CAR_Public/150821.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 167


                            Headlines


ACTIVE POWER: Settlement in "Don Lee" Case Granted Final Approval
AL VERNAZ: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
ALTERA CORPORATION: Six Class Actions Consolidated
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Makena Securities Case Upheld
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 2015
ANGIE'S LIST: Court Dismissed Securities Action in S.D. Indiana
ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Counsel for Parties Entered Into MOU

ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Cuts Liabilities to Bondholders
BAKER HUGHES: "Rovner" Class Action Dismissed
BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "St. John" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
BERANKED LLC: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violations

BHB & CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Peralta" Suit Claims
BOWES IN HOME: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BRADLEY WEISTEIN: Fails to Supervise Team Members, Suit Claims
BRITAX: Recalls Multiple Car Seat Models Due to Injury Risk
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Pacific Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing

C. R. BARD: 85 Lawsuits Pending Over Hernia Products at July 1
C. R. BARD: Settles 1,500 Women's Health Product Claims
C. R. BARD: 50 Filter Product Claims Pending as of July 1
CARDTRONICS USA: Illegally Charges ATM Fees, "Lansang" Suit Says
CELGENE CORPORATION: Discovery Conference Scheduled for October 8

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Marketed Orajel Products, Suit Claims
CLECO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action Petition
COPENHAGEN IMPORTS: Recalls Mix n'Match Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in RESPA Class Action Has Final Okay
DEL TACO: Faces "Tomasulo" Class Action Lawsuit

DIALMED INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Pain Pump Suit Settlements
E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Lawsuits Pending in Ohio and West Virginia
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Settlement Reached in Berk Case

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Aug. 25 Status Hearing in Hearing Loss Litigation
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Cases
FIRST FLEET: "Lopez Lugo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Ohio Supreme Court Review Denied
FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Models

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Allure Models Due to Injury Risk
GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Recalls Beef Tallow Products from Australia
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Birth Defects Caused by Zofran Drugs
GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 10-Inch Table Saw Products
HALE & HEARTY: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HARTLEY MEDICAL: Recalls Prolotherapy with Phenol Injections
HIP HOP NY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
IDI INC: Faces Garrett Heim Class Action in S.D. Fla.

IGUANA NEW YORK: Faces "Diatta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IKEA CANADA: Recalls Drawer Chest Products
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products
IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action in Canada Still Pending
IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action v. IMAX Chicago Theatre Pending

INTEL CORP: Hearing on Amended Class Cert. Motion Set for Nov. 6
INTEL CORP: Disputes Class Claims in McAfee Shareholder Suit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Suits for Divesting Business
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Suits in Broome County
INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT: "Pinnock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

JIM SCOTT: "McDowell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JING YONG: Faces "Noriega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JOHNSTON, R.I.: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers Overtime
KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Whole Hogs Products Due to Salmonella
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Hugies Diapers Toxic, New York Action Says

KINDER MORGAN: Private Landowners in California File Action
KINDER MORGAN: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Occurred
KINDER MORGAN: Capex Litigation Still Pending
KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Litigation Remains Stayed
KOOS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Cristobal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

LIFE TIME: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint
LOGMEIN INC: Central Plaintiffs Filed Class Action Complaint
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Enguist" Suit Over City Gas User Tax
LOVIN' OVEN: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Sterman" Action
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Requests That Class Cert. Motion be Deferred
MCG CAPITAL: Faces Consolidated Action Over PennantPark Merger
MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN: Overcharged Medical Records, Suit Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk

MERCK SHARP: Recalls Bottles of Temodar(R) and Temozolomide
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed IBM Corp. Merger
MICHELIN: Recalls Multiple Tire Models Due to Crash Risk
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MICROSEMI CORPORATION: Chancery Court Entered Dismissal Order

MINISTRY SAINT: Faces "Griebel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Restraints Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims
NELNET INC: Judge Reduced Attorney Fees in Debt Collection Suit
NEW JERSEY: Governor's Aides Face New Allegations Over Bridgegate
NISSAN: Recalls Micra and Versa Models Due to Crash Risk

NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Pending
OMNICARE INC: Elow and IBEW Actions Consolidated
OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Revise 3rd Amended Complaint
PACIFIC COAST: Defending Welch and Berliner Actions
PALM MEDICAL: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiffs File Petition to NC Appeals Court
PHO MI: "Gama" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
PLEASANT HOUSE: Recalls Steak and Chicken Pie Products
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing on Appeal to Be Completed in Fall 2015
QUEENS ARTIFICIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Patient Care

RAG TRADERS: Faces "Conners" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RE & FA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
RITE AID: Recalls Outdoor Dining Sets Due to Injury Risk
ROYAL LACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Campos" Suit Says
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Monopolized Ticket Sales, Suit Claims

SENSATA TECHNOGLIES: Faces Hassett Class Action Lawsuit
SIRIUS XM: Updates on Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters
SIRIUS XM: Defending Against TCPA Suits
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Rosen Action Transferred to Florida
SPOA INC: "Lugo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
STANCORP INSURANCE: Being Sold Cheaply to Meiji, Suit Claims
STARCRAFT: Recalls Launch Ultra Lite 2015 Models
SUPERVALU INC: Defending Against Class Action Filed in Wisconsin
SUPERVALU INC: Parties Appeal Magistrate Judge's Order

SUPERVALU INC: Response in Customer Data Security Breach Case Due
SWAGGIN WAGON: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Black Scuba Diving Masks
TRANE US: Recalls  Accessory Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by Hamilton and Macon Stayed

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued by Corporation of City of Stratford
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces La Crosse County Lawsuit
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Product Liability Lawsuits
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Nemky and Isolde Cases
U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Continue to Abuse Elders, Calif. Suit Claims

UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Urnovitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Hearing to Begin November 2
UNITIL CORPORATION: Discovery Continuing Into 2016
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in Allergan Case Dismiss Claims
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet on Amended Complaint

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Walgreen and Rite Aid Cases Stayed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing Expected in Early 2016
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Appeal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Grignon" Case Voluntarily Dismissed

VENTAS INC: Parties to Class Action Agreed to MOU
VERISK ANALYTICS: Served With "John Weber" Class Action
VERISK ANALYTICS: 2nd Circuit Court Denied Petition for Rehearing
VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Still Pending
VERMEER: Recalls 2012 Brush Chipper Units Due to Injury Risk

VITAL RECOVERY: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Workers Seats, Verge Suit Says
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settlement of Fla. and Ala. Cases Has Final OK
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruling by Kansas Court Currently on Appeal
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in "Freedman" Case

WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Junk Fax Violation
WEST BANCORPORATION: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Appeals
WING PARTNERS: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
XIAOQING LI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $335-Mil. in Fibro Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $162MM Receivable at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21,000 Hercules PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $320MM Hercules Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had $55MM Receivable

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,150 PI Claimants at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $41-Mil. Insurance Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Accrues $23MM Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong World PI Trust Holds 12% of Shares

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 424 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 12,500 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 421 Fibro Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has 47,000 Fibro Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $758.3-Mil. Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $1.2B Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM for Non-PCC Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $682MM Est. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Presley"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Murat" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Galasso" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in NYCAL Suit Extended to Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hayden" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Wins Summary Judgment in "Haney"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Gonzales"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Footman" Consolidated with NY Inmates' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anderson" Jury Verdict Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Pneumo Abex, et al., for Exposure


                            *********


ACTIVE POWER: Settlement in "Don Lee" Case Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted
final approval of the settlement in a class action complaint on
May 15, 2015.

"On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas against us and certain of our former executives," the
Company said.  "The case was captioned Don Lee v. Active Power,
Inc., et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS). The complaint
alleged that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we had begun
working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and that on
April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and conference
calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution
partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013,
after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was
with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate
nor a subsidiary of Digital China."

"The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of all stockholders who purchased common stock between
February 19 and September 5, 2013.

"On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint.  Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014.
On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action
complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify
its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

"On September 23, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle and
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class
action complaint.  The parties to the class action signed a
definitive settlement agreement on December 2, 2014, which was
granted final approval by the Court on May 15, 2015. The
settlement resolved for all defendants all of the issues that were
pending in the class action complaint.  The class action
settlement resulted in a payment of $1.5 million to the settlement
class, inclusive of fees and expenses.  This settlement amount was
paid from insurance proceeds."


AL VERNAZ: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Merriman, Darren Long, Eliza Campbell, Samantha Finley, and
Eural Belcher v. Al Vernaz Partners, LLC, Epic Equity LLC, Mandela
Oaks, LLC, Douglas Moore, Grant Alvernaz and Does 1-20, Case No.
RG15781765 (D. Cal., August 13, 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


ALTERA CORPORATION: Six Class Actions Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------
Altera Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that six class action
lawsuits related to a merger agreement have been consolidated.

The Company said, "In connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement, six putative class action lawsuits have been filed by
purported Altera stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against our board of directors, Intel, Merger
Sub, and, in some cases, Altera. The actions are captioned
Sciabucchi v. Daane et al., Case No. 11108-VCG; Goldstein v. Daane
et al., Case No. 11126-VCG; Reinauer v. Altera et al., Case No.
11144-VCG; Braunstein v. Daane et al., Case No. 11146-VGC; Litwin
v. Daane et al., Case No. 11160-VCG; and Robinson v. Daane et al.,
Case No. 11165-VCG."

"On June 26, 2015, these actions were consolidated as In re Altera
Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11108-VCG. The complaints
allege, among other things, that members of our board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Altera stockholders by agreeing
to a transaction that does not adequately reflect Altera's true
value, and that Intel, Merger Sub, and/or Altera aided and abetted
the board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek to enjoin the Merger or, alternatively, seek
rescission of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages."


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Makena Securities Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed a court decision to
dismiss the Makena Securities Litigation.

During October and November 2011, three complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (the "Court") against K-V Pharmaceutical Company ("KV")
(since renamed as Lumara Health) and certain individual
defendants, alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of
the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of KV between February 14, 2011 and
April 4, 2011: Julianello v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed
October 19, 2011); Mukku v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed
October 31, 2011), and Cheong v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al.
(filed November 2, 2011).

On March 8, 2012, the three cases were consolidated and the
consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V Pharmaceutical Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-CV-1816-AGF. On May 4, 2012,
the Court appointed Lori Anderson as the Lead Plaintiff in the
matter, and an amended complaint was filed on July 24, 2012. The
amended complaint alleges class members were damaged by purchasing
KV stock at artificially inflated prices due to defendants'
purportedly misleading statements regarding KV's exclusivity over
Makena.

On April 22, 2013, the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint and oral argument was held before the Court on November
26, 2013. KV joined in the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action complaint without prejudice to
the plaintiff's ability to file a second amended complaint with
respect to a limited issue of whether defendants' statements about
Lumara Health's financial assistance program for Makena were
materially false or misleading. On April 16, 2014, plaintiff filed
a motion to reconsider asking the Court to reconsider its order
restricting the scope of plaintiff's ability to amend its
complaint. The Court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and
entered a judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss on June
6, 2014.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court
of Appeals").  The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March
12, 2015 and on July 2, 2015, affirmed the Court's decision to
dismiss the case.

Although the plaintiff has an opportunity to appeal, even if such
an appeal were to be pursued, in accordance the Sixth Amended
Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for K-V Discovery
Solutions and Its Affiliated Debtors, which became effective on
September 16, 2013, the recovery in this matter, if any, is
limited to the extent of any insurance and/or any proceeds
therefrom (excluding any self-insured retention obligation or
deductible) that may provide coverage for any liability of Lumara
Health for the claims asserted in this litigation.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Morrison" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Morrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04745 (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain and artificially inflate the price of airline
tickets for domestic air travel by, suppressing or otherwise
restricting "capacity" across their flight routes.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company will continue to defend the wage and hour lawsuit.

In August 2013, Public Service Company of Oklahoma or PSO received
an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma by 36 current and former line and
warehouse employees alleging that they have been denied overtime
pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiffs
claim that they are entitled to overtime pay for "on call" time.
They allege that restrictions placed on them during on call hours
are burdensome enough that they are entitled to compensation for
these hours as hours worked.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion to conditionally certify this
action as a class action, claiming there are an additional 70
individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
damages in the amount of unpaid overtime over a three-year period
and liquidated damages in the same amount.

In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the action as a class action.  Notice was
given to all potential class members and an additional 44
individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to
80 current and former employees. Two plaintiffs have since
dismissed their claims without prejudice, leaving 78 plaintiffs.

"We will continue to defend the case. We are unable to determine a
range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of
occurring," the Company said.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Final Approval Hearing Set for September 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
final approval hearing has been scheduled for September 2015 in
the National Do Not Call Registry Lawsuit.

In May 2014, AEP Energy was served with a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The plaintiff alleges that he received telemarketing calls
on behalf of AEP Energy despite having registered his telephone
number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who allegedly received such calls.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages under the TCPA on behalf of
himself and the alleged class as well as injunctive relief.

As a result of a mediation held in October 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle, subject to final documentation
and preliminary and final court approval.

In April 2015, the Company filed a motion with the court for
preliminary approval of the settlement. In June 2015, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final approval
hearing related to this matter has been scheduled for September
2015.

"We will continue to defend the case. We believe the provision we
have is adequate. We are unable to determine the amount of
potential additional losses that are reasonably possible of
occurring," the Company said.


ANGIE'S LIST: Court Dismissed Securities Action in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, in the
putative securities class action litigation.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
naming the Company and several of its current and former directors
and officers as defendants. Baron v. Angie's List, Inc. et al.,
1:13-cv-2032, filed on December 23, 2013, and Bartolone v. Angie's
List, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-0023, filed on January 9, 2014, allege
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements in, and
omitting material information from, the Company's public
disclosures concerning its paid membership model. The two cases
were consolidated on June 16, 2014. The Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice on June 18, 2015.
The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time
prescribed by the Court.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Moore" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Angie's List must face claims from a woman who says it suppressed
negative reviews on a contractor who bilked her, a federal judge
ruled.

Janell Moore claims she paid the contractor, Bravo Philadelphia,
$4,000 to remodel her kitchen after seeing positive reviews on
Angie's List. The contractor did not finish the work and refused
to refund her money, she says.

After leaving a negative review for Bravo on the site, she claims
she was suddenly able to see scores of negative remarks that had
previously been concealed. She claims that, had she seen the
reviews, she never would have hired the contractor.

Moore alleges that Angie's List representatives did not cite any
technological error of the site.

In its membership agreement and its FAQ section, the company
purports to rank service providers based solely on the reviews
given by customers, not by any payment to the company, she notes.

After Moore relayed the event to an electrician he knew, however,
he allegedly told her that "he pays 'to be at the top' of search
results."

With Moore hoping to represent a class of similarly situated
consumers, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found on August 7
that she has standing to proceed with her counts of fraud and
unfair trade practices.

The 28-page ruling says Moore's allegations and the electrician's
substantiation of her suspicions "inject precision and some
measure of substantiation into Moore's allegations of fraud by
spelling out circumstances that contradict certain Angie's List
representations, including that service providers cannot influence
their ratings and that businesses do not pay to be on Angie's
List."

Dismissing Moore's counts of unjust enrichment and breach of
contract, however, Dalzell found that the user contract made no
such promises as to the validity of the reviews, and that the
existence of a contract itself was sufficient to nullify the
unjust enrichment claim.

The case is Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD (E.D.
Pa., March 11, 2015).  The lawsuit seeks class action status and
alleges claims of breaches of contract and covenants of good faith
and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust
enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law. On May 13, 2015, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Counsel for Parties Entered Into MOU
--------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24,
2015, that counsel for the parties in the class action lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed
on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in
both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with
prejudice of the actions.

On April 22, 2015, Associated Estates Realty Corporation (the
"Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, BSREP II Aries
Pooling LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Brookfield"),
and BSREP II Aries DE Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookfield ("Merger Sub").

Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits,
captioned Cutler v. Friedman, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00857, and
Berkman v. Friedman, et. al., No. 1:15-cv-00928, were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in
connection with the announcement of the merger. Two putative class
action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Witkowski v.
Associated Estates Realty Corp., et. al., No. CV 15 845978, and
Kessler v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et al., No. CV 15
845987, also were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio. The lawsuits, filed by purported shareholders of the
Company, challenge the proposed merger and allege, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed sale process,
agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate shareholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal
protection terms. The complaints also allege that Parent and
Merger Sub have aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. Among other things, the shareholder litigation
seeks to enjoin the merger.

The two District Court actions were consolidated by order of the
Court dated July 2, 2015, and the consolidated action is now
governed by an amended complaint that includes, in addition to the
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims, claims against all
defendants for violation of disclosure requirements of federal
proxy law and rules, specifically sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and associated SEC Rule 14a-9.

Associated Estates, Brookfield, Merger Sub, and their respective
directors believe that the shareholder litigation and the
underlying claims are without merit.

On July 24, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into the MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement
that would dispose of all actions in both federal and state
courts, including the dismissal with prejudice of the actions and
a release of all claims made therein against all defendants. The
proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger, and final court approval of the
proposed settlement following notice and hearing. In addition, in
connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can
be no assurance that the merger will be consummated, that the
parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or
that the settlement will receive court approval even if the
parties enter into such stipulation. If the settlement conditions
are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU
would become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of
the merger consideration that Associated Estates stockholders are
entitled to receive in the merger.

The defendants deny all fault or liability, and deny that they
have committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the actions
or otherwise in relation to the merger. The defendants have agreed
to the terms of the proposed settlement solely to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or
adversely affecting the merger.


ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Cuts Liabilities to Bondholders
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Argentine bondholders experienced a setback in their fight for
compensation over the country's 2001 debt default, as the Second
Circuit reduced the republic's liabilities on Aug. 10.

The unanimous ruling slaps presiding U.S. District Judge Thomas
Griesa on the wrist for ignoring the appellate court's previous
instructions, twice.  Griesa, an 84-year-old jurist, has
frequently been at odds with Argentina over cases stemming from
the country's default on up to $100 million in debt 14 years ago.

This rocky relationship hit a nadir in a case filed by New York-
based companies NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, which
have been denounced by their as critics "vulture funds" for
gobbling up the distressed debt of poor countries for pennies on
the dollar, and then suing for the full amount.

U.S. courts, however, have routinely ruled in favor of the hedge
funds.

Griesa, in particular, has denounced Argentina as "lawless" for
refusing to pay up. After he ruled in favor of the New York-based
firms, he was lampooned on the streets of Buenos Aires in posters
that showed his head superimposed on the body of a vulture.

Well before that case made headlines, eight class action lawsuits
filed by individual bondholders against Argentina wound their way
through the dockets of the same courthouse, before the same judge,
over the same debt, to much less fanfare.

Argentina does not dispute owing money to the bondholders in these
cases; the controversy has always been over how much the country
owes, and how those figures are determined.

Unlike in the hedge funds case, Argentina has successfully
challenged Griesa's rulings favoring the bondholders on appeal.

U.S. Circuit Judge Chester Straub recounted this history in the
sharply worded opening paragraph of his ruling.

"After previous panels of this court twice vacated aggregate
judgments entered by the district court in favor of plaintiff
classes, we remanded with specific instructions," he wrote.
"Rather than follow our instructions, the district court certified
expanded plaintiff classes."

When a prior panel heard the case, the Second Circuit ordered
Griesa to hold an evidentiary hearing to calculate damages though
an "individual approach" if an "aggregate approach" were not
possible, according to the opinion.

After bondholders complained about the "legal and logistical
pitfalls" of such a hearing, Griesa expanded the definitions of
the class certification as an alternative.

Straub said that this contradicted the court's "clear" directive.

Attorney Carmine Boccuzzi -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- who represents
Argentina for the Manhattan-based firm Cleary Gottlieb Stein &
Hamilton LLP, said his client is "pleased" with the ruling.

"Plaintiffs  have repeatedly failed to prove their alleged damages
and are not entitled to the overstated judgments they have twice
before demanded and that the Second Circuit has clearly said are
improper," he added.

An attorney for the bondholders declined to comment on the ruling.


BAKER HUGHES: "Rovner" Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Rovner class action
lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims.

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

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

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

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

"On November 26, 2014, a seventh class action challenging the
merger was filed by a purported Company shareholder in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division).  The lawsuit, styled Marc Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc.,
et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416 ("the Rovner lawsuit"), asserts
claims against the Company, most of our current Board of
Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger.  The lawsuit asserts
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief as that sought in the Delaware lawsuits.

"On March 20, 2015, counsel for Mr. Rovner filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal, and on March 23, 2015, the Court entered an
order dismissing the Rovner lawsuit without prejudice."


BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in various labor claims.

The Company said:

     * "On April 28, 2014, a collective action lawsuit alleging
that we failed to pay a class of workers overtime in compliance
with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled
Michael Ciamillo, individually, etc., et al. vs. Baker Hughes
Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
("Ciamillo"). During the fourth quarter of 2014, the parties
agreed to settle the Ciamillo lawsuit, including certain state law
claims, for $5 million. The court granted final approval of that
settlement on June 19, 2015.

     * On December 10, 2013, a class and collective action lawsuit
alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers
overtime in compliance with the FLSA and certain state laws was
filed titled Lea et al. v. Baker Hughes, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division
("Lea"). During the second quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to
settle the Lea lawsuit, subject to final court approval, and we
recorded a charge of $62 million, which included an estimate of
the Lea settlement amount and associated costs and an amount for
settlement of another wage and hour lawsuit. A portion of this
settlement was to be paid on a claims made basis and during the
second quarter of 2015, the date passed by which the class members
could file a claim under this provision of the settlement
agreement. The amount of claims made was less than estimated and
accordingly, we reduced the accrual by approximately $13 million,
which was recorded as an adjustment of litigation settlements
during the second quarter of 2015.

     * On April 30, 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit
alleging that we failed to pay a nationwide class of workers
overtime in compliance with the FLSA and North Dakota law was
filed titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "St. John" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael St. John, and all others similarly-situated v. Bank Of
Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; BNP
Paribas Securities Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald
& Co.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Commerz Markets LLC; Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC;
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Mizuho
Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Nomura Securities
International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; RBS Securities
Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC; and
UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06139 (S.D.N.Y., August 5,
2015), seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and other relief
arising from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix and
manipulate the U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds markets and
related auctions and derivative financial products in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 4 of the Clayton Act,
Section 22 of Commodity Exchange Act, and Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants are Primary Dealers of Treasuries. Primary Dealers
are responsible for purchasing the majority of Treasuries offered
for sale by the Treasury Department at designated Treasuries
Auctions throughout the year. Primary Dealers are entrusted to
help the U.S. Federal Reserve institute U.S. monetary policy
through their participation in these Treasuries Auctions and to
effectuate all related transactions in a manner that not only
exemplifies the highest ethical standards but also "reinforces
overall market integrity".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Flr
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 702-7053
      Fax: (212) 681-0300
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

          - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 S.W. 57th Court, Ste 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Tel: (305) 357-9000
      Fax: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

          - and -

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 Southeast Third Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 320-9507
      Fax: (954) 320-9509
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com


BERANKED LLC: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, and all others similarly-situated v. Beranked, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05872 (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2015), seeks to
obtain damages and any other available or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive, Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


BHB & CAFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Peralta" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Miguel Peralta, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BHB & Cafe Management Company, LLC d/b/a
West Town Bakery & Diner, Case No. 1:15-cv-07117 (N.D. Ill.,
August 13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks.

BHB & Cafe Management Company owns and operates West Town Bakery &
Diner in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOWES IN HOME: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mills, and all others similarly-situated v. Bowes In
Home Care, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06816 (N.D. Ill., August 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay home
health clinicians overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant provides home health care to patients in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Ste. 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Fax: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

          - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


BRADLEY WEISTEIN: Fails to Supervise Team Members, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Rogan, as parent and next best friend of Jack Matthew
Rogan v. Bradley Weistein and Fairfield National Little League of
Fairfield, Connecticut, Case No. 432680 (D. Conn., August 13,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly
supervise and monitor the activities of his team members in regard
to swinging aluminum baseball bats in public access areas.

Fairfield National Little League of Fairfield, Connecticut is a
baseball organization or corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Connecticut.

Bradley Weistein is the coach of a team from the Fairfield
National Little League of Fairfield, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal P. Rogan, Esq.
      Kelly B. Bloom, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NEAL ROGAN, LLC
      315 Post Road West
      Westport, CT 06880
      Telephone: (203) 341-8783
      E-mail: neal@nealrogan.com


BRITAX: Recalls Multiple Car Seat Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Child Car Seat, Booster Seat
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 15154
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015364TC
ID number: 2015364

On certain car seats, the harness adjuster buttons (red) could
remain down in the "release" position after the harness is
tightened, allowing the shoulder harness to loosen from a child's
movement while secured in the seat. In the event of a crash, the
child may not be adequately restrained, increasing the risk of
injury. Correction: The manufacturer will provide a repair kit
containing a non-toxic food grade lubricant to apply directly to
the harness adjuster button with instructions and a label to
indicate that the repair has been completed.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  BRITAX               2014, 2014, 2014


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Pacific Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Groservice Inc. d/b/a/ PITCO Foods, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01791-
WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable seafood
products that are sold in cans, pouches or ready-to-eat serving
packages within the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark I. Labaton, Esq.
      ISAACS, FRIEDBERG & LABATON LLP
      City National Plaza - South Tower
      555 South Flower St., Suite 4250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 929-5550
      E-mail: mlabaton@iflcounsel.com

          - and -

      Barbara Hart, Esq.
      Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601-2301
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
              slee@lowey.com


C. R. BARD: 85 Lawsuits Pending Over Hernia Products at July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 1, 2015,
approximately 45 federal and 40 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 85 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005.

As of July 1, 2015, all but one of the putative class actions
pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative
class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company.

Approximately 25 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior
Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various
other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek
damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the
majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was
subject to certain conditions, including requirements for
participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage
in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. There are two trials
currently scheduled in the second half of 2015.

The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted
and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will
not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Settles 1,500 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the company has reached
an agreement with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
inventory of cases, representing more than 1,500 of the filed or
asserted Women's Health Product Claims.

As of July 1, 2015, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 15,260 plaintiffs have been
filed against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women. In addition, five putative class actions in the United
States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed
against the company. In addition, a limited number of claims have
been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions (all
lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product Claims").

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian
putative class action. The plaintiffs may appeal this decision or
may file an alternatives motion with the Ontario Superior Court to
redefine the class. With respect to approximately half of the
filed and asserted Women's Health Product Claims, the company
believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in
interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the
company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company
with respect to any product defect liability.

In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "District Court"),
the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.
On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts
previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL
commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the
company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this
decision.

During the third quarter of 2013, the company settled one MDL case
and one New Jersey state case. In addition, during the third
quarter of 2013, one MDL case was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the District
Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional
300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial
Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-
Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related
defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and
continuing through the second quarter of 2015.

In June 2015, the District Court issued an order staying the
requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered
by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result
in material additional cost in the second half of 2015 in
defending Women's Health Product Claims. The District Court may
also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial,
which could result in material additional cost in future periods.
During the second quarter of 2014, the company reached an
agreement with two plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory
of cases, representing more than 500 of the filed or asserted
Women's Health Product Claims, which the company believes are not
the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The company
also settled one MDL case that was originally scheduled for trial
in May 2014.

In the third quarter of 2014, the company reached an agreement
with a plaintiffs' law firm to settle approximately 25 of the
filed or asserted Women's Health Product Claims, which the company
believes are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. The settlements reached in 2014 for Women's Health
Product Claims were within the amounts previously recorded by the
company. In February 2015, the District Court appointed a Special
Master to assist with settlement resolution. A trial was scheduled
to begin in the MDL in February 2015, which the parties settled
before trial.

In June 2015, the company reached an agreement in principle with
various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their inventory of cases,
representing more than 1,300 of the filed or asserted Women's
Health Product Claims. In July 2015, the company reached an
agreement with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
inventory of cases, representing more than 1,500 of the filed or
asserted Women's Health Product Claims. Each agreement is subject
to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in
the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of
plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in
discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential
resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may
include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these
settlement efforts, the company anticipates that multiple
additional trials, including one or more possible consolidated
trials, may occur in 2015.

In December 2014, Medtronic filed a motion for leave to amend its
answer in the underlying MDL for Women's Health Product Claims to
assert cross-claims against the company challenging the
indemnification provisions of certain of their supply agreements
with the company. In March 2015, the court granted Medtronic's
motion. On January 22, 2015, the company initiated litigation
and/or arbitration seeking, among other things, declaratory relief
under these supply agreements with Medtronic in three separate
jurisdictions -- New Jersey state court, the English High Court of
Justice in London and Atlanta, Georgia.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement, Medtronic agreed to take
responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's
Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the
company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company
agreed to pay Medtronic $121 million towards these potential
settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion,
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement
does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic
with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle,
if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed
to dismiss without prejudice their pending litigation with respect
to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company.

The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product
Claims. The case numbers set forth do not include approximately
815 generic complaints involving women's health products where the
company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints,
determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's
health products. In addition, the case numbers set forth do not
include approximately 1,555 claims that have been threatened
against the company but for which complaints have not yet been
filed. While the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously
defend the Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle,
including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: 50 Filter Product Claims Pending as of July 1
---------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of July 1, 2015,
product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 50 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").

The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012
and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second
quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with
respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments
with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded
by the company.

The case numbers set forth do not include approximately 145 claims
that have been threatened against the company but for which
complaints have not yet been filed. The company expects additional
trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months.

While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product
Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot
give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CARDTRONICS USA: Illegally Charges ATM Fees, "Lansang" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lansang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cardtronics USA, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 2:15-
cv-06139 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the MoneyPass cardholders and who, were charged a fee for use of
the Defendants' ATM that is part of the MoneyPass ATM network.

Cardtronics USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Texas. Cardtronics owns and operates multiple
retail ATMs throughout the United States.

U.S. Bancorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Minnesota. U.S. Bancorp owns and operates
"MoneyPass," which is a network of surcharge-free ATMs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George S. Azadian, Esq.
      Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
      AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
      790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 449-4944
      Facsimile: (626) 628-1722
      E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com


CELGENE CORPORATION: Discovery Conference Scheduled for October 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a discovery conference
is scheduled for October 8, 2015, in the lawsuit filed by
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local
1 Health Fund (IUB).

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
("Barr" who at one time held an ANDA for THALOMID(R)) allegedly
could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active
pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples
of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies could conduct the bioequivalence testing
needed to submit ANDAs to the FDA for approval to market generic
versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified
patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and Natco Pharma Limited
in order to allegedly delay those companies from obtaining
approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of
third party payors, is seeking injunctive relief and damages."

"The On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint. On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence")
filed a similar putative class action making similar allegations.
Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of third party payors, are seeking injunctive relief and
damages. Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to
dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in
Providence's complaint as well. The Court has not yet issued a
decision. A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law
claims was filed on April 20, 2015.

"On July 6, 2015, the Court entered an Order scheduling the
production of certain discovery for the case through October 1,
2015. A discovery conference is scheduled for October 8, 2015.
Dates for the completion of fact and expert discovery have not
been set.

"We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims," the Company
said.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Marketed Orajel Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noelky Sullivan, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Church & Dwight Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04737-DLI-RLM (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the consumers who purchased Baby Orajel Naturals, teething
tablets, teething gel, and nighttime teething gel, that were
falsely marketed by the Defendant as "natural".

According to the complaint, the products at issue are not natural
because they contain various artificial and synthetic ingredients
such as Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, Magnesium Stearate,
Calcarea Phosphorica, Glycerin, Hydroxyethylcellulose, and Sorbic
Acid.

Church & Dwight Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures
deodorizing and household cleaning, laundry, personal care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      77 Water Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4266
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
              jsultzer@thesultzerlawgroup.com
              jsedlak@thesultzerlawgroup.com


CLECO CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Class Action Petition
------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Cleco
has filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.

In connection with the Merger, 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 June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition on July 24, 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.


COPENHAGEN IMPORTS: Recalls Mix n'Match Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Copenhagen Imports, of Phoenix, Ariz., announced a voluntary
recall of about 530 Stars Mix n'Match Chairs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The chair legs can break, posing a fall hazard for anyone sitting
in the chair at the time.

The chair seat and back is either black or white molded plastic
with a cushion seat. The seat cushion is the same color as the
plastic chair. The four chair legs are wood and set in a pyramid
style.

Tvilum has received two reports of chair legs breaking and one
reported injury.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0YAxan

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Copenhagen Imports stores in Arizona and Texas from May 2013 to
June 2015 for about $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to the retailer for a full refund, including delivery
charges where applicable. Tvilum is contacting purchasers
directly.


CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in RESPA Class Action Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has entered
final judgment approving the settlement in the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act Class Action and dismissing the case
with prejudice.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between
WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to
artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value
loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9,
2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the
court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014, the
defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the
class. On September 16, 2014, the trial court granted summary
judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the
other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated
trial into two phases with the first phase to begin November 24,
2014. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation
and subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case for a total of $9.9 million, inclusive of attorney fees and
subject to court approval. We previously recorded an accrual for
this amount within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax.

On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Notice to the class was subsequently made and, after a
final fairness hearing on April 24, 2015, the court entered final
judgment on April 27, 2015 approving the settlement and dismissing
the case with prejudice.


DEL TACO: Faces "Tomasulo" Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (f/k/a LEVY ACQUISITION CORP.) said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
16, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a purported class action and
derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC,
Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J.
Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn,
Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"),
was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the
"Circuit Court"), relating to the proposed Merger pursuant to the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purports to be brought as a
class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's
common stock, generally alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating
the proposed Merger and in negotiating and approving the Merger
Agreement. The Complaint also alleges that the Company's
preliminary Proxy Statement that was filed with the SEC on April
2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint
further alleges that DTH and the Sponsor aided and abetted the
alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The Complaint seeks
(a) a declaration that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Merger until
corrective disclosures are made; (c) compensatory and/or
rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees.

On June 30, 2015, the Company reached a settlement in principle of
all claims asserted in the purported class action.


DIALMED INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ana A. Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DialMed, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC591405
(D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work over 8hours in a workday.

DialMed, Inc. is in the business of providing home care services
to elderly people in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justian Jusuf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, California 92647
      Telephone: (714) 274-9814
      Facsimile: (714) 362-3148


DJO FINANCE: Accrued $0.2MM for Unpaid Pain Pump Suit Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 27, 2015, DJO Finance LLC has accrued $0.2 million for
unpaid settlements in the Pain Pump Litigation, DJO Finance LLC
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 27, 2015.

The Company said, "Over the past 7 years, we have been named in
numerous product liability lawsuits involving our prior
distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We
discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter of
2009."

"We currently are a defendant in two U.S. cases and a lawsuit in
Canada which has been granted class action status for a class of
approximately 45 claimants. All other cases have been resolved and
any defense costs and settlements related thereto in excess of
applicable deductibles and self-insured retentions have been paid
by our product liability carrier. All of these lawsuits allege
that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less commonly, knee
surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs. The
range of potential loss for these remaining claims is not
estimable, although we believe we have adequate insurance
coverage.

"As of June 27, 2015, we have accrued $0.2 million for unpaid
settlements in this case, and a corresponding receivable as all of
the settlements will be paid by our product liability carriers."


E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Lawsuits Pending in Ohio and West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, there were
approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state
courts in Ohio and West Virginia.

DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to
manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the
world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. At
June 30, 2015, DuPont has an accrual balance of $14 million
related to the PFOA matters.

The accrual includes charges related to DuPont's obligations under
agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.  These obligations and voluntary
commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water
in and around certain company sites and offering treatment or an
alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the
presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national
Provisional Health Advisory.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

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

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

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account
to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account.

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

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2015 and March 31,
2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. The number of
lawsuits pending at June 30, 2015, reflects the filing of about 50
additional cases and plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of about 40
cases during the second quarter 2015. In accordance with a
stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court
procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and
consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court
(MDL). Based on information currently available to the company the
majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated
with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in
drinking water.

At June 30, 2015, 37 of the pending lawsuits allege wrongful
death. While attorneys for the plaintiffs have indicated that
additional lawsuits may be filed, the rate of such filings has
substantially decreased. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were
selected for individual trial. The first trial is scheduled
to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015.
DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending
itself vigorously.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that ESI's motion to
decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending.

(i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Inc., et al. (iii) Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Currently, ESI's motion to
decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending. Oral
arguments were held in January 2012. Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy agreed to voluntarily dismiss its claims against Medco
Health Solutions, Inc. in July 2015.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Settlement Reached in Berk Case
------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a settlement has
been reached in the case, Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and
Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc.

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. In April 2015, the parties reached an agreement to
settle outstanding claims for an immaterial amount. 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.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Aug. 25 Status Hearing in Hearing Loss Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the next status hearing
in a hearing loss litigation will be on August 25, 2015.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7,
2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for
leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.
On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.

On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the
Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss
the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had
erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant
to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the
trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue. The next status hearing on these matters will be
on August 25, 2015, at which time the Court may set discovery and
briefing schedules on the venue and class certification motions.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71
plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were
dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company.
Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four
cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included
reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases.

On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the law firm of the
attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of
1,125 claimants the firm represented (the "Claimants") and who had
asserted product claims against the Company (the "Claims"). Three
hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the
Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these new Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, has been removed to federal court in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 41 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. An
initial trial involving eight Pittsburgh firefighters has been
scheduled for January 2016. During March 2014, an action also was
brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania
on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various
defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed
pretrial motions, 32 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims. On September 17, 2014, 20
lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire Department
firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Erie County. Several product manufacturers, including the
Company, have been named as defendants in these cases. All of the
cases filed in Erie County, New York have been removed to federal
court in the Western District of New York. During February 2015, a
lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County. Plaintiff named the Company as well as several other
parties as defendants. That case has been removed to federal court
in the Southern District of New York. The Company also is aware
that a lawsuit involving eight New York City firefighters was
filed in New York County, New York, on April 24, 2015 and that a
lawsuit involving 34 New Jersey firefighters was filed in Union
County, New Jersey state court on May 4, 2015. The Company has not
yet been served in those two cases.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.
The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company recorded
$0.1 million and $0.1 million of reimbursements from CNA related
to legal costs, respectively.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that these
lawsuits allege, among other assertions, that the Company, one of
its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents misclassified certain
employees, including:

   * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

   * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class
has not been certified.  The Company has not yet been able to
assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss.


FIRST FLEET: "Lopez Lugo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Lopez Lugo, and all others similarly-situated v. Savas
Tsitiridis and First Fleet Car Wash LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04552
(E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum wages, overtime and spread of hours compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash located in Long Island,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett Matthew Schatz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ PC
      1345 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 2042
      New York, NY 10105
      Tel: (212) 631-7463
      Fax: (646) 786-3325
      E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Ohio Supreme Court Review Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs' request for
review in the case, Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class
Action, in the Ohio Supreme Court has been denied.

This action in the Ohio state court system alleged that Ford
breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers
by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price concessions
that were approved for any dealer. On February 7, 2014, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, but on December
11, 2014, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the order granting a
new trial and reinstated a verdict in Ford's favor. Plaintiffs
sought further review in the Ohio Supreme Court, which was denied
on July 8, 2015.


FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Models
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 666
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015363TC
ID number: 2015363
Manufacturer recall number: 0167

On certain motorcycles, the fuel pump module may have a poor seal
at the fuel pump inlet. This could allow an interruption to the
fuel supply under acceleration at low fuel levels, possibly before
the low fuel indicator has illuminated. If this condition remains
undetected, under acceleration with the fuel level below 3 litres,
it could result in the motorcycle briefly hesitating and then
restoring power abruptly, which could lead to a loss of control,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install a new fuel pump
assembly.

  Make               Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----               -----                ----------------------
  HARLEY-DAVIDSON    STREET 500 (XG500)   2015
  HARLEY-DAVIDSON    STREET 750 (XG750)   2015


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Allure Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 52153
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015365TC
ID number: 2015365
Manufacturer recall number: 14291

On certain vehicles, the headlamp driver module (HDM) may not
operate properly in high underhood temperatures. If the HDM is not
operating correctly, the low-beam headlamps and daytime running
lamps could fail to illuminate. Loss of daytime running lamps and
low-beam headlamps could result in decreased driver's vision, as
well as rendering the vehicle less visible to other motorists,
which could result in a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the headlamp relay (HDM)
located in the underhood bussed electrical centre (UBEC). Note:
this condition does not affect the high-beam headlamps, marker
lamps, turn signals, or fog lamps. Note: This recall supersedes
recall 2014-535.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  BUICK     ALLURE      2005


GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Recalls Beef Tallow Products from Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Givaudan Flavors Corporation, a Florence, Ky., establishment, is
recalling approximately 3,950 pounds of beef tallow products
produced in Australia that were not presented at the U.S. point of
entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the
benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health
consequences exists.

The beef tallow products were manufactured by York Foods Pty.
Limited, Australia - Establishment 133 and were imported through
Chicago. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 50-lb. bags of generically labeled, powdered "Givaudan
      Flavors Corporation NATURAL BEEF FLAVOR WONF."

The products subject to recall bear the Batch numbers: DV00130741,
DV00130967, DV00134737 and DV00136669 on the label.

The products were produced on May 15, May 18, July 7 and July 30,
2015.

The beef tallow was used in the production of the powdered beef
flavor which was then shipped to locations in Ohio and Texas for
further processing.

The problem was discovered during FSIS routine monitoring of
imported shipments using Public Health Information System data by
Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff. FSIS and the
company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
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 Kate Dailey,
Givaudan customer care director, at (513) 948-4905. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Jeff Peppet, in Givaudan
flavor communications department, at (513) 948-5655.

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.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Birth Defects Caused by Zofran Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lynne Forbes, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of S.F., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00902 (S.D. Ill., August 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose the birth defects associated
with the non-FDA-approved use of Zofran in pregnant women.

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

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a Delaware corporation, which operates a
pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 N. LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              cmoyna@gelaw.com

         - and -

      M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
      Thomas V. Ayala, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
              tayala@gelaw.com


GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 10-Inch Table Saw Products
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Grizzly Industrial Inc., of Bellingham, Wash., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,240 Grizzly 10-inch hybrid table saws.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The motor pulley can come loose and hit the table saw blade,
causing the blade teeth to break into flying metal fragments,
posing a risk of laceration or impact injury to consumers.

This recall involves Grizzly 10-inch hybrid table saws with model
number G0771 and serial number between TS2014060001 and
TS2014111244 or a date code between 06/2014 and 11/2014.  The
Grizzly logo, "G0771," the serial number and the date code are
printed on the side of the table saw's enclosed white metal base.
Grizzly.com is printed on a green band on the bottom of the base.
Incidents/Injuries

The firm has received two reports of incidents with the table
saws, including one report of a 46 year-old man who suffered a
broken nose and lacerations when he was hit by flying pieces of
the table saw.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/l27SWO

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Grizzly's showrooms, online at www.grizzly.com, in Grizzly's
catalogs and in woodworking trade magazines from January 2015
through May 2015 for about $625.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled table saws
and return them to Grizzly for a full refund, free repair or a
free motor pulley kit that can be installed by the consumer.
Grizzly is contacting consumers who bought the recalled table saws
directly.


HALE & HEARTY: "Hinson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chavanna Hinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C., et al., Case No. 153449
(D.N.Y, August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C. owns and operates 33 locations of Hale
& Hearty restaurants throughout New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARTLEY MEDICAL: Recalls Prolotherapy with Phenol Injections
------------------------------------------------------------
Hartley Medical is voluntarily recalling three lots of
Prolotherapy with Phenol, Injectable to the hospital/user level
due to non-sterility concerns.

Parenteral administration of non-sterile injection products that
are intended to be sterile may result in a site-specific or
systemic infection, which in turn may cause hospitalization,
significant morbidity (permanent organ damage), or a fatal
outcome. To date Hartley Medical has not received any reports of
product contamination and/or adverse events related to this
recall. This recall is a voluntary measure taken following a
recent inspection with issues on our sterility methods and testing
procedures specifically for this preparation.

Prolotherapy with Phenol is used for neurolysis and is packaged in
clear 5 mL and/or 100 mL sterile vials with labeling of the
pharmacy and the drug. The affected Prolotherapy with Phenol lots
include the following lot numbers and expiration dates:

  --- RX328690Expires 12/1/2015
  --- RX323132Expires 10/6/2015
  --- RX321608Expires 11/1/2015

The product can be identified by its white label on each vial with
the name "PROLOTHERAPY WITH PHENOL". Product was distributed in
California and Nevada to pain clinics between 5/15/15 - 7/14/15.

Hartley Medical is notifying its distributors and customers by
telephone, facsimile, electronic mail and/or regular mail and is
arranging a return of all recalled products.
Consumers/distributors/retailers that have Prolotherapy with
Phenol which is being recalled should stop using the product and
return its remaining contents to the pharmacy.

To return product or request assistance related to this recall,
users should call (562) 595-7548, Monday through Friday, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. PDT. 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.htm1
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm2. 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.


HIP HOP NY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ackerman, and all others similarly-situated v. Hip Hop NY,
Inc. and Lions Marketing & Promotions, LLC, Case No.1:15-cv-04532
(E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants sent unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular phone.

Hip Hop NY, Inc.'s place of business is in Brooklyn, New York.

Lions Marketing & Promotions, LLC's business is located at Bay
Shore, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Tel: (732) 695-3282
      Fax: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

          - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228


HOSPICE OF EAST TEXAS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Black v. The Hospice of East Texas, Case No. 6:15-cv-00747
(E.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Hospice of East Texas is a Texas non-profit corporation that
provides care for patients with life-limiting illnesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      WHITEHURST LAW FIRM
      5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903)593-5588
      E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


HOST INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Gaite v. Host International, Inc., Host Services of New
York, Inc., and HMS Host USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04744
(E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate restaurants and concessions inside of John
F. Kennedy, International Airport in Queens, New York, I1430.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Berlingieri, Esq.
      BERLINGIERI LAW, PLLC
      244 Fifth Avenue, Suite F276
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (347) 766-5105
      Facsimile: (347)766-5105
      E-mail: cjb@nyctlaw.com


IDI INC: Faces Garrett Heim Class Action in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
IDI, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, that the
Company was sued on July 22, 2015 in a class action suit entitled
Garrett Heim vs. IDI, Inc., et al, USDC, Southern District of
Florida, Case 9:15-cv-81019-BB.


IGUANA NEW YORK: Faces "Diatta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaston Diatta, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Iguana New York Ltd. and Gerald Shallo, Case No. 1:15-
cv-06399 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 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 Mexican restaurant located at 240
West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micheal Taubenfeld, Esq.
      SERRINS FISHER LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 2340
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 571-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 233-3801


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Drawer Chest Products
------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 12, 2015
Posting date: August 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54632

This notice involves the IKEA MALM 3- and 4-drawer chests and two
styles of MALM 6-drawer chests; other children's chests and
dressers taller than 23 1/2 inches; and adult chests and dressers
taller than 29 1/2 inches.

The affected products can tip-over if not securely anchored to the
wall using the tip-over restraints provided with the product,
posing an entrapment hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer tip-over
incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of IKEA drawer
chests.

IKEA has received 16 reports of tip-over incidents involving MALM
drawer chests in the United States, resulting in two deaths and
four injuries.

Approximately 6,000,000 drawer chests have been sold at IKEA
stores across Canada and online at IKEA's website.

The MALM series drawer chests that are part of this notice have
been sold since 2002 in Canada.

The MALM series drawer chests are manufactured in Lithuania and
Germany.

Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
             Burlington
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using all affected products
unless they are securely anchored to the wall.  For the
convenience of consumers who may have misplaced or not installed
the tip-over restraint that was originally provided with the
product, IKEA Canada is offering consumers a wall anchoring kit
free of charge for use with the affected chests and dressers.  The
kit contains replacement tip-over restraints, wall anchoring
hardware, instructions and warning labels to be affixed to the
furniture for use by any consumer who has not secured the affected
chests and dressers to the wall. If a consumer has already
anchored their IKEA chests and dressers in accordance with the
instructions originally provided with the product, there is no
action necessary.

For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by
visiting the Secure It! Creating safer homes together webpage or
by calling the toll-free number 1-800-661-9807.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jT9i5L


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 359,000 PATRULL Nightlight (in addition,
83,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The nightlight's plastic covering can detach and expose electrical
components, posing an electrical shock hazard.

This recall affects all PATRULL Nightlights. Nightlights come in
white, orange and pink. The nightlights automatically turn on in
the dark and off in the light. Each PATRULL Nightlight has an IKEA
logo on the back top near the sensor. The light has a dome-shaped
plastic cover that gives the light its color and is attached to a
white rectangular plastic base. The nightlight is 2 3/4 inches
round and 3 1/2 inches deep.

IKEA has received one report from Austria where a young child
tried to remove the light from the electrical outlet when the
colored plastic cover detached. The child received an electric
shock and minor wounds on the hand. No incidents have been
reported within the US.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from August 2013
to July 2015 for about $4.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
product and contact IKEA for a full refund.


IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action in Canada Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
was filed on September 20, 2006 in the Canadian court against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging
violations of Canadian securities laws. This lawsuit was brought
on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006. The lawsuit seeks
$210.0 million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
costs. For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court
granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim
to plead certain claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario)
against the Company and certain individuals ("the Defendants") and
granted certification of the action as a class proceeding. These
are procedural decisions, and do not contain any conclusions
binding on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal merits of
the claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied. In March
2013, the Defendants obtained an Order enforcing the settlement
Order in the parallel class action in the United States in this
Canadian class action lawsuit, with the result that the class in
this case was reduced in size by approximately 85%. A motion by
the Plaintiffs for leave to appeal that Order was dismissed.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors' and
officers' insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits, exclusions and deductibles.


IMAX CORPORATION: Class Action v. IMAX Chicago Theatre Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in November 2013, a
purported class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court")
against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX Chicago Theatre"), a
subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff, Scott Redman, alleges
that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain credit card and debit
card receipts to customers that were purportedly not in compliance
with the applicable truncation requirements of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The plaintiff seeks statutory
damages individually and on behalf of a putative class.

On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January 23, 2015.

Discovery is ongoing in this matter. IMAX Chicago Theatre believes
that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


INTEL CORP: Hearing on Amended Class Cert. Motion Set for Nov. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that a 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 us by AMD
in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware (AMD litigation). 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: Disputes Class Claims in McAfee Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disputes the class-action claims in the McAfee,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Intel said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015.

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," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Class Suits for Divesting Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, that in March 2015,
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. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The
company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three
current or former IBM executives are named as defendants.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Suits in Broome County
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarter ended June 30, 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. The company has reached
an agreement in principle to settle substantially all of these
cases.


INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT: "Pinnock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugalee Pinnock, and all others similarly-situated v.
International Freight Consolidators, Inc. dba IFC and John
Collins, Case No. 0:15-cv-61614 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), seeks
to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarding business and
are engaged in interstate commerce. Their main office is located
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Ave., Ste 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


JIM SCOTT: "McDowell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard McDowell v. Jim Scott Enterprises, Inc. and James R. Scott,
Case No. 0:15-cv-61683-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a radio station and broadcasting
company in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       K. Brian Roller, Esq.
       SCHWARTZ ROLLER LLP
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 966-2566
      E-mail: kbroller@szalaw.com
              pleadings@szalaw.com


JING YONG: Faces "Noriega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Noriega v. Jing Yong, Inc. and Jing Yang, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00697 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 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 multiple buffet restaurants in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


JOHNSTON, R.I.: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Brandy, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. Town of Johnston and Joseph Chiodo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00341-M-
LDA (D.R.I., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay police officer's overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Town of Johnston is a municipal corporation organized under a Home
Rule Charter enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Wiens, Esq.
      GURSKY WIENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LTD.
      420 Scrabbletown Road, Suite C
      North Kingstown, RI 02852
      Telephone: (401) 294-4700 ext. 13
      Facsimile: (401) 294-4700
      E-mail: ewiens@rilaborlaw.com


KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Whole Hogs Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kapowsin Meats, a Graham, Wash. establishment, is recalling
approximately 116,262 pounds of whole hogs that may be
contaminated with Salmonella I 4, [5],12:i:-, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The whole hogs for barbeque item were produced on various dates
between April 18, 2015 and July 27, 2015. The following products
are subject to recall:

  --Varying weights of Whole Hogs for Barbeque

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "Est.
1628" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was shipped
to various individuals, retail locations, institutions, and
distributors in Alaska and Washington.

On July 15, 2015, the Washington State Department of Health
notified FSIS of an investigation of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:-
illnesses. Working in conjunction with the Washington State
Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), FSIS determined that there is a link between
whole hogs for barbeque from Kapowsin Meats and these illnesses.
Traceback investigation has identified 32 case-patients who
consumed whole hogs for barbeque from this establishment prior to
illness onset. These illnesses are part of a larger illness
investigation. Based on epidemiological evidence, 134 case-
patients have been identified in Washington with illness onset
dates ranging from April 25, 2015 to July 29, 2015. FSIS continues
to work with our public health partners on this ongoing
investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the
contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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 pork and
whole hogs for barbeque that have been cooked to a minimum
internal temperature of 145ΓΈ F with a three minute rest time. The
only way to confirm that whole hogs for barbeque are 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.For whole hogs for barbeque make sure to
check the internal temperature with a food thermometer in several
places. Check the temperature frequently and replenish wood or
coals to make sure the fire stays hot. Remove only enough meat
from the carcass as you can serve within 1-2 hours.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact John Anderson, Owner, at (253) 847-1777.

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.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Hugies Diapers Toxic, New York Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
marketed in a soft-green font and tree imagery, Huggies "pure &
natural" diapers market themselves safe and environmentally sound,
but they have a synthetic ingredient that can "strip skin of
pigment," claims a federal class action filed in Manhattan.

Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, of New York and
California, respectively, filed the federal complaint against
Huggies parent Kimberly-Clark Corp. and two subsidiaries.  The 32-
page filing accuses the Fortune 500 company of deceiving consumers
who are growing more conscious of the dangers of mass-marketed
household products.

"In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware
and sensitive to the toxicity and impact of household products on
their health, the health of their children, and the general
environment," the complaint states. "As a result, demand has
increased for so-called 'green' products that are naturally
derived, environmentally sound, and non-toxic."

The Huggies diapers appeal to this demographic with promises of
"soft organic cotton," and healthy green leaves providing a canopy
over a smiling baby who has the words "pure & natural" hovering
over his belly.

The diapers, however, are "neither pure nor natural" because they
contain ingredients such as polypropylene, sodium polyacrylate,
sodium methylparaben and methylisothiazolinone, the class says.

A Washington-based watchdog called the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) describes sodium methylparaben as a "human endocrine
disrupter," and the European Union has banned the substance for
its potential to "strip skin of pigment," according to the
lawsuit.

The EWG has also linked methylisothiazolinone to skin toxicity,
immune system toxicity and allergic reactions.

"Furthermore, until around June 2010, Huggies Natural Wipes
contained a substance called DMDM hydantoin, which is a
'formaldehyde releaser' -- i.e., over time, it releases
formaldehyde, which is a preservative classified as a carcinogen
by the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety &
Health Administration," the complaint states.

In addition, the women say, the "organic cotton" advertised on the
packaging refers only to the material on the outside of the
diaper.

"The organic cotton, thus, never actually comes into contact with
the ultimate user, the baby," according to the complaint.

The class seeks punitive damages for 10 violations of federal and
state law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of
express warranty, and California, Florida and New York consumer
protection statutes.

It is represented by:

     Joseph Marchese, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
     Tel: 646-837-7410

Kimberly-Clark actually discontinued Huggies Natural Diapers and
removed methylisothiazolinone from Huggies Natural Wipes after two
other women hit it with a similar federal class action last month
in San Francisco.

A footnote in the new complaint notes that the company has not
recalled the products, which are "still available for purchase
online and on shelves nationwide."

Kimberly-Clark declined to comment on pending litigation.


KINDER MORGAN: Private Landowners in California File Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that private landowners in
California have filed a purported class action lawsuit related to
subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) or SFPP, L.P.

On April 23, 2015, after the decision by the California Court of
Appeals which held that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to
grant certain easements and may not be able to collect rent from
those easements, a purported class action lawsuit 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 UPRR or SFPP. Fourteen substantially similar and
follow-on lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by landowners
in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on
behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and
underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is
located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR,
SFPP, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, and Kinder Morgan
Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment,
quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful
business acts and practices arising from defendants' alleged
improper use or occupation of subsurface real property.

SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the
plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface
pipeline easements along UPRR's railroad right-of-way. SFPP relied
on the validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the
value of those easements.

"We believe we have recorded a right-of-way liability sufficient
to cover our potential liability, if any, for back rent," the
Company said.


KINDER MORGAN: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Occurred
----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Kinder Morgan,
Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, oral argument on
defendants' motion to dismiss occurred on June 12, 2015 and the
motion remains under consideration by the Court.

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. Oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss occurred
on June 12, 2015 and the motion remains under consideration by the
Court.

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: Capex Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------
The Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation remains
pending, according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants
Kinder Morgan Inc. or KMI, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or 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 KMGP, 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" Litigation Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al.
remains stayed pending further resolution of the Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Capex Litigation, according to Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 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.


KOOS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Cristobal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Cristobal, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Koos Manufacturing, Inc. and Does 1 through
100, Case No. BC591484 (D. Cal., August 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Koos Manufacturing, Inc. operates a company that designs,
manufactures and distributes denim jeans and pants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


LIFE TIME: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Roth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., LTF Club Operations Company, Inc.,
LTF Club Management Company, LLC, and LTF Yoga Company, LLC, Case
No. 0:15-cv-03270 (D. Minn., August 13, 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 fitness gym in Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
      332 Minnesota St.
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: g.blanchfield@gwblawfirm.com
              r.yard@gwblawfirm.com

         - and -

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON, PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 551-9175
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
              bhollowell@karonllc.com

         - and -

      Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
      1422 Euclid Ave., Suite 1610
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 589-9280
      Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
      E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com


LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ignition Plaintiffs
have filed a second amended complaint.

On August 28, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an individual
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, or collectively, the Ignition Plaintiffs. The
Ignition Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February
17, 2015, which included claims made under California's False
Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Law relating to the
Company's sale of its Ignition for iOS application, or the App,
and the Ignition Plaintiffs' continued use of the App.

On May 6, 2015, the Ignition Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The Ignition Plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks
restitution, damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and
costs, and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief.

"The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously," Logmein said.
"Given the inherent unpredictability of litigation and the fact
that this litigation is still in its early stages, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably
estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with this
litigation at this time."


LOGMEIN INC: Central Plaintiffs Filed Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Logmein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on June 29, 2015, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case
No. 5:15-cv-01258) by an individual on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, or
collectively, the Central Plaintiffs, under California's Automatic
Purchase Renewal Statute and Unfair Competition Law related to
pricing changes and billing practices for subscriptions to the
Company's LogMeIn Central service. The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks
restitution, damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and
costs, and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the inherent
unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation
is still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss
or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces "Enguist" Suit Over City Gas User Tax
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorin M. Enguist and Angelica G. Divinagracia d/b/a Fun Fit
Factory, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC591331 (D. Cal., August 13,
2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
illegal collection of City Gas User Tax.

City of Los Angeles is located within the Los Angeles County and
has a population of approximately 3.8 million residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
      1925 Century Park, East, Suite 2125
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310)278-2640
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


LOVIN' OVEN: Faces "Montgomery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hope Montgomery, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Lovin' Oven Catering Suffolk, Inc., 21 Main
North Beach, LLC, William Riley, Gerard Scollan and Matthew
Scollan, Case No. 4:15-cv-03214-RBH (D.S.C., August 13, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are the food & beverage service providers at North
Beach Plantation's locations, including Seaside Cafe, BLU,
Poolside Bar & Grill and 21 Main Prime Steak House and Sushi Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William E. Hopkins Jr., Esq.
      J. Clay Hopkins, Esq.
      HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
      12019 Ocean Highway
      Post Office Box 1885
      Pawleys Island, SC 29585
      Telephone: (843) 314-4202
      Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
      E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com
              clay@hopkinsfirm.com

         - and -

      Natasha M. Hanna, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NATASHA M. HANNA, P.C.
      4717 Jenn Drive, #102
      Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
      Telephone: (843) 839-8002
      Facsimile: (843) 839-8011
      E-mail: natasha@nhannalaw.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Sterman" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 19, 2015, that the
parties in the class action filed by William Sterman filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the remaining claim
in arbitration.

"In August 2014, William Sterman, an owner of a weeks-based
Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership product at our resort in
Massachusetts, filed a claim with the American Arbitration
Association on behalf of a putative class consisting of himself
and all others similarly situated," the Company said. The claims
alleged and the relief sought are substantially similar to the
claims alleged and the relief sought by the Flynns.

"On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted our motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, and denied Mr. Sterman's request to
proceed with a class action.

"On July 7, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice as to the remaining claim in arbitration, and also
filed a joint motion to dismiss our appeal that was pending in the
Eleventh Circuit of the decision by the District Court that the
arbitrability of Mr. Sterman's claims must be resolved by an
arbitrator."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Requests That Class Cert. Motion be Deferred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 19, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion requesting that proceedings on the
class certification motion filed by the Abramsons be deferred
until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, Norman and Carreen
Abramson, owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation
ownership products at one of our resorts in California and of our
points-based Marriott Vacation Club vacation ownership product,
filed an action in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a putative class
consisting of themselves and all others similarly situated. The
claims alleged and the relief sought are substantially similar to
the claims alleged and the relief sought by the Flynns."

"On March 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the Abramson
action, which remains pending. On June 30, 2015, Mr. Abramson
filed a motion for class certification. On July 10, 2015, we filed
a motion requesting that proceedings on the class certification
motion be deferred until after resolution of our motion to dismiss
and the taking of discovery on Mr. Abramson's class claims, which
motion also remains pending.

"We dispute the material allegations in the California action and
intend to defend against them vigorously. Given the early stages
of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we
cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this
time."


MCG CAPITAL: Faces Consolidated Action Over PennantPark Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
MCG Capital Corporation is a party to a consolidated class action
stockholder lawsuit in connection with its proposed merger with
PennantPark, MCG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "Six complaints were filed by stockholders
challenging the merger between May 6, 2015, and May 18, 2015, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaints were consolidated
and on June 10, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed. The consolidated complaint alleges that MCG's directors
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, not
protecting against their supposed conflicts of interest and
failing to take steps to maximize the consideration to be received
by MCG's stockholders in the Merger. The consolidated complaint
also alleges that PennantPark and its affiliated entities have
aided and abetted the MCG directors' purported breach of fiduciary
duties.

The complaint demands, among other things, a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the Merger and rescission of the
transaction to the extent that it has been implemented. MCG
believes that the consolidated complaint is without merit.


MEDSTAR GEORGETOWN: Overcharged Medical Records, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action in Washington accuses Medstar Georgetown
University Hospital of overcharging for medical records, and seeks
$1,500 per violation.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015359TC
ID number: 2015359

On certain vehicles, the rubber seal at the top edge of the
secondary bulkhead of the engine compartment may have been damaged
during manufacturing. Should a sufficient length of rubber seal be
displaced from the bulkhead, and the seal were to drop down, it
could result in the loose end of the seal contacting exhaust
components. This could increase the risk of fire resulting in
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace
the rubber seal in the engine compartment.

  Make              Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----              -----        ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ     E CLASS      2015
  MERCEDES-BENZ     CLS CLASS    2015


MERCK SHARP: Recalls Bottles of Temodar(R) and Temozolomide
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., of Whitehouse Station, N.J., announced
a voluntary recall of about 276,000 Bottles with cracked caps
containing Temodar(R) (Temozolomide) and Temozolomide (generic)
capsules. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bottle cap can be cracked which can cause the child-resistant
closure to become ineffective to young children who can gain
unintended access to the capsules, posing a risk of poisoning.

This recall to replace involves bottle caps for Temodar and
Temozolomide (generic) capsules, an oral chemotherapy drug. The
capsules were distributed in 5- and 14-count brown glass bottles
that have white plastic child-resistant caps. A white label
affixed to the bottle has the word "Temozolomide" printed in black
lettering.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Clinics and pharmacies nationwide as a prescribed medicine from
July 2013 to August 2015. The container was included in the cost
of the medication which is based on quantities prescribed, health
insurance terms and other factors.

Consumers should immediately inspect their bottle caps for cracks.
If a crack is found, consumers should contact Merck for a
replacement cap. As with all drug products, the bottles should be
stored up high, out of sight and reach of young children.
Consumers may continue to use the drug as directed.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed IBM Corp. Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Merola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Merge Healthcare Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11388
(D. Del., August 13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Merge by International Business Machines
Corporation for inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a Delaware corporation that
develops software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images
to create a more effective and efficient electronic healthcare
experience for patients and physicians.

International Business Machines Corporation manufactures and
markets computer hardware, middleware and software, and offers
infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas ranging
from mainframe computers to nanotechnology.

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


MICHELIN: Recalls Multiple Tire Models Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Tires
Units affected: 6400
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015361TC
ID number: 2015361

Certain tires could experience a rapid loss of air pressure due to
a rupture of the sidewall in the bead area under severe usage
conditions. Rapid air loss could cause a loss of vehicle control,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: manufacturers will provide instructions on
how to obtain replacement tires.

  Make           Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----       ----------------------
  BF GOODRICH               2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014,
                            2014, 2014


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Keane, and all others similarly-situated v. Michigan
Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics Inc.
dba Diligent Deliveries, and Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc. dba
Any Part Auto Store, Case No.2:15-cv-04592 (E.D.N.Y., August 5,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Michigan Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries and Northeast
Logistics Inc. dba Diligent Deliveries operate a business that's
primary purpose is to hire delivery drivers for businesses
nationwide.

Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc. dba Any Part Auto Store operates a
business enterprise consisting of eight auto parts stores
throughout the State of New York. Any Part Group Purchasing, Inc.
shares its employees throughout its stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 499-9100
      Fax: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com


MICROSEMI CORPORATION: Chancery Court Entered Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsemi Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Chancery Court has
entered an order of dismissal, as stipulated by the parties,
providing that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as to the
plaintiff.

On February 23, 2015, the Ironworkers Local No. 25 Pension Fund
filed a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in Delaware
Chancery Court against the Company's current and former directors,
including James J. Peterson, Dennis R. Leibel, Thomas R. Anderson,
William E. Bendush, Paul F. Folino, William L. Healey, Matthew E.
Massengill and James V. Mazzo, and the Royal Bank of Canada
("RBC"). The lawsuit challenges a provision in the Company's
credit agreement, as amended prior to that date, that allegedly
triggered an event of default if a majority of the board of
directors was replaced through various means over a specified
period of time. The plaintiff alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company to agree to the
challenged change of control term on the theory that the term
could have had the effect of entrenching incumbent board members.
The lawsuit also alleges that RBC aided and abetted the purported
breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors. The lawsuit seeks
an order invalidating the challenged change of control term and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiff's lawyers.

On March 31, 2015, before any substantive proceedings in the
lawsuit, the Company amended the credit agreement to remove the
challenged change of control term, and disclosed the amendment in
a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 1, 2015.

On June 18, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order of
dismissal, as stipulated by the parties, providing that the
lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff, and
without prejudice to other putative class members, following the
satisfaction of certain specified events including the payment of
an agreed-upon amount of attorneys' fees and costs to the
plaintiff's counsel and the filing of the Company's 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 28, 2015. The final resolution of this matter
did not have a material impact on our financial position or
results of operations.


MINISTRY SAINT: Faces "Griebel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria A. Griebel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ministry Saint Joseph's Hospital, Case No.
3:15-cv-00507 (W.D. Wis., August 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ministry Saint Joseph's Hospital operates a medical center
affiliated with a community health system, Ministry Health Care,
Inc., which consists of 16 hospitals, numerous clinics and related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
      1555 N. River Center Drive, S. 202
      P. O. Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 271 4500
      Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
      E-mail: nde@previant.com
              efm@previant.com

         - and -

      Gregory B. Gill Sr., Esq.
      Barry P. Gill, Esq.
      GILL & GILL, S.C.
      128 North Durkee Street
      Appleton, WI 54911
      Telephone: (920) 739-1107
      Facsimile: (920) 739-3027
      E-mail: gillsr@gillandgillsc.com
              bpgill@gillandgillsc.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Restraints Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
1465 3rd Ave. Rest. Corp. d/b/a Gael Pub, for itself and for all
others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL
Enterprises LLC, DirecTv, LLC, and DirecTv Holdings LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-06145 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2015), seeks to enjoin the
ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have
implemented through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast
all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman M. Silberfeld, Esq.
      David Martinez, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-0130
      Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
      E-mail: RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com
              DMartinez@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
              KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
              MZolnoski@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      John Radice, Esq.
      Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM
      34 Sunset Boulevard
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: JRadice@radicelawfirm.com
              KPickle@radicelawfirm.com


NELNET INC: Judge Reduced Attorney Fees in Debt Collection Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge in Orlando, Florida, awarded $1.25 million in
attorney's fees following the settlement of a class action against
a student loan servicing company.

The fee award represents 27.78 percent of the gross settlement
fund of $4.5 million, and was accompanied by the final dismissal
-- with prejudice -- of a complaint filed in February 2014.

In his complaint, lead plaintiff James David Cooper Jr. claimed
NelNet Inc., repeatedly placed pre-recorded voice calls to his
cell phone while attempting to collect an alleged debt.

Cooper argued the calls were a direct contravention of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because he did not consent to
them, and in fact, were related to a debt incurred by someone
other than himself.

NelNet denied the allegations, but in June 2015, after an exchange
of "robust" discovery, production of thousands of pages and
documents, and a full day of mediation, nevertheless agreed to
settle the case.

A total of 2,526 individuals submitted class action claim forms,
and under the agreement, each will receive at least $150.

Cooper himself was also granted a $25,000 "incentive" award for
his role in pursuing the case.

NelNet also agreed to implement a new, enhanced training regime
for its employees. Attorneys then submitted a request for $1.5
million in fees, which U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton Jr. felt
compelled to reduce on August 4.  Dalton explained he did so for a
number of reasons, not least of which was the relatively short
amount of time the case was actually pending.

"The docket reflects that the progress of the case has been
unremarkable with little to no substantive motion practice beyond
the TCPA constitutional issue, which was mooted by settlement,"
Dalton wrote.

At the same time, the judge said, he was mindful not to reduce the
fees too much, acknowledging that it is not easy for consumers to
obtain counsel in Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, given
the law is relatively new and the cases often handled on a
contingency basis.

"Additionally, Class Counsel obtained significant benefits for the
class . . . "Dalton wrote. "Moreover, the Agreement, including the
negotiation of the attorneys' fees, was reached in mediation with
a skilled mediator. Thus, there is a presumption that the
Agreement is fair, negotiated at arm's length and without
collusion."

"Importantly, there were no objections to the Agreement or even to
the fees requested by counsel," he added.

Representatives could not be reached for comment by Courthouse
News.



NEW JERSEY: Governor's Aides Face New Allegations Over Bridgegate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that as
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie prepared for the much-anticipated
presidential debate on August 6, his former aides faced new
federal allegations over the "Bridgegate" scandal.

With exhibits putting it close to 700 pages, the class action
filed on August 6 renews allegations of political corruption and
retribution concerning the five-day September 2013 shutdown of
several lanes leading into the George Washington Bridge, which had
snarled traffic for hours.  The lane shutdown, which occurred on
the first day of school for children and had caused innumerable
delays to both school buses and emergency vehicles, was allegedly
payback for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich not endorsing Christie's
re-election for governor.

In dismissing an earlier version of lawsuit, a federal judge
chided the class for not including enough details on the alleged
conspiracy.

U.S. Judge Jose Linares had said in June that the complaint
contained "merely conclusory allegations with respect to any
alleged concerted activity of defendants and fails to set forth
any allegations of fact with respect to defendants' joint action."

The plaintiffs took the court up on its offer to amend their
claims.  The new filing draws heavily from a December 2014 report
by the New Jersey Legislature, which alleged evidence of a
conspiracy in hundreds of text messages, phone calls, and emails
between Christie staffers and officials at the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey.

The amended complaint also cites an investigation by law firm
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on behalf of Christie's office into both
Bridgegate and allegations of withheld relief money after
Superstorm Sandy.

Bridgegate has been a consistent black eye for Christie over the
past year and a half, but he has not faced any direct fallout.
Indeed, he is not even named as a defendant to the latest
iteration.

The plaintiffs, who are residents of the nearby New Jersey towns
of Old Tappan and Fort Lee, as well as several taxi services,
instead have taken aim at the state; Christie's gubernatorial re-
election campaign organization; Christie's former deputy chief of
staff, Bridget Anne Kelly; and Christie's former spokesman.

Former Christie-appointed Port Authority employees Bill Baroni and
David Wildstein also are named as the defendants.

Christie, who had been named as a defendant in the original
action, has said the Gibson Dunn report -- as well as two
Democratic investigations -- support his assertion that he was in
the dark regarding Bridgegate.

In a July 6 interview on MSNBC, Christie said "nobody cares" about
the scandal and that "after a while people just say, 'OK, I guess
he's telling the truth.'"

The amended complaint additionally removes claims against
Christie's campaign manager, William Stepien, a friend of
Wildstein's.  Though Stepien has maintained his innocence, he took
heat for having called Fort Lee's mayor an "idiot." Christie
eventually fired for the man for "poor judgment."

One of the most popular quotes from the scandal -- "time for some
traffic problems in Fort Lee" -- appeared in an email Kelly sent
just before the shutdown.  She and Baroni face federal criminal
charges over the scandal.

After the bridge shutdown, Christie's aides and Port Authority
officials attempted to defer questions from the press and from
Sokolich by saying the shutdown of several toll lanes was the
result of a traffic study.  Port Authority officials have already
admitted to faking that traffic study as an excuse for the
shutdown.

The new complaint says Wildstein had sent Baroni emails saying he
would have the Port Authority's engineering department fabricate
evidence to "make the traffic study cover story seem legitimate."
They also allegedly prepared misleading statements for the
agency's media relations department to deflect media questions.
The complaint also quotes Wildstein and Kelly talking glibly about
how the bridge-lane shutdown.

After complaints about the snarled traffic, Kelly texted
Wildstein, "is it wrong that I'm smiling?"

Another read: "I feel badly about the kids. I guess."

When hearing of Sokolich complaining about the backed-up traffic,
she emailed another colleague: "Good."

Portraying Kelly as eager to pursue political payback against
others, the complaint quotes a separate text chain to Wildstein in
which she asked about a rabbi who had become troublesome and
whether they could "cause traffic problems in front his house."

In May 2015 Wildstein pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and
one count of conspiracy for his role in the shutdown.

Kelly could not be reached for comment. A lawyer for Baroni
declined to comment on the amended complaint. A spokeswoman with
the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, which is representing
both the state and Drewniak, declined to comment.


NISSAN: Recalls Micra and Versa Models Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety TC
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 27773
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015366TC
ID number: 2015366

On certain vehicles, the driver's foot could contact the edge of
the center console lower trim panel, which could impede smooth
accelerator pedal operation. The panel edge could also catch the
driver's shoe, potentially resulting in a delay in the driver
being able to shift their foot from the accelerator to the brake
pedal. This could increase stopping distances, potentially
resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will modify the lower trim panel.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  NISSAN    MICRA      2014
  NISSAN    VERSA      2012


NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit is
pending.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October
22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend
its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's
motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint and the motion is pending.

At June 30, 2015, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot
be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential
loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation
of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation.


OMNICARE INC: Elow and IBEW Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, the Elow Action and the IBEW
Action have been consolidated for all purposes under the caption
In re Omnicare, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The following announcement of the Merger, two putative class
action complaints styled Elow v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 11093-VCG (the "Elow Action") and Electrical Workers
Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local Union No. 58 v. CVS Health Corp.,
et al., Civil Action No. 11131-VCG (the "IBEW Action") were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of
purported stockholders of Omnicare. The complaints name as
defendants various combinations of Omnicare, the members of the
Omnicare Board of Directors, CVS Health, CVS Pharmacy and Merger
Sub. The complaints generally allege that the members of the
Omnicare Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Omnicare's stockholders during Merger negotiations by entering
into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that CVS
Health, CVS Pharmacy and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further allege that,
among other things, (i) the Merger consideration undervalues
Omnicare, (ii) the sales process leading up to the Merger was
flawed due to the conflicts of interest of members of the Omnicare
Board of Directors, members of Omnicare management, and Omnicare's
financial advisors, (iii) certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement inappropriately favor CVS Pharmacy and inhibit competing
bids and (iv) Omnicare's preliminary proxy statement filed with
the SEC on June 26, 2015 omitted material facts, including
material information regarding the process leading up to the
Merger, the financial analyses of Omnicare's financial advisors
and certain prospective financial information described in the
proxy statement.

The complaints seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that
the Merger was entered into in breach of the defendants' fiduciary
duties and is therefore unenforceable, (ii) injunctive relief
enjoining the Merger unless and until Omnicare implements a
process that will yield a Merger Agreement providing fair terms to
Omnicare's stockholders, (iii) rescission of the Merger Agreement
to the extent already implemented and granting rescissory damages,
(iv) an accounting of all damages suffered as a result of the
alleged wrongdoing and (v) reimbursement of costs.

On July 20, 2015, the Elow Action and the IBEW Action were
consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Omnicare,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 11093-
VCG. The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them
in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the
litigation vigorously.


OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Revise 3rd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend the third amended complaint.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in the Company's public
offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i)
artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-
compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic
drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation
of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its
contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to
timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made
other allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the
district court dismissed the case.

On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district
court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. However, the appellate court reversed
the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district
court for further proceedings.

On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.

On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the
district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the
docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint. On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a petition for
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3,
2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for writ of certiorari. Oral argument at the United
States Supreme Court was held on November 3, 2014. On March 24,
2015, the United States Supreme Court vacated the decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case
to the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. On May
29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the third amended
complaint.


PACIFIC COAST: Defending Welch and Berliner Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust is still defending the Welch and Berliner
actions, which were consolidated into a single action, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.  The complaint asserts federal securities law claims
against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims
are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and
the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement
that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in
connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and
provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to
the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any
such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may
ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the consolidated action, and has not established
any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold
estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs
associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any
time.


PALM MEDICAL: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Palm
Medical Center, LLC, Health Holdings Company, Strategic Health
Services, LLC, and Edward M. Carriero, Case No. 1:15-cv-23044-MGC
(S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical center in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEOPLES BANCORP: Plaintiffs File Petition to NC Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2015, that the Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has filed a
notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit on appeal.


PHO MI: "Gama" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------
Antonio Gama, and all others similarly-situated v. Pho Mi, LLC,
dba Dalat Restaurant and Bar, and Khanh Nguyen, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02565 (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2015), seeks double damages and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
for overtime wage violations.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Tel: (972) 233-2264
      Fax: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


PLEASANT HOUSE: Recalls Steak and Chicken Pie Products
------------------------------------------------------
Pleasant House Bakery, LLC, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is
recalling an undetermined amount of steak and chicken pie products
distributed without the benefit of inspection. These products were
also missing the ingredient statement and contained undeclared
allergens, including eggs, milk, and wheat, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The steak and chicken pie items were produced between January 1,
2014, and August 14, 2015. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 10-oz. of individually wrapped product labeled "Steak & Ale
      Pie."
  --- 10-oz. of individually wrapped product labeled "Chicken
      Balti Pie."

These items were distributed to restaurants and retail
establishments in Chicago, Ill. and New Buffalo, Mich.

The problems were discovered when an FSIS employee determined that
product was being sold in a retail establishment in the Chicago
area.

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 and media with questions about the recall can contact
Arthur Jackson, owner, at (312) 804-5247.

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.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing on Appeal to Be Completed in Fall 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing is scheduled
to be completed in the fall of 2015 in an appeal related to the
federal securities class action.

"On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the
defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by one of our shareholders," the Company said.

After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The
amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the "Hussein
Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to the
Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition
and projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on
January 5, 2015," the Company said.

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed in the fall of
2015.

"We believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are
unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if
any, related to this claim," the Company said.


QUEENS ARTIFICIAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Patient Care
------------------------------------------------------------
Hyacinth Burton v. Queens Artificial Kidney Center Foundation,
Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Case No. 708582
(D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
failure to proper care, control, supervision, treatment, training
and direction to its patients.

The Defendants own and operate a medical facility located at 34-35
70th Street, Jackson Heights, New York 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac A. Arasteh, Esq.
      OMRANI & TAUB, P.C.
      909 Third Avenue- 28th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 599-5550


RAG TRADERS: Faces "Conners" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Conners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rag Traders Melrose, LLC, et al., Case No. BC591413
(D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Rag Traders Melrose, LLC is a manufacturer of men's and women's
ready to wear clothing, shoes and accessories collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Will Lemkul, Esq.
      MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL
      9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (858) 566-7600
      Facsimile: (858) 566-6602
      E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com

         - and -

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      San Diego CA  92037
      Telephone: (858) 367-9913
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


RE & FA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Garcia, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Re &
Fa, LLC, d/b/a Lombardi's and Fatih Dincer, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23039-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Lombardi's restaurant in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      Florida Bar No.: 0024031
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


RITE AID: Recalls Outdoor Dining Sets Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
in Rite Aid, of Camp Hill, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of
about 13,000 Outdoor Dining Sets. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chair arms and legs can bend and cause the user to fall,
posing a risk of injury.

This recall involves a six-piece outdoor patio set containing four
folding chairs, a table and an umbrella. The brown metal-frame
chairs have a red canvas seat and back, and measure 21 1/4 inches
tall by 25 1/4 inches wide. The umbrellas are 80 inches tall have
a coordinated red with stripes canvas top. The square table also
has a metal frame and a hard-plastic clear top. UPC number
011822350303 and item number 9034923 are printed on the packaging
of the patio set.

The firm has received four reports of chairs bending unexpectedly,
including four reports of injuries to the lower back and hip.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nWjuK8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Rite
Aid stores nationwide and online at RiteAid.com from January 2015
to July 2015 for between $100 and $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to the any Rite Aid store for a full refund. Consumers
are not required to return the table and umbrella.


ROYAL LACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Campos" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gudelio Campos and Bemabe Campos, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Royal Lace Inc. d/b/a Royal Lace,
Moises Guttman, and Aaron Guttman, Case No. 1:15-cv-04740
(E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a textile factory located at 902 E.
Hazelwood Avenue, Rahway, New Jersey 07065.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Monopolized Ticket Sales, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal class action accuses the San Francisco 49ers and
Ticketmaster of conspiring to drive up ticket resale prices by
monopolizing the secondary market for 49ers tickets.

Lead plaintiff Amir Kazemzadeh sued the 49ers and Ticketmaster,
alleging antitrust violations and trespass to chattels.

Kazemzadeh claims that this year, for the first time, the 49ers
blocked him and other season ticketholders from getting their
tickets until 72 hours before game time.

In previous seasons, Kazemzadeh says, he could print his tickets
in advance and give them as gifts or post them for sale on
websites such as stubhub.

For the coming season, the only way season ticketholders can
resell tickets before the 3-day limit is through Ticketmaster's
NFL Ticket Exchange website, which charges high fees and conceals
its floor price for resold tickets, according to the 18-page
lawsuit.

The complaint cites a 2014 Forbes column in which Steve Pociask
wrote that Ticketmaster "sets an arbitrary price floor on tickets,
a floor that is undisclosed to the purchaser. It is the NFL's
attempt to take over the secondary market and keep ticket prices,
which were already sold once, from being resold at low prices."

The lawsuit also cites a 2010 FTC complaint against Ticketmaster
for steering customers to a website where they unknowingly paid up
to four times the face value of tickets for concerts and other
events in 2008 and 2009.

Kazemzadeh claims the conspiracy restrains competition in the
secondary ticket market, reducing the number of 49ers tickets for
sale on other websites while increasing the number on the NFL
Ticket Exchange.

The NFL is not a party to the complaint.

Ticketmaster's NFL Ticket Exchange charges buyers 15 percent
extra, with a 10 percent surcharge for season ticketholders and a
15 percent service fee, the complaint estimates.

"Competition by and among ticket websites would produce consumer
benefits, including by stabilizing ticket prices and associated
fees," Kazemzadeh says.  He says the 49ers and Ticketmaster
blocked his access to his own tickets: property that he rightfully
owns.

"On a commercial level, you're being mandated to go through
Ticketmaster, which charges a higher rate," said Kazemzadeh's
attorney, Abbas Kazerounian.

"You're being forced into one channel of commerce, which is the
Ticketmaster avenue."

Kazerounian said the size of Ticketmaster's transaction fees
suggests the 49ers are "getting a piece" of the action, and that
this "double dipping" restricts consumer choice and competition.

Kazemzadeh seeks class certification, an injunction, disgorgement
and distribution of money received, and punitive damages.

Neither Ticketmaster's parent company, Live Nation Entertainment,
nor the San Francisco 49ers responded to requests for comment.


SENSATA TECHNOGLIES: Faces Hassett Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 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). 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. The plaintiffs, now joined by
an additional individual, have filed an amended complaint dated
June 2, 2015.

"On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, we filed motions to
dismiss. The court has scheduled a hearing on these motions for
October 7, 2015. We do not believe a loss is probable, and as of
June 30, 2015, we have not recorded an accrual related to this
matter," the Company said.


SIRIUS XM: Updates on Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters
------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provided updates on "Pre-1972 Sound
Recording Matters," in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "In August and September 2013, we were named as
a defendant in three putative class action suits and one
additional suit challenging our use and public performance via
satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior
to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings") under California, New
York and/or Florida law.  The plaintiffs in the putative class
action suits purport to seek in excess of $100,000 in compensatory
damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  The plaintiffs in the individual lawsuit seek unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief."

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

"Each of these cases is at varying stages:

     * Flo & Eddie California Case.  In September 2014, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California ruled
that California Civil Code Section 980(a), which provides that the
owner of a pre-1972 recording has "exclusive ownership" therein,
includes the exclusive right to control public performances of
that recording.  The Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for
summary judgment on liability, holding that we were liable for
unfair competition, misappropriation, and conversion under
California law for publicly performing Flo & Eddie's pre-1972
recordings without authorization. We intend to appeal that
decision.  In May 2015, the Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for
class certification and certified a class of owners of pre-1972
recordings that have been performed and used by us in California
without authorization.  In June 2015, we filed a motion with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking
interlocutory review of that class certification decision.

     * Flo & Eddie New York Case.  In November 2014, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled
that New York common law grants a public performance right to
owners of pre-1972 recordings.  The Court denied our motion for
summary judgment on liability.  In April 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted our petition for
interlocutory review of that decision.

     * Flo & Eddie Florida Case.  In June 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that
Florida common law does not grant a public performance right to
owners of pre-1972 recordings.  In July 2015, Flo & Eddie filed a
notice of appeal of that decision.

     * Capitol Records Case.  In October 2014, the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted
the Flo & Eddie California court's interpretation of California
law and granted plaintiffs' motion for a jury instruction
providing, in relevant part: "The owner of a sound recording
'fixed' (i.e., recorded) prior to February 15, 1972, possesses a
property interest and exclusive ownership rights in that sound
recording . . . [that] include[s] the exclusive right to publicly
perform, or authorize others to publicly perform, the sound
recording by means of digital transmission."  The Court did not
make any finding of liability.  In June 2015, we entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, Capitol Records LLC,
Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner Music Group
Corp. and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc., to settle the case in its
entirety.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we agreed to pay
the plaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210,000 on or before July 31,
2015 and the plaintiffs will dismiss the case with prejudice.  The
settlement resolves all past claims as to our use of pre-1972
recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables us,
without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and
broadcast such recordings in the United States through December
31, 2017.

"As part of the settlement, we have the right, to be exercised
before December 31, 2017, to enter into a license with each
plaintiff to reproduce, perform and broadcast pre-1972 recordings
owned or controlled by the plaintiffs from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2022.  The royalty rate for each such license will be
determined by negotiation or, if the parties are unable to agree,
binding arbitration.  The plaintiffs have represented and
warranted to us that in the United States they own, control or
otherwise have the right to settle with respect to approximately
80% of the pre-1972 recordings we have historically played.

"Pursuant to this settlement, we recorded $210,000 to Accounts
payable and accrued expenses within our unaudited consolidated
balance sheets as of June 30, 2015 and recognized $107,658 to
Revenue share and royalties within our unaudited statements of
comprehensive income during the three and six months ended June
30, 2015 related to the period prior to June 30, 2015.  Of the
remaining $102,342 of the settlement, $38,665 was recorded to
Other current assets and $63,677 was recorded to Other long-term
assets within our unaudited consolidated balance sheets as of June
30, 2015, which will be amortized to Revenue share and royalties
within our unaudited statements of comprehensive income over the
future service period of July 2015 through December 2017.

"At this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiff in the Flo
& Eddie cases were to prevail in its allegations, but we believe
we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted.  We are
defending these actions vigorously."


SIRIUS XM: Defending Against TCPA Suits
---------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. still defending against Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Suits, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in several purported class
action suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013,
January 2015, April 2015 and July 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, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida 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 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), Yefim Elikman v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093
(N.D. Ill.) and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-
cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla).  Additional information concerning
each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under
their docket numbers.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Rosen Action Transferred to Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Rosen class action
has been transferred to Florida.

In August 2014, two cases (entitled Rosen v. Spirit Airlines and
Legg v. Spirit Airlines) were filed against the Company in federal
court in Illinois and Florida, respectively. The Rosen case has
now been transferred to Florida.

The Company said, "The cases, which contain identical claims,
allege violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) based on incidents of unlawfully including more
information on the electronically printed credit card receipts
provided to customers from our airport kiosk machines than FACTA
permits. Both cases are styled as class actions and the Legg case
has been certified. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs."

"We believe we have valid arguments in our defense and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims. We believe the estimate of
probable losses is not material. However, the outcome of any
litigation is inherently uncertain and any resolution may differ
materially and could have a material adverse effect on the our
business and financial position."


SPOA INC: "Lugo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Lugo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPOA, Inc. d/b/a/ Downtown Grill Steaks and Seafood
and Mike Piperis, Jo Ann Talarantas, George Piperis, Sophia
Piperis, Case No. 2:15-cv-00348 (C.D. Tex., August 13, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Downtown Grill restaurant in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
      9801 Westheimer Rd., Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com


SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel G. Alonzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPS Technologies, LLC d/b/a Faber Fluid
Fittings, Precision Castparts Corp., and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. BC591290 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and penalties pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants own and operate an airplane component parts
manufacturing facility in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


STANCORP INSURANCE: Being Sold Cheaply to Meiji, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
StanCorp insurance too cheaply through an unfair process to Meiji
Yasuda Life Insurance Co., for $115 a share or $5 billion,
shareholders claim in Multnomah County Court.


STARCRAFT: Recalls Launch Ultra Lite 2015 Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 94
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015360TC
ID number: 2015360

On certain travel trailers, the furnace may not be properly
secured to the floor. If the furnace were to move excessively and
pull loose from the exhaust, it could allow hazardous fumes to
escape into the trailer which could result in a risk of
asphyxiation or fire, possibly resulting in injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the securing bracket of
the furnace and will ensure it is secured with the correct bracket
and screws if it is found to be incorrect.

  Make          Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----                ----------------------
  STARCRAFT     LAUNCH ULTRA LITE    2015


SUPERVALU INC: Defending Against Class Action Filed in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 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: Parties Appeal Magistrate Judge's Order
------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 2015, that all parties
in a class action lawsuit have appealed a magistrate judge's
order.

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 were
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court in 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.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and remanded 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 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 and on June 8, 2015, the
United States Supreme Court denied the Petition.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff. All parties have appealed
the Magistrate Judge's order.


SUPERVALU INC: Response in Customer Data Security Breach Case Due
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period (16 weeks) ended June 20, 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"). The cases have been consolidated as In Re: Supervalu
Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation and are proceeding
in the United States District Court in Minnesota. On June 26,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint. The Company's
response was due August 10, 2015.


SWAGGIN WAGON: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rangel and Josue Gutierrez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Swaggin Wagon, Inc., Case No. 7:15-
cv-00122 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Swaggin Wagon, Inc. is engaged in the business of transporting and
delivering frac sand to its customers' fracking sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Black Scuba Diving Masks
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 11, 2015
Posting date: August 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54614

This recall involves Omersub Zero Cube black scuba diving mask
manufactured before November 2012. The mask is designed to cover
the eyes and nose. The mask and strap are made with soft black
rubber, with hard rubber around the two glass lenses. "O.M.E.R."
appears on the forehead area of the mask in raised letters.

Only the black scuba diving masks manufactured before November
2012 are subject to the recall.  They are recognizable by a shiny
silicone facial skirt while those produced after November 2012
have the facial skirt in matte finish silicone.  The Zero Cube
mask in colours "Mud" and "Olive" are not involved in this recall.

The UPS Code 801 773 612 2298 and Omersub MFG Part #603NCF appear
on the original packaging.

Non-conforming glass was used for the lens, which can shatter
during normal use, posing an injury hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Technosport has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product
in Canada.

Approximately 12 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from April 2012 to April 2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Omersub S.p.A.
              Sovico, Monza Brianza
              ITALY

Distributor: Technosport Inc.
             Virginia Beach
             Virginia
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the diving mask and
contact Technosport for a replacement mask.

For more information, consumers may contact Technosport at (757)
428-4744, Monday through Friday, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET
or by email. Consumers can also visit the Omer Diving website and
click on "click here for Technosport Recalls" at the bottom of the
homepage for more information.

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

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

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bhZ3xS


TRANE US: Recalls  Accessory Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trane U.S. Inc., of Tyler, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,900 Accessory heaters installed in TAM7 and TAM8 air
handlers. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Heaters installed with reverse polarity on one of the breakers can
cause the heater to overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Trane and American Standard brand accessory
heaters manufactured between November 2014 and March 2015 and
installed in TAM7 and TAM8 air handlers as a primary or secondary
heat source. Models included in the recall are BAYEVBC15BK1BAA (15
KW Electric Heater) with serial numbers 1447B2BP1X through
1512B2CDDX and Model BAYEVCC25BK1BAA (25 KW Electric Heater) with
serial numbers 1503B2AP0X through 1513B2BHXX. Due to the
electrical risk, only a certified HVAC repair person should verify
the model and serial numbers on the nameplate on the inside of the
air handler.

The firm has received 10 reports of the heaters tripping circuit
breakers, including one report of heat-related damage to the unit.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dN5C0F

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Trane and American Standard independent dealers nationwide from
January 2015 to April 2015 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heater function by
switching the system to cooling mode or off, and contact their
Trane or American Standard independent dealer to schedule an
inspection and replacement. The system's air conditioning or
cooling function may still be used. Trane is contacting its
customers directly.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by Hamilton and Macon Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is aware of
three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET
Plus. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 6,
2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois).

This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County,
Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff. The case is
being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and
the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series
of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified
that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's
highways based on federal testing standards and approval for
Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also allege breach of
express and implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which
plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET
Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for
class members, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. This
lawsuit has been stayed by order of the Court.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued by Corporation of City of Stratford
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation
of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case
No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The
alleged class in this matter has been identified as persons in
Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end
terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada,
Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed
modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an
implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The
plaintiff is seeking $400.0 million in compensatory damages and
$100.0 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff
claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for
disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified
ET Plus in Canada.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces La Crosse County Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse
County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin).
The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of
themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET
Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and
falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use
on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and
approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also alleges
strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is
defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the
ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, and
injunctive relief.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently defending a number of product liability lawsuits in
several different states that are alleged to involve the ET Plus.
These cases are diverse in light of the randomness of collisions
in general and the fact that each accident involving roadside
devices such as an ET Plus, or any other fixed object along the
highway has its own unique facts and circumstances. Report 350
recognizes that performance of even the most carefully researched
roadside device is subject to physical laws and the crash
worthiness of vehicles.

The Company expects the judgment in the FCA case, coupled with the
media attention such judgment has generated, will prompt the
plaintiff's bar to seek out individuals involved in collisions
with an ET Plus as potential clients, which may result in
additional product liability lawsuits being filed against the
Company. The Company carries general liability insurance to
mitigate the impact of adverse judgment exposures in these product
liability cases.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: To Defend Against Nemky and Isolde Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 27, 2015, The
White Family Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-1304) was filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas.  The
complaint alleges that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or
by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and
the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States
of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The White
Family Trust voluntarily dismissed its case on June 22, 2015.

Three complaints alleging similar claims have also been filed.
Paul Panes, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-1316) was filed in U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of Texas on April 28, 2015
("Panes").  Panes voluntarily dismissed its case on June 18, 2015.
Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015
("Nemky").  Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19,
2015 ("Isolde").

Pending before the courts in both the Nemky and Isolde cases are
competing motions filed by the Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey, Division of Investment and the Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund and the United Association Local
Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund to be appointed the lead
plaintiff.

Pending before the court in the Nemky case are motions by the
Company, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry to transfer venue to the
Northern District of Texas. Pending before the court in the Isolde
case is a motion by the Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey, Division of Investment to transfer venue to the
Eastern District of Texas. Trinity denies and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Nemky and Isolde
matters.

"Based on the information available to the Company, we currently
do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to these
shareholder class actions; therefore no accrual has been included
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of
the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of
certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of
possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said.


U.S. MONEY RESERVE: Continue to Abuse Elders, Calif. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Money Reserve Inc. and
Fidelity Gold and Bullion LLC continue to rip off old people
despite orders to pay $5 million in restitution in Texas alone, a
class action claims in federal court in Los Angeles, California.


UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Urnovitz" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
A. Urnovitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Regents of the University of California and Does
1-25, Case No. BC591192 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to keep safe their  patients'
sensitive private, financial, medical, and personal information
safe from intrusion and for failure to timely notify customers
that their sensitive and private information had been breached
within a reasonable time.

The Regents of the University of California is the legal entity
responsible for UCLA Health.

UCLA Health is made up of the following hospitals and medical
centers: Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center,
Santa Monica, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel
Children's Hospital UCLA, the UCLA Medical Group, the Harbor-UCLA
Medical Center, and the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: calebmarker@zimmreed.com


UNION PACIFIC: Class Certification Hearing to Begin November 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class certification
hearing will begin November 2, 2015, in the lawsuit filed by rail
shippers.

The Companys said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented
by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust
lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three
other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of
complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the
named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common
fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic."

"In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

"On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be
transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in
the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge
Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers,
which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge
Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based
on various state laws.

"With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

"On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which
certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff
representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers
that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant
railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1,
2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling,
which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to
disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012,
the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel
of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the
petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in
the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification.

"The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August
9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification
decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider
the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme
Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert
report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman
approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of
the class certification issue on remand.

"On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1,
2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015,
with dates for additional briefing and depositions. The order also
states that the class certification hearing will begin November 2,
2015."


UNITIL CORPORATION: Discovery Continuing Into 2016
--------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for quarter
ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has accepted the parties'
joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial
likely in late 2016.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of
discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the
Court to certify the case as a class action.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (the "SJC"), and the SJC has now upheld the lower
Court's order. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify a
class under a different theory than previously argued.

The Company filed its opposition to this motion and also filed a
motion for summary judgment. Oral arguments on both motions were
held in June 2015, and a decision is pending. The Town of
Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court arising out of
the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the parties' joint
schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and trial likely in
late 2016. The Company continues to believe that both of these
suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself
vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in Allergan Case Dismiss Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
parties in the Allergan Securities Litigation have filed a
stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims.

On August 1, 2014, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan") commenced the
federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company, Valeant,
Valeant's subsidiary AGMS Inc. ("AGMS"), Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. ("Pershing Square"), PS Management, GP, LLC, PS
Fund 1, LLC ("PS Fund 1") and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et
al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections
13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules
promulgated by the SEC under those Sections.

On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and
William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the
members of the Allergan Board of Directors alleging violations of
Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules
promulgated by the SEC under those Sections.

On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part
a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction. The
Court directed the defendants to make certain additional
disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion.

On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended
complaint also asserted violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule
13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against
Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A.
Ackman.

On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation providing for
the voluntary dismissal of all claims.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: No Response Yet on Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in the
Allergan Shareholder Class Action.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS
Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees
Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended
complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson,
Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A.
Ackman.  The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a
putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February
25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting
violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules
promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange
Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management,
GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint.  The
Company is reviewing these claims and intends to vigorously defend
these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Shareholder Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Salix Shareholder Class Actions
remain pending.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement with Salix, six purported stockholder class actions were
filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims
against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix
Board"), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc.
("Sun Merger Sub").

On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB, and designated the complaint in one
action to be the operative complaint.  The operative complaint
alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales process and for
allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly
preclusive deal protections.  The complaint also alleges that the
Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix
Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading
information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and
the sales process leading up to the Merger Agreement. The
complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, including
enjoining the proposed transaction, and unspecified attorneys' and
other fees and costs.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
action.  Those motions remain pending.  The Company is vigorously
defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Walgreen and Rite Aid Cases Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Walgreen and Rite Aid cases have been stayed pending the outcome
of the pending motion to dismiss the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class
Actions.

On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-
04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers
of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged
in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the
market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a
prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis
under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiff further alleges that
the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain trade,
and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in
the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets
to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor
purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges.
Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have
been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable,
treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including
attorneys' fees.

Additional class action complaints making similar allegations
against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have
been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated
direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July
23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-
JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund (N.D. Cal. filed Aug
1, 2013; voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in E.D. Pa on Aug. 30,
2013, as Case No. 2:13-cv-05108); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed
Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge
31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D.
Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health
& Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug.
30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed
Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-
cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of
Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013);
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U
Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa.
filed Oct. 25, 2013); Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case
No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar.
19, 2014).).

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the cases in the
District of Massachusetts, and the Multi-District Litigation
("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending
before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.

On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the
End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, with the
Defendants' consent, subsequently filed a corrected amended
complaint on September 22, 2014. On November 24, 2014, the
Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' and the End Payor Plaintiffs' complaints.

Oral argument on the Defendants' motion was held on March 12, 2015
and a decision is currently pending. On March 26, 2015, and on
April 6, 2015, two additional non-class action complaints were
filed against Medicis in the Middle District of Pennsylvania by
purported direct purchasers of Solodyn, making similar allegations
and seeking similar relief to that sought in the other direct
purchaser plaintiff complaints (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp.. No. 1:15-cv-00611-YK (M.D. Pa. filed March
26, 2015); Rite Aid Corp., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.,
No. 1:15-cv-00673-YK (M.D. Pa. filed April 6, 2015)).

The JPML transferred the Walgreen and Rite Aid complaints to the
District of Massachusetts on April 8, 2015, and May 1, 2015,
respectively, where they are now included in the MDL. The Walgreen
and Rite Aid cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the
pending motion to dismiss the class action complaints. The Company
intends to vigorously defend these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing Expected in Early 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a new
certification hearing is expected to be held in early 2016 in the
Afexa Class Action.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.  In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim.  The hearing on the motion to strike and the
Plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015.

The Court allowed certain amendments and a new certification
hearing is expected to be held in early 2016. The Company denies
the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Decision Pending in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
decision is pending on an appeal related to a MoistureLoc(TM)
product liability lawsuit.

B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named as a
defendant in approximately 321 currently active product liability
lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York
State Consolidated Proceeding, as well as in certain other U.S.
state courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered
personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with
MoistureLoc(TM). Two consolidated cases were established to handle
MoistureLoc(TM) claims.

First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the
Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second,
on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating
Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State,
and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.

There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases
pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding.

On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the
New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On
September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling.

On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
motion to renew the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a
motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims.

On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to
renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. The appeal
was argued January 20, 2015.

The Court issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying
plaintiffs' appeal to renew and affirming the lower court's
decision granting B&L's motion for summary judgment regarding all
remaining non-fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for leave to appeal this decision, which was
denied on May 21, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to
appeal from that decision to the New York State Court of Appeals
on July 1, 2015. B&L filed its brief in opposition on July 13,
2015 and a decision is pending.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).

Currently, B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection
with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All U.S.-based
fusarium claims have now been resolved and there is one active
fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States
that remains pending. The parties in this active matter are
involved in settlement discussions, and the Company currently
expects that any potential settlement amounts would not be
material.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Grignon" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
action, Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No.
5:14-cv-00804-D) has been voluntarily dismissed.

Beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which
generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers
and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with
respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory
levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal
controls.  Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned:
Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al.
(Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)).
These two actions have been consolidated and an initial schedule
has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this
consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption
Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-
00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.


VENTAS INC: Parties to Class Action Agreed to MOU
-------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties to the
federal class action action agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders.

"In the weeks following the announcement on June 2, 2014 of our
agreement to acquire HCT, a total of 13 putative class actions
were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the
transaction," the Company said. "Certain of the actions also
purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other
things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and that we
and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and
abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and damages."

"Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re:
American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court
of Maryland.

"On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated state court
action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class
of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval
by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require
HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,
which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated
January 2, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

"On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also agreed
to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT
stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by
that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims
asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each
applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to
make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which
were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January
5, 2015. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's
stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding."

"We believe that each of these actions is without merit."


VERISK ANALYTICS: Served With "John Weber" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 20, 2015, the
Company was served with a putative class action titled John Weber
v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The plaintiff, a
former employee of the Company's former subsidiary Interthinx,
Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
behalf of all review appraisers and individuals holding comparable
positions with different titles who were employed by Interthinx
for the last three years nationwide and who were not paid overtime
wages. The class complaint claims that the review appraiser
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 a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and seeks overtime wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: 2nd Circuit Court Denied Petition for Rehearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a Petition for a Re-
Hearing in an appeal related to 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. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the Amended Complaint on April 27, 2015 and denied
the Appellants' Petition for a Re-Hearing on June 16, 2015.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2014 Verisk Analytics, Inc. 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, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct errors as
the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint similarly
alleges 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. It claims 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.

No updates were provided in Verisk Analytics's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.


VERMEER: Recalls 2012 Brush Chipper Units Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 64
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015362TC
ID number: 2015362

On certain brush chipper units, the mounting flanges for the
discharge chute could crack or fail due to stress and/or fatigue.
This could result in the chute separating from the brush chipper
while the unit is being towed down a roadway, creating a road
hazard for other motorists, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
reposition the discharge chute rotation clamp locations and add
and additional rotation clamp.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  VERMEER              2012


VITAL RECOVERY: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Walker, and all others similarly-situated v. Vital
Recovery Services, Inc., Vital Solutions, Inc., and Christopher J.
Shuler, Case No. 1:15-cv-02747 (N.D. Ga., August 4, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable expenses of
litigation and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a debt collection agency in Norcross,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan H. Garber, Esq.
      THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Suite 14
      4994 Lower Roswell Road
      Marietta, GA 30068
      Tel: (678) 560-6685
      Fax: (678) 560-5067
      E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net


WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Provide Workers Seats, Verge Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
La Britt Verge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, Case No.
BC591286 (D. Cal., August 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide suitable seating for employees
who work in Wal-Mart pharmacies.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates
retail stores with pharmacies throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389
      E-mail: ari@arimoss.com

         - and -

      Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 773-0323
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389
      E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settlement of Fla. and Ala. Cases Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. has received court approval for final
settlement of the Florida and Alabama class action cases, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

"In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in
a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County,
Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama,
respectively," the Company said. "These cases primarily pertained
to our fuel and environmental charges included on our invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.

"We received court approval for final settlement of the Florida
and Alabama cases on April 28, 2015 and June 9, 2015,
respectively. The settlements will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruling by Kansas Court Currently on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The ruling by a Kansas court in the class actions against
Deffenbaugh is currently on appeal, Waste Management, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh. In May 2012
and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in
purported class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. These cases also pertain to fuel,
environmental and base rate charges included on invoices.

In February 2015, the Kansas Court certified a class of plaintiffs
with respect to the fuel surcharge only. This ruling is currently
on appeal and is not a final adjudication.

"We do not anticipate that the outcome of these cases will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in "Freedman" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
a settlement agreement has been reached in the "Freedman"
securities class action.

The Company said, "In March 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY) was filed in the Southern
District of New York against us and certain current and former
officers. That case alleges violation of the federal securities
laws related to the restatement of our historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012, and later added claims
related to the announcement of a subsequent restatement on July
24, 2012. In the three months ended December 31, 2014, we advanced
settlement negotiations such that settlement was deemed probable,
and we maintained an accrual of the estimated probable loss."

"As a result of ongoing negotiations in the second quarter of
2015, a settlement agreement was reached on June 30, 2015, subject
to notice to the class, approval by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and other conditions. The
settlement agreement requires payments totaling $120 million in
exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and
the unconditional release of all claims, of which $95 million was
accrued during the second quarter of 2015."


WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit Over Junk Fax Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
JT's Frames, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v. Weinberg &
Associates, Inc., Ohio National Financial Services, Inc., The Ohio
National Life Insurance Company, Ohio National Life Assurance
Corporation, Ohio National Equities, Inc., Ohio National Mutual
Holdings, Inc., Ohio National Investments, Inc. and John Does 1-
10, Case No. 1:15-cv-06788 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violating the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

The case challenges the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants is a group of insurance and financial services
companies in Ohio.  Weinberg & Associates, Inc. is an agent for
the Ohio National Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com


WEST BANCORPORATION: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the appeals in a class
action lawsuit have not yet been assigned a date for oral
argument.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged
by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card transactions
are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than
allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly
posted debit card transactions for payment violated various
alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs are
seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief,
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of
fees and attorney fees. The case is currently being brought by
Darla and Jason T. Legg, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
Iowa.

West Bank believes it has substantial defenses and is vigorously
defending the action. The trial court entered orders on
preliminary motions on March 4, 2014. It dismissed one of the
plaintiffs' claims and found that factual disputes precluded
summary judgment in West Bank's favor on the remaining claims. In
addition, the court certified two classes for further proceedings.

West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The Iowa Supreme Court has indicated that the appeal will be heard
during the 2015-2016 court term. The appeals have not yet been
assigned a date for oral argument. The amount of potential loss,
if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now because of the
unresolved legal issues and because, among other things, the
multiple alternative claims involve different time periods,
burdens of proof, defenses and potential remedies.


WING PARTNERS: "Randall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tabares Randall, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Wing Partners 6408, LLC and Tina D. Howell, Case No. 30844284 (D.
Fla., August 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wage compensation, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Based in Miami Dade County, Florida, Wing Partners 6408, LLC, is
engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XIAOQING LI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaliya Morgan and Timothy Wright v. Xiaoqing Li, Mengzhen He and
Does 1-30, Case No. RG15781782 (D. Cal., August 13, 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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $335-Mil. in Fibro Trust
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. placed $335 million of the settlement funds received
from the underwriters settlement into a renewable annual trust
restricted to pay for ongoing and future litigation defense and
claim settlement costs incurred in conjunction with asbestos
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.

On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules entered into a
comprehensive settlement agreement related to certain insurance
coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims with Underwriters at
Lloyd's, certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member
companies, along with National Indemnity and Resolute Management,
Inc., under which Ashland and Hercules received a total of $398
million. In exchange, all claims were released against these
entities for past, present and future coverage obligations arising
out of the asbestos coverage-in-place agreements that were the
subject of the pending arbitration proceedings. In addition, as
part of this settlement, Ashland and Hercules released all claims
against National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc. in the
Kentucky state court action. As a result, the arbitration
proceedings and the Kentucky state court action have been
terminated.

As a result of this settlement, Ashland recorded an after-tax gain
of $120 million within the discontinued operations caption of the
Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income during the three
months ended March 31, 2015. The Ashland insurance receivable
balance was also reduced as a result of this settlement by $227
million within the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In addition, Ashland placed $335 million of the settlement funds
received into a renewable annual trust restricted for the purpose
of paying for ongoing and future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs incurred in conjunction with asbestos claims.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $162MM Receivable at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had $162 million insurance receivable, 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.

At March 31, 2015, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $162 million, of which $18 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $402
million at September 30, 2014. During the June 2014 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers, was updated. This model update resulted in a $7
million increase in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries. In 2014, subsequent to the model update, a $15 million
increase to the receivable was recorded to reflect a change to
certain model assumptions related to the timing of receipts.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21,000 Hercules PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, had 21,000
asbestos-related personal injury 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.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing
of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period
to period.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $320MM Hercules Claims Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules, had $320 million
total reserves for asbestos 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.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $320 million at March 31, 2015 compared to $329
million at September 30, 2014.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had $55MM Receivable
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, had $55 million
insurance receivable, 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.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements
with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of A+ or higher as of March 31, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015 and September 30, 2014, the receivables from
insurers amounted to $55 million and $77 million, respectively.
During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This
model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries.

As a result of the January 2015 asbestos insurance settlement
previously described, Hercules has resolved all disputes with
Chartis (AIG) member companies under their existing coverage-in-
place agreement for past, present and future Hercules asbestos
claims. As a result, during the March 2015 quarter, a $22 million
reduction in the insurance receivable balance within the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets was recorded.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned
previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models
ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos-
related litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc reported that it continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos 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.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Illinois,
Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the U.K. by approximately 125
plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or
death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of the
plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal
amount. A special master reviewed all 58 cases and made an
allocation of settlement funds among the parties. The District
Court Judge reviewed the allocations and accepted the special
master's recommendations and approved the settlements. The
settlement documents and final documentation for the individual
plaintiffs are being processed.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still
ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature
of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Illinois, Mississippi, Texas,
Louisiana and the U.K., we have other asbestos or lung injury
claims pending against us in litigation in other jurisdictions.
Although we do not expect final disposition of these asbestos or
lung injury lawsuits to have a material adverse effect upon our
financial position, operating results or cash flows, there can be
no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is the United Kingdom-based offshore contract
drilling company. The Company offers offshore drilling rig fleet,
ultra-deepwater fleet and jackup fleet. Ensco owns and operates an
offshore drilling rig fleet of 74 rigs. The Company's target
market includes oil companies, in addition to many independent
operators. The Company's operations and drilling contracts span
across 20 countries on six continents around the world. The
markets in which the Company operates include the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico, Mexico, Brazil, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, the
Middle East, West Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia. The
Company provides drilling services on a day-rate contract basis.
It operates through three segments: Floaters, Jackups and Other.
The Floaters segment includes the Company's drillships and
semisubmersible rigs. The Jackups segment offers contract drilling
services. The other segment comprises management services on rigs
owned by third parties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,150 PI Claimants at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a named defendant in numerous lawsuits purporting to
represent 2,150 individual claimants alleged asbestos-related
personal injury 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.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,150 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,220 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2014.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial,
including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court
at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal
finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. The case has been inactive since
the fourth quarter of 2007, other than a case management
conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a
motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and
damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the Court
declined to bifurcate, and set a status conference during the
second quarter of 2015. No liability has been recorded for this
matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable
and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able
to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any
meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the
otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the
complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might
allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.

3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has $41-Mil. Insurance Receivable
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $41 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.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of persons
who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other
malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first
quarter of 2015 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $14
million. In the first quarter of 2015, the Company made payments
for fees and settlements of $10 million related to the respirator
mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had
accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $144 million
(excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents the low end in
a range of loss. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper
end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the
accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent
difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet
been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be
asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against
multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not
attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of
liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability,
which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the
Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the
several possible developments that may occur that could affect the
Company's estimate of liabilities.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$41 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent
case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with
similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and
remaining coverage, and then records an amount it has concluded is
likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing
and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in
or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which
insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome
of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect
to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under
the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.

3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Unit Accrues $23MM Fibro Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, accrued $23 million for
product liabilities and defense costs related to current and
future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-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.

Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation -- Aearo Technologies

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of March 31, 2015, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of $23 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as
for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor
Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the
number of years each company sold respiratory products under the
"AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is
further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and
Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as
Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica
products on or after January 1, 1997. As of March 31, 2015, Aearo
has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be
exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11,
1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to
discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is
no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary
judgment on all claims. Cabot filed a motion for reconsideration,
and Aearo filed a motion for clarification of the court's order
granting Aearo summary judgment. In October 2014, the court denied
Aearo's motion for clarification. The court also denied, in part,
Cabot's motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed its ruling that
Cabot retained liability for claims involving exposure to silica
in coal mine dust. The court granted Cabot's motion, in part,
ruling that Aearo was not entitled to summary judgment on Cabot's
claim for equitable allocation, and on whether the 258 underlying
claims were Cabot's responsibility. These two issues remain in the
case for further proceedings and the parties have engaged in
discovery related to them. New motions for summary judgment will
be presented to the court in the third quarter of 2015.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than
the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company's
business segments: Industrial, which serves a range of markets,
such as automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and
automotive aftermarket, electronics, appliance, paper and
printing, packaging, food and beverage, and construction; Safety
and Graphics, which serves a range of markets for the safety,
security and productivity of people, facilities and systems;
Electronics and Energy, which serves customers in electronics and
energy markets, including solutions for electronic devices,
telecommunications networks, electrical products, power generation
and distribution, and infrastructure protection; Health Care,
which serves markets that include medical clinics and hospitals,
pharmaceuticals, dental and orthodontic practitioners, and health
information systems, among others, and Consumer, which serves
markets that include consumer retail, office retail, home
improvement, building maintenance and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong World PI Trust Holds 12% of Shares
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., reported that 12% of its
outstanding shares was held by the Asbestos PI Trust, 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.

In December 2000, AWI filed a voluntary petition for relief (the
"Filing") under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the
"Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") in order to use the
court-supervised reorganization process to achieve a resolution of
AWI's asbestos-related liability. In October 2006, AWI's court-
approved plan of reorganization became effective and AWI emerged
from Chapter 11. All claims in AWI's Chapter 11 case have been
resolved and closed.

In October 2006, the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos
Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the "Asbestos PI Trust") was
created to address AWI's personal injury (including wrongful
death) asbestos-related liability. All present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims against AWI, including
contribution claims of co-defendants but excluding certain foreign
claims against subsidiaries, arising directly or indirectly out of
AWI's pre-Filing use of, or other activities involving, asbestos
are channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust.

From the fourth quarter of 2012 through the fourth quarter of
2014, the Asbestos PI Trust sold 20,448,362 shares of our common
stock. In the first quarter of 2015, the Asbestos Trust sold
2,739,944 shares of our common stock. See Note 9 for discussion of
the related income tax impact. We did not sell any shares and did
not receive any proceeds from these transactions. As a result of
these transactions the Asbestos PI Trust held approximately 12% of
our outstanding shares as of March 31, 2015.

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) is a producer of flooring
products and ceiling systems for use in construction and
renovation of residential, commercial and institutional buildings.
AWI designs; manufactures and sells flooring products, and ceiling
systems across the world. AWI operates in four business segments
include: building products, resilient flooring, wood flooring and
unallocated corporate. Building products produces suspended
mineral fiber, soft fiber and metal ceiling systems for use in
commercial, institutional and residential settings. Resilient
flooring produces and sources floor coverings for homes and
commercial and institutional buildings. Wood flooring produces and
sources wood flooring products for use in new residential
construction and renovation, with some commercial applications in
stores, restaurants and high-end offices. The unallocated
corporate segment includes assets, liabilities, income and
expenses that have not been allocated to the business units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 424 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 424 pending 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.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

"We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of March 31, 2015, there were 424
pending claims compared to 438 pending claims at December 31,
2014. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in
personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase
in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in
Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by
plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the
law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of
asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005
and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and
increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and the first quarter of 2015
(annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010. These new
lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports.

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that the
trend will continue and that a majority of the claimants in
pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss.
This belief is based in large part on the limited number of
asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us and the fact
that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products. In addition,
even at sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can
be verified during the same period those products were used, our
liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual
contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone who was
employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products
that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have
and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-
related matters.

"Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants. We have obtained the dismissal of many of these
claims. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, 62 claims were
dismissed and no (0) claims were settled. For the year ended
December 31, 2014, 104 claims were dismissed and 13 were settled.
The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers,
including the costs associated with the small number of cases that
have been settled. Nothing was paid on settlements for the three
months ended March 31, 2015, compared to $3.2 million for the year
ended 2014. Although these figures provide some insight into our
experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as
to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in
the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number. Most of the settled claims were settled for
nominal amounts, and the majority of such payments have been borne
by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

* Potential Liability

"NERA has historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our
future asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard
to pending claims and future claims. Projecting future asbestos
costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty
as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, the  variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that ten years is
the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future
costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are
not reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also
believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability
(i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related
legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.

"Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both indemnity
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
We located primary policies for all such years except for the
early 1960s. With respect to this period, we entered into an
arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in
2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities
allocable to such period. We have located umbrella or excess layer
policies for all such years except for the period from May 18,
1961 to May 18, 1964. We believe that a policy was purchased from
Continental Casualty Company covering this period based upon
documents we have found, but the insurer has denied coverage. This
policy has not yet been triggered.

"Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh has historically been engaged to work with us to project our
insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims. Marsh's
conclusions are based primarily on a review of our coverage
history, application of reasonable assumptions on the allocation
of coverage consistent with certain industry practices, an
assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports."

Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products
across range of end markets, including portable communications,
communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit,
automotive, defense, and clean technology. The Company's products
are sold into markets, including high technology applications such
as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless
devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy
applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. The
Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions:
North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates in two
business segments: Core Strategic and Other. The Company's core
strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed
Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES). The
Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide in
2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation reported that its cost sharing agreement with
insurance carriers has not been terminated, 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 states: "As of March 31, 2015, our insurance carriers
have paid for substantially all of the settlement and defense
costs associated with our asbestos-related claims. The current
cost sharing agreement between us and such insurance carriers is
primarily designed to facilitate the ongoing administration and
payment of such claims by the carriers until the applicable
insurance coverage is exhausted. This agreement, which replaced an
older agreement that had expired, can be terminated by election of
any party thereto after January 25, 2015. Absent any such
election, the agreement will continue until a party elects to
terminate it. As of the report filing date for this report, the
agreement has not been terminated.

"In 2014, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted. The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over
exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost
sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the
exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess
coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The
excess carrier providing coverage for the period is currently
providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the
allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not
yet signed that agreement.

"The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related
insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models
contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results
generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are
reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty
based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation. We
determined that a ten year projection period is now appropriate as
we have experience in addressing asbestos related lawsuits over
the last few years to use as a baseline to project the liability
over ten years. However, we do not believe we have sufficient data
to justify a longer projection period at this time. As of December
31, 2014, the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery
for the ten year period through 2024 was $56.5 million and $53.0
million, respectively. There were no changes to these projections
during the first three months of 2015. We review our asbestos
related forecasts annually in the fourth quarter of each year
unless facts and circumstances materially change during the year,
at which time we would analyze these forecasts.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this matter."

Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products
across range of end markets, including portable communications,
communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit,
automotive, defense, and clean technology. The Company's products
are sold into markets, including high technology applications such
as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless
devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy
applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. The
Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions:
North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates in two
business segments: Core Strategic and Other. The Company's core
strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed
Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES). The
Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide in
2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 12,500 Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had 12,500 pending asbestos-related product
liability 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.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe
that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general,
these claims relate to a few types of automotive products that
were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of March 31, 2015 and December
31, 2014, the Company had approximately 12,500 and 13,300 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. The
decrease in the pending claims is a result of the Company's
continued efforts to obtain dismissal of dormant claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2015, of the approximately 1,300
claims resolved, 111 (9%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2014,
of the approximately 6,500 claims resolved, 397 (6%) resulted in
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has excess insurance coverage available for potential
future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004, primary
layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged
exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed this verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.

The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject
to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous
variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables
include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of
state or federal tort reform legislation. The nature of the
historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the
product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these
lawsuits and, at present, management does not believe that
asbestos-related product liability claims are likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.

The Company has paid and accrued $353.1 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
$195.9 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of
$157.2 million, is expected to be fully recovered. Timing of
recovery is dependent on final resolution of the declaratory
judgment action or additional negotiated settlements. At December
31, 2014, insurers owed $141.9 million in association with these
claims.

In addition to the $157.2 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $113.2 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at March 31, 2015. The
Company also has a related asset of $113.2 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which is
expected to occur subsequent to March 31, 2016. At December 31,
2014, the comparable value of the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset was $111.8 million.

The Company does not believe that it can, at present, reasonably
estimate possible losses in excess of those for which it has
accrued. The Company's belief is based on a number of factors,
including without limitation, because the Company cannot
reasonably predict how many additional claims may be brought
against the Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to
indemnify) in the future, the particular illnesses or medical
conditions that may be alleged in such claims, the allegations in
such claims and the evidence submitted by claimants in support
thereof, the possible outcomes in settling or litigating such
claims, the time in which claims will proceed through courts in
which they are asserted, or the impact of tort reform legislation
that may be enacted at the state or federal levels. The Company
reviews factors relevant to the asbestos claims that have been or
may in the future be asserted against it on an ongoing basis.

BorgWarner Inc., is a supplier of engineered automotive systems
and components for powertrain applications. The Company's products
are manufactured and sold across the world, to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles (passenger cars, sport-
utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-trucks). The Company's
products are also sold to other OEMs of commercial vehicles
(medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses) and off-highway
vehicles (agricultural and construction machinery and marine
applications). It also manufactures and sells its products to
certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and into the
aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway vehicles. The
Company operates in two business segments, which include Engine
and Drivetrain.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against 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 31, 2015.

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to
businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve
products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate
to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new
ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers
or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed
to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified
Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and
new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the
Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would
fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of
these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong
defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in these matters.

AMETEK, Inc., (AMETEK) is a manufacturer of electronic instruments
and electromechanical devices with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and South America. AMETEK markets and sells its
products through two groups: Electronic Instruments (EIG) and
Electromechanical (EMG). The Company's EIG segment designs and
manufactures advanced instruments for the process, aerospace,
power and industrial markets. It offers process control
instruments for the oil and gas, petrochemical, pharmaceutical,
semiconductor and factory automation industries. The Company's EMG
segment offers electrical connectors and electronics packaging
used in aerospace and defense, medical and industrial
applications, as well as its advanced technical motor and motion
control products, which are used in a range of medical devices,
office and business equipment, factory automation, robotics and
other applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 421 Fibro Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., is named defendant in 421 lawsuits involving
1,059 asbestos-related personal injury 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.

The Company states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man Corporation
subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2015, we are
named a defendant in approximately 421 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,059 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

MRC Global Inc., is a global industrial distributor of pipe,
valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and services to the
energy industry. The Company offers products that are used in the
construction, maintenance, repair and overhaul of equipment used
in extreme operating conditions, such as high pressure, high/low
temperature and high corrosive and abrasive environments. Its
product types include valves, automation and instrumentation,
carbon steel fittings and flanges and stainless steel and alloy
pipe and fittings, line pipe and oil country tubular goods, among
others. The Company offers around 230,000 stock keeping units,
including an array of PVF, oilfield supply, automation,
instrumentation and other general and specialty industry supply
products. The Company operates through its U.S., Canadian, and
International segments. It has operations in over 400 service
locations. It provides services, such as product testing, volume
purchasing and warehousing, among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has 47,000 Fibro Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation reported 47,000 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.

The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been sued, along with many other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold
by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material
and was non-friable. As of March 31, 2015, there were 47 thousand
pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively
defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is
unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.

"Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may
be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for
estimating those costs at this time.

"The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and
unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future
events affecting the key factors and other variables within the
next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond
the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid
process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil &
gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant
optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies
manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies
for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail
transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures
connector products that transfers signal and power in various
electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments
and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $758.3-Mil. Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's estimated asbestos exposure for the resolution
of all pending asbestos-related claims and claims estimated to be
filed in the next 10 years was $758.3 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.

The Company states: "As part of our ongoing review of our net
asbestos exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent
qualitative and quantitative data available for the key inputs and
assumptions, comparing the data to the expectations on which the
most recent annual liability and asset estimates were based. Based
on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2015 other
than the incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year
forecast period. The net asbestos charge for the three months
ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 was $15.4 million and $15.8 million,
respectively.

"The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $758.3 million and
$746.8 million as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid
process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil &
gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant
optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies
manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies
for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail
transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures
connector products that transfers signal and power in various
electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments
and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $1.2B Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation has recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related
liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be
filed over the next 10 years of $1,226.4 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.

The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of our
products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT
or Goulds Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In
addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date
is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been
dismissed without payment by the Company.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries. As of March 31, 2015, we have recorded an undiscounted
asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of $1,226.4
million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of
$468.1 million which represents estimated recoveries from
insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of $758.3 million."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. Industrial Process manufactures engineered fluid
process equipment serving customers in industries such as oil &
gas, mining, power generation, chemical and is a provider of plant
optimization and efficiency solutions. Motion Technologies
manufactures brake pads, shock absorbers and damping technologies
for the global automotive, truck, trailer and public bus and rail
transportation markets. Interconnect Solutions manufactures
connector products that transfers signal and power in various
electronic devices. Control Technologies manufactures equipments
and regulators for the aerospace and defense, and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Received $19MM for Non-PCC Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated received $19 million in insurance payments
related to non-Pittsburgh Corning Corporation asbestos 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.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each own 50% of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). Over a
period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants
were named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for
bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims
pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various
theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products
and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million
dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis
of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any
facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's
asbestos products.

Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. On
November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision finally
confirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization (the "Amended PCC
Plan" or the "Plan"). On September 30, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision
confirming the Amended PCC Plan. On October 30, 2014, one of the
objectors to the Plan appealed the District Court's affirmation of
the Plan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of Appeals"). It will likely
take many months for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to render
its decision.

Under the Plan as affirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by
the District Court, Corning is required to contribute its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), a
Belgian corporation, and to contribute $290 million in a fixed
series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning has the
option to use its shares rather than cash to make these payments,
but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not the number of
shares. The Plan requires Corning to make: (1) one payment of $70
million one year from the date the Plan becomes effective and
certain conditions are met; and (2) five additional payments of
$35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50 million, and $50
million, respectively, on each of the five subsequent
anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is
subject to reduction based on the application of credits under
certain circumstances.

In addition to the claims against Corning related to its ownership
interest in PCC, Corning is also the defendant in approximately
9,700 other cases (approximately 37,300 claims) alleging injuries
from asbestos related to its Corhart business and similar amounts
of monetary damages per case. When PCC filed for bankruptcy
protection, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to suspend
all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG and Corning -- including these
non-PCC asbestos cases (the "stay"). The stay remains in place as
of the date of this filing. Under the Bankruptcy Court's order
confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place
until the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed by the District
Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These non-PCC
asbestos cases have been covered by insurance without material
impact to Corning to date. As of March 31, 2015, Corning had
received for these cases approximately $19 million in insurance
payments related to those claims. If and when the Bankruptcy
Court's confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed,
these non-PCC asbestos claims would be allowed to proceed against
Corning. In prior periods, Corning recorded in its estimated
asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million for these
and any future non-PCC asbestos cases.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is engaged in the manufacture of
specialty glass and ceramics. The Company operates in five
segments: Display Technologies, Optical Communications,
Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences.
Its Display Technologies segment manufactures glass substrates for
flat panel liquid crystal displays. Optical Communications segment
manufactures carrier network and enterprise network components for
the telecommunications industry. Its Environmental Technologies
segment manufactures ceramic substrates and filters for automotive
and diesel applications. Specialty Materials segment manufactures
products that provides material formulations for glass, glass
ceramics and fluoride crystals. Life Sciences segment manufactures
glass and plastic labware, equipment, media and reagents. iBwave
Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning and
operates under its Optical Communications business segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $682MM Est. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated reports that the liability for the Amended
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be $682 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.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be $682 million at March 31, 2015,
compared with an estimate of liability of $681 million at December
31, 2014. The $682 million liability is comprised of $242 million
of the fair value of PCE, $290 million for the fixed series of
payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation,
all referenced in the preceding paragraphs. With respect to the
PCE liability, at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the fair
value of $242 million and $241 million of our interest in PCE
significantly exceeded its carrying value of $145 million and $162
million, respectively. There have been no impairment indicators
for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity
earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this
liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the
carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was
other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our
investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is
significantly higher than book value, management believes that the
risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the
fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the
liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC
claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims
since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the
injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability
represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal
fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in
future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any additional losses at this time. For the three months
ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, Corning recorded asbestos
litigation expense of $1 million and $2 million, respectively. The
entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as
installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are
not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the
Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the
obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of
Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current
other equity method investment).

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies affecting the non-PCC asbestos
cases, including rights that may be affected by the potential
resolutions.  Corning is vigorously contesting these cases, and
management is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is engaged in the manufacture of
specialty glass and ceramics. The Company operates in five
segments: Display Technologies, Optical Communications,
Environmental Technologies, Specialty Materials and Life Sciences.
Its Display Technologies segment manufactures glass substrates for
flat panel liquid crystal displays. Optical Communications segment
manufactures carrier network and enterprise network components for
the telecommunications industry. Its Environmental Technologies
segment manufactures ceramic substrates and filters for automotive
and diesel applications. Specialty Materials segment manufactures
products that provides material formulations for glass, glass
ceramics and fluoride crystals. Life Sciences segment manufactures
glass and plastic labware, equipment, media and reagents. iBwave
Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning and
operates under its Optical Communications business segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Presley"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VALERIE K. PRESLEY, etc., Plaintiff, v. BILL
VANN COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0444-
WS-N (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Northern Division, in orders dated August 4, 2015, granted
defendant Cummins, Inc., and Cameron International Corporation's
motion for summary judgment based on the "bare metal defense."

A full-text copy of Judge Steele's Decision with respect to Cummin
is available at http://is.gd/XN10Yvfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Steele's Decision with respect to
Cameron is available at http://is.gd/aB7LIjfrom Leagle.com.

Valerie K. Presley, Plaintiff, represented by George M. Keahey,
Grover Patterson Keahey, Jr. & Kevin D. Graham .

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by F. Grey Redditt, Jr., Esq. --
gredditt@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, LLC, Roy
Wallace Harrell, III & Timothy A. Clarke, Esq. --
tim.clarke@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, LLC.

Cameron International Corp., Defendant, represented by Christopher
S. Rodgers, Esq. -- crodgers@huielaw.com -- Huie, Fernambucq &
Stewart & Stewart W. McCloud, Esq. -- smccloud@huielaw.com --
Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Harris, III,
Harris & Harris, LLP & Nicole Mapp Hardee .

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Evelyn Fletcher
Davis .

Dana Holding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Evelyn
Fletcher Davis .

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frank E. Lankford,
Jr., Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Stewart W. McCloud,  Huie,
Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Woodford W. Dinning, Jr., Lloyd &
Dinning, L.L.C..

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank E.
Lankford, Jr., Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Jenelle R. Evans,
Balch & Bingham, Stewart W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart,
LLP & Woodford W. Dinning, Jr., Lloyd & Dinning, L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joi
C. Scott, Christian & Small, LLP & Michael Anthony Vercher, Esq. -
- mav@csattorneys.com -- Christian & Small LLP.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert H.
Sprain, Jr., Sprain Law Firm, P.C..

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by David Carl Williams, Jr.,
Esq. -- dcw@phm-law.com -- Porterfield Harper Mills Motlow &
Ireland, Robert Wayne Heath, Esq. -- rwh@phm-law.com -- and
William T. Mills, II, Esq. -- wtm@phm-law.com -- Porterfield,
Harper Mills & Motlow, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Murat" Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Murat and Susan Murat filed suit against defendants Exxon
Mobil Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., alleging that their
father, decedent Joseph Murat, owner of a vessel repair company,
had developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos
while working onboard defendants' vessels.  The trial court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the
plaintiffs' inability to establish a violation of a duty of care
owed to Mr. Murat.  Finding no triable issues of material fact,
the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an opinion dated Aug. 11, 2015, affirmed the trial
court's decision.

The appeals case is MARY MURAT et al., individually and as
successors-in-interest, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXXON MOBIL
CORP. et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B247889 (Cal. App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vurL4sfrom Leagle.com.

Rose, Klein & Marias, Gregory Stamos,  Brian J. Ramsey and Erin M.
Beranek ; Bailey Perrin Bailey, Lou Thompson Black, Robert Cowan
and Justin Jenson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

McKenna Long & Aldridge, Jayme C. Long,  Frederic W. Norris and
David K. Schulz for Defendants and Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Galasso" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Galasso was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March of
2014.  His disease, he claims, is connected to his exposure to
asbestos-containing dust during his employment as a carpenter from
approximately 1952 until 1995.  More specifically, Galasso claims
that he was exposed to asbestos from work he did installing and
cleaning up debris from BF Goodrich floor tiles.  Goodrich is
alleged to have manufactured, sold, and distributed asbestos-
containing floor tiles used at various sites plaintiff worked at
throughout the course of his career.  It is undisputed that up
until 1963, Goodrich sold both asbestos-containing and non-
asbestos vinyl tiles.  Goodrich moves for summary judgment
dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all claims and cross-
claims against it.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Goodrich's motion, holding that Goodrich's argument that
the plaintiff's deposition testimony is weak in light of the fact
that plaintiff identifies other manufacturers of floor tile that
he used and at times is non-committal is unpersuasive.  The
lengths to which Goodrich disagrees with the plaintiff's
characterizations merely raises credibility issues for the jury,
Judge Moulton ruled.  Goodrich may take exception with the
plaintiff's recollection, however, as the non-moving party on a
motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to have his
deposition testimony viewed in a light most favorable to him,
Judge Moulton further ruled.  Ultimately, his credibility will be
evaluated by a jury, Judge Moulton said.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
JOSEPH GALASSO and RUTH GALASSO Plaintiffs, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF
AMERICA (ALCOA), et al., Defendant(s), DOCKET NO. 190156/2014
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/9tpJ5Bfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in NYCAL Suit Extended to Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Aug. 4, 2015, enlarged to the
December 2015 Term the time to perfect appeal in the lawsuit
captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
LIMAN AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION - CRANE CO., MOTION NO.
M-3198 (N.Y. App. Div.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hayden" Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated
Aug. 10, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled THOMAS HAYDEN AND JAQUELINE HAYDEN v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2275 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Engelhardt's Decision is available at http://is.gd/u5UPllfrom
Leagle.com.

Thomas H. Hayden, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay,  Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr,  Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark,  Landry &
Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman,  Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Jacqueline S. Hayden, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay,  Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr,  Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark,  Landry &
Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman,  Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph M. Guillot,
Esq. -- jmguillot@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP &
Patrick Ryan Plummer, Esq. -- prplummer@christovich.com --
Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

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

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Esq. -- jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP,
William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. -- wharrison@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. -- Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP.

Caterpillar Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Esq.
-- remmett@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Stephanie Noriea Murphy, Esq. --
smurphy@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz.

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., Kelsey A. Eagan,  Frilot L.L.C.,
Meredith K. Keenan,  Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,  Frilot
L.L.C..

Champlain Cable Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
O. Massenburg,  Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Brandie Mendoza
Thibodeaux,  Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Glenn L.M. Swetman,
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Kevin R. Sloan,  Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP & Meaghan M. Donovan,  Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP.

Crane Company, individually and as successor in interest to
Chapman Valve Company, Jenkins Valve, and Cochrane Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson,
PLLC.

DAP Products 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.

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B.
Barlow, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Janika D.
Polk, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Lee Blanton
Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and
Redfearn, LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton
Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Monique M.
Weiner, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan,  Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,  Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

Genuine Parts 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., Kelsey A. Eagan,  Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,  Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Esq.
-- gary.bezet@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi,
Esq. -- alexandra.rossi@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Esq. -- barrye.miyagi@keanmiller.com -- Kean
Miller & Gayla M. Moncla, Esq. -- gayla.moncla@keanmiller.com --
Kean Miller.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by James K. Sticker,
III, Esq. -- jksticker@leefegibbs.com -- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan,
Dupre & Aldous, Michael R. Gelder, Esq. -- mrgelder@leefegibbs.com
-- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous & Richard K. Leefe, Esq.
-- rkleefe@lgsdalaw.com -- Leefe, Gibbs, Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous.

IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to
DeLaval Turbine 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.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gayla
M. Moncla,  Kean Miller, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr.,  Kean Miller,
Melanie Moreland Hartmann,  Kean Miller & Sean J Whittington,
Kean Miller.

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay
Morton Jalenak, Jr.,  Kean Miller & Patrick Dale Roquemore,  Kean
Miller.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Paul D.
Palermo, Esq. -- ppalermo@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP &
Craig V. Sweeney, Esq. -- csweeney@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP.

Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Esq.
-- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A.
Edwards, Esq. -- aedwards@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Esq. -- georgia@cs-law.com --
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Esq., Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Esq. --
jimmy@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill,  Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M Zanovec,
Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,  Willingham
Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac,  Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

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

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lori Allen Waters,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,  Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
& Adam Devlin deMahy,  Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction Inc., 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..

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
S. Emmett,  Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Gregory
E. Bodin,  Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Joseph A.
Atiyeh,  Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,  Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry,  Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Janice M. Culotta,  Simon,
Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP.

McCord Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Moran
Young,  Page, Mannino, Peresich & McDermott, PLLC.

Meritor Inc, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

Pneumo Abex LLC, individually and as successor in interest to Abex
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

Tasco Auto Color Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kirk A.
Patrick, III,  Donohue, Patrick & Scott, Blake Anthony Altazan,
Donohue, Patrick & Scott & Grant T. Herrin,  Donohue, Patrick &
Scott.

Avondale Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen
Lee,  Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates,  Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster,  Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Michael Scott Minyard,  Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin
Powell,  Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet,  Kean
Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi,  Kean Miller, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi,
Kean Miller & Gayla M. Moncla,  Kean Miller.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr.,  Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC
& Lexi T. Holinga,  Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC.

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Dennis Person,
Aaron & Gianna, PLC, Lee M. Rudin,  Aaron & Gianna, PLC, Lezly L.
Petrovich,  Aaron & Gianna, PLC & Omar Khalid Mason,  Aaron &
Gianna, PLC.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet,  Kean
Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi,  Kean Miller, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi,
Kean Miller & Gayla M. Moncla,  Kean Miller.

Wyeth Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin Fury
Parkinson,  McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Shannon Suggs Sale,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, impropoerly named as Foster Wheeler USA
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., Kelsey A. Eagan,  Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan,  Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,  Frilot L.L.C..

Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
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.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler,  Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III,  Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson,  Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham,  Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien,  Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee,  Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles,  Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hopeman Wins Summary Judgment in "Haney"
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marvin J. Garbis of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted defendant Hopeman Brothers, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled
CHARLES DEAN HANEY, Individually, and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Charles Ambrose Haney, et al., Plaintiffs. v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-12-1396 (D.
Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Garbis' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/PZ3ZvFfrom Leagle.com.

Charles Dean Haney, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E Kiely,
Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Brown and Gould LLP.

Jeffery William Haney, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by
Matthew E Kiely, Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Esq. --
dbrown@brownandgould.com -- Brown and Gould LLP.

John Henry Haney, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew
E Kiely, Matthew E Kiely LLC & Daniel Aaron Brown, Brown and Gould
LLP.

Burnham Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by F
Ford Loker, Jr, Esq. -- floker@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Esq. --
lhelfrich@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Cleaver-Brooks Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Douglas B Pfeiffer, Esq. -- dpfeiffer@milesstockbridge.com --
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge
PC.

Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Scott Patrick Burns, Esq. -- sburns@tydingslaw.com
-- Tydings and Rosenberg LLP.

Compudyne Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Benjamin D Whetzel,  Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

Dean Pump, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph
MacDonald,  MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Elof Hansson, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Peter Allan Woolson,  P A Woolson PA & Scott J McDowell,  P A
Woolson PA.

Gould Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Laura M Higgs,  MacDonald Law Group LLP, Patrick C Smith,  Dehay
and Elliston LLP, Steven J Parrott,  Dehay and Elliston LLP & Kira
A Cook,  DeHay and Elliston LLP.

Graham Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gerry H Tostanoski,  Tydings and Rosenberg LLP & Kelly M Marzullo,
Tydings and Rosenberg LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc,, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
David W Allen,  Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean
Brisker,  Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn
Goldberg,  Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Joel D Newport,  Moore and Jackson LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Deborah K St Lawrence Thompson,  Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael
Alan Brown,  Miles and Stockbridge PC, Christopher J Madaio,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Michael J Halaiko,  Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

International Paper Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Clare Marie Maisano,  Evert Weathersby Houff.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter
Allan Woolson,  P A Woolson PA & Scott J McDowell,  P A Woolson
PA.

The Marley Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel,
Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

The Marley-Wylain Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin D
Whetzel,  Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

Noland Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott
Hamilton Phillips,  Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC.

Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald,  MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Rapid-American Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Brendan Henderson Fitzpatrick,  Venable LLP & Scott
Mason Richmond,  Venable LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald,  MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Robin Silver,  Miles and Stockbridge PC & Leianne S
McEvoy,  Miles and Stockbridge PC.

TACO, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Robert E Scott, Jr,
Semmes Bowen and Semmes, Eric Michael Leppo,  Semmes Bowen and
Semmes PC & Marisa Anne Trasatti,  Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC.

Thos. Somerville Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Scott
Patrick Burns,  Tydings and Rosenberg LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Danielle Grilli Marcus,  Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Laura
M Higgs,  MacDonald Law Group LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Thomas M Goss,  Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Weil-McLain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin D Whetzel,
Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allyson N Ho,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Koppers Co., Defendant, represented by Joel D Newport,  Moore and
Jackson LLC.

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Danielle
Grilli Marcus,  Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Laura M Higgs,
MacDonald Law Group LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Junk "Gonzales"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated Aug. 4, 2015, denied in its entirety
defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing
plaintiff Russell Gonzales' asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled RUSSELL GONZALES AND PATRICIA GONZALES, Plaintiff,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190282/2012, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cCynnUfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Footman" Consolidated with NY Inmates' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, in an order dated Aug. 6, 2015,
consolidated the case captioned KAROM FOOTMAN, Plaintiff, v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant, NO. 15-CV-
2827(JS)(SIL)(E.D.N.Y.) with Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al.,
11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB).

A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/htHXzffrom Leagle.com.

Karom Footman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anderson" Jury Verdict Reversed
-------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Montana, in an August 12, 2015, decision,
reversed and remanded for new trial a judgment of the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Cascade County, following a jury verdict
against Robert Anderson and in favor of BNSF Railway Company.

The case is ROBERT W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BNSF
RAILWAY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Appellee, 2015 MT
240 (Mont.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GuMNkNfrom Leagle.com.

Erik B. Thueson (argued), Thueson Law Office; Helena, Montana
Dennis Conner,  Keith Marr,  Conner & Marr; Great Falls, Montana
James T. Towe,  Towe & Fitzpatrick; Missoula, Montana, for
Appellant.

Jeff Hedger,  Benjamin O. Rechtfertig (argued), Hedger Friend,
PLLC; Billings, Montana, for Appellee.

James P. Carey,  Lamb & Carey; Helena, Montana For Amicus Curiae
Association of American Railroads.

Anthony Nicastro,  Hall & Evans, LLC; Billings, Montana, for
Amicus Curiae Montana Trial Lawyers Association.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Pneumo Abex, et al., for Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Granada and Vivian Granada filed with the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, a lawsuit alleging that Donald
Granada has used, handled or exposed to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products produced or manufactured by Pneumo Abex LLC
and several other defendants.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct or omissions of
the defendants, their "alternate entities, and each of them, Mr.
Granada's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
caused severe and permanent injury, damage, loss, or harm to the
plaintiff.



                            *********

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.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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  * * *