purported shareholder of the Company (the "Plaintiff"),
filed a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), against Sonus and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan,
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark
Greenquist, the Company's Chief Financial Officer (the
"Defendants"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to
March 24, 2015 and seeks unspecified damages. The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is the claim that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
the Company's fiscal first quarter 2015 financial performance.

The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the
results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or
consolidated financial statements.


SPOKEO INC: Removes "Taylor" Suit to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Taylor v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No.
BER-L-3121-15, was removed from the Superior Court of Bergen
County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-03490-CCC-JBC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative "nationwide class" "of
all persons residing in the United States of America who, and all
business entities located in the United States of America which,
expended money for the purchase of a reverse search report from
Spokeo under circumstances identical or substantially similar to
those described" in the complaint, "within six years prior to the
date of filing" of the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Bronster, Esq.
          JEFFREY A. BRONSTER, P.C.
          17 Wendell Place
          Fairview, NJ 07022
          Telephone: (201) 945-2566
          Facsimile: (201) 945-2688
          E-mail: jbronster@bronsterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Martinez, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-2514
          E-mail: michael.martinez@mayerbrown.com


SPRINGLEAF HOLDINGS: New Judge in W.Va. Consumer Finance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Springleaf Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2015, that the class action complaint by Paul Lightner has
been remanded back to the trial court, where a new judge has been
assigned.

In 2006, Paul Lightner filed a counter-claim class action
complaint seeking recovery under West Virginia's Consumer Credit
and Protection Act against CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) for selling
insurance with allegedly inflated premiums and for allegedly
taking impermissible security interests in household goods. In
2008, the trial court certified a class under both claims and
denied CitiFinancial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on both
claims. CitiFinancial, Inc. appealed the denial of summary
judgment on the insurance claim, and in 2009 the West Virginia
Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and held that
appropriateness of insurance rates was a matter to be decided by
the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner. In 2010, the West
Virginia Insurance Commissioner ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc.
(WV)'s favor, and plaintiffs appealed this decision. In June 2014,
the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc.
(WV)'s favor, and affirmed the decision of the Insurance
Commissioner. The matter has been remanded back to the trial
court, where a new judge has been assigned to the matter.
CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) is subject to the prior judge's 2008
certification order, and is seeking to have the remaining claim
for taking impermissible security interests in household goods
decertified. Additional information concerning this matter is
publicly available in court filings under Lightner v.
CitiFinancial, Inc., Case No. 02-C0723 (Cir. Ct. Marshall Co. WV).


SUNWATER LIMITED: Callide Dam Flood Victims to File Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that more than 200 homeowners whose properties
were damaged when the Callide Dam overflowed have banded together
to launch a class action.

Maddens Lawyers, which recovered millions in compensation for
Black Saturday bushfire victims, issued proceedings in the
Victorian Supreme Court against SunWater Limited.

Torrential rain from Cyclone Marcia boosted the dam's level to the
point which triggered its automatic gates to open.

A massive volume flowed downstream through the Biloela and Jambin
communities, damaging almost 400 homes and farming properties
downstream, Maddens Lawyers said in a statement.

The evidence suggests that SunWater was more than negligent in the
operation of the facility, it was gross negligence.

Class action principal Brendan Pendergast said the damage caused
by the uncontrolled release could have been avoided and affected
residents had a right to compensation.

SunWater could have undertaken precautionary releases before the
deluge.

The ABC revealed in April that despite the pleas of locals,
Sunwater allowed the dam to fill to 89 per cent before Cyclone
Marcia hit.

"We know SunWater was aware of the pending weather conditions in
the lead-up to 20 February and that the Callide Dam was already
close to capacity," Mr. Pendergast said.

"But despite this knowledge, no precautionary releases were
authorised until it was too late.

The law firm was yet to put a dollar figure on the losses suffered
and how much they would be seeking.

"For example, there are several farming properties in the Jambin
area that were affected; it could be years before these property
owners know the full extent of the economic impact this flood had
on their operations," Mr Pendergast said.

"The nature of the damage suffered means it's tough to evaluate
the true, collective cost of this flood right now, in these early
days."

The class action would also seek compensation for time spent by
residents cleaning up from the flood, and the physical
inconvenience suffered by people who were displaced from their
homes.

SunWater issued a statement saying it stands by its management of
the Callide Dam and it's staff who operated the dam in line with
the established and approved operating procedures.

Gross negligence, dam expert alleges

Ken Pearce, who helped design Wivenhoe Dam and was principal
engineer at Seqwater, was critical of SunWater's decision not to
release water before Cyclone Marcia.

"The evidence suggests that Sunwater was more than negligent in
the operation of the facility -- it was gross negligence," he
said.

"It is understandable that the irrigators and property owners
downstream are so upset.

"This sort of thing has been going on for a long time in the water
industry. There has to be some accountability."


SUPERVALU INC: To Defend Class Action Against Company, IOS
----------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in September 2008, a
class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as
International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.;
Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing,
Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are
a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a
retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a
purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i)
conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services
under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise
to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Filed Petition for Certiorari to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. has filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th
Circuit decision in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended February
28, 2015.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving
the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1)
reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court's
decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all
retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale
grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and
September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court
to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers
supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution
center and potentially other distribution centers.

On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company's petition
for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the
summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder.
The case is now remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings to be determined by the District Court. On January 16,
2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th
Circuit decision.


SUPERVALU INC: Payments to Class Members Completed in February
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that payments to class
members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February
2015.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby
employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a
week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for
overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful
or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method
of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday
pay and bonus payments.

In March 2013, the United States District Court granted
conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of
whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is
permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state
laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same
plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW
actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of
the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former
Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court
for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary
judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal
practice in Connecticut.

In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano)
filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania
state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the
Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary
damages and attorneys' fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties
agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis
in a settlement that will cap the Company's aggregate obligation,
including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and costs and settlement administration costs.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March
13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class
members began in mid-November 2014 and were completed in February
2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5
million before tax ($3 million after tax) in the second quarter of
fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this
matter. The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement
fund on February 28, 2014.


SUPERVALU INC: Expects Consolidated Complaint Will Be Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, that in August and November
2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company
relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network
announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal
Intrusion"). On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an
order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to
the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On
December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the cases consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation and transferred the cases to the
District Court in Minnesota. The Company expects a consolidated
complaint will be filed within the next several months.


TFORCE ENERGY: "Eld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin H. Eld, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. TForce Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00738-
CB (W.D. Pa., June 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TForce Energy Services, Inc. provides rig moving, rig
mobilization, oilfield heavy hauling, and long haul services to
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


TIME WARNER: Entered Into MOU to Settle Comcast Merger Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that
following the announcement of the Comcast merger in February 2014,
various putative stockholder derivative actions and stockholder
class actions were filed against, among others the Company and its
directors. As described in the 2014 Form 10-K, the complaints in
these actions alleged breaches of fiduciary duty to the Company's
stockholders and disclosure failures in the Company's registration
statement related to the Comcast merger, among other things, and
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the Comcast merger, unspecified declaratory
and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and costs and fees.

On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement,
subject to final approval by the court and certain other
conditions, to settle all of this litigation. The Company believes
that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit and, if
the settlement does not receive final court approval or otherwise
is not consummated, intends to defend against the litigation
vigorously. The Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and
directors under certain circumstances to the fullest extent
permitted by Delaware law.

The Company has purchased insurance that covers its directors and
officers for liabilities incurred by them in their capacities as
directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries. Under
this insurance program, the Company is reimbursed for payments
made to directors or officers as required or permitted by the
indemnification provisions of the Company's By-laws, Certificate
of Incorporation and Delaware law. This insurance also provides
coverage under certain circumstances to individual directors and
officers if they are not indemnified by the Company. In connection
with the Company's indemnification obligations, the Company or its
insurer advanced certain attorneys' fees and expenses incurred on
behalf of the independent directors in connection with the
litigation described. The independent directors were represented
as a group by separate counsel in these matters as well as by
counsel for the Company.


TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Stoyas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Toshiba Corporation, Norio Sasaki, and Hisao Tanaka,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered their
affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company's
financial performance, business prospects, and true financial
condition.

Toshiba Corporation is a Japanese corporation that engages in the
research and development, manufacture, and sale of electronic and
energy products worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Removed "Williams" Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Shauntae Williams, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Transdev Services, Inc. and Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.,
Case No. C-15-006, was removed from the Contra Costa Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District
(Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
02180-KAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq.
      BLUMENTHA, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223 x127
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
              aj@bamlawlj.com
              kyle@bamlawlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brandyn E. Stedfield, Esq.
      Janet Sylvia Yavrouian, Esq.
      Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
      GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
      835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 452-0510
      Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
      E-mail: bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com
              jyavrouian@gleasonfavarote.com
              tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com


TWO DIMITRIS: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Echeverria Flores and Stephanie D. Camargo, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Two Dimitris Corp.,
d/b/a Gyro World and Dimitris Petridis, Case No. 705656/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 194-21
Northern Blvd., Flushing, New York 11358.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


TYSON FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fresh Meats, a Dakota City, Neb., establishment, is
recalling approximately 16,000 pounds of ground beef products that
may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ground beef items were produced on May 16, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 5 lb. chubs of "80% Lean Ground Beef."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
245C" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a "best before or
freeze by" date of June 5, 2015. These products were shipped to
one distribution location in New York.

FSIS discovered the problem during a routine sampling program.
Neither FSIS nor the company received any reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product. FSIS and the company
are concerned that some product may have been sold and stored in
consumers' refrigerators or freezers.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor,
and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms
should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume product
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Worth
Sparkman, at (479) 290-6358 or worth.sparkman@tyson.com. Consumers
with questions regarding the recall can contact the consumer
hotline, at (866) 328-3156.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


UNITED AIRLINES: Removes "Ward" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.,
Case No. CGC-15-545178, 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-
02309 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam P. Koh Sweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com


US BANK: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mikita Peoples v. U.S. Bank National Association, d/b/a U.S. Bank,
and US Bancorp, Case No. 1:15-cv-01041 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2015)
is brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, and the Ohio Revised Code for hostile work
environment sexual harassment and retaliation.

Ms. Peoples is a resident of Maple Heights, Ohio.  She was
employed by the Defendants or one of them, most recently as a
Mortgage Associate 2, until she was constructively discharged on
December 28, 2012.

U.S. Bank and US Bancorp are engaged in the business of banking
and employed the Plaintiff at all material times at their location
at in Bedford, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale A. Bernard, Esq.
          THE BERNARD LAW FIRM
          Crown Centre
          5005 Rockside Road, Suite 600
          Cleveland, OH 44131-6808
          Telephone: (440) 546-7500
          Facsimile: (440) 546-7501
          E-mail: dbernard@bernardlawfirm.com


US SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Stone v. U.S. Security
Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00235, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern 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-01842-ODE-JSA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, SF
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com


VALENTI MID-ATLANTIC: Sued Over Wheelchair Inaccessible Parking
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amelio Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Valenti Mid-Atlantic Management, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-03122-EGS (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure design and construct parking lot that is
accessible to, and independently usable by individual who use
wheelchairs.

Valenti Mid-Atlantic Management, LLC owns and operates a
restaurant located at 15 Jetson Drive, Hamburg, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      115 Federal Plaza Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in Interthinx Case Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court issued its
Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement on April 22, 2015,
in the Interthinx, Inc. Litigation.

On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the
Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado,
who filed the class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection
employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years
nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class
complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three
causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action
on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as
auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors
nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of
this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class and (ii) within four years prior to the filing of the
initial complaint until trial for the California collective
action. The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to
pay overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods,
waiting time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to
the plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It
pleads seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid
overtime (nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and
1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time
penalties in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4)
Failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide
and or authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq;
and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public
enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class).
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled
Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl,
a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of
himself and all current and former individuals employed in
California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the
California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on
behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of
action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2)
Failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
sections 510 and 1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage
statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure
to timely pay wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 204;
and (5) Failures to timely pay wages for violations of Cal. Lab.
Code sections 201- 203. The claim seeks compensatory damages and
penalties that are associated with the various statutes, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx. Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the
Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters. In
October 2014, the parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl
matters which provides for a payment of $6,000, the majority of
which is to be paid by insurance. The United States District Court
for the District of Colorado granted Preliminary Approval of the
Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release on November 21, 2014
and issued its Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement on
April 22, 2015.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of Amended ISO Complaint Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Appeals
has affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Amended
Complaint in the Insurance Services Office, Inc. Litigation.

In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J.
Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former
employees of the Company's subsidiary Insurance Services Office,
Inc. ("ISO"), bring the action on their own behalf as participants
in the Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf
of similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the
court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as
of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate
and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension
plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to
their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti-
cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA. The First
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") alleges
that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan violated
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback rules of
ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA 204(h) notice in a
manner calculated to be understood by the average pension plan
participant was a violation of Sections 204(h) and 102(a) of
ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a contract right under
ERISA common law and that by terminating that right through the
Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs' common law contract
rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory,
equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the
Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension plan and ISO
retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to recalculate
the accrued benefits of all class members, indemnification from
ISO to the pension plan for costs and contribution requirements
related to voiding the Unlawful Amendment, bonuses to the class
representatives, costs and attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample,
clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and
that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their
Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014. After oral argument was held
on April 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint by Order dated April
27, 2015.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder et. al. v. ACORD Corp. Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on August 1, 2014 the
Company was served with an Amended Complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado titled Snyder,
et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action is brought by nineteen
individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class, against more than 120 defendants, including the
Company and its subsidiary, Insurance Services Office, Inc.
("ISO"). Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord
Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance
transactions, most of the other defendants are property and
casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to
underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company
and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state
and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state
common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint that continues to allege that the defendants
conspired to underpay property damage claims, but does not
specifically allege what role the Company or ISO played in the
alleged conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law, and seeks all available relief including,
injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vipshop Holdings Limited ("Vipshop" or the "Company")
(NYSE:VIPS) and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-3870, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Vipshop securities between February 17, 2015 and May 11, 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 Vipshop securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 20, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained atwww.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.

Vipshop Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as an
online discount retailer for various brands in the People's
Republic of China. It offers a range of branded products,
including women's apparel, such as casual wear, jeans, dresses,
outerwear, swimsuits, lingerie, pajamas, and maternity clothes;
men's apparel comprising casual and smart-casual T-shirts, polo
shirts, jackets, pants, and underwear; women and men shoes for
casual and formal occasions; and accessories consisting of belts,
jewelry, watches, and glasses for women and men.

The Complaint alleges 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) Vipshop manipulated and overstated sales,
receivables, profit, cash flows, and asset accounts including
inventory and investments; (2) Vipshop's financial statements
contain GAAP violations by reporting revenue on a 'gross' basis,
despite the fact that the vast majority of the company's sales are
under a consignment arrangement; (3) Vipshop's internal controls
over financial reporting were ineffective; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Vipshop's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2015, Mithra Forensic Research published a report on
Vipshop (the "Mithra Report") asserting, among other things, that:
(1) forensic models suggest Vipshop manipulated sales,
receivables, profit and other asset accounts; and (2) Vipshop's
financial statements have been contradicted by management's own
disclosures in several instances.

As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.54 per share,
or over 5%, to close at $25.78 per share May 12, 2015.
On May 14, 2015, during the Company's earnings conference call, it
was revealed that Vipshop was the subject of another shortseller
report issued by J Capital Research (the "J Capital Report").

According to an article published later that day by TheStreet.com,
the J Capital Report presented research "[c]iting discrepancies in
the company's accounting" and stating that the Company's
"financial filings in China are vastly different than the filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, leading to concerns
that the company's results are not accurate."

As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.45 per share,
or over 5.4%, to close at $25.21 per share May 14, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, 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. 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.

The firm may be reached at:

          Robert S. Willoughby Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Ave. New York NY 10016
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


VISION HOMES: Sued Over Alleged Home Improvement Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Immerso & Michael Immerso, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vision Homes Of New York, Inc. and John
Geiger, Case No. 603508/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' breach of home improvement contracts,
specifically by failing to pay a subcontractor for at least three
weeks before the Plaintiffs justifiably terminated its contract,
which resulted in a subcontractor's mechanics' lien foreclosure
action.

The Defendants own and operate a construction firm, having a
principal place of business at 7 Port Washington Road, Sound
Beach, NY 11789.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Godman, Esq.
      NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
      7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10004

         - and -

      Jonathan Fox, Esq.
      Telephone: (212) 613-5095
      Facsimile: (212) 714-6633
      E-mail: jfox@nylag.org


YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Wang" Class Action
--------------------------------------
Youku Tudou Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on March 25, 2015, a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Wang v. Youku Tudou
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 15 CV 2258 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company and its chief executive officer and
former chief financial officer.

Shortly afterwards, two other putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Martindale v. Youku Tudou Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 15 CV 2246 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on March 26,
2015); and Jahm v. Youku Tudou, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 15
CV 2875 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on April 14, 2015).  The Company said,
"The complaints in the putative shareholder class action lawsuits
allege that various press releases, financial statements, and
other related disclosures made by our company during the
respective alleged class periods contained material misstatements
and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and
that such press releases, financial statements and other related
disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's
ADSs."

"These actions remain at their preliminary stages. We believe the
cases are without merit and intend to defend the actions
vigorously."


YUM! BRANDS: Briefing on Plaintiff's Appeal Completed
-----------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that briefing on
plaintiff's appeal in a class action complaint was scheduled to be
complete by the end of April 2015.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition.  The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  On August 5, 2013,
lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment GmbH, filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and February 4, 2013 (the
"Class Period").  The Amended Complaint no longer includes
allegations relating to misstatements regarding the Company's
business or financial condition and instead alleges that, during
the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted information about
the Company's supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices
at which the Company's securities traded.  On October 4, 2013, the
Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On December 24, 2014, the District Court
granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the
Amended Complaint with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, lead
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was
scheduled to be complete by the end of April 2015.

The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in the Amended Complaint.  A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Court Denied Taco Bell Motion to Dismiss or Strike
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that the court has denied a
motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal
premium class.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the
court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted
certification with respect to the late meal break class. The
parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and
the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were
mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October
29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative
complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On
December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions,
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but
certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid
meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the
complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014,
plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26,
2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike
the underpaid meal premium class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. "We have provided for a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit.
However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in
losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements cannot be made at this time," the Company said.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that discovery will
continue as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the putative class
action filed by Bernardina Rodriguez.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to
address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her
discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A
hearing on the parties' cross-summary judgment motions was held on
October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco
Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break
claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Discovery will continue as to
plaintiff's remaining claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Court Approved Settlement in "Smith" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 21, 2015, that the court has approved
the settlement in the class action filed by Mark Smith.

In July 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v. Pizza
Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly
reimburse its delivery drivers for various automobile costs,
uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to
represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. In January
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a
nationwide class of current and former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery
drivers. However, in March 2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's
pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with leave
to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint,
which dropped the uniform claims but, in addition to the federal
FLSA claims, asserted state-law class action claims under the laws
of sixteen different states. Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their
complaint a second time. In August 2010, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Hut filed another motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In July 2011, the court
granted Pizza Hut's motion with respect to plaintiffs' state law
claims but allowed the FLSA claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Conditional Certification in August 2011, and the
court granted plaintiffs' motion in April 2012. The opt-in period
closed on August 23, 2012, and 6,049 individuals opted in.  On
February 28, 2014, Pizza Hut filed a motion to decertify the
collective action, along with a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking an order from the court that the FLSA does not
require Pizza Hut to reimburse certain fixed costs that delivery
drivers would have incurred regardless of their employment with
Pizza Hut.

On September 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Term Sheet
setting forth the terms upon which the parties had agreed to
settle this matter. Pursuant to the parties' original agreement,
one issue, the mileage of an average round trip, remained
outstanding and was to be submitted for arbitration. The parties
have instead negotiated a final settlement, inclusive of that
issue and without any contingencies. The court approved the
settlement on March 26, 2015.

"The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in our Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements, and the associated cash
payments will not be material," the Company said.


ZUFFA LLC: Transferred "Kingsbury" Suit to Nevada District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kyle Kingsbury and Darren
Uyenoyama v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01324, was transferred
from the Circuit Court of California Northern to the United States
District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01046-RCJ-NJK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleged violation of anti-trust laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      William A. Isaacson, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      5301 Wisconsin Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 237-2727
      E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      John F. Cove Jr., Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 874-1000
      Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
      E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Had 65 Pending Suits as of March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were a total of 65 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed
against Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, 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.

Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois have been named,
along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure at our present or former energy centers. Most have been
filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total
number of defendants named in each case varies, with 77 as the
average number of parties as of March 31, 2015. Each lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be
shared among the various defendants.

There were a total of 65 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed
against the Ameren Companies as of March 31, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois
had liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2015, the
trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The
rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical
service territory.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), Ameren Energy Resources
Generating Company (AERG), Ameren Energy Resources Company and
Ameren Energy Marketing Company (Marketing Company). Ameren's
portfolio of natural gas supply resources includes firm
transportation capacity and firm no-notice storage capacity leased
from interstate pipelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $423.2-Mil. Fibro Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $423.2
million, 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.

Asbestos and Environmental Exposures (A&E) exposures represent a
separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating reserve
adequacy. At March 31, 2015, the Company had $425.6 million A&E
net reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2015, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of $423.2 million, or 95.7%, of total
A&E reserves, of which $319.8 million was for assumed business and
$103.4 million was for direct business.

Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. The Company
believes that its A&E reserves represent its best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, the
Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 7.2 years at
March 31, 2015. These metrics can be skewed by individual large
settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may
not be indicative of the timing of future payments.

Everest Re Group, Ltd. (Group), through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies, giving it the flexibility to pursue business
based on the ceding company's preferred reinsurance purchasing
method. The Company underwrites insurance principally through
general agent relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers.
The subsidiaries of the Company are: Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Mt. Logan Re, Ireland Re, Everest
Re, Everest Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National
Insurance Company, Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest
Security Insurance Company, Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc. The
Company's segments include U.S. Reinsurance segment, International
segment, Bermuda segment, Insurance segment and Mt. Logan Re
segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 700 PI Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation had 700 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, 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.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. As of March 31, 2015, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of March 31, 2015, there were about 700 lawsuits. Management
believes that the Company has substantial indemnification
protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable
deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims.
The Company has valid defenses to these claims and intends to
continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its
historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the
current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts
accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-
related litigation. At March 31, 2015, the Company had recorded
litigation liabilities of approximately $22 million, a significant
portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the Company
could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After
consulting with legal counsel and after considering established
liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending
litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition
or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation, is a packaging company. The Company
operates in segments including: Food & Beverage; Home, Health &
Beauty; Industrial; Specialty Chemicals, and Community Development
and Land Management. Food & Beverage, produces packaging
materials, and designs and produces packaging solutions for the
global food, food service, beverage, dairy and tobacco end markets
as well as paperboard for commercial printing. Home, Health &
Beauty, designs and produces packaging solutions for personal
care, fragrance, home care, lawn and garden, prescription drug and
healthcare end markets. Industrial, designs and produces
corrugated packaging solutions, primarily for produce, meat,
consumer products and bulk goods. Specialty Chemicals,
manufactures, markets and distributes specialty chemicals derived
from sawdust and other byproducts of the papermaking process.
Community Development and Land Management, responsible for land
development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,333 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named
defendant in 1,333 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims,
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.

BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,333 and 1,326 alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31, 2015, and
December 31, 2014, respectively. The claims were filed over a
period beginning 1994 through March 31, 2015. In many cases these
claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed,
1,150 and 1,108 were dismissed, settled or granted summary
judgment and closed as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was
less than $3,000. There remained 184 and 218 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.
There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000,000, with $2,102,000 at March 31, 2015
and December 31, 2014 in estimated remaining self-insurance
retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage
from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers
will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for
BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to
asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims
may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt
of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to
increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised. As of March 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014, BNS Sub
has accrued $1,422,000 relating to the open and active claims
against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these
claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance
carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings
by BNS Sub. However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will
not need to take additional charges in connection with the
defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that
the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date relating to existing claims. These claims are now being
managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
Company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain
management and logistics, banking, food products and services,
oilfield services, sports, training, education and the
entertainment, and lifestyle industries. The Company operates
business through four segments, which include diversified
industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other.
SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries
Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to
the oil and gas industry. The Company's financial services segment
consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary,
WebFinancial Holding Corporation. The diversified industrial
segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd. The corporate and other
segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as
various investments, and cash and cash equivalents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 255 PI Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 255
personal injury asbestos-related cases, 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.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company was a co-defendant in
approximately 255 cases asserting claims on behalf of
approximately 614 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in
some cases, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company was named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount
of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and $5.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action. In the remaining
case, the plaintiffs have alleged against each named defendant
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $50.0
million, for four separate causes of action.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify
any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our
subsidiaries. The Company intends to vigorously defend these
asbestos cases, and believes it will continue to be successful in
being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to
predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although the Company's
results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could
be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.
Among the factors management considered in reaching this
conclusion were: (a) the Company's historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.

Additionally, the Company does not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) is a holding Company. The
Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its
direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and
Engineered Products. Supply Technologies provides its customers
with Total Supply Management services for a range of high-volume,
specialty production components. Assembly Components manufactures
cast and machined aluminum components, automotive and industrial
rubber and thermoplastic products, fuel filler and hydraulic
assemblies for automotive, agricultural equipment, construction
equipment, heavy-duty truck and marine equipment industries.
Engineered Products operates a diverse group of niche
manufacturing businesses that design and manufacture a range of
high quality products engineered for specific customer
applications.Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been
material to date and, based upon available information, our
management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related
lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, liquidity or financial position.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,229 Fibro Cases at April 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation was a defendant in 3,229 asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 3, 2015.

The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for the past 27 years. Our subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by us. As of April 3, 2015, we were a
defendant in approximately 3,229 cases brought in state and
federal courts throughout the United States. In the three months
ended April 3, 2015, 30 asbestos cases were brought against us. In
the calendar year 2014, 104 asbestos cases were brought against
us. In the last 27 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict.
In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before
trial for lack of product identification. As of April 3, 2015,
47,939 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the three months
ended April 3, 2015, 52 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of
December 31, 2014, 47,887 cases were dismissed. With regards to
the approximately 3,229 remaining pending cases, we are
aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of
product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-
containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from
the use of our product."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more
than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing
facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in
which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with
regional distribution centers across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at April 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending MARDOC asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 3, 2015.

As of April 3, 2015, 2,679 pending lawsuits were brought on behalf
of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally
allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and
sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General
Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are
managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District
Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In September 2014, upon receipt
from the MDL Court of a current statistical report listing numbers
of outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding
Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, General Cable recorded a
dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending
Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679.

In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that
the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related
injury, but also must produce specific product identification
evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010,
the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants
against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases.
General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the
plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that
General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related
lawsuits.

For cases outside the MDL as of April 3, 2015, plaintiffs have
asserted monetary damages in 258 cases. In 127 of these cases,
plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount
(about $446 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no
claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant.
In the 130 other cases pending in state and federal district
courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $473
million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case,
plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the
amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 258
cases, there are claims of $325 million in punitive damages from
all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these
cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of April 3, 2015 and
December 31, 2014, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately
$4.5 million and $4.7 million, respectively, and as of April 3,
2015 and December 31, 2014, had recovered approximately $0.5
million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount
of $4.0 million and $4.2 million, as of April 3, 2015 and December
31, 2014, respectively, represents the Company's best estimate in
order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related
claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel. As of April 3, 2015 and December 31,
2014, aggregate settlement costs were $9.6 million and $9.5
million, respectively. For the three months ended April 3, 2015
and March 28, 2014, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million. As of
April 3, 2015 and December 31, 2014, aggregate litigation costs
were $25.1 million and $24.7 million, respectively. For the three
months ended April 3, 2015 and March 28, 2014, litigation costs
were $0.4 million.

The Company states: "In January 1994, we entered into a settlement
agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning
liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if
any, in all of the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and
conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers were
responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses
incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However,
one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was
responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under
the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation
proceedings and another became insolvent. As a result, the
contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to
bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more
than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing
facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in
which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with
regional distribution centers across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015.

The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants,
in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.
During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims,
the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such
claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from
these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the
ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no
amounts have been reserved for these matters.

Magnetek, Inc., (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control
systems. The Company's systems used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator and mining applications.
Magnetek is a provider of power control and delivery systems and
solutions for overhead material handling applications used in a
number of industries, including aerospace, automotive, steel,
aluminum, paper, logging, mining, ship loading, nuclear power
plants, and heavy movable structures. Its material handling
products include alternating current and direct current drive
systems, radio remote controls, push-button pendant stations,
brakes, and collision avoidance and power delivery subsystems.
Magnetek's products are marketed to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) for incorporation into their products, to
system integrators and value-added resellers for assembly and
incorporation into end-user systems, to distributors for resale,
and to end users for repair and replacement purposes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits relating to its discontinued heat technologies
segment, 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.

The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in
lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-
informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.  Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's
tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have
accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or
advised the Company that they need to investigate further.
Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant
was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes
that it will have funds available for defense and insurance
coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance
policies.  However, unlike the older policies, the more recent
policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs
that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company
expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future.
Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately
1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the
asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for
the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved
in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy
years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are
insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these
lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.

IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company
engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing
body-worn devices. The Company serves the body-worn device market
by designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro-
miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies
and complete assemblies, for bio-telemetry devices, hearing
instruments and professional audio communication devices. The
Company operates in the body-worn device segment. The Company's
core technologies are focused on three main markets: medical bio-
telemetry, value hearing health and professional audio
communications. The Company has investments in the development of
four core technologies: Ultra-Low-Power (ULP) Digital Signal
Processing (DSP), Ultra-Low-Power Wireless, Microminiaturization,
and Miniature Transducers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 1,046 New Fibro Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,046
new asbestos-related claims, 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.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies
to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution
of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual
or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 4,636
asbestos-related claims in 2014. During the three months ended
March 31, 2015 and 2014, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
received approximately 1,046 and 1,366 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited
and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can
affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims,
the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of
disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of
new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in
the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the
possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts
to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the
dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of
any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its
estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts
presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its
past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable
liability for asbestos claims already asserted against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but
not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii)
the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and
annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including
studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature
regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States,
assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and
considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos
liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability
analysis for asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2015.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 7 Trial of "Masephol" and "Sydow" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin, in an order dated June 3, 2015,
rescheduled for Dec. 7, 2015, the trial dates of the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits filed by Richard Masephol, No.
14-cv-186, and Wesley F. Sydow, No. 14-cv-219.

The cases are MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET
PECHER, individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M
COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS
INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and
JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-
ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. BRIAN
HECKEL, Individually and as Special Administrator for the purposes
of this lawsuit on behalf of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. 3M
COMPANY, CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendants. DIANNE JACOBS, individually and as Special
Administrator for the purposes of this lawsuit on behalf of Rita
Treutel, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., RAPID AMERICAN
CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN
CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC. and
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-Defendants, Nos. 14-cv-286-wmc, 14-cv-
186-wmc, 14-cv-147-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-161-wmc, 14-cv-219-
wmc, 13-cv-459-wmc, 12-cv-899-wmc (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Conley's Decision is available at http://is.gd/nx7hpH
from Leagle.com.

Janice Seehafer, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd..

Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd..

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Tanya D. Ellis,
Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf, Forman
Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law
Offices, LLC & Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Jennifer
Marie Studebaker, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, Matthew John
Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin
LLP.

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C. & Sherry Dawn
Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welch Paper Excluded as Evidence in "Yates" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled 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.),
issued the following rulings in light of motions in limine filed
by defendants Honeywell International, Inc., and Ford Motor
Company:

   A. Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude
      Case Reports, Compilations of Case Reports and Opinion
      Testimony Based on Case Reports and Defendant Ford Motor
      Company's Motion to Exclude Anecdotal Evidence of Disease
      are DENIED.

   B. Ford's Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to the Australian
      Mesothelioma Registry is GRANTED.

   C. Honeywell's Motion to Exclude Welch Article and Ford's
      Motion to Exclude Welch Paper are GRANTED.

A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated May 29, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/DE3GNqfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Flanagan also granted in part and denied in part Ford's
motion to exclude expert testimony regarding corporate conduct.  A
full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated May 29, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/TiBtzUfrom 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, Samuel Lewis Tarry, McGuireWoods, LLP &
Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP, Bruce T. Bishop, Willcox &
Savage, PC, Holly A. Hempel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
LLP, Jason Larry Walters, Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P. Greene,
Willcox & Savage, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bare Metal Defense" Wins in " Schwartz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, presented with the issue
whether Pennsylvania law recognizes the so-called "bare metal
defense," granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Pratt &
Whitney with respect to an asbestos plaintiff's strict liability
claims arising from aftermarket external insulation because, under
Pennsylvania law, a manufacturer is never strictly liable for
injury caused by aftermarket insulation (or aftermarket component
parts).

Moreover, Judge Robreno granted summary judgment in favor of the
Defendant with respect to the plaintiff's negligent failure to
warn claims arising from aftermarket external insulation because,
although the plaintiff has identified evidence that Pratt &
Whitney (a) knew its engines would be used with asbestos-
containing aftermarket external insulation, there is no evidence
in the record that it (b) knew (at the time it placed the engines
at issue into the stream of commerce) that asbestos was hazardous.
In light of this insufficiency in the evidence, summary judgment
on the plaintiff's negligent failure to warn claim is warranted
regardless of whether there is evidence that Defendant (c) failed
to provide an asbestos-related warning that was adequate and
reasonable under the circumstances -- because, under Pennsylvania
law, a product manufacturer (or supplier) has a duty to warn only
of asbestos hazards it knows are present in the aftermarket
component parts it knows will be used in connection with its
product, Judge Robreno ruled.

The case is JOSEPH SCHWARTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORP., et
al., Defendants, No. MDL-875, Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-02511-ER
(E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's memorandum dated
May 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/2GgOBLfrom Leagle.com.

JOSEPH SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS
LAW FIRM, JOSEPH J. MCGILL, LOCKS LAW FIRM, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS
LAW FIRM, DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & STEFANIE GAIL EBERT,
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, PC.

LENORA SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS
LAW FIRM, JOSEPH J. MCGILL, LOCKS LAW FIRM, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS
LAW FIRM, DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & STEFANIE GAIL EBERT,
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Meyers" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated May
20, 2015, remanded to state court the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled DEBRA DUMMITT MEYERS AND RONALD PALMERO v. A.W. CHESTERTON,
ET AL., SECTION "L", Civil Action No. 15-292 (E.D. La.), after
determining that the defendants have not demonstrated a proper
basis to remove under the Federal Officer Removal Statute.  A
full-text copy of Judge Fallon's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/lZKhFEfrom Leagle.com.

Debra Dummitt Meyers, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout,
Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Esq. --
aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy
Joseph Dupre, Esq. -- adupre@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan
Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Esq. --
hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners, LLP & Sean
Patrick Brady, Esq. -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan
Partners, LLP.

Ronald T. Palermo, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout,
Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy
Joseph Dupre, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Flanagan
Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor-by-merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain, Esq. -
- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams &
Strain, PLLC.

CBS Corporation, 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..

Clark-Reliance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Robert Leland
Redfearn, Jr., Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Susan
Marie Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Crane Company, individually and as successor to Cochran,
Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Esq. --
abarnes@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, 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.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & James Matthew
Matherne, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

General Electric Company, 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..

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin Morton, III, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Ebony Shadae Morris, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., doing business as Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Esq. -- jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP,
Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Esq. -- astout@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Esq. --
BOrmsby@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John
Bitner, Esq. -- mbitner@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles,
LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. -- wharrison@dkslaw.com -
- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

Elliott Company, named in complaint as Elliott Turbomachinery Co.,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius.

Warren Pumps, LLC, named in state court petition as Warren Pumps
Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Boland Machine and Manufacturing Co., named in state court
petition as Boland Machine & Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Scott P. Yount, Esq. --
syount@garrisonyount.com -- Garrison, Yount, Forte & Mulcahy, LLC,
Jeremiah Nathan Johns, Esq., at Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy &
Lehner, LLC & Kevin Truxillo, Esq. -- ktruxillo@garrisonyount.com
-- Garrison, Yount, Forte, Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.

Grinnell LLC, named in complaint as Grinnell Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., formerly known as Todd
Shipyards Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene
Fendler, Esq. -- sgfendler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Charles
B. Wilmore, Esq. -- cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Scott
C. Seiler, Esq. -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Tracy
C. Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.

Aurora Pump Company, named in complaint as Aurora Pump, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP,
Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara
Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John
Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison,
Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted to ZIC, AIU
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, in a memorandum opinion dated May 29,
2015, granted in part summary judgment to Zurich Insurance Company
and AIU Insurance Company in the asbestos insurance coverage
lawsuit filed by Maremont Corporation.

Judge Andrews granted summary judgment to ZIC and AIU with respect
to the period from January 1, 1984, to December 31, 1984 and the
period from July 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, but withheld judgment on
the period from September 1, 1981, to December 31, 1982.

The case is MAREMONT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ACE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AIU INSURANCE COMPANY; FEDERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; ST. PAUL
MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY; AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-1379-RGA (D. Del.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Andrews' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/DQlZXMfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- Michael
B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason D. Wallach, Esq. --
wallachj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- (argued), John E. Heintz, Esq. --
heintzj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Edward Tessler, Esq. --
tesslere@dicksteinshapiro.com -- James S. Carter, Esq. --
carterj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington,
D.C., attorneys for Plaintiff.

Bruce W. McCullough, Esq. -- bmccullough@bodellbove.com -- Bodell
Bove, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq. --
aianniello@steptoe.com -- (argued), John L. Jacobus, Esq. --
jjacobus@steptoe.com -- John R. Casciano, Esq. --
jcasciano@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Washington, D.C.,
attorneys for Defendant Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.

Jennifer Marie Kinkus, Esq. -- jkinkus@ycst.com -- and Timothy Jay
Houseal, Esq. -- thouseal@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt &
Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for Defendant AIU Insurance
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Says Service After 5Yrs. is Timely
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara St. Jeor filed a wrongful death suit related to her
husband's exposure to asbestos.  She served a number of the named
defendants within Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b)'s 120-day
timeframe, but did not serve defendant Kerr Corporation until five
years later, in February 2013.  Kerr moved for dismissal,
asserting that Ms. St. Jeor had not timely served it.  The
district court denied the motion and held that Ms. St. Jeor had
complied with rule 4(b)'s service requirements.  Kerr now brings
an interlocutory appeal of that order.

The Supreme Court of Utah, in an opinion dated May 22, 2015, held
that Ms. St. Jeor complied with the service of process
requirements under rule 4(b) because she served Kerr prior to
trial and while previously served defendants remained parties to
the action.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms the district
court's order denying Kerr's motion.  But because the Supreme
Court acknowledges possible policy concerns, it also refers rule
4(b) to its civil procedure rules committee for review.

The case is BARBARA ST. JEOR, Appellee, v. KERR CORPORATION,
Appellant, No. 20130913 (Utah).  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/Jm2Benfrom Leagle.com.

Gilbert L. Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Brian D. Holmberg, Jacob L.
Rice, A. Jase Allen, Salt Lake City, for appellee.

Robert R. Wallace, Michael D. Johnston, Salt Lake City, for
appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Handy" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas Handy, Jr., suffers from malignant adenocarcinoma
of the lung allegedly caused by his occupational exposure to
asbestos.  He brought negligence and product liability claims
against the manufacturers, suppliers, and installers of the
asbestos products to which he was exposed, including Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc., as successor in interest to LUSCO (Louisiana
Utilities Supply Company).  On the day of trial, after the
plaintiff had allegedly settled and/or dismissed all non-diverse
defendants, Ferguson removed the matter to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to to Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, which was granted
by District Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., in an order and reasons
dated May 28, 2015, after finding that the case lacks diversity
jurisdiction.

The case is THOMAS HANDY, JR., ET AL., v. OWENS CORNING CORP., ET
AL., SECTION "K" (2), Civil Action No. 15-755 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Duval's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/M0SYRzfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas Handy, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen,
III, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen
Law Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New
Orleans).

Sandra Handy, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen, III,
Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen Law
Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New
Orleans).

Thomas Handy, III, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb H. Didriksen,
III, Didriksen Law Firm (New Orleans), Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen
Law Firm (New Orleans) & Matthew G. Greig, Didriksen Law Firm (New
Orleans).

Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Louisiana Utilities
Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Lawrence G. Pugh, III,
Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey (New Orleans) & Donna M. Young, Esq. -- dyoung@pugh-law.com
-- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey (New Orleans).

Cimsco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paula Marcello Wellons,
Esq. -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC (New Orleans) & Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq. --
dadams@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC (New
Orleans).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Can Present Settlement Evidence at Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff General Refractories Company, a manufacturer and
supplier of refractory products that at times contained some
asbestos, sued its insurance carriers for a declaration of excess
insurance coverage against asbestos-related lawsuits and for
breach of insurance contract.  Since about 1978, GRC has been
named as a defendant in a multitude of asbestos-related suits
throughout the United States.  Each of those insurance carriers
has now settled with GRC, except one -- Defendant Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company, formerly known as The Aetna Casualty
and Surety Company.  A jury trial is scheduled for June 15, 2015.

Under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Travelers moves
to preclude GRC from introducing at trial a summary -- the "Queue"
-- evidencing settlements of claims asserted against GRC in the
asbestos-related lawsuits.

In a memorandum dated May 29, 2014, Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Travelers' motion.  According to Judge
Restrepo, Rule 1006 permits a summary to substitute as evidence of
the contents of claim documents.  Importantly, under Koopers and
J.H. France, GRC may sue for its total damages from any one
defendant insurer on the risk -- such as Travelers here, Judge
Restrepo ruled.

The case is GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Civil Action No. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Restrepo's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/qSbSDkfrom Leagle.com.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant,
represented by MARK E. GOTTLIEB, Esq. -- mgottlieb@offitkurman.com
-- OFFIT KURMAN PA, MEGHAN K. FINNERTY, Esq. --
mfinnerty@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA, MICHAEL CONLEY, Esq.
-- mconley@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H.
PILLSBURY, Esq. -- wpillsbury@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by KAREN H. MORIARTY, Esq. --
kmoriarty@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & KEVIN E.
WOLFF, Esq. -- kwolff@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., Defendant, represented by
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., PRO SE.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS &
YOUNG & SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG.

CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent, represented by CENTURY
INDEMNITY COMPANY, PRO SE,.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Doctor's Opinion in "Byer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Byer and his wife, Nijole Byer, commenced an action in
the New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie on June 6, 2012,
seeking damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of
exposure to asbestos following his diagnosis of mesothelioma on
February 6, 2012.  The action was removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York on July 18,
2012.  Before the District Court is a joint motion by the
defendants to preclude use of Dr. Jacqueline Moline's January 2015
expert witness disclosure and limit her opinions to those set
forth in her March and May 2014 reports and the plaintiff's motion
to permit late service of Dr. Moline's January 2015 expert report.

In a decision and order dated May 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge H.
Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York, denied the defendants' motion
and granted the plaintiff's motion.

Magistrate Schroeder held that without use of the opinions set
forth in Dr. Moline's January 6, 2015 disclosure that, for
example, the "causal relationship between exposure to asbestos
dust and the development of mesothelioma is so firmly established
in the scientific literature that it is accepted as scientific
'fact,'" the plaintiff's ability to establish the elements of his
wrongful death cause of action may be severely compromised.  Thus,
the Court's grant of defendants' motion to preclude would impose a
substantial risk of prejudice to the plaintiff.  Conversely, Dr.
Moline's opinions regarding the link between exposure to asbestos
and mesothelioma can hardly be characterized as novel nor can they
be expected to substantively alter the defense of the action,
Magistrate Schroeder further held.  Moreover, discovery has not
closed and there is no trial date set, Magistrate Schroeder noted.

The case is NIJOLE BYER, Individually and as Administrratrix of
the Estate of ROBERT D. BYER, Deceased Plaintiff, v. BELL
HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 12-CV-
676W(SR)(W.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Schroeder's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/UNQ4dGfrom Leagle.com.

NIJOLE BYER, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of
ROBERT D. BYER, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Darron Erick
Berquist, The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, Jason M. Hodrinsky, The
Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, Dennis P. Harlow, Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC &
Lori A. Benavides, The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC.

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Lycoming Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

McCauley Propeller Systems, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
J. Grogan, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP & Erik
C. DiMarco, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

CBS Corporation, Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis E.
Vega, Sedgwick LLP & William J. Bradley, Malaby & Bradley, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Dennis E.
Vega, Sedgwick LLP & Edward P. Kenney, Sidley Austin LLP.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Masino, Harris Beach LLP, Bo Won Kim, Perkins Coie, Deborah A.
Smith, Gordon & Rees LLP & W. Simone Nicholson, Segal McCambridge
Singer Mahoney, LTD.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Sandra K. Steinman,
Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP, Bonnie T. O'Connor, Smith,
Murphy and Schoepperle LLP, Judith A. Yavitz, Darger Errante
Yavitz & Blau LLP, Susan W. Gilefsky, Polsinelli LLP & Brian T.
Murnane, Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP.

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brendan Regis O'Brien, The Gilbert Firm.

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Elisa Tara Gilbert, The Gilbert Firm.

Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC, Defendant, represented by John J.
Doody, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Arezou Khonsari, Lewis
Brisbois Bisguard & Smith, LLP & Berj Khoren Parseghian, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan E. VanGelder,
Esq. -- svangelder@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP &
Daniel F. Petticord, Esq. -- Brzytwa Quick & McCrystal.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J. Doody, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Berj Khoren Parseghian, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Seth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
Fiumara, Esq. -- afiumara@harrisbeach.com -- Harris Beach PLLC, Bo
Won Kim, Esq. -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie & Michael J.
Masino, Esq. -- mmasino@harrisbeach.com -- Harris Beach LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Mary Jo Herrscher,
Esq. -- mherrscher@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP & James
W. Whitcomb, Esq. -- jwhitcomb@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle
LLP.

Lehigh Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Eric Michael
Gernant, II, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Eric M. Gernant, McGivney,
Kluger Law Firm & Lisa Green, Margolis Edelstein.

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard
Patrick O'Leary, Troutman Sanders LLP.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alfred J.
Sargente, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Mark D.
Debrowski, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Boening Company, Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Henry
E. Billingsley, II, Tucker Ellis LLP & Richard A. Dean, Tucker
Ellis & West LLP.

Harco Laboratories Inc., Defendant, represented by V. Christopher
Potenza, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C..
Smith Tubular Systems - Laconia, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Wendy R. Kagan, Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Junk "Bardone" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bruce J. Bardone was diagnosed with lung cancer in March
of 2014.  His disease, he claims, is connected to his asbestos
exposure in the 1960s and 1970s while working as an apprentice
electrician and journeyman at various work sites throughout New
York City.  At those sites, the plaintiff claims he was exposed to
asbestos dust from floor tiles that were regularly being cut,
sawed, and installed in his presence.  Defendant BF Goodrich is
alleged to have manufactured, sold, and distributed asbestos-
containing floor tiles used at the various job sites the plaintiff
worked at during the relevant time period.  It is undisputed that
up until 1963, Goodrich sold asbestos-containing vinyl tiles.
Goodrich moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint and all claims and cross claims against it.

In a decision dated May 14, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the
Supreme Court, State of New York, denied Goodrich's motion,
holding that Goodrich has failed to establish a prima facie case
and failed to address its continuing operations after it exited
the floor tile business in late 1963.  Judge Moulton found that
the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence, not all of which
is hearsay, to warrant the denial of the defendant's motion.

The case is BRUCE J. BARDONE and KATHERINE BARDONE Plaintiffs, v.
AO SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendant(s), DOCKET NO.
190134/2014 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/PCR5fofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Summary Judgment in "Arendt" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff Georgia Arendt filed a diversity
lawsuit on behalf of herself and the estate of her late husband,
Anthony Arendt, alleging that he died as a result of his exposure
to asbestos during his work life.  Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
filed a motion for summary judgment and for actual attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

In a decision and order dated May 29, 2015, Chief Judge William C.
Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin granted the motion for summary judgment,
holding that the instant case is barred as the dismissal of a
prior case filed by the same plaintiff should be given preclusive
effct on the issue of whether the Plaintiff's action for non-
malignant conditons caused by asbestos exposure is barred by the
Wisconsin statute of limitations.  Judge Griesbach ruled that it
is undisputed that Mr. Arendt never suffered from a malignant
asbestos-related disease or cancer.

The case is GEORGIA ARENDT, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Arendt, Deceased,
Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS INC, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-C-727
(E.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/BFMngyfrom Leagle.com.

Georgia Arendt, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Owens-Illinois Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Matthew J Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP & Rachel A Remke, Schiff
Hardin LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *