CAR_Public/151002.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 197


                            Headlines


ACCELL NORTH AMERICA: Bicycles With Front Disc Brakes Recalled
ADVANCED SPORTS: Bicycles with Front Disc Brakes Recalled
AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Various Cheese Products
ALIXPARTNERS LLP: Court Has Jurisdiction Over Former Recruiter
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

AMERICAN HONDA: Judge Rejects 25 Issues in Crashworthiness Appeal
ASHLEY MADISON: To Challenge "Doe"-Filed Security Breach Suits
BANK OF NOVA: Endeavor Sues Over Overpriced Treasury Instruments
BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Pet Food Mislabeling
BOEING COMPANY: "Mann" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

BP PLC: 5th Cir. Affirms District's Decision Over Certification
BUMBLE BEE: Inflates Price of Seafood Products, "Gore" Suit Says
CALPHALON CORP: Recalls Pizza Cutters Due to Injury Hazard
CALPHALON CORPORATION: Recalls Calphalon Pizza Wheels
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Tabb" Suit Removed to Maryland District Court

CHEWBEADS INC: Recalls Pacifier Clips Due to Choking Hazard
CHEWBEADS INC: Recalls Pacifier Clips Due to Choking Hazard
CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 2500 & 3500 Models Due to Defective Engine
CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
COVIDIEN LP: "Clatt" Suit Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages

CREATIVE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
CREDIT PROTECTION: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Peters" Suit
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Minnesota
ETANG RUISSEAU: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella
FCA US: Ohio Judge Rules in "Holland" Product Liability Suit

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: Judge Grants Bid to Consolidate
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FUJITSU CANADA: Recalls Panasonic Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
GATE GUARD: Gov't Agrees to Pay $1.5MM Attorney Fees in FLSA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Advertiser Class Action
GREENCORE USA: Recalls Greek Yogurt Products Due to Almonds
HYUNDAI: Recalls Accent 2011 Models Due to Injury Risk
KERMIT INC: Recalls Sauce Products Due to Undeclared Soy
KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Water Mint Due to Salmonella

KPMG LLP: Claims Running Back to March 2009 Deemed Timely
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Italian Chicken Meatball Products
LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: "Barrett" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: "Grundman" Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. Calif.
LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Due to Sibutramine

MADEWELL INC: Expands Recall on Women's Sandals
MADEWELL INC: Recalls Women's Sandals Due to Fall Hazard
MITSUBISHI: Recalls I-MIEV 2012 & 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Removes "Llewellyn" Suit to S.D. Indiana
MERCY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation

MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
MR GOODCENTS: Recalls Chocolate Chip Cookies Due to Peanuts
MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Class Suit Says
NAVCO ENTERPRISE: Treats Black Employees Differently, Suit Claims
NEIL PRYDE: Recalls Cabrinha Kiteboard Control Systems

ORANGE TKO: Recalls All Purpose Cleaners Due to Noncompliance
OC RAW DOG: Recalls Pet Food Products Due to Salmonella
PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Engine
PENN CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Pa.
RAINBOW PLAY: Recalls Yellow Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "Major" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Post-Trial Motions Pending "Larkin" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Writ Denied in West Virginia IPIC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,545 Broin II Lawsuits Pending in Florida
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in "Sateriale" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Diek v. Lorillard Case Goes to C.D. Cal.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Price v. PM Pending Before Ill. Supreme Court
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Case Remains Dormant
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "DeLisle" Appeal

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 7 Canadian Class Actions Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchaser Cases Dismissed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Review in "Smith" Case Denied
ROSS PROCUREMENT: Recalls Rattan Arm Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
ROYAL FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Beef and Pork Products

SANDERSON FARMS: Recalls Poultry Products Due to Metal
SEARS ROEBUCK: Accused of Illegally Terminating Older Employee
TASTEE APPLE: Recalls Plain Caramel Apples Due to Peanuts
TD BANK: Ex-Banker Pleads Guilty in Rothstein Ponzi Scheme Case
TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls RHINO Capsules Due to Desmethyl

TRIMAC TRASPORTATION: Directed to Produce Docs in "McCowen" Case
TRUCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls Tortilla Chips Due to Milk
VECTOR MARKETING: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Woods" Suit
VERMONT: Judge Won't Decertify Prisoners' Suit
WESTERN MILLING: Recalls Horse Feed Products Due to Monensin

WILLIAM SONOMA: "Echavarria" Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Granted Plaintiffs' Bid for Certification


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: API's Insurance Atty's Suit Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 6 Suits, Claims for $463K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Complicates Wis. Chamber Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Workers Rewarded $9K Over Fibro Dispute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Mont. University Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Amount of Fibro Found at Ngawha Springs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Company Fined Over School Fibro Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Macclesfield's Tesco Shut for Fibro Clean Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trucking Co. Settles Fibro Suit for $150K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Sues School for Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Claims on the Rise, Say Experts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Wash. Elementary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Liable for $13MM in Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graveyard Worker to Face Re-Trial in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cue Police Station Closed Due to Deadly Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $30MM Fibro Suit vs. Nissan, Maremont Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Condo Assoc. Fined For Improper Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Roof Sheets Serious Threat to Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SBHA Spends GBP180K to Reduce Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballymena Co. Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former School Caretaker Dies of Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Historic NZ Village Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Cotton Weaver Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Factors in Barrow Fitter's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Presence Confirmed at Quincy High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford, Honeywell Settle Fla. Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plagues Mt. Vernon City Hall Basement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Inspector Exposed to Fibro


                            *********


ACCELL NORTH AMERICA: Bicycles With Front Disc Brakes Recalled
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Accell North America, Advanced Sports International, Cycling
Sports Group Inc., Felt Racing LLC, G. Joannou Cycle Co. Inc.,
Giant Bicycle Inc., Haro Bikes, LTP Sports Group Inc., Performance
Bicycle Inc., Quality Bicycle Products, Recreational Equipment
Inc. (REI), Ridley Bikes, Specialized Bicycle Components Inc.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1.3 million Bicycles
equipped with front disc brakes and quick release levers (in
addition about 245,000 bikes were sold in Canada and about 9,000
were sold in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

An open quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub can
come into contact with the front disc brake rotor causing the
front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle,
posing a risk of injury to the rider.

This recall involves bicycles equipped with front disc brakes and
a black or silver quick-release (QR) lever on the front wheel hub.
Bicycles that do not have disc brakes are not included in this
recall. When the front QR is fully opened, if there is less than 6
mm -- or the width of a #2 pencil -- between the QR and disk brake
rotor on the wheel, the bicycle is included in this recall. A
video showing how to determine if a bike is included in this
recall is available at www.quickreleaserecall.com. The recalled
bicycles include the following companies, brands and model years:

  Company    Brand        Model     Web Page             Phone
  --------   -----        Year(s)   --------             Number
                          -------                        ------
  Accell     Diamondback, 2004-2015 www.diamondback.com  800-251-
  North      Raleigh                www.raleighusa.com   8435
  America                                                800-251-
                                                         8435
  Advanced   Breezer,     2005-2015 www.breezerbikes.com 888-286-
  Sports     Fuji, SE               ww.fujibikes.com     6263
  International                     www.sebikes.com
  Cycling    Cannondale,  1998-2015 www.cannondale.com   800-245-
  Sports     GT                     www.gtbicycles.com   3872
  Group Inc.                                             800-843-
                                                         2453
  Felt Racing Felt        2006-2015 www.feltbicycles.com 866-433-
  LLC                                                    5887
  G. Joannou  Jamis       2005-2015 www.jamisbikes.com   800-533-
  Cycle Co.                                              9010,
  Inc.                                                   ext. 237
  Giant       Giant       2003-2004 www.giant-bicycles   866-458-
  Bicycle                           .com                 2555
  Inc.
  Haro Bikes  Haro        2000-2015 www.harobikes.com    800-289-
                                                         4276
  LTP Sports  Norco       2000-2015 www.norco.com        800-263-
  Group Inc.                                             2344
                                                        (Eastern
                                                        US and
                                                        Canada)
                                                        800-663-
                                                        8916
                                                        (Western
                                                        U.S. and
                                                        Canada)
  Performance Access      2009-2015 www.performancebike 800-727-
  Bicycle Inc.                      .com                2453
  Quality     Civia       2008-2012 www.civiacycles.com 877-311-
  Bicycle     Cycles                                    7686
  Products
  Recreational Novara     2002-2015 www.rei.com         800-426-
  Equipment                                             4840
  Inc. (REI)
  Ridley Bikes Ridley     2014-2015 www.ridley-bikes    877-283-
                                    .com                7545
  Specialized Specialized 2002-2015 www.specialized.com 800-722-
  Bicycle                                               4423
  Components
  Inc.

There have been three incidents reported in which an open quick
release lever on a bicycle's front wheel hub came into contact
with the bike's front disc brake assembly and caused the front
wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle. In
one incident, an adult male suffered a broken finger, a wrist
injury, a shoulder injury and abrasions. No injuries were reported
in the other two incidents.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iiHUB6

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Japan, Poland,
Switzerland and Taiwan and sold at   Bicycle stores nationwide
from about 1998 through 2015 for between $200 and $10,000 for the
bicycles.

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact
the recalling company for free installation of a new quick release
on the front wheel.


ADVANCED SPORTS: Bicycles with Front Disc Brakes Recalled
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Posting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54910

This recall involves bicycles equipped with front disc brakes and
a black or silver quick release lever of the front wheel hub where
the clearance between the quick release lever in its most open
position and the disc brake rotor is less than 6 millimeters,
which is the equivalent of the thickness of a standard No. 2
Pencil (#2 Pencil Test).

Bicycles with front quick release levers that have 6 millimeters
or more of clearance between the lever in its most open position
and the disc brake rotor are not included in this recall. Bicycles
without disc brake rotors are also not included in this recall.

The following bicycles with front disc brakes are included in this
recall

  Company   Brand        Years   Website               Telephone
  -------   -----        -----   -------               ---------
  Accell    Diamondback, 2004-   www.diamondback.com   1-800-
  North     Raleigh      2015    www.raleighusa.com    251-8435
  America

  Advanced  Fuji,        2005-   www.breezerbikes.com 1-888-
  Sports    Breezer, SE  2015    www.fujibikes.com    286-6263
  International                  www.sebikes.com
  Cycling   Cannondale   1998-   www.cannondale.com   1-800-
  Sports                 2015                         245-3872
  Group,
  Inc.
  Felt      Felt         2006-   www.feltbicycles.com 1-866-
  Racing,                2015                         433-5887
  LLC
  Giant     Giant        2003-   www.giant-bicycles   1-866-
  Bicycle,               2005    .com                 458-2555
  Inc.
  G.        Jamis        2005-   www.jamisbikes.com   1-800-
  Joannou                2015                         533-9010
  Cycle Co.,
  Inc.
  LTP Sports Norco       2000-   www.norco.com        1-800-
  Group, Inc.            2015                         263-2344
                                                      (Eastern
                                                      U.S. and
                                                      Canada)
                                                      1-800-
                                                      663-8916
                                                      (Western
                                                      U.S. and
                                                      Canada)
  Quality   Civia Cycles 2008-   www.civiacycles.com  1-877-
  Bicycle                2012                         311-7686
  Products,
  Inc.
  Ridley    Ridley       2014-   www.ridley-bikes.com 1-877-
  Bikes                  2015                         283-7545
  Specialized Specialized 2002-  www.specialized.com  1-800-
  Bicycle                 2015                        722-4423
  Components,
  Inc.

A quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub, when
improperly adjusted or left open, can come into contact with the
front disc brake assembly and cause the front wheel to come to a
sudden stop or separate from the bicycle, posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor the recalling companies has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these front disc brakes with quick release levers in Canada.

In the United States, there have been three incidents reported in
which an open quick release lever on a bicycle's front wheel hub
came into contact with the bike's front disc brake assembly and
caused the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from
the bicycle. In one incident, an adult male suffered a broken
finger, a wrist injury, a shoulder injury and abrasions. No
injuries were reported in the other two incidents.

Approximately 245,924 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
1,300,000 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from January 1998 to July 2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan, China, Japan, Poland, and Switzerland.

Distributor: Accell North America
             Kent
             Washington
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Cycling Sports Group, Inc.
             Wilton
             Connecticut
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Felt Racing, LLC
             Irvine
             California
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Giant Bicycle, Inc.
             North Vancouver
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Distributor: G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.
             (Jamis Bikes)
             Northvale
             New Jersey
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: LTP Sports Group Inc.
             Port Coquitlam
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Distributor: Quality Bicycle Products, Inc.
             Minneapolis
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Ridley Bikes
             Beringen
             BELGIUM

Distributor: Specialized Bicycle Components
             Morgan Hill
             California
             UNITED STATES
Distributor: Vellend Tech Canada Inc.
             (Fuji, Breezer, SE)
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and contact
the recalling company for a free installation of a new quick
release lever on the front wheel.

For more information, consumers can contact the recalling
companies through their websites and call centres listed in the
Product Description above or visit the Bicycle Product Supplier
Association Quick Release Recall website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/KLYOfK


AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Various Cheese Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Agropur Cooperative
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10058

  Brand name    Common name    Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  ----------    -----------    ----    product         ---
                                       ----------
  Agropur       Brie Cheese    170 g   Best Before     6 74000-
  Signature -                          2015OC24 and    00108
  Notre Dame                           2015OC28
  Compliments   Double Cream   200 g   Best Before     6 88201-
                Brie Cheese            2015NO11,       14468
                                       2015NO15 and
                                       2015NO19
  Compliments   Camembert      170 g   Best Before     6 88201-
                Cheese                 2015OC23        14475
  Agropur       Camembert      170 g   Best Before     6 74000-
  Signature -   Cheese                 2015OC24 and    00184
  L'Extra                              2015OC28
  Agropur       Camembert      170 g   Best Before     6 74000-
  Signature -   Cheese                 2015OC24 and    00290
  Vaudreuil                            2015NO11
  Agropur       Fine Herbs     170 g   Best Before     6 74006-
  Signature -   Double Creme           2015NO20        10260
  Chevalier     Brie Cheese
  Agropur       Tomato & Basil 170 g   Best Before     6 74006-
  Signature -   Double Creme           2015NO06        10277
  Chevalier     Brie Cheese
  Agropur       Peppers Double 170 g   Best Before     6 74006-
  Signature -   Creme Brie             2015NO06        10284
  Chevalier     Cheese
  Irresistibles Double Creme   200 g   Best Before     5 97499-
                Brie Cheese            2015NO15        16073
  Irresistibles Camembert      170 g   Best Before     5 97499-
                Cheese                 2015NO03        16066
  Irresistibles Double Creme   450 g   Best Before     5 97499-
                Brie Cheese            2015NO06,       16080
                                       2015NO11 and
                                       2015NO15
  Agropur       Camembert      450 g   Best Before     6 74006-
  Signature -   Cheese                 2015NO15        11212
  Chevalier
  Agropur       Double Creme   550 g   Best Before     5 69200-
  Signature -   Brie Cheese            2015NO12,       00552
  Normandie                            2015NO13 and
                                       2015NO17
  Agropur       Camembert      450 g   Best Before     6 74000-
  Signature -   Cheese                 2015NO05        00832
  L'Extra
  Agropur       Cow and Goat   170 g   Best Before     6 74006-
  Signature -   Soft Cheese                            16279
  Vaudreuil    2015NO05


ALIXPARTNERS LLP: Court Has Jurisdiction Over Former Recruiter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied defendant's motion to dismiss
in the case ALIXPARTNERS, LLP, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES BREWINGTON,
Defendant, NO. 14CV-14942 (E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiff AlixPartners LLP is a global consulting and business
advisory firm organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.

Charles Brewington was hired by AP in April 2013 as a recruiter
for plaintiff's Dallas, Texas office. As part of his hiring,
defendant signed an employment agreement which requires legal
actions relating to any termination of his employment to be
brought before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), rather
than a state or federal court, for resolution.

Defendant was terminated in March 2014. Plaintiff maintains that
the termination was due to repeated deficiencies in defendant's
performance. Defendant, however, alleges that the termination was
racially motivated and unlawful.

Defendant filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA alleging
claims of racial discrimination under Title VII, but did not file
the demand on behalf of only himself, but rather on behalf of
himself and a purported, nation-wide class of current, former, and
potential AlixPartners employees in various positions and
circumstances.

Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting that it
is entitled to a declaration that, as a matter of law under the
Federal Arbitration Act, the parties' agreement, and the
controlling precedent, defendant is precluded from pursuing claims
in arbitration on behalf of any absent individual or purported
class, whether in the AAA arbitration already filed or in any
other arbitration forum, because AlixPartners did not agree to,
and the parties' agreement does not authorize, the arbitration of
disputes on a class basis.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court
lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant, the Eastern District
of Michigan is not the proper venue for the action, and in the
alternative, the court should transfer the case to another
district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Chief District Judge Rosen denied defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Chief District Judge Rosen's opinion and order dated
September 4, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/yb0Rdmfrom
Leagle.com.

AlixPartners, LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Schwartz --
jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- Karl G. Nelson --
knelson@gibsondunn.com -- David J. Debold --
ddebold@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn

Charles Brewington, Defendant, represented by Steven E. Aldous --
saldous@forsheyprostok.com -- at Forshey & Prostok LLP


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerta Ahmeti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amcol Systems, Inc. and Does 1 Through 10 Inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04842-BMS (E.D. Pa., August 26, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Judge Rejects 25 Issues in Crashworthiness Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Philadelphia trial judge has rejected the 25 issues Honda has
raised in its appeal of a $55.3 million crashworthiness verdict
against the car manufacturer.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Shelley Robins New was
not persuaded by American Honda Motor Co.'s arguments that
Philadelphia was an inconvenient forum or that the court
improperly admitted evidence of alternative seat-belt designs that
were developed after the car was manufactured but before the
accident at issue occurred.

And among a number of other arguments New rejected, she dismissed
Honda's argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
Tincher v. Omega Flex, which came down more than four months after
the verdict in Martinez v. American Honda Motor, required the
granting of a new trial.

New's Sept. 17 opinion in Martinez was in response to Honda's
appeal of the June 2014 verdict in favor of plaintiffs Carlos
Martinez and his wife, Rosita de los Santos de Martinez, after
Carlos Martinez was rendered quadriplegic when his 1999 Acura
Integra rolled over twice after one of the tires blew.

The jury awarded $25 million to Mr. Martinez for past and future
noneconomic damages, $15 million to his wife for loss of
consortium, about $14.6 million for future medical expenses and
about $720,000 for past and future lost earnings, New said.

The jury found Honda liable under two theories.  It found the seat
belt in Martinez's car was defectively designed and that a safer,
practicable alternative was available.  It also found Honda failed
to warn about the risks.

After Judge New denied Honda's post-trial motions, Honda appealed,
raising 25 issues that New lumped into four different categories:
claims concerning the denial of judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, general claims of trial error, claims regarding
subsequently decided authority and a claim regarding the denial of
a remittitur.

On the issue of Tincher, the long-anticipated Supreme Court
decision that came down in November 2014 affirming that
Pennsylvania follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts in products
liability cases, Judge New said that ruling did not mandate any
change to legal or evidentiary rulings made in the Martinez case.
She said that case was primarily about rejecting the Restatement
(Third) of Torts in products liability cases.

"When Tincher was decided, this court read every word of the 137-
page slip opinion," Judge New said.  "We did not believe then and
do not believe now that Tincher requires a new trial in the
instant case."

Even if Tincher changed the law applicable in Martinez when it
came to design defect, it did not speak to failure-to-warn cases.
"As the jury found an independent basis of liability upon failure
to warn [in Martinez], if this court erred, such error would be
harmless," Judge New said.

Judge New also disagreed with Honda's argument as to remittitur.
She said the verdicts for noneconomic damages and loss of
consortium were consistent with the facts and testimony presented
to the jury.

"The evidence, from the family in this case was compelling how the
accident turned Mr. Martinez from a family wage earner and head of
the household into a helpless person dependent upon others for
every aspect of his daily survival," Judge New said.  "Every part
of both plaintiffs' lives were changed drastically and
irrevocably. As Mr. Martinez had a life expectancy of an
additional 28 years, both plaintiffs will suffer extensive
damages."

The plaintiffs argued Honda used a seat belt that allowed his head
to move an unreasonable distance, causing his head to strike the
roof when the car rolled over.  Honda argued the alternative
design the plaintiffs referenced was designed after Martinez's
vehicle was manufactured and therefore should have been excluded
from trial.

Judge New rejected Honda's argument that the evidence was
"subsequent remedial measures" that prejudiced the jury.  She said
the alternative design was actually created before Mr. Martinez's
car was manufactured, but even if it wasn't, the evidence was
still admissible.

Judge New said Mr. Martinez had to produce that evidence to
support the elements of a design-defect claim.  She said it was
relevant even if it was evidence of "subsequent remedial
measures."

Stewart Eisenberg of Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg &
Jeck represented Martinez and his wife.

"We're happy for our client that the case can now move forward in
the appellate courts," Mr. Eisenberg said.  "We are confident that
it will be affirmed and we are disappointed in Honda not making
any effort to try and resolve the case for our paralyzed client."
William J. Conroy of Campbell Trial Lawyers represented Honda and
did not return a call seeking comment.


ASHLEY MADISON: To Challenge "Doe"-Filed Security Breach Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the parent company of extramarital site AshleyMadison.com
said it plans to get lawsuits filed in the wake of its recent
security breach tossed out by arguing that the plaintiffs have
improperly used "Doe" pseudonyms and that their claims belong in
arbitration.

The cyberattack as of Aug. 20 had compromised the personal
information of more than 30 million subscribers of the matchmaking
site for people looking for an affair.

So far, 11 lawsuits have been filed against Avid Life Media Inc.,
which operates AshleyMadison.com, most of them class actions
accusing the Toronto-based company of negligence in allowing its
customers' personal information, like debit and credit card
numbers, to be hacked in violation of several state consumer fraud
and data breach statutes.

On Sept. 17, Avid filed a motion before a federal panel on
multidistrict litigation to combine all the lawsuits in the
Eastern District of Missouri.  It also provided the first glimpse
of its planned defenses, which includes challenging the anonymity
of the cases as procedurally improper under federal rules.

"Moreover, aside from the procedural infirmities of the unnamed
plaintiffs' purported suits, plaintiffs (and all Ashley Madison
members) agreed to and are bound by a contractual arbitration
provision that compels plaintiffs to bring their claims before the
American Arbitration Association," wrote Avid attorney
Kevin Rising, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Los Angeles.

Requests for comment from Rising and Avid were not returned.
Avid, whose CEO stepped down on Aug. 28, has publicly said no
credit or debit card information was stolen.

Plaintiffs in some of the cases said they filed anonymously to
protect "information highly sensitive and personal" and prevent
invasion of their privacy, according to court filings.  They said
they would disclose their identities to Ashley Madison's lawyers
or the court under a protective order.

John Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm in St. Louis, Missouri, who
filed an Aug. 27 motion to coordinate the cases in the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of Jane Doe, declined to comment
about the anonymity issue.

But anonymity could be an issue, said Gary Mason, founding partner
of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington, who filed the only case
against Ashley Madison by a named plaintiff: Maryland subscriber
Christopher Russell, who was separated from his wife when he set
up his account.

"It's going to be hard to prosecute a case on behalf of the class,
a representative lawsuit, with someone who's not willing to step
forward and publicly disclose who they are," he said.

Unlike the data breach suits, Mason's class action, filed on Sept.
11, said Ashley Madison fraudulently induced male subscribers to
enter into contracts by setting up "fembot," or female robot,
accounts.  He said his client spent $100 on credits to get access
to these women.

The other cases were filed on behalf of a class of Ashley Madison
subscribers whose data was hacked, many including those who paid
$19 to completely erase their personal information.

"We've only recently learned that that didn't occur, meaning
Ashley Madison did not in fact delete their information," Judge
Driscoll said.

Avid has publicly refuted claims that its "full delete" option
doesn't work and began offering the service for free on July 20.
It also denied the report of fembots.

In addition to Missouri, some plaintiffs are pushing for the
litigation to be coordinated in California or Illinois.


BANK OF NOVA: Endeavor Sues Over Overpriced Treasury Instruments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endeavor Trading, LLC, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
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, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07481 (S.D.N.Y.,
September, 22, 2015), seeks to recover actual damages under
Section 22 of the Commodity Exchange Act.

This antitrust and commodity action suit is brought against the
Defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix and manipulate U.S.
Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, Floating Rate Notes, and Treasury
Inflation-Protected Securities (all together, "Treasuries")
markets and related Auctions and derivative financial products.
Due to such wrongful acts, Defendants, which are Primary Dealer of
Treasuries in the US, caused Plaintiff to purchase Treasury
instruments that are artificially overpriced.

Defendant Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency was a Primary
Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated
Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant BMO Capital Markets Corp. is a Delaware corporation
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries with Plaintiff and/or members of the
Class.

Defendant BNP Paribas Securities Corp. is a Delaware corporation
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. is an affiliate of Cantor
Fitzgerald, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and a Primary
Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated
Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a New York corporation,
which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

Commerz Markets LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
formerly known as Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC, which was a
Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-
Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc. is a New York
corporation, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered
with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in
Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff
and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a Delaware corporation
was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or
Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of
the Class.

Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. is a New York corporation was
a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-
Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

Defendant Jefferies LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or
Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of
the Class.

Defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered
with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in
Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff
and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is a
Delaware corporation, which was Primary Dealer of Treasuries
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant Mizuho Securities USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury- Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

Defendant Nomura Securities International, Inc. is a New York
corporation, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered
with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in
Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff
and/or members of the Class.

Defendant RBC Capital Markets, LLC is a Minnesota limited
liability company, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant RBS Securities Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which was
a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-
Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.
Defendant SG Americas Securities, LLC ("SG") is a Delaware limited
liability company, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries
registered with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
transacted in Treasuries and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments
with Plaintiff and/or members of the Class.

Defendant TD Securities (USA) LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

Defendant UBS Securities LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company, which was a Primary Dealer of Treasuries registered with
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and transacted in Treasuries
and/or Treasury-Predicated Instruments with Plaintiff and/or
members of the Class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 722-7053
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
       bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

     - and -

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

     - and -

Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 320-9507
Fax: (954) 320-9509
Email: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
       jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Pet Food Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jacobs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-13417 (D. Mass., September 22, 2015),
seeks to recover damages under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.

The action suit arises out of the allegation that the Defendant
company misrepresented material facts of its product labels and
advertisement thereby causing the Plaintiff to purchase its Blue
Buffalo brand dog or cat food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER &URMY LLP
2 Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Tel: (617) 439-3939
Fax: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
        pvallely@shulaw.com

     - and -

Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
Noah Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER &KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94901
Tel: (415) 788-4220
E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
        mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com
        nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


BOEING COMPANY: "Mann" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Mann, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated employees of Defendant, Plaintiffs, v. The
Boeing Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash.,
September 22, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pay and unpaid
wages under the Washington's Minimum Wage Act.

The proposed class is defined as: "all First Line Leaders (FLLs)
in Manufacturing and Production who worked for Defendant in the
state of Washington at any time from three years preceding the
filing of this Complaint through the present."

Defendant The Boeing Company is a Delaware corporation and
manufacturer of airplanes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 654-4011
Email: aes@cslawfirm.net


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Affirms District's Decision Over Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham of the United States Court
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment
in the appealed case of ROBERT LUDLOW, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, Comptroller of the State of New
York; OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, PETER D. LICHTMAN; LESLIE J. NAKAGIRI; PAUL HUYCK,
Movants-Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. BP, P.L.C.; ANTHONY
HAYWARD; DOUGLAS J. SUTTLES, Defendants-Appellants Cross-
Appellees, NO. 14-20420 (5th Cir.)

BP, P.L.C. (BP) was the co-owner and co-lessee of the Macondo
exploratory well, which was located in the Gulf of Mexico, about
fifty miles from the Louisiana coast. The well was drilled by the
Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling vessel. On April 20, 2010,
while the Deepwater Horizon was preparing to depart from the site
in anticipation of the permanent extraction operation, a
catastrophic blowout ensued.

Plaintiffs are all BP shareholders that brought suit, alleging
that BP's alleged misstatements violated section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. They
allege that BP made two distinct series of misrepresentations in
violation of federal securities law. One series regarding its pre-
spill safety procedures, and one regarding the flow rate of the
oil after the spill occurred.

The plaintiffs moved to certify two classes; one for the pre-spill
misrepresentations, and one for the post-spill misrepresentations.

The district court certified the post-spill class, concluding that
the plaintiffs had established a model of damages consistent with
their liability case and capable of measurement across the class,
as required by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend. It refused to certify the pre-spill class,
holding that the plaintiffs had not satisfied Comcast's common
damages burden.

Both parties petitioned for review pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f).
The plaintiffs challenged the district court's refusal to certify
the pre-spill class, and the defendants appeal the court's
certification of the post-spill class.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.  A
copy of the opinion dated September 15, 2015, written by Judge
Higginbotham, is available at http://goo.gl/WauF3Nfrom
Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consist Circuit Judges E. Grady Jolly,
Patrick E. Higginbotham and W. Eugene Davis.


BUMBLE BEE: Inflates Price of Seafood Products, "Gore" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Durand Gore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods
LLC, Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-02121 (S.D. Cal., September, 22, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief
under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This antitrust action suit arises out of an alleged conspiracy by
the largest producers of packaged seafood products ("PSPs") in the
United States where the Defendants colluded to manipulate the
prices of the said goods thereby causing pecuniary injury to the
Plaintiff.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a California-based limited liability
company that produces and sells packaged seafood products
throughout the United States.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a San Diego-based domestic limited
liability company that produces and sells PSPs throughout the
United States.

Defendant StarKist Company is a Pittsburgh-based domestic
corporation that produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
States.

Defendant King Oscar, Inc. is a California-based domestic
corporation that produces and sells packaged seafood products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
44 Montgomery St., Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 546-6800
Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
Email: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
       krogers@kraloweclaw.com
       csaunders@kraloweclaw.com


CALPHALON CORP: Recalls Pizza Cutters Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Calphalon Corporation, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 328,000 Pizza wheel pizza cutters in U.S. (in
addition, 8,300 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 handle of the pizza cutter can detach during use, posing a
laceration hazard.

The pizza cutter consists of a circular metal blade that is
approximately 3 « inches in diameter, connected to a gray hand
guard and black handle. The word "Calphalon" is embossed on the
top of the black handle. Model number GT112, 1753513 or 1753521
are printed near the barcode on the packaging.

The firm has received 11 incident reports, including 6 reports of
finger lacerations.  One person required stitches and another
person received medical attention to close their wounds.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, J.C. Penney, Kohls, Target, Walmart and other
stores nationwide, and online at amazon.com, bedbathandbeyond.com,
sears.com, target.com and other online retailers between January
2006 and August 2015 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pizza wheel and
contact Calphalon for a full refund.


CALPHALON CORPORATION: Recalls Calphalon Pizza Wheels
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Posting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55080

This recall involves the Calphalon Pizza Wheel comprised of a
circular stainless steel wheel approximately 3.5 inches (8.9 cm)
in diameter, a grey and black handle, and finger guard.  The word
"Calphalon" is embossed on the top of the black handle.

The following model numbers printed near the barcode on the
packaging are included in this recall:  GT112, 1793513 and
1793521.

The handle of the pizza wheel can detach during use, posing a
laceration hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Calphalon Corporation has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

In the United States, Calphalon Corporation has received 11
reports of the handle detaching from the pizza wheel, resulting in
6 reports of finger lacerations.  One person required stitches and
another person received medical attention to close their wounds.

Approximately 8,300 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
328,000 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from January 2007 to August 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Calphalon Corporation
              Atlanta
              Georgia
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Calphalon Corporation
             Atlanta
             Georgia
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact Calphalon Corporation for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Calphalon Corporation
by telephone toll-free at 1-800-809-7267, Monday through Friday,
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. Consumers may also visit the
company's website and click on "Calphalon Pizza Wheel Recall
Information" for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/3165Bx


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Tabb" Suit Removed to Maryland District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Transunion, LLC removes the class action lawsuit
entitled Tabb v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, et al., Case No.
407523-V, from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02526-TDC to the
proceeding.

Defendant Transunion, LLC, is represented by:

          Henry Mark Stichel, Esq.
          GOHN HANKEY STICHEL & BERLAGE LLP
          201 N Charles St., Suite 2101
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 752-9300
          Facsimile: (410) 752-2519
          E-mail: hmstichel@ghsllp.com


CHEWBEADS INC: Recalls Pacifier Clips Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Posting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55090

This recall involves various Chewbeads "Where's the Pacifier?"
clips. The pacifier clips consist of a clip with a butterfly,
dinosaur, heart or sheriff badge design. The pacifier clips have
eight multi-coloured beads threaded through a narrow satin ribbon
that attaches to a pacifier on one end and a plastic D-ring on the
other. The clip and beads are about 15 centimetres long.

Additional styles of pacifier clips were recalled in the United
States, such as The Major League Baseball design, but these were
not sold in Canada.  Also the date codes used to identify the
product in the United States are not applicable to product sold in
Canada.

The D-ring can break and the beads can detach, posing a choking
hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Chewbeads has received seven reports of D-ring breakage, including
two reports from Canadian consumers.  Chewbeads is not aware of
any injuries to consumers related to the use of this product.

Approximately 5,900 units of the recalled teething necklaces were
sold in Canada and approximately 45,000 units were distributed in
the United States.

The recalled products were sold from September 2014 through June
2015 in Canada and the United States at various children's stores
and independent children's boutiques.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: National Enterprises Company
              Zhongshan City
              GuangDong Province
              CHINA

Importer: Chewbeads, Inc.
          New York
          New York
          UNITED STATES

Distributor: Fulton Sales/ALCA Distribution
             Surrey
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Picture showing the new clip and recalled clip.  The image on the
left is the new clip and is identified by a thicker D-ring and
ribbon material while the recalled clip on the right is identified
by a narrow D-ring and ribbon material.

Consumers should stop using the recalled pacifier clips
immediately and contact Chewbeads to receive a refund or a
replacement pacifier clip.  The D-ring and ribbon materials of the
replacement product are thicker than those on the recalled
products.

For more information, consumers may contact Chewbeads toll-free at
1-888-786-7790 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, or by email or visit the Chewbeads' website and click on
the Product Recall link at the bottom of the page.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/JbXWdx


CHEWBEADS INC: Recalls Pacifier Clips Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chewbeads, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
About 45,000 Pacifier clips in United States (in addition about
5,900 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 "D" ring on the pacifier clip can break, allowing beads to
detach, posing a choking hazard.

This recall involves five styles of Chewbeads Baby pacifier clip
holders. The "Where's the Pacifier?" pacifier clips styles include
shapes of a Butterfly, Dinosaur, Heart, Sheriff Badge and a white
baseball with red stitching and a major league baseball team logo.
"Chewbeads baby" is imprinted in raised letters on the rubber
shape attachment. The pacifier clips have eight multi-colored
beads threaded through a narrow satin ribbon that attaches to a
pacifier on one end and a plastic D-ring on the other. The clip
and beads are about six inches long. The garment clip has the
following number code on the back of the plastic clip: 3/31/14,
08/08/14, 12/01/14, 14/30/09, 15/02/09, 25/04/14.
Incidents/Injuries

The firm has received seven reports of the beads detaching. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7Swo1J

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and small boutique retail stores nationwide and in Canada
from September 2014 through June 2015 for $16.50 for the baseball
themed clips and $15 for the other style clips.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled pacifier clips
away from young children and contact Chewbeads for a free
replacement pacifier clip or a refund of the purchase price.


CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 2500 & 3500 Models Due to Defective Engine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015421TC
ID number: 2015421
Manufacturer recall number: R52

On certain vehicles equipped with 6.7L Cummins Diesel engines,
during production, the Engine Control Module (ECM) could have been
damaged and result in an internal short to ground within the ECM.
This could result in a loss of motive power which, in conjunction
with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions,
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the suspect ECM.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  RAM        2500        2016
  RAM        3500        2016


CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 492
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015423TC
ID number: 2015423
Manufacturer recall number: R53

On certain vehicles, the hood striker fasteners may not have been
tightened to specification. As a result, the hood striker bracket
could loosen over time and detach from the hood, causing the hood
to open suddenly which could obstruct the driver's vision,
depending on driver reaction this could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will install new bolts as necessary and apply the required torque
to the hood striker fasteners.

  Make         Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----            ----------------------
  CHRYSLER    TOWN & COUNTRY    2016
  DODGE       GRAND CARAVAN     2016


COVIDIEN LP: "Clatt" Suit Seeks to Recover OT and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Clatt, Benjamin Neal Jenkins, Jerrime Mata Sanchez, And
John William Thompson, Individually, and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. COVIDIEN LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02084 (D. Colo.,
September 22, 2015), to recover overtime and minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Covidien is a multi-national medical device development and
manufacturing company with facilities throughout the United States
and abroad. Covidien operates research, development, and
manufacturing facilities employing hundreds of non-exempt workers,
including Plaintiffs, in Boulder, Colorado.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Todd J. McNamara, Esq.
Mathew S. Shechter, Esq.
1640 East 18th Avenue
Denver, CO 80218
(303) 333-8700
Fax: (303) 331-6967
Email: tjm@18thavelaw.com
       mss@18thavelaw.com


CREATIVE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Calperf operating under Creative Foods, a Santa Clara, Calif.
establishment, is recalling approximately 216 pounds of chicken
product due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The product contains yogurt derived from milk, a
known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. While
yogurt is declared on the front label, the product is missing an
ingredient list identifying milk as a sub-ingredient.

The marinated skinless chicken item was produced on September 16,
2015. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 2-lb. sealed trays of "Green Meadows PREMIUM MEAT CUTS
      Marinated Skinless Chicken Bone-In Cubed Chicken in 23%
      Yogurt-Curry Marinade" with a use-by date/Case code date of
      September 30, 2015.

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-
6052" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The item was shipped to
retailers in the San Francisco, California Bay Area.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during routine
verification tasks.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Saswata Bhattacharya, Director, at (925) 506-8286.

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.


CREDIT PROTECTION: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Peters" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case
MICHAEL R. PETERS, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LP,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-0767 (S.D. Ohio)

Michael Peters filed a complaint against Credit Protection
Association LP (CPA) asserting class action claims against CPA
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., and the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) rules promulgated under that Act, 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200. Peters alleges that CPA, a debt collector,
violated the TCPA by making artificial voice or prerecorded voice
calls to him and others similarly situated without obtaining prior
express consent.

Peters asserted that CPA violated the TCPA, entitling him and the
putative class to statutory damages of $500 per unlawful call
under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3) and that CPA's violations were
knowing and willful, entitling him and the putative class to
statutory damages of $1,500 for each such willful or knowing
violation.

In a July 14, 2014 letter to plaintiff, defendant stated that it
would not agree to a class settlement, and made an offer of
judgment to Peters, individually, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 68, which Peters rejected.

On September 5, 2014, defendant filed a motion for entry of
judgment and to dismiss as moot, which on the other hand plaintiff
filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking information relating
to the putative class.

On September 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to strike
defendant's offer of judgment. Defendant responded to plaintiff's
motion to compel, and cross-motioned to stay discovery pending the
court's decision in its motion for entry of judgment and to
dismiss. Defendant argued that since the case had been mooted by
its Rule 68 offer, and plaintiff's requests were unnecessary,
plaintiff was not entitled to the discovery requested.

Defendant avers that the issues before the court in its motion to
dismiss are the exact issues currently pending before the Supreme
Court in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.  Defendant argues that the
Supreme Court's decision in the Gomez appeal could determine that
plaintiff's claims and/or those of the putative class are no
longer justiciable. Defendant requests a stay of these proceedings
pending the Supreme Court's decision on the above issues in Gomez.

The court denied defendant's cross-motion to stay discovery and
granted plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendant objected to the
Judge's November 26, 2014 opinion & order, and requested
reconsideration of the same.

Judge Marbley denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's
offer of judgment, denied defendant's motion for reconsideration
and denied defendant's motion to stay.

A copy of Judge Marbley's opinion and order dated September 8,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/E4wZi6from Leagle.com.

Michael R Peters, Plaintiff, represented by:

Daniel Robert Freytag, Esq.
Meyer Wilson, LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-358-8060
Facsimile: 614-224-6066

     - and -

Kendra Lynn Carpenter, Esq.
250 Civic Center Dr
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-224-1222
Facsimile: 614-224-1236

Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Charles Turner -- jturner@sdtlawyers.com -- Jennifer Kirby
-- jkirby@sdtlawyers.com -- at Surdyk Dowd & Turner, Co. LPA;
Justin Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Rooney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Incorporated, Case No.
0:15-cv-03428-JNE-BRT (D. Minn., August 26, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


ETANG RUISSEAU: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Etang Ruisseau Bar Ltee
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10057

  Brand    Common name       Size       Code(s) on      UPC
  name     -----------       ----       product         ---
  -----                                 ----------
  Mallet   American          100 count  Lot: 15187-3F   None
           Cocktail Oysters             Lease: MS 0061
                                        Harvest Area:
                                        NB-3F
                                        Date Harvested:
                                        2015-SE-18


FCA US: Ohio Judge Rules in "Holland" Product Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
HOLLAND, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC (FIAT CHRYSLER
AUTOMOBILES U.S., LLC (F/K/A CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC), CASE NO. 1:15
CV 121 (N.D. Ohio)

Defendant, FCA US LLC (FCA) was formed in the aftermath of the
Chrysler Bankruptcy case and was formerly known as Chrysler Group
LLC.

Plaintiffs are owners of 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacificas manufactured
with Chrysler CS Platform engine cradles that are alleged to have
prematurely rusted, corroded and/or perforated, creating a
substantial risk of, or causing the engine to fall out of the
vehicle. Plaintiffs allege various claims against under state law.
Plaintiffs filed their first amended class action complaint
against FCA on April 6, 2015. Plaintiffs allege that throughout
the United States, owners of over 322,000 Pacificas, model years
2004-2008, have been discovering that their vehicles' engine
cradles are severely rusted and corroded, many to the point that
their vehicles have been deemed unsafe to drive, and have been
forced to either stop using their Pacificas of pay for repairs out
of pocket, while others are currently driving their vehicles
unaware of the alleged hazard.

Plaintiffs claim FCA is aware of the alleged defect and, that
despite that knowledge, has fraudulently withheld information
about the defect, fraudulently denied the existence of the defect
and failed to adequately address the engine cradle defect.

FCA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended class
action complaint and argues that it has no legal obligation to
plaintiffs, as it did not exist until 2009 and the bankruptcy sale
order bars certain claims against FCA for vehicles manufactured
before June 10, 2009. FCA also filed a motion for summary
judgment.

FCA asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) on all claims in plaintiffs' first amended
class action complaint. FCA argues that it is not legally
obligated to pay for the repairs on plaintiffs' cars because it
never offered an extended warranty on their vehicles and that the
mere fact that FCA voluntarily extended the warranty on certain
vehicles does not create a legal obligation to do anything for
plaintiffs.

On June 2, 2015, FCA filed a motion to transfer and argues that
the case should be transferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1412, to the Southern District of New York, for referral to the
Bankruptcy Court in that District, because the claims made by
plaintiffs are dependent on, and inextricably intertwined with,
the In re Old Carco LLC Sale Order. FCA argues that transfer will
serve the interests of justice and permit the Bankruptcy Court to
interpret and enforce its sale order, thereby ensuring uniformity.

On August 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the
record, apprising the court of a consent order that FCA entered
into with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on
July 27, 2015, pursuant to which FCA was fined for mishandling
certain vehicle recalls and was required to remedy certain defects
and/or buyback certain vehicles.

Judge Nugent denied FCA's motion for summary judgment without
prejudice, denied as moot its motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record. Plaintiffs are not
precluded from resubmitting the consent order as evidence in the
case should it become relevant at a later stage in the
proceedings.

A copy of Judge Nugent's memorandum opinion and order dated
September 3, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/CvY59yfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Larry E. Coben, Anapol --
lcoben@anapolschwartz.com -- Paola Saneaux --
psaneaux@anapolschwartz.com -- Sol H. Weiss --
sweiss@anapolschwartz.com -- at Schwartz Weiss Cohan Feldman &
Smalley; James Allison Lowe -- jlowe@lewlaw.com -- at Lowe, Eklund
& Wakefield; D. Andrew List -- at Clark, Perdue & List

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Rogers --
jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson & Coburn; Christina J.
Marshall -- cmarshall@sutter-law.com -- & Lawrence A. Sutter --
lsutter@sutter-law.com -- at Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchi


FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: Judge Grants Bid to Consolidate
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of
Washington, Tahoma, granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in
the case entitled AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT
HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS, DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA SUE
CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE, WAHAB
EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, and ALEX CASIANO on behalf of the CLASS
CERTIFIED BY THIS COURT'S MAY 14, 2015 ORDER CERTIFYING A CLASS IN
RAJAGOPALAN ET AL v. MERACORD, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY AND
DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, and PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
as Sureties for Meracord, LLC, Defendants. CHERYL ANDERSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
MERACORD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIDELITY AND
DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, as a surety for Meracord, LLC,
Defendants,  CASE NOS. C15-957 BHS, C15-5476 BHS (W.D. Wash.)

Plaintiff Cheryl Anderson filed a complaint against defendants
Meracord, LLC, Meracord and Fidelity and Deposit Company of
Maryland as surety for Meracord in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona bearing case no. C15-5476. On
February 10, 2014, Anderson filed an amended class action
complaint against the same defendants asserting numerous causes of
action including a cause of action for the proceeds of a surety
bond that Fidelity issued on behalf of Meracord.  On July 9, 2015,
the matter was transferred to the present court.

Plaintiffs Alex Casiano, Donte Cheeks, Erma Sue Clyatt, Wahab
Ekunsumi, Arthur Fuller, Karen Hea, Robert Hewson, Deborah Horton,
Marie Johnson-Peredo, Amy Joyce, Robert Joyce, Dawn Meade, Richard
Pierce, and Amrish Rajagopalan filed a class action complaint
against Fidelity and Platte River Insurance Company as sureties
for Meracord asserting causes of action for proceeds of surety
bonds that Fidelity and Platte issued in several states across the
nation, bad faith claims, and declaratory relief. The case bears
the case number C15-957.

On August 10, 2015, plaintiffs of case number C15-957 and the
plaintiff of case number C15-5476 filed motions to consolidate the
cases.

Judge Settle granted plaintiffs and Anderson's motion to
consolidate and no additional documents shall be filed in cause
No. C15-5476BHS, and all documents filed in the future regarding
the matters are to be filed in Cause No. C15-957BHS.

A copy of Judge Settle's order dated September 2, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/uqudASfrom Leagle.com.

Amrish Rajagopalan, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd,
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas
E Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Marie Johnson-Peredo, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G.
Boyd, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC &
Thomas E Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Robert Hewson, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Donte Cheeks, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Deborah Horton, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Richard Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Erma Sue Clyatt, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Robert Joyce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Amy Joyce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas
E Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Arthur Fuller, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Dawn Meade, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Wahab Ekunsumi, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Karen Hea, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas
E Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Alex Casiano, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E
Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Cheryl Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,Stuart M Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
& Thomas E Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendant, represented
by Bert W. Markovich, SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, Claire L.
Rootjes, SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT &Jennifer Campbell, SCHWABE
WILLIAMSON & WYATT

Platte River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
A Constine, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, John D. Wilson, Jr., WILSON
SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON & Scott M Stickney, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN
& DICKERSON

Meracord, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Counter Claimant,
represented by Adam D Melton, Langley LLP, David C Veis, Robins
Kaplan LLP & Robert Jesse Berens, Langley LLP

Cheryl Anderson, Counter Defendant, represented by Celeste H. G.
Boyd, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC

Cheryl Anderson, Counter Defendant, represented by Stuart M
Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC & Thomas E Loeser, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Dinaples, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01121-JFC (W.D. Pa., August 26, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW
          112 Washington Place, Suite 1-N
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 889-8535
          Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
          E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


FUJITSU CANADA: Recalls Panasonic Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Posting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54964

This recall involves Panasonic battery packs bearing a Fujitsu
Limited label, either as original or spares in the following
personal computers sold by Fujitsu Canada:

  --- CELSIUS H720
  --- LIFEBOOK P701
  --- LIFEBOOK P702
  --- LIFEBOOK P770
  --- LIFEBOOK P771
  --- LIFEBOOK E752
  --- LIFEBOOK P772
  --- LIFEBOOK S752
  --- LIFEBOOK S762
  --- LIFEBOOK T580

Fujitsu Limited manufactures the personal computers listed above
and supplies the battery packs to Fujitsu Canada. The battery
packs, bearing the Fujitsu name, are components manufactured by
Panasonic Corporation.

Battery packs are used in Fujitsu Canada's personal computers
bearing the model names/numbers identified in the table above.

Serial numbers of the battery packs:

Fujitsu product number, CP556150-01, all serial numbers;
Fujitsu product number, CP556150-02, portion of serial numbers
from Z120102 through Z120512 only.
Date Codes: 03/2011 to 05/2012

UPC: 611343091190

The battery packs may in rare instances ignite and result in fire.

Neither Fujitsu Canada nor Health Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

Fujitsu has received three reports of the battery packs catching
fire, including two in Japan and one in China and causing fire
damage to rugs, bedding, a desk and other furniture. No injuries
have been reported.

There were 5 of the affected products sold in Canada and
approximately 300 distributed in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from August 2012 to July 2015.

Manufactured in Japan.

Manufacturer: Fujitsu Limited
              Shiodome City Center 1-5-2 Higashi-Shimbashi
              Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-7123
              JAPAN

Distributor: Fujitsu Canada, Inc.
             155 University Avenue, Suite 1600
             Toronto
             M5H 3B7
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately turn off their Fujitsu personal
computer, remove the battery pack and contact Fujitsu Canada for a
free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their
Fujitsu personal computer without the battery pack by plugging in
the AC adapter and power cord. Please store the removed battery
pack in a cool, dark place away from flammable objects and please
do not charge the battery pack while storing it.

For more information, consumers can contact Fujitsu Canada toll-
free at 1-800-8FUJITSU (1-800-838-5487) 24/7 or visit the
company's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/oMtd1O


GATE GUARD: Gov't Agrees to Pay $1.5MM Attorney Fees in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the
U.S. Department of Labor has agreed to pay $1.5 million in
attorney fees to a Corpus Christi company and its owner after the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sanctioned the federal
government for bad faith and ruled that it owed fees to the
company.

The wage and hour division of the U.S. Department of Labor will
pay the money to Gate Guard Services and owner Bert Steindorf by
Sept. 30, according to a Sept. 17 settlement and release agreement
between the government and Gate Guard and Mr. Steindorf.  The
money is for attorney fees, expenses and costs.

Daniel Pipitone, a shareholder in Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr who
negotiated the settlement on behalf of clients Mr. Steindorf and
Gate Guard, said the payment will be in the form of a check, not a
wire transfer, at Mr. Steindorf's insistence.

"He wanted something tangible," Mr. Pipitone said.  "He should.
He had a long battle that really struck him in so many ways.  His
own government to which he contributed was coming after him."

The Department of Labor alleged in a 2010 complaint that Gate
Guard violated overtime laws.  But according to a ruling in July
issued by a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel, when the DOL
investigated Gate Guard for alleged Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) violations, the federal agency violated its own internal
procedures and ethical litigation practices.

The Fifth Circuit sanctioned the federal government for bad faith
and found that it owed attorney fees and travel expenses to Gate
Guard.  But instead of having U.S. District Senior Judge John
Rainey of the Southern District of Texas determine the exact
amount of fees and expenses, the DOL negotiated a settlement with
Mr. Pipitone.

Earlier, in April 2014, Judge Rainey had ruled that the DOL owed
$565,227 in attorney and paralegal fees and travel expenses to
Gate Guard.  In 2013, Judge Rainey granted Gate Guard's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed all claims that the DOL brought
against it in the FLSA enforcement action.

Mr. Pipitone said the $1.5 million the government is paying covers
the $1.3 million in attorney fees Mr. Steindorf has paid over the
years plus "$200,000 in what I'm going to call essentially an
enhancement."

On Sept. 17, the plaintiffs and the government filed a notice of
settlement in Gate Guard Service v. Perez indicating they will
file a stipulation of dismissal with the court once the settlement
is finalized.

A lawyer for the government, Mary Cobb, who works for the office
of the solicitor at the DOL in Dallas, did not immediately return
a telephone message.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical Units affected: 623
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015422TC
ID number: 2015422
Manufacturer recall number: 15700

On certain vehicles, the driver's door module could experience
electrical faults resulting a loss of switch function, erratic
switch behavior (such as power windows lowering and/or raising
without driver input) or an electrical short circuit, potentially
resulting in a vehicle fire. These issues could occur even when
the ignition key is removed and could increase the risk of injury
and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will install a new
driver's door switch module. In the interim, owners should park
their vehicle outdoors. Note: This recall is an expansion of
recall 2014-279.

  Make         Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----         ----------------------
  GMC          ENVOY         2006
  CHEVROLET    TRAILBLAZER   2006
  GMC          ENVOY XL      2006
  BUICK        RAINIER       2006


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in Advertiser Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 21 dusted off a seven-
year-old class action against Google Inc. over its AdWords keyword
advertising program.

A Ninth Circuit panel reversed a decision denying class
certification to businesses claiming that Google inappropriately
charged for ads placed on error pages and so-called parked domains
between 2004 and 2008.

Circuit Judge Richard Paez wrote in a 21-page opinion that U.S.
District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of
California erred by conflating the question of liability with the
difficulty of calculating restitution awards for class members.

Judge Paez wrote that "a court need not make individual
determinations regarding entitlement to restitution" to proceed
with a class action under California's Unfair Competition Law and
Fair Advertising Law.  "Instead, restitution is available on a
classwide basis, once the class representative makes the threshold
showing of liability," he wrote.

The panel also reinforced the vitality of Yokoyama v. Midland
National Life Insurance Co., a 2010 Ninth Circuit decision holding
that damages calculations alone cannot defeat class certification.

The opinion was joined by Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima and
U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist of the Western District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.

The decision is a loss for Cooley, which had squelched the
plaintiffs' bid to certify a class of Google advertisers at the
district court in 2012.  Cooley's Michael Rhodes, who argued for
Google at the Ninth Circuit in December, declined to comment.

Miranda Kolbe of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe, who argued the
plaintiffs' appeal, said that she was pleased with the decision
but "not particularly surprised."  Ms. Kolbe said Judge Davila
erred by discarding a proposed method for calculating restitution
because it didn't account for benefits some class members received
from clicks on ads placed on less-desirable pages.

"What we explained and what the Ninth Circuit understood was, when
you're calculating restitution, you look at the price paid, minus
the value of what was received" at the time of purchase, Ms. Kolbe
said.

The panel said it would be reasonable to use Google's own pricing
formula to calculate what a rational business would have bid to
advertise on error pages and inactive websites.

Ms. Kolbe declined to speculate on damages, saying that's an issue
for expert testimony.  But she said the case "involves virtually
all Google advertisers during the class period."


GREENCORE USA: Recalls Greek Yogurt Products Due to Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greencore, USA Inc. North Kingston, Rhode Island, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 379 pounds (997 individual parfaits) of
Evolution Fresh Nonfat Greek Yogurt with Strawberry and Granola
parfaits because the product may contain undeclared almonds.
People who have an allergy or sensitivity to almonds run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The Evolution Fresh Nonfat Greek Yogurt with Strawberry and
Granola products were produced on September 21 and distributed to
approximately 266 Starbucks retail stores in Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine.
No other regions are affected. To date, the company has not
received reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these
products, and all affected product has been removed from stores.

The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 6.1oz. Evolution Fresh Nonfat Greek Yogurt with Strawberry
      and Granola, (UPC: 7 6211107474 4, 'enjoy by 9/24')

This isolated issue affects only this date code of product. No
other codes or products are affected.

The problem was discovered when product checks discovered that the
granola in some individual Evolution Fresh Nonfat Greek Yogurt
with Strawberry and Granola contained almonds. Greencore has
determined the cause and has worked to eliminate the issue.
Greencore, USA, Inc. takes food safety and the protection of
customers and consumers very seriously. It has robust traceability
systems and took immediate action, working with our customer, on
being informed of the potential problem.
Customers who have purchased the affected product and have not yet
consumed it may return the products to the Starbucks store in
which they were purchased for a full refund.

For further questions regarding this recall, please contact the
following representatives:

Media Inquires: Greencore USA: 1 978 716 2530
Customer Inquiries 800-Starbuc (800-782-7282)
Monday-Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464112.htm


HYUNDAI: Recalls Accent 2011 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 47130
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015429TC
ID number: 2015429
Manufacturer recall number: R0100

On certain vehicles, the stop lamp switch may fail and cause
intermittent operation of the brake lights. Failure of the brake
lights to illuminate when the brake pedal is depressed could
result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will replace the switch with a new model.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  HYUNDAI    ACCENT      2011


KERMIT INC: Recalls Sauce Products Due to Undeclared Soy
--------------------------------------------------------
Kermit, Inc. of DeLand, Florida, issuing a voluntary recall of the
following products because of undeclared allergens on the label.
Undeclared soy, an ingredient in Worcestershire Sauce, is used to
make the following:

  --- Kermit's Key Lime Cocktail Sauce, Net Wt. 12-oz., Best By
      Sep/1/2016.
  --- Kermit's Key Lime Steak Sauce, Net Wt.& 10-oz., Best By
      Aug/18/2016.
  --- Kermit's Sweet & Tasty Key Lime Barbeque Sauce, Net Wt, 16-
      oz., Best By Sep/14/2016.
  --- Kermit's Medium Mannered Key Lime Barbeque Sauce, Net Wt.
      16- oz., Best By Aug/11/2016.
  --- Kermit's Hot & Spicy Key Lime Barbeque Sauce, Net Wt. 16-
      oz., Best By Aug/19/2016.
  --- Kermit's Chipotle Key Lime Barbeque Sauce, Net Wt. 16oz.,
      Best By Jul/24/2016.
  --- Kermit's P4 Hot Sauce, Net Wt. 5.5-oz., Best By
      Aug/20/2016.

Additionally, the product, Kermit's Key Lime Ginger Wasabi
Marinade, Net Wt. 12-oz., with Best By Aug/31/2016, is being
recalled due to the undeclared, soybeans and wheat ingredients in
Soy Sauce.  The presence of undeclared soy and soybeans in the
product can elicit life-threatening allergic reactions in
sensitive individuals while undeclared wheat may elicit adverse
health reactions in both individuals sensitive to wheat protein or
to gluten (such as individuals with celiac disease).

Individuals allergic to wheat protein can suffer acute allergic
reactions if they are exposed to wheat flour, with the possibility
for life-threatening anaphylaxis in particularly sensitive
individuals. Individuals allergic to wheat protein can suffer
acute allergic reactions if they are exposed to wheat flour, with
the possibility for life-threatening anaphylaxis in particularly
sensitive individuals. Gluten intolerance in adults exposed to
gluten can manifest as diarrhea and under chronic exposure can
lead to weight loss and ultimately malabsorption (steatorrhea),
anemia, or osteomalacia.

The products are sold in clear glass bottles in the sizes with
Best Buy dates as indicated above. The recall is for all of the
individual products with the indicated "Best By" date or earlier.

The recalled products were distributed in retail stores in Florida
and Maryland, and sold direct to consumer via the internet through
Kermit's website, www.keylimeshop.com.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The label has been reconditioned (corrected) on bottles in
Kermit's inventory and in the inventory of retail shops that carry
the specific products.

Purchasers allergic to soy, soybeans, or wheat should destroy the
product, or contact Kermit, Inc. for a corrected label. Anyone
with questions, please contact John Meyer or Ken Arnold at 386-
740-0502.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464525.htm


KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Water Mint Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kiskadee Ventures Limited
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10066

Kiskadee Ventures Limited is recalling freshKIS brand water mint
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product was sold at Real Canadian Superstore, 3050
Argentina Road, Mississauga, Ontario.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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

  Brand name    Common name    Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------    -----------    ----     product        ---
                                        ----------
  freshKIS      Water mint    Variable  PLU56788       Starting
                                        17.09.15       with
                                                       256788

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1nU66J


KPMG LLP: Claims Running Back to March 2009 Deemed Timely
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New
York partially granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of
the statute of limitations in the case DONNA KASSMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KPMG LLP, Defendant, NO. 11 CIV 03743 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.)

Donna Kassman filed an action against KPMG LLP (KPMG) on June 2,
2011, and four days later filed her first amended complaint. On
September 2011, Kassman moved to file a second amended complaint,
adding Sparkle Patterson, Jeanette Potter and Ashwini Vasudeva and
a fourth person who is no longer a party. Plaintiffs alleged that
KPMG paid female client service professionals in its Tax and
Advisory Functions less than their male counterparts in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Equal Pay Act
(EPA). Defendant filed its opposition on October 17, 2011.

Donna Kassman, Sparkle Patterson, Jeanette Potter and Ashwini
Vasudeva brought an action against KPMG LLP (KPMG) alleging that
KPMG paid female client service professionals in its Tax and
Advisory Functions less than their male counterparts in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Equal Pay Act
(EPA). Defendant filed its opposition on October 17, 2011, while
plaintiffs seek to have the statute of limitations tolled, but
before deciding the motion, the judge granted plaintiffs leave to
file a third amended complaint.

In February 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint, which the judge granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to dismiss.

In April 2013, the parties were ordered to conduct and complete
electronic discovery, and a briefing schedule was set for
plaintiffs' equitable tolling motion, with the final brief to be
filed on June 10, 2013. In May 2013, a protective order and an
electronic discovery protocol order were signed. A conference was
held on August 1, 2013, to discuss the progress of discovery, the
equitable tolling motion, and plaintiffs' anticipated motion for
conditional certification of a collective under FLSA.

Plaintiffs explained that, in order to prepare a properly tailored
motion for conditional certification, they needed defendant to
produce certain class data, which defendant had resisted
producing. The court denied equitable tolling without prejudice to
renewal by any future opt-in plaintiffs after the disposition of
the conditional certification motion. Defendant completed its
production of information on October 29, 2013, and plaintiffs
moved for conditional certification and authorization of notice
two days later.

Before a ruling on conditional certification could be issued, in
January 2014, defendant expressed its intent to file a second
motion to dismiss. The Court informed the parties that it would
adjudicate the conditional certification motion and the motion to
dismiss simultaneously.

By opinion and order dated July 8, conditional certification of a
collective action was granted for plaintiffs' EPA claims.  The
July 8 Opinion also authorized notice to be sent to the class.
The July 8 opinion also resolved defendant's second motion to
dismiss, which did not affect plaintiffs' EPA claims.
Plaintiffs seek to toll the statute of limitations for opt-in
plaintiffs as of October 17, 2011, under the doctrine of equitable
tolling. They ask that the claims and consent forms of opt-in
plaintiffs be deemed filed as of that date.

Judge Schofield granted in part plaintiffs' motion for equitable
tolling. The statute of limitations is equitably tolled from March
16, 2012; claims running back to March 16, 2009, are therefore
deemed timely.

A copy of Judge Schofield's opinion and order dated September 4,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/mcprdmfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- David W. Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Katherine M. Kimpel --
kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- Katie Mueting --
kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- Maya Sequeira --
msequeira@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford Heisler Kimpel; Anne
B. Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Kelly Dermody --
kdermody@lchb.com -- Rachel Geman -- rgeman@lchb.com -- at Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

KPMG LLP, Defendant, represented by Chris R. Pace --
chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com -- Diane Marjorie Saunders --
diane.saunders@ogletreedeakins.com -- Peter O. Hughes --
peter.hughes@ogletreedeakins.com -- Stephanie Lauren Aranyos --
stephanie.aranyos@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash,Smoak & Stewart,P.C.; Colleen M. Kenney -- ckenney@sidley.com
-- Eric G. Hoffman -- eric.hoffman@sidley.com -- John G. Levi --
jlevi@sidley.com -- Sarah M. Konsky -- skonsky@sidley.com -- Wendy
M. Lazerson -- wlazerson@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP;
Steven W. Moore -- smoore@constangy.com -- at Constangy, Brooks &
Smith & Prophete, LLC


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Italian Chicken Meatball Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10051

  Brand name     Common    Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------     name      ----     product        ---
                 ------             ----------
  PC Free From   Italian   800 g    Best Before    0 60383-
                 Chicken            dates up to    14310 7
                 Meatballs          and including
                                    2016JA12


LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: "Barrett" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Paul Barrett v. Local
Lighthouse Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00132, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The California District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01357-JLS-JCG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought the Class Action to put an end to the
Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of placing unsolicited
telemarketing calls to consumers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ted Lewis Johnson, Esq.
          TED LEWIS JOHNSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          PO Box 5272
          Greensboro, NC 27435
          Telephone: (336) 252-8596
          E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Blake Durham, Esq.
          POYNER AND SPRUILL LLP
          One Wachovia Center
          301 South College Street, Suite 2300
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 342-5250
          Facsimile: (704) 342-5264
          E-mail: jdurham@poyners.com

               - and -

          David George Hagopian, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Sikkema, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE AND FREUDENBERGER LLP
          2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-1661
          Facsimile: (949) 622-1669
          E-mail: dhagopian@cdflitigation.com
                  jsikkema@cdflitigation.com


LOCAL LIGHTHOUSE: "Grundman" Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Andrew Grundman v. Local
Lighthouse Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00825-KJM-CKD, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The Central District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01358-CJC-JCG to the
proceeding.

The class action seeks damages and all legal or equitable relief
resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently, knowingly or willfully contacting the Plaintiff and
class members on their personal cellular telephones or landlines
without prior express consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Bassil A. Hamideh, Esq.
          THE HAMIDEH FIRM, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-9687
          Facsimile: (310) 733-5699
          E-mail: bhamideh@hamidehfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David G. Hagopian, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Sikkema, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
          2600 Michaelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-1661
          Facsimile: (949) 622-1669
          E-mail: dhagopian@cdflitigation.com
                  jsikkema@cdflitigation.com


LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Due to Sibutramine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy's Weight Loss System is voluntarily recalling all lots
distributed May 25 - June 23 2015 of Pink Bikini and Shorts on the
Beach Blue and Gold Edition, 30 blue capsules (750MG per) capsules
and 30 gold capsule (800MG per) capsules to the consumer level.
The Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach have been found positive
for Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein after FDA sampling and
testing.

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

Lucy's Weight Loss System has received not received any complaints
to date. Lucy's Weight Loss System has not received any reports of
adverse events related to this recall.

The product is used as a weight loss dietary supplement and is
packaged in clear bottle in blue and gold. The affected Pink
Bikini and Shorts on the Beach lots include the following
expiration date 7/30/2017. Product was distributed nationwide to
consumers via Internet.

Lucys Weight Loss System is notifying its customers by Email and
is arranging for return. Consumers that have recalled Pink Bikini
and Shorts on the Beach should stop using and discard.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Lucy's
Weight Loss System by phone (682)-308-0199 or pbfitme@gmail.com on
Monday thru Friday 10:00am to 5:30pm CST. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug
product.

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

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


MADEWELL INC: Expands Recall on Women's Sandals
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Posting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55094

The August 20, 2015 recall involves Madewell Sightseer sandals.
This recall has been expanded to include an additional Madewell
style, the Katya sandal.

The recall involves various Madewell Women's sandals, sold in
various sizes and colours online. The following Sightseer style
numbers are affected: C0275, C0276, C0277, C0278, C0279, C1105,
C5893, C5895, C5897 and C6090. The Katya style number, C5840, is
also affected.

An internal component (a metal shank) can protrude through the
bottom of the rubber outsole, potentially leading to a trip and
fall hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Madewell has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Madewell has received 57 reports of a metal shank protruding
through the sandal in the United States, with one injury reported.

Approximately 300 Sightseer and Katya sandals were sold online in
Canada, and approximately 51,000 were distributed in the United
States.

The Sightseer and Katya sandals were sold from January 2015 to
August 2015.

Manufactured in Brazil

Manufacturer: ESB CALCADOS LTDA
              RUA PADRE VALENTIM WESCHENFELDER,145
              PAVILHAO
              BRAZIL

Importer: Madewell Inc.
          770 Broadway
          New York, New York
          UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact Madewell for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Madewell by e-mail or
by telephone 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-866-544-1937.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/PXrIzx


MADEWELL INC: Recalls Women's Sandals Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Madewell Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 570 Sandals in the United States (in addition, 3 were sold
in Canada) (Madewell recalled 50,600 women's Sightseer sandals in
August 2015 for the same hazard). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal shank can dislodge and break through bottom of the
outsole, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves all sizes and colors of the Madewell Katya
sandal from the spring 2015 collection. The metallic sand or rose
gold-colored leather sandals have a wide strap with a lace-up
thong. The style number C5840 is located on a sticker on the
outsole.

The firm has received one report of a metal shank dislodging and
breaking through the bottom of the outsole. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OL6YnM

The recalled products were manufactured in Brazil and sold at
Madewell stores nationwide and online at madewell.com from April
2015 through August 2015 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shoes and
contact Madewell to return them for a full refund.


MITSUBISHI: Recalls I-MIEV 2012 & 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 2897
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015419TC
ID number: 2015419
Manufacturer recall number: SR15-011

On certain vehicles, due to improper manufacturing, the electrical
resistance inside the impact sensor for the Supplemental Restraint
System (SRS) air bag system may have increased. As a result,
abnormal communication may be detected by the ECU causing the SRS
warning lamp to illuminate. If a vehicle is involved in a
collision that warrants front, side, and/or curtain air bag
deployment when the SRS warning lamp is illuminated, frontal air
bag deployment could be delayed and/or the side and curtain air
bag may not deploy. Failure of an airbag to deploy during a crash
(where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of injury.
Correction: Dealers will replace the SRS impact sensor with a
countermeasure unit.

  Make          Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----       ----------------------
  MITSUBISHI    I-MIEV      2012, 2014


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Removes "Llewellyn" Suit to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Llewellyn v. Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 49D04-1508-CT-025717, was removed from
the Marion County Superior Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01352-JMS-MJD to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Piatt, Esq.
          Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
          William N. Riley, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787
          Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
          E-mail: jpiatt@rwp-law.com
                  jwilliams@rwp-law.com
                  wriley@rwp-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia D. McCarron, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          550 E. Swedesford Road, Suite 270
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 862-6538
          Facsimile: (610) 862-6501
          E-mail: claudia.mccarron@lewisbrisbois.com


MERCY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chantelle Chaffatt v. Mercy Medical Center, Case No. 155698/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., August 7, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant for discrimination on the basis of her race,
retaliation and unlawful policies and practices.

Ms. Chaffatt is a resident of the state of New York, County of New
York.  She is African American.

Mercy Medical is a domestic non-profit corporation with its
principal place of business located in Rockville Centre, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Message Communications, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-06550-CAS-MRW (C.D.
Cal., August 26, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Dr., Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


MR GOODCENTS: Recalls Chocolate Chip Cookies Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodcents Franchise Systems, Inc. of De Soto, KS is
voluntarily recalling Chocolate Chip Cookies because they may
contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Product was distributed to Mr. Goodcents restaurants located in
KS, MO, OK, MN, NE, IA and SD. The cookies are sold in individual
bags that indicate the cookie is one of three varieties, one of
which is Chocolate Chip Cookie. The product is packaged as 1- 2.5
oz cookie per bag. There are no identifying codes placed on the
bag. Potentially affected cookies would have been available for
purchase between the dates of 8/31/15 to 9/22/15.

To date there have been no reports of illness associated with
consumption of these cookies. The recall was initiated after a
restaurant employee identified two small pieces of peanut
fragments in a cookie. As a result, we recalled and destroyed all
identified product from our distribution center and restaurants.

Consumers who have purchased a Chocolate Chip Cookie between the
dates of 8/31/15 to 9/22/15 are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-800-648-2368, Monday thru Friday, 8am-5pm.


MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guiseppe Troisi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, MRS Associates and Does 1
Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04840-CDJ (E.D. Pa.,
August 26, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVCO ENTERPRISE: Treats Black Employees Differently, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheena Sanders v. Navco Enterprise of O.V., Inc., Minute Men HR
LLC and Mary Platz, Case No. CV-15-849405 (Ohio Comm. Pleas,
August 7, 2015) alleges that the Defendants treated African-
American employees differently than Caucasian employees.

Ms. Sanders is a resident of the City of Cleveland, County of
Cuyahoga, Ohio.  She is African-American.

Navco Enterprise of O.V., Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of Oakwood
Village, is an Ohio Corporation with its principal place of
business in the City of Parma, County of Cuyahoga, Ohio.  Navco
was the owner/operator of the McDonald's restaurant/franchise
located in Oakwood Village, Ohio.  Minute Men HR LLC, d/b/a Minute
Men HR Management Services, is an Ohio Limited Liability Company
with its principal place of business in Cleveland, County of
Cuyahoga, Ohio.  Mary Platz was employed by Navco and Minute Men
HR and worked as as the Store Manager of the Oakwood Village
McDonald's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luke D. Mahoney, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: luke.mahoney@spitzlawfirm.com


NEIL PRYDE: Recalls Cabrinha Kiteboard Control Systems
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 28, 2015
Posting date: September 28, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55088

This recall involves three TrimLite Cleat(TM) trim control systems
for Cabrinha kiteboards. The control systems are comprised of:

  --- a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite
  --- a set of flying lines
  --- a harness loop/quick release (QR) mechanism

A trim line connects the kite to the handle held by the user,
allowing the user to control the kite. Only trim lines with white
tape below the loop connecting the trim line to the cleat are part
of this recall.

The following kiteboard control systems are included in this
recall:

  Name       Model Number   Description   Size    UPC
  ----       ------------   -----------   ----    ---
  Overdrive  KS6CSODQC      Adjustable    48 to   881285980542
  1X                        Length        56 cm
  Standard   KS6CSFXQL      Fixed Length  44 cm   881285963903
  1X
                                         52 cm    881285962500
                                         60 cm    881285962517
Chaos 1X   KS6CSCHFX      Fixed Length  44 cm    881285976545

The model numbers are located on a cloth tab attached to the
bungee line restrainers at the end of the bars.

The point of connection between the kiteboard's trim line and the
depower mainline can break and cause a loss of control, posing a
risk of injury.

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

In the United States, Neil Pryde Limited has received four reports
of the kiteboard trim lines breaking. No injuries were reported.
No injuries were reported from Canada.

Approximately 36 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from June 2015 to August 2015.

Manufactured in Hong Kong.

Manufacturer: Neil Pryde Limited
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboarding
control system and return them to the place of purchase to have a
free replacement part installed.

For additional information, consumers may contact Cabrinha Kites
collect at 1-808-893-0286, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. HST, Monday
through Friday, or by email.  Consumers may also visit the
company's website and click on "Safety Alert" at the top of the
page 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/P8JA9g


ORANGE TKO: Recalls All Purpose Cleaners Due to Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Posting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55126

Orange TKO - Super Concentrated All Purpose Cleaner (236 mL, 473
mL, 1 L, 1.8 L, 3.8 L).

This household chemical does not meet the labelling and child-
resistant packaging requirements for consumer chemical products as
set out in the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001
issued under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

This product contains a level of D-limonene that can pose a danger
to human health, especially to children, if aspiration occurs. D-
limonene is extracted from citrus fruit (such as orange peel), and
is commonly used as an ingredient in cleaners and other household
chemical products to provide a citrus smell. Aspiration occurs
when the product is coughed up or vomited after being ingested.
This coughing/vomiting causes small particles of the product to
travel into the lungs and may result in severe health effects
including pulmonary injury, chemical pneumonia or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Orange TKO Industries (Int'l) Inc. has
received consumer incident reports related to the use of this
product.

2997 of the affected products were sold in Canada from June 20,
2011 to present.

June 20, 2011 to present.

Manufactured in the United States of America.

Manufacturer: Orange TKO Industries International Inc.
              Calgary
              Alberta
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled consumer
chemical and contact their municipality for instructions on how to
dispose of or recycle the recalled products. For more information,
please contact Orange TKO Industries (Int'l) Inc. customer service
at 1-800-991-2463 or by email.

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

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

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/jIB8Zu


OC RAW DOG: Recalls Pet Food Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
OC Raw Dog of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA is voluntarily recalling
640 lbs. of Chicken, Fish & Produce Raw Frozen Canine Formulation.
This is being done in an abundance of caution, as the product has
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. No illnesses
have been reported and no other OC Raw Dog manufactured products
are affected.

Individuals handling raw pet food can become infected with
salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with the product or to surfaces exposed
to the product. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should
monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms:
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping
and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms. If a consumer
exhibits these signs after having contact with this product should
contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever
and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and
have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

This voluntary recall is limited to Chicken, Fish & Produce Raw
Frozen Canine Formulations that were packaged into 6.5 lb. Doggie
Dozen Patties, 4 lb. Doggie Sliders, and 3 lb. Meaty Rox with the
lot number 1819, and use by date of 05/05/16. These codes can be
checked on the bottom left corner of the back of the package.
Distribution is limited to customers in Colorado, Vermont, and
Pennsylvania and sold to consumers through independent pet
specialty retailers.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the Colorado Department of Food and Agriculture of a sample that
they collected at retailer revealed the presence of Salmonella in
a 3 lb. bag of "Chicken, Fish & Produce Raw Frozen Canine
Formulations" Meaty Rox. Another sample from the same lot was
previously tested by the California Department of Agriculture and
it had a negative Salmonella result.

If you are in possession of this recalled product please submit a
picture of the package with the lot number to Olivia@ocrawdog.com
for verification. Either dispose of the product immediately or
return the product to the retailer where you purchased it for a
replacement product.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-844-215-DOGS
(3647) Monday thru Friday 9am - 4pm PST. If you get our automated
answering system please leave a message and we will call you right
back.

At OC RAW DOG, we are passionate about our products and the safety
of canine and human customers is our top priority. We apologize
for any inconvenience this recall may have caused.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464518.htm


PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015418TC
ID number: 2015418
Manufacturer recall number: 915L / 15KWM

On certain vehicles equipped with a Cummins engine, the Engine
Control Module (ECM) could develop an internal electrical short
circuit that could blow a fuse in the ECM's electrical supply
circuit. This could result in an unexpected engine stall without
the ability to restart the engine, which could increase the risk
of a crash. Correction: Dealers will replacing the existing,
affected ECM with a new ECM.

  Make            Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----         ----------------------
  KENWORTH        T800          2016
  KENWORTH        W900          2016
  PETERBILT       367           2016
  PETERBILT       386           2016
  PETERBILT       365           2016
  KENWORTH        T660          2016
  PETERBILT       389           2016
  KENWORTH        T370          2016
  PETERBILT       337           2016
  PETERBILT       348           2016
  PETERBILT       587           2016
  PETERBILT       382           2016
  KENWORTH        T680          2016
  PETERBILT       579           2016
  PETERBILT       567           2016
  KENWORTH        T880          2016


PENN CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Penn Credit Corporation d/b/a PennCredit and Does 1
Through 10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04841-PD (E.D. Pa.,
August 26, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAINBOW PLAY: Recalls Yellow Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 24, 2015
Posting date: September 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55064

This recall involves yellow plastic trapeze rings found on
residential wooden playsets.  The rings are triangular in shape
with rounded sides and have a loop at the top.  They measure about
21.59 cm high (8.5 inches) by 16.51 cm wide (6.5 inches).

The yellow rings come as a pair and are connected to a trapeze
bar.  They were sold either as a separate component or as an
attachment on the following Rainbow branded residential wooden
playsets: All-American, Backyard Circus, Carnival, Fiesta, King
Kong, Monster, Sunray, Sunshine and Rainbow.

All of these playsets have an aluminum plate located on the front
of the wooden swing beam with the following name stamped on it:
"Playgrounds America", "Rainbow Play Systems Inc." or "Sunray
Premium Playgrounds".

The rings can crack or break during use, posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Rainbow Play Systems has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these rings in Canada.

In the United States, Rainbow Play Systems has received more than
100 reports of the rings cracking or breaking, including 15
reports of injuries such as bumps, bruises, lacerations,
concussion and one broken finger.
Approximately 6,496 pairs of rings were sold in Canada.
Approximately 121,000 pairs of rings were sold in the United
States.

The recalled products were sold from January 2007 through December
2011.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer of Rings: Nylacarb Corporation
                       Vero Beach
                       Florida
                       UNITED STATES

Manufacturer of Playsets: Rainbow Play Systems
                          Brookings
                          South Dakota
                          UNITED STATES

Distributor of Rings: Child Works
                      Carollton
                      Georgia
                      UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled rings and
contact Rainbow Play Systems for instructions on how to remove the
rings, and to receive a $10 gift card.

For additional information, consumers may contact Rainbow Play
Systems toll-free at 1-888-201-1570, between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM
CST, Monday through Friday.  Consumers may also visit the
company's website and click on the Recall tab located on the top
menu bar for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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/VXizLe


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "Major" Case
----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing is underway in
the case, Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., a case filed
in November 2011, in the Superior Court, Los Angeles County,
California, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
found the plaintiff 50% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 17% at fault,
and RJR Tobacco and another manufacturer collectively 33% at
fault.  RJR Tobacco and the other manufacturer were dismissed
prior to trial.  The jury awarded approximately $17.74 million in
compensatory damages.  The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of
the use of the defendants' products and exposure to asbestos, the
decedent, William Major, suffered from lung cancer.

In August 2014, an initial final judgment was entered against
Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of approximately $3.9 million.  In
November 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of appeal to the
California District Court of Appeal and posted a supersedeas bond
in the amount of approximately $9 million.  The plaintiff filed a
notice of cross appeal in December 2014.

On July 1, 2015, the trial court entered an amended final judgment
in the amount of approximately $3.78 million in compensatory
damages, approximately $135,000 in costs, approximately $1.9
million in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest from
August 25, 2014 in the amount of approximately $1,100 per day.
Briefing is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Post-Trial Motions Pending "Larkin" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that post-trial motions are
pending in the case, Larkin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

On July 8, 2015, in Larkin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case
filed in January 2002, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
found the decedent, Carole Larkin, 38% at fault, RJR Tobacco 62%
at fault, and awarded approximately $4.96 million in compensatory
damages and $8.5 million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff
alleged that as a result of using the defendant's products, the
decedent suffered from mouth and lung cancer.  Final judgment was
entered in the amount of approximately $13.46 million on July 15,
2015.  Post-trial motions are pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Writ Denied in West Virginia IPIC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the West Virginia
IPIC, the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court has been denied.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began
in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly
1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to
cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard Tobacco, RJR
Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were
consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct
issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of any
claims left standing.  Over the years, approximately 600
individual plaintiff claims were dismissed for failure to comply
with the case management order, leaving 567 individual cases
pending as of April 2013.

On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a
virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013.  The jury
found that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not
defective due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that
defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did
not engage in conduct which would warrant punitive damages.  The
only claim remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that
all ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between
1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct.

In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
verdict, issuing an opinion without oral argument.  In January
2015, the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing was denied.

On June 8, 2015, the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari
to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.  Also on June 8, 2015, the
trial court ruled in favor of the defendants' contention that
there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining who arguably claim to have
smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during the relevant period.
In addition to the foregoing claims, various plaintiffs in 1999
and 2000 asserted claims against retailers and distributors.
Those claims were severed and stayed pending the outcome of Phase
I.

Also, 41 plaintiffs asserted smokeless tobacco claims against
various smokeless manufacturers including American Snuff Co.
Those claims were severed from IPIC in 2001, and the plaintiffs
took no action to prosecute the claims.  They have recently sought
to activate those claims.  The defendants will assert various
defenses to all of these claims, including that all of the
additional claims were either covered by the Phase I verdict or
abandoned.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,545 Broin II Lawsuits Pending in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30, 2015,
there were 2,545 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida.  There have
been no Broin II trials since 2007.

RJR Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants
settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in October 1997. This case
had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement
agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a
total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments,
allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on
the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco
smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49
million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR
Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86 million;
B&W's portion of these payments was approximately $57 million.

The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing
aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars
individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud,
misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or
misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other
alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed
that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation." With respect to all other issues
relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the individual
plaintiff will have the burden of proof.

On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the
settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this
case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to
all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement
agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to
prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or
negligence.  Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption
in the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs
bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health
effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, that is, specific causation.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial to Begin November 3 in "Sateriale" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled
to begin on November 3, 2015, in the case, Sateriale v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California relating to the termination of a series of
promotions by RJR Tobacco's Camel brand from 1991 to 2007 known as
"Camel Cash."  The plaintiffs originally brought the case on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who tried unsuccessfully
to redeem Camel Cash certificates from October 1, 1991 through
March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March
31, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged that RJR Tobacco failed to have
any rewards available during the final promotional period.  The
plaintiffs alleged claims based on the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Law,
breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses.

In January 2010, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss.  In
February 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In the
amended complaint, the proposed class definition changed to a
class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried
unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, also referred to
as C-Notes, from October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.  The
plaintiffs also proposed a California subclass consisting of
persons in California meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for
failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.

In December 2010, the district court granted RJR Tobacco's motion
to dismiss with prejudice and entered final judgment.   In January
2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

In July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
referred to as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and
breach of contract.  In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied RJR
Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc.  RJR Tobacco
filed its answer to the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in
December 2012.

Following the completion of discovery in June 2014, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  On December 19, 2014, the
district court denied RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment,
declined to certify a national class, found that the plaintiffs'
promissory estoppel claim could not be tried on a class basis,
and, on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, certified a
class of "all persons in California who, as adult smokers, were
assigned registration numbers by RJR Tobacco, collected C-Notes,
and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006."

In January 2015, RJR Tobacco filed motions for reconsideration of
the district court's order on class certification and summary
judgment.  On April 8, 2015, the district court denied both of RJR
Tobacco's motions for reconsideration.  On April 22, 2015, RJR
Tobacco filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for leave to
appeal the district court's order granting class certification.  A
decision is pending.

In May 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to add
residents of New York, South Dakota and Iowa into the certified
class.  On June 17, 2015, the court denied RJR Tobacco's motion to
certify an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of
RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment.  On July 8, 2015, RJR
Tobacco's motion for leave to reopen discovery was granted.  Trial
is scheduled to begin on November 3, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Diek v. Lorillard Case Goes to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Diek v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company, the defendants removed the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

In Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, a putative class action
filed in April 2015, in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County, the plaintiff brought a case against Lorillard Tobacco and
two affiliated entities on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of one or more blu brand e-cigarettes, including
e-juices, components thereof, cartridges or accessories sold by
the defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made
deceptive claims and omitted material information.  The plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief under California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et
seq., injunctive and equitable relief under California Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq., injunctive relief and
damages under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17,500
et seq., and damages for purported breaches of express warranty.

On June 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought
indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub.  On June 26,
2015, the defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Price v. PM Pending Before Ill. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a decision is pending
by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case, Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W
in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases
generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC,
historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in
December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court
reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the
trial court with instructions to dismiss the case.

On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.  The case was
dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.
rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief
from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009
order and remand to the circuit court.

On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006.  The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  On September 28, 2011, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave
to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition
for relief from the judgment.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.
In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict.
In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal.  On
September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear
Philip Morris's appeal.  Oral argument occurred on May 19, 2015.
A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a status conference was
scheduled for August 19, 2015, in the case, Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of
the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above, which the
judge denied in July 2003. In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency
stay/supremacy order request. In November 2003, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the
court's final appeal decision in Price. On October 11, 2007, the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's
appeal of the court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order
request and remanded the case to the Circuit Court. A status
conference was scheduled for August 19, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there is currently no
activity in the case, Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above. The
plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in
August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Collora" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a "lights" class-action
case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and B&W in Missouri.
In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000
in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis
certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the
following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial
date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at
that time.  A status conference is scheduled for February 22,
2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 2016 Status Conference in "Black" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March
2006. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial
date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at
that time.  A status conference is scheduled for February 22,
2016.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action suits, RJR
Tobacco, depending upon the amount of any damages ordered, could
face difficulties in its ability to pay the judgment or obtain any
bond required to stay execution of the judgment which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains stayed, Reynolds
American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents
of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have
been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case,
including all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Case Remains Dormant
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Parsons v. A C & S,
Inc., remained pending against the other defendants, including RJR
Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, seeking to
recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages. The class was brought on behalf
of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants who filed for bankruptcy.  The case remained pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there is currently no
activity in the case, Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, by tobacco
product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated
Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in
this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing Underway in "DeLisle" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing is underway in
the appeal filed by Lorillard Tobacco in the case, DeLisle v. A.
W. Chesterton Company.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of June 30, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 67 Filter Cases.
Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $49.3 million in
settlements to finally resolve 178 claims asserted in Filter
Cases.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

On September 13, 2013, the jury in DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton
Company, a case tried in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
Circuit, Broward County, Florida, found in favor of the plaintiffs
as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and
awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013.  Briefing
is underway.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 7 Canadian Class Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the following seven
putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only Bourassa, the action pending in British Columbia, at
this time:

* In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or
smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as
restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure
for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

* In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

* In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

* In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who
were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan
court.

* In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and
suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the
jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.  The plaintiff filed a
motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in
support in August 2013.  An amended claim was filed in December
2014.

* In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.

* In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for
health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Indirect Purchaser Cases Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a number of tobacco
wholesalers and consumers have sued U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, in federal and state courts,
alleging that cigarette manufacturers combined and conspired to
set the price of cigarettes in violation of antitrust statutes and
various state unfair business practices statutes. In these cases,
the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the lawsuits as class
actions on behalf of other persons who purchased cigarettes
directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendants. As of
June 30, 2015, all of the federal and state court cases on behalf
of indirect purchasers had been dismissed.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Review in "Smith" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas denied the petition for review in the case,
Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages. The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or
maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the United States. In an
opinion dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims.  On
July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas
affirmed the grant of summary judgment.  On August 18, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of
the State of Kansas.  On June 29, 2015, the court denied the
petition for review.


ROSS PROCUREMENT: Recalls Rattan Arm Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ross Procurement Inc., of Dublin, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 560 Rattan Arm 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 may tip or slide backward, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

This recall involves Ross rattan arm chairs. The round chairs
measure 48 inches high by 23 inches wide. The brown wicker chairs
were sold with SKU number 400119000982 printed on a hang tag.

The firm has received eight reports of minor injuries including
scrapes and bruises.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Ross stores nationwide from May 2015 through June 2015 for about
$60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to any Ross store for a full refund.


ROYAL FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Beef and Pork Products
---------------------------------------------------
Royal Frozen Food, a Los Angeles, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 230 pounds of frozen beef and pork
products that were not produced under a fully implemented Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. A portion of
these products are missing the USDA mark of inspection and may
also contain egg, an undeclared allergen, which was not declared
on the product label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The frozen food items were produced between Sept. 1, 2014 and
Sept. 29, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 17 oz. plastic tray package bearing code #607238300447 and
      containing 10 pieces of "PRECOOKED STUFFED GRAPE LEAVES
      WITH BEEF AND RICE."
  --- 20 oz. plastic tray package bearing code #607238300454 and
      containing 8 pieces of "PRECOOKED STUFFED CABBAGE LEAVES
      WITH BEEF AND RICE."
  --- 12 oz. plastic tray package bearing code #607238300553 and
      containing 10 pieces of "POT STICKERS."

Some of the products subject to recall bear establishment number
"Est. 20585" inside the USDA mark of inspection. One of the
products (Pot Stickers) does not contain the USDA mark of
inspection.  These items were shipped to retail locations in
California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel performing in-plant
verification tasks.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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
Gloria Cheng, owner, at (626) 552-1882.

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


SANDERSON FARMS: Recalls Poultry Products Due to Metal
------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, a Hazlehurst, Miss. establishment, is recalling
approximately 554,090 pounds of poultry products that may be
contaminated with extraneous metal materials the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The chicken items were produced on September 17-18, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 70-lb. cases containing "YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO BONELESS
      SKINLESS BREAST FILLETS WITH RIB MEAT" with case code
      45017.
  --- 70-lb. cases containing "YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO CLIPPED
      TENDERLOINS" with case code 45092.
  --- 70-lb. cases containing "YOUNG CHICKEN PARTS JUMBO BONELESS
      SKINLESS BREAST BUTTERFLIES WITH RIB MEAT" with case code
      45015.
  --- 70-lb. cases and 1800-lb. combos containing "FRESH YOUNG
      CHICKEN PARTS BREAST FRAMES" with case code 45969.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
P-247" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to processing facilities in Georgia and Louisiana.

The problem was discovered when the firm received a complaint from
a processing facility which found metal shavings in the product.
The establishment determined that the contamination occurred due
to a malfunction with an ice-making machine used during
production.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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
Mike Cockrell, Chief Financial Officer, at (601) 426-1454.

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.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Accused of Illegally Terminating Older Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Sanato v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-07486
(N.D. Ill., August 26, 2015) seeks to recover damages proximately
caused by the Defendant's alleged discriminatory termination of
the Plaintiff's employment in violation of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967.

Mr. Sanato was born on September 17, 1962, and is a resident of
Beach Park, Lake County, Illinois.  He started his employment with
Sears in January 2005 and his most recent position was Loss
Prevention Manager.  On December 21, 2012, Sears terminated his
employment for alleged false and pretextual reasons.

Sears is a foreign corporation registered and licensed to do
business in Illinois.  The Company operates a significant business
in Gurnee, Illinois, where its alleged illegal activities took
place.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Coffey, Esq.
          THE COFFEY LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 602
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 627-9700
          E-mail: tcofflaw@sbcglobal.net


TASTEE APPLE: Recalls Plain Caramel Apples Due to Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Tastee Apple, Inc., www.tasteeapple.com, issues allergy alert on
undeclared peanuts in 3-ounce packages of Tastee Apples Plain
Caramel Apples because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People
who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume these products.

The recalled "Plain Caramel Apples" were distributed in eight
states (OH, PA, MD, MA, NY, TX, NJ, IN) in retail stores.

Note that this was not a product quality-issue and only involves
Plain Caramel Apples with the specific UPC 35266-00027 and code
date of 9 29 mentioned below.

The product comes in a 3-ounce, clear-plastic package marked with
UPC 0-35266-00027-3 and an expiration date of 9 29 stamped on the
front label. Some packages were mislabeled, and the Plain Caramel
Apple include peanuts which are not listed in the ingredients on
the labels.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging processes

Production of the single pack Plain Caramel Apple product has been
suspended until a label correction can be made to the Plain
Caramel Apple label.

Customers who purchased the 3-ounce packages of Plain Caramel
Apple listed above are urged to discard them and take their
receipt to the store where purchased for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at:

Tastee Apple, Inc., customerservice@tasteeapple.com,
www.tasteeapple.com

Phone: 740-498-8316 (between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday)

Family-owned and operated since 1974 in the historic Village of
Newcomerstown, Ohio, Tastee Apple, Inc. has sold over 250,000,000
apples with candy, chocolate, caramel, and other toppings. The
only company in the industry certified by the Safe Quality Food
Institute, all of the apples go through a unique, seven-step
rating process to guarantee the quality and freshness of the
fruit. Perfectly-ripe apples are "sticked" in made-from-scratch,
small-batch, kettle-cooked caramel or a candy coating. After the
apples cool, they are rolled in gooey toppings like milk, dark or
white chocolate and then rolled in fresh peanuts, pecans, cookies,
or pretzels. The candy and caramel apples are then carefully
packaged, stored and shipped to stores throughout the country. For
more information on Tastee's apples and fundraising program, visit
www.tasteeapple.com or call 740-498-8316.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464123.htm


TD BANK: Ex-Banker Pleads Guilty in Rothstein Ponzi Scheme Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former Florida executive at TD
Bank has reached a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty for his
role in ex-lawyer Scott Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

Court documents filed on Sept. 29 show that Frank Spinosa will
plead guilty Oct. 8 to wire fraud conspiracy, which carries a
maximum five-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine.
Mr. Spinosa's trial had been set next month.

Prosecutors say Mr. Spinosa used his position at TD Bank to
falsely assure Rothstein's investors their money was safe.
Mr. Rothstein's scam involved investments in phony legal
settlements. It collapsed in fall 2009, followed shortly after by
Rothstein's Fort Lauderdale law firm.

More than two dozen people have been convicted in the scam.
Mr. Rothstein is serving a 50-year prison sentence after pleading
guilty to several charges.


TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls RHINO Capsules Due to Desmethyl
-------------------------------------------------------
TF Supplements of Houston, TX, is voluntarily recalling the
following product to the consumer level: RHINO 7 packaged in a
bottle containing six (6) capsules WITH LOT# K824B719-P and in a
single (1) count capsule hang card with LOT# SU-5102617*RP at the
consumer level. Lot numbers are on the back top right of the (1)
count and on the side of the (6) count bottle. FDA analysis found
these products to contain undeclared desmethyl carbondenafil and
dapoxetine. Desmethyl carbondenafil is a phosphodiesterase PDE-5
inhibitor which is a class of drugs used to treat male erectile
dysfunction, making these products unapproved new drugs.
Dapoxetine is an active ingredient not approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).

Desmethyl carbondenafil may pose a threat to consumers because
this PDE-5 inhibitor may interact with nitrates found in some
prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood
pressure to dangerous levels that can be life threatening.
Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or
heart disease often take nitrates.

Dapoxetine has not been approved by the FDA and therefore its
safety or efficacy has not been established. Chemically,
dapoxetine belongs to a class of drugs known as selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) used to treat depression.
Studies have shown that antidepressants increased the risk of
suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young
adults when compared to placebo. Therefore, consuming these
products presents a health risk which could be life threatening.

TF Supplements has received no reports of illness associated with
these products to date.

These products are marketed as dietary supplements for sexual
enhancement and packaged in (6) count bottle and (1) count hanging
card and distributed to consumers nationwide via are our retail
website tfsupplements.com. TF Supplements has discontinued sales
of these products.

TF Supplements is notifying its customers via e-mail of this
voluntary recall. Consumers that purchased these products from TF
Supplements should stop using them immediately and can return the
products to:

TF Supplements
6666 Gulf Freeway
Houston, TX 77087

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact TF
Supplements by telephone at 866-620-3586 between (Monday - Friday
9:00am to 5:00pm CST). Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using these products. Consumers can report
adverse reactions or quality control problems to the FDA's
MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail,
or by fax as follows:

Complete and submit reporting form online at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm;or
Mail or fax reporting form. Download form at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form. Complete and return to the address on
the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-1078.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464441.htm


TRIMAC TRASPORTATION: Directed to Produce Docs in "McCowen" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District
of California granted in part plaintiff's motion to compel in the
case LODUSKY McCOWEN, Plaintiff, v. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
(WESTERN), INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02694-RS (JSC) (N.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiff Lodusky McCowen is a truck driver who worked for
defendant Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc., a
provider of bulk transportation, logistics, and related
transportation services. Plaintiff worked as a driver for
defendant from their operating terminal based in Santa Fe Springs,
California.

The complaint alleges that defendant failed to comply with a
number of provisions of California state labor law by, among other
things, failing to compensate drivers for all time worked, to pay
wages upon termination, or to provide rest and meal periods.
Plaintiff brings a lawsuit on behalf of all present and former
California-based Trimac truck drivers.

Plaintiff initially served on March 31, 2015, a request for
production (RFP), seeking disclosure of the putative class
members' names and contact information, as well as defendant's
policies, compensation practices, and correspondence regarding
putative class members. Plaintiff also seeks the class list in
electronic form (RFP number 4). In addition, other RFPs numbered
3, 10, 28, 29, 37, 43, and 52 seek class wide information,
including: internal correspondence among Defendant's personnel
discussing the claims in the complaint, communications between
Defendant and putative class members discussing any claims in the
complaint, Defendant's payroll database applicable to the putative
class during the class period identifying the elements of wages
paid, documents that describe or define the categories or elements
of compensation, documents that identify the compensation paid for
the putative class members' meal and rest periods, and all data
transmitted to or from the computer systems on-board putative
class members' trucks during the relevant period.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, seeking (1) an order
compelling defendant to respond to RFP No. 4 by producing the
class list in searchable electronic format; and (2) an order
overruling defendant's objection to the remaining RFPs seeking
classwide discovery and ordering the parties to meet and confer
regarding the scope of the documents and data requested. Plaintiff
also seeks an award of reasonable costs for bringing the instant
motion, including attorneys' fees, in the amount of $4,567.50.

Defendant, for its part, urges the court to deny the motion
regarding RFP No. 4 on multiple grounds: because the request is
premature as plaintiff has failed to satisfy his meet-and-confer
obligations; because plaintiff has not met his burden of
articulating a need for pre-certification discovery or
demonstrating how his need outweighs the putative class members'
privacy interests. With respect to the remaining classwide
discovery, defendant likewise contends that the motion must be
denied because the parties have not completed the meet-and-confer
process.

Magistrate Judge Corley granted in part plaintiff's motion and
directed the defendant to produce the contact information for the
putative class members. The court declined to award fees or costs
to plaintiff.

A copy of Magistrtate Judge Corley's order dated September 4,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/v6SiEffrom Leagle.com.

Lodusky McCowen, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey
-- chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com -- Leslie H. Joyner --
ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com -- Stanley Donald Saltzman --
ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- at Marlin Saltzman, LLP

Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc., Defendant,
represented by Richard Howard Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Angela
Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, PC


TRUCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls Tortilla Chips Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------
Truco Enterprises is recalling select packages of 18 oz. On The
Border Cafe Style Tortilla Chips after notification from a
supplier that select product may have been exposed to a milk-
containing ingredient. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The 18 oz. packages of On The Border Cafe Style Tortilla Chips
affected were distributed in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

The affected product is packaged in 18 oz. bags with expiration
dates of:

  --- DEC 16 2015 SHA
  --- DEC 17 2015 SHA
  --- DEC 18 2015 SHA

The expiration dates are located on the front of the bag in the
upper right hand corner.

No illnesses or reactions have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased product with the above expiration
dates should not consume it. For any questions or concerns, please
contact Truco directly at (800) 471-7723, extension 399, Monday
through Friday 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm464438.htm


VECTOR MARKETING: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Woods" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case WILLIAM
WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION,
Defendant, NO. C-14-0264 EMC (N.D. Cal.)

Vector Marketing Corporation (Vector) sells CUTCO-brand kitchen
cutlery, kitchen accessories, and sporting knives through a direct
marketing sales model which involves, among other things, in-home
sales appointments conducted by Vector's Sales Representatives.

Plaintiffs participated in Vector's sales training program.
Plaintiffs were not paid for any of the time they spent in
training. Plaintiffs contend that Vector's recruits are actually
employees who are entitled to various employment benefits, such as
receipt of minimum or overtime wages.

Vector argued that this was entirely appropriate, as the
plaintiffs were its trainees not entitled to any wages.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for final certification of a collective
action under the FLSA, as well as certification of five state law
wage-and-hour class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 (Rule 23). Vector has also moved for partial decertification of
Plaintiffs' FLSA collective action.

Judge Chen concludes that plaintiffs are similarly situated to the
opt-in class members such that final certification of an FLSA
collective action is appropriate. The court also concludes that
the plaintiffs' proposed state class actions meet the requirements
of Rule 23(a) and (b). However, the plaintiffs' class definitions
must be revised as indicated above. Plaintiffs shall submit
revised definitions consistent with the order within five (5)
days.

A copy of Judge Chen's order dated September 4, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/MqHKHefrom Leagle.com.

William Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group,
P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP
& Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman

Dominic Seale, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group,
P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP
& Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman

Wesley Varughese, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W
Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman,
LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman

Eric Essler, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman, Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman,
Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C. & Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP

Casey McCaleb, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group,
P.C., Hanna Betty Raanan, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H. Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP
& Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman

Samuel Barone-Crowell, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann
Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H.
Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman

Lowell Harvard Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stanley Donald
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Larry W Lee, Diversity Law Group, P.C., Leslie H.
Joyner, Marlin Saltzman, LLP & Christina Ann Humphrey, Marlin &
Saltzman

Vector Marketing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen
Joyce Kubin, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Colette M. Coles, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, David Patrick Zins, Morrison and Foerster LLP, Derek
Francis Foran, Morrison & Foerster LLP, James R. Grasso, Phillips
Lytle LLP, Joanna J. Chen, Phillips Lytle LLP, Kenneth A. Manning,
Phillips Lytle LLP, Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., Morrison & Foerster LLP &
William J. Brennan, Phillips Lytle LLP


VERMONT: Judge Won't Decertify Prisoners' Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Garvan Murtha of the District of Vermont denied
defendants' motion for decertification in the case DAVID McGEE,
RICHARD PAHL, JOSE TORRES, KEVIN KIMBER, DANIEL MUIR, JAMES
ANDERSON, and all other inmates similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ANDREW PALLITO, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections,
ROBERT HOFMAN, KEITH TALLON, CELESTE GIRRELL, JOHN GORCZYK,
KATHLEEN LANMAN, MICHAEL O'MALLEY, ANITA CARBONNEL, STUART
GLADDING, DANIEL FLORENTINE, RAYMOND FLUM, and CAROL CALLEA,
Defendants, NO. 1:04-CV-00335-JGM (D. Vt.)

Plaintiffs filed an injunction suit barring the Vermont Department
of Corrections from continuing their policy of constant
illumination in prison cells. The court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation and certified a class of inmates who have
been subjected, are currently being subjected, or who will be
subjected to constant illumination in Vermont prison cells and who
suffer injuries as a result.

On December 20, 2010, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the class claims. Plaintiff Kevin Kimber appealed the court's
order granting summary judgment, and the Second Circuit vacated
and remanded the case after concluding the court abused its
discretion in appointing as class counsel the Prisoner's Rights
Office of the Vermont Defender General.

The court has appointed Phillips Lytle LLC as class counsel and
the defendants' filed a motion to decertify the class. Defendants
argue that decertification is appropriate at this time due to
intervening changes in the law and new developments in the facts,
that new law and facts defeat commonality and typicality and
require decertification. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion for decertification.

Judge Murtha denied defendants' motion for decertification.

A copy of Judge Murtha's memorandum and order dated September 4,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/OQGM3Ofrom Leagle.com.

David McGee, Plaintiff, represented by:

Dawn M. Seibert, Esq.
Matthew F. Valerio, Esq.
Seth E. Lipschutz, Esq.
Office of the Vermont Defender General
6 Baldwin Street 4th Floor
Montpelier, VT 05633-3301
Telephone: 802-828-3168
Facsimile: 802-828-3163

     - and -

Timothy W. Hoover, Esq.
Phillips Lytle LLP
One Canalside
125 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
Telephone: 716-847-8400
Facsimile: 716-852-6100
Email: thoover@phillipslytle.com

Richard Pahl, Kevin Kimber, Daniel Muir, James Anderson
Plaintiffs, represented by:

Timothy W. Hoover, Esq.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
One Canalside
125 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203-2887
Telephone: 716-847-8400
Facsimile: 716-852-6100
Email: thoover@phillipslytle.com

     - and -

Seth E. Lipschutz, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE VERMONT DEFENDER GENERAL
6 Baldwin Street 4th Floor
Montpelier, VT 05633-3301
Telephone: 802-828-3168
Facsimile: 802-828-3163

Jose Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy W. Hoover, Esq. --
thoover@phillipslytle.com -- at Phillips Lytle LLP

Jose Torres, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by:

Seth E. Lipschutz, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE VERMONT DEFENDER GENERAL
6 Baldwin Street 4th Floor
Montpelier, VT 05633-3301
Telephone: 802-828-3168
Facsimile: 802-828-3163

Defendants, represented by David R. McLean, Esq., Vermont Office
of the Attorney General


WESTERN MILLING: Recalls Horse Feed Products Due to Monensin
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Milling announced that it has voluntarily recalled 50 lb
bags of Western Blend horse feed, LOT 5251, manufactured on
September 8, 2015. This voluntary recall was initiated by Western
Milling after it learned that an ingredient in the feed in
question may contain monensin, an ionophore. According to the FDA,
clinical signs of ionophore poisoning in horses vary depending on
the dosage ingested, but can include poor appetite and feed
refusal of the grain product, diarrhea, weakness, rapid heart
rate, labored breathing, decreased exercise tolerance, depression,
wobbly gait, colic, sweating, recumbency, and sudden death. The
first clinical signs are often noted from 12 to 72 hours after
ingesting a toxic dose and the clinical signs may linger up to
about 8 days. Permanent cardiac damage is possible in horses which
showed adverse effects, but then recovered.

The feed subject to this recall was distributed in September, 2015
to stores in California and Arizona. All stores where the bags
were sold have been notified. Of the 1,100 bags being recalled,
all but 67 bags have already been reclaimed by the company.

Consumers are urged to examine any bags of Western Blend horse
feed purchased in September, 2015 to check and see if they have
Lot 5251. Any bags with this lot number may be returned to the
stores where they were purchased for a full refund.

The voluntary recall comes after notification that several horses
who were reported to have consumed the feed being recalled while
at the same equine facility have died.

For more information, please call the company at 1-559-302-1062.


WILLIAM SONOMA: "Echavarria" Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MXD, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit styled
Echavarria, et al. v. William Sonoma, Inc., et al., Case No. MID L
6373 12, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
06441-AET-LHG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

Defendant William Sonoma, Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan H. Stoler, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 653-8700
          E-mail: jstoler@sheppardmullin.com

Defendant J&J Trucking, Inc. is represented by:

          Anthony Santos Almeida, Esq.
          MASHEL LAW, L.L.C.
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 303
          Morganville, NJ 07751
          Telephone: (732) 536-6161
          Facsimile: (732) 536-6165
          E-mail: asalmeida@mashellaw.com

Defendant MXD, Inc. is represented by:

          Peter Francis Berk, Esq.
          GENOVA BURNS LLC
          494 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102-3230
          Telephone: (973) 230-2071
          E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com


WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Granted Plaintiffs' Bid for Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District of Delaware granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case entitled IN
RE WILMINGTON TRUST SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER CIV. NO. 10-990-
SLR, (CONSOLIDATED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION),(D. Del.)

By an order dated March 7, 2011, the court consolidated a series
of securities fraud class action lawsuits filed against the
Wilmington Trust Corporation and related defendants. A
consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2011.

On June 13, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
which contains seven counts, four under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78a, and three under the Securities
Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, where defendants
opposes and argue that plaintiffs have not satisfied the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), as plaintiffs have
presented no proposed class-wide damages methodology and no
damages proof of any kind. Defendants contend that plaintiffs must
show that damages can be calculated in a class-wide rather than
individual basis.

Judge Robinson granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A copy of Judge Robinson' memorandum dated September 3, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/FTk7X8from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, On Behalf Of Themselves And
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M.
Monhait, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford
deLeeuw, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Merced County Employees Retirement Association, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit
Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP

Coral Springs Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by A.
Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Tiffany Joanne Cramer,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP

St. Petersburg Firefighters Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit
Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP

Pompano Beach General Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit
Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP

Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Brandon
Grzandziel, Hannah G. Ross, Jacob Nachmani, Jonathan M. Stein,
Joseph E. White, Katherine M. Sinderson, Kathryn W. Weidner,
Lauren A. McMillen-Ormsbee, Lester Hooker, Maya S. Saxena, Richard
D. Gluck, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP &Vera
Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP

Timothy Rooney, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela S. Tikellis,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP

Mohammed Elzagha, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M. Monhait,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford deLeeuw,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Wilmington Trust Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jamie
Lynne Edmonson, Venable LLP,Thomas J. Allingham, II, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Christina Louise Golden, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Daniel P. Moylan, James A. Dunbar,
James L. Shea, Lori W. Will, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
Matthew P. Majarian, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom & Robert
Scott Saunders, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Ted T. Cecala, Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jody Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
Donald E. Foley, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant, Pepper
Hamilton LLP & Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

David R. Gibson, Defendant, represented by William M. Lafferty,
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Jay Norman Moffitt, Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, John P. Nowak, Kenneth M.
Breen,Lauren Kimberly Neal, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP &
Phara A. Guberman

Robert V. A. Harra, Jr., Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dupre, McCarter & English, LLP,Daniel J. Brown, McCarter &
English, LLP, Michael P. Kelly, McCarter & English, LLP, Andrew M.
Lawler & Sharon D. Feldman

Kevyn N. Rakowski, Defendant, represented by Andrew Caulfield
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A.,Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton &
Associates P.A., Helen A. Nau & Henry E. Klingeman

Carolyn S. Burger, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

R. Keith Elliott, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP & Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Louis J. Freeh, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Ivan
Knauer & Matthew D. Foster

Gailen Krug, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant, Pepper
Hamilton LLP & Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Rex L. Mears, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant, Pepper
Hamilton LLP & Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Stacey J. Mobley, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Michele M. Rollins, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Oliver R. Sockwell, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Robert W. Tunnell, Jr., Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Susan D. Whiting, Defendant, represented by M. Duncan Grant,
Pepper Hamilton LLP &Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities, Defendant, represented by Jaclyn C. Levy,
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Stephen C. Norman, Potter Anderson
& Corroon, LLP, Alexandra C Pitney, John Anderson Sensing, Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP & Sara A. Ricciardi

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc., Defendant, represented by Jaclyn C.
Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Stephen C. Norman, Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP & John Anderson Sensing, Potter Anderson &
Corroon, LLP
KPMG LLP, Defendant, represented by Virginia Gibson, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, George A. Salter,Kevin T. Baumann, Maxim M.L. Nowak &
Peter J. Dennin

William North, Defendant, represented by David E. Wilks, Wilks,
Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC, Samuel Lee Moultrie, Wilks, Lukoff &
Bracegirdle, LLC, Andrea Schoch Brooks, Wilks, Lukoff &
Bracegirdle, LLC & Laina M. Herbert, Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle,
LLC

FMA Advisory, Inc., Movant, represented by Brian Michael
Gottesman, Berger Harris, LLP

Keith Cordrey, Movant, represented by Brian Michael Gottesman,
Berger Harris, LLP

Public Pension Funds, Movant, represented by Christine S. Azar,
Napoli Law LLC

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C
Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20551 202-452-3436 Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Intervenor, represented
by Jennifer R. Noel, Department of Justice & Yvonne F. Mizusawa,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Delaware Office of the State Bank Commissioner, Intervenor,
represented by Jennifer R. Noel, Department of Justice & Joseph
Clement Handlon, Department of Justice

United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, The Nemours
Building PO Box 2046 1007 Orange Street Ste 700 Wilmington, DE
19899, Intervenor, represented by Robert F. Kravetz, U.S.
Attorney's Office

Pennsylvania Department of BAnking and Securities, Intervenor,
represented by Jennifer R. Noel, Department of Justice


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: API's Insurance Atty's Suit Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------
In early 2005, A.P.I., Inc. filed for relief under Chapter 11 due
to a multi-part problem: multiple, substantial claims in
litigation against it, for damages based on plaintiffs' exposure
to asbestos in materials sold or installed by it; at least one
very large unsatisfied judgment on such liability; and substantial
contests with its liability insurers over the continuation of
coverage for such liability.  On December 6, 2005, the court
confirmed the Debtor's plan of reorganization.  Under the plan, a
trust for the benefit of claimants on asbestos-related claims was
established.  Provisions were made for the funding of the trust by
the Debtor from its assets and by insurers cashing-out their
residual coverage liability.  Asbestos-exposure claims against the
Debtor and against settling insurers were channeled into the
trust.  And, procedures for the administration of the trust and
the processing and payment of claims were established.  The
Chapter 11 case was closed on February 29, 2008.

In June, 2015, Faricy Law Firm, P.A., commenced an action in the
Minnesota State District Court for the Second Judicial District,
Ramsey County, asserting that it once had an attorney-client
relationship with the Debtor.  After the proceeding was commenced,
the Debtor's Chapter 11 case was reopened on application of the
Trust.  The reopening enabled the Trust to remove the proceeding
to the the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Minnesota under the Trust's assertion of the federal bankruptcy
jurisdiction.  The Faricy Firm promptly filed a motion for
abstention and remand.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory F. Kishel, held that the federal
court has no jurisdiction over the petition for attorney's lien
and ordered the remand of the entire action to the Ramsey County
District Court for further proceedings.

The adversary case is FARICY LAW FIRM, P.A., Petitioner, v.
A.P.I., INC. ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Debtor, ADV NO. 15-3096
(Bankr. D. Minn.).

The bankruptcy case is In re: A.P.I., INC., Debtor, NO. BKY 05-
30073 (Bankr. D. Minn.).

A full-text of the Order dated September 9, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/GOcZpSfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John H. Faricy Jr., Esq.
         Vadim Trifel, Esq.
         FARICY LAW FIRM, P.A.
         120 South 6th Street, Suite 2450
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-927-2590
         Fax: 612-338-3272

Defendant is represented by:

         Benjamin Gurstelle, Esq.
         Justin P. Weinberg, Esq.
         BRIGGS AND MORGAN P A
         2200 IDS Center
         80 South Eighth Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612.977.8400
         Fax: 612.977.8650
         Email: bgurstelle@briggs.com
                jweinberg@briggs.com

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, A.P.I. Inc., f/k/a A.P.I.
Construction Company -- http://www.apigroupinc.com/-- is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the API Group, Inc., and is an
industrial insulation contractor.  The Company filed for chapter
11 protection on January 5, 2005 (Bankr. D. Minn. Case No.
05-30073).  James Baillie, Esq., at Fredrikson & Byron P.A.,
represents the Debtor in its restructuring.  When the Debtor filed
for protection from its creditors, it listed total assets of
$34,702,179 and total debts of $63,000,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 6 Suits, Claims for $463K
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the 39-weeks ended August
29, 2015, six asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were settled
for $463,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 29, 2015.

The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course
of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims,
investigations and proceedings, including product liability,
personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property,
environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters.
While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we
have concluded, based upon currently available information, that
the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in
the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation described in the
following paragraphs, will not have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

"We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result
of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"For the 39-weeks ended August 29, 2015, six asbestos-related
lawsuits and claims were settled for $463,000. The Company also
reported $373,000 insurance payments received or expected to be
received.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company's core product offering is Industrial adhesives which are
used in manufacturing common consumer and industrial goods,
including food and beverage containers, disposable diapers,
windows, doors, flooring, appliances, sportswear, footwear, multi-
wall bags, water filtration products,  insulation, textiles and
electronics. The Company has a range of product offerings for
residential construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives,
grout, sealants and related products. The Company operates in four
segments: Americas Adhesives, EIMEA (Europe, India, Middle East
and Africa), Asia Pacific and Construction Products. It has sales
operations in over 40 countries in North America, Europe, Latin
America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East and
Africa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Complicates Wis. Chamber Renovation
----------------------------------------------------------------
La Crosse Tribune reported that plans to renovate the La Crosse
city council chambers for four fewer seats by April 2017 could be
more complicated -- and costly -- due to asbestos sprayed in the
ceiling, city officials said.

The Public Works Department has been authorized to hire consultant
Coulee Region Environmental LLC for about $7,500 to assess the
extent of the asbestos contamination and whether it can be sealed
or must be removed, said Robert Haines, assistant public works
director.

The same company did an asbestos survey in the building in 2008
and so is familiar with the problem, Haines said.

The city plans to downsize from 17 seats to 13 in the April 2017
elections. The chambers now have seating for 18 council members,
plus a raised section in front for the mayor, city clerk and some
department heads.

City officials also want to reconfigure the seats so no council
members have their backs to the audience, as is now the case.

The city has included $215,000 in the 2016 capital improvement
budget and slated another $200,000 for 2017 to pay for chamber
renovations. The Board of Public Works on approved taking $193,000
from city reserves to start the design process and other
preliminary work for the project, including possible asbestos
abatement.

That might not be enough, however, if it's determined all the
asbestos now above the audience area has to come out to avoid
exposing anyone to the material during construction, Haines said.

The asbestos was sprayed onto a metal mesh in the ceiling,
allowing it to contaminate pipes, cables, wiring, light fixtures
and other infrastructure behind it, Haines said. It might require
removing or replacing all of that equipment, he said.

While it's possible something could be used to encapsulate the
asbestos, he fears that would only be a temporary solution --
"just postpone the inevitable," Haines said.

Doing nothing likely will not be an option, as any work done in
the chambers could potentially disturb the asbestos, putting
workers and City Hall staff at risk, Haines said. The chamber set-
up was custom-made, so taking out the desks and seating will be
difficult.

He expects Coulee Region Environmental will come back with its
asbestos recommendations about the same time architectural
proposals for the chamber redesign are taken in mid-October.

"Just trying to lay out the options," Haines said, "and let them
(city officials) decide."

Asbestos problems led La Crosse County leaders to decide to shift
offices from the current administrative center to the Associated
Bank building in late 2016 rather than bear the expense of
clearing the building for cleanup.

The asbestos in City Hall is far less extensive than in the county
administrative center, as some of it was removed decades ago when
they installed new lighting, Haines said. He's not sure why all
the asbestos wasn't taken out at that time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Workers Rewarded $9K Over Fibro Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Sherwood, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that a pair of
contractors who raised the alarm about patients potentially being
exposed to asbestos at Christchurch Hospital have been awarded
$9,000 compensation.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found exterior building
firm Goleman unjustifiably dismissed employees Neil Silcock and
Liam Milner in 2013.

The contractors were exposed to white asbestos while working on
the roof  of the hospital's earthquake-damaged Parkside building
in April 2013.

They publicly raised concerns over the way Goleman allegedly
failed to warn its staff about the hazardous material and
potentially put patients at risk.

Two asbestos-related charges laid against the company and the
Canterbury District Health Board by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment were withdrawn.

ERA member Helen Doyle said she accepted the pair were exposed to
asbestos without their knowledge, which caused "considerable
stress and concern".

"They clearly suffered injury to their feelings as a result of the
failure by Goleman to communicate its knowledge of the presence of
asbestos to them and allow them to make decisions about how to
keep safe."

Silcock and Milner were "treated unjustifiably" in terms of their
employment agreements when work was not provided.

"The matter though which caused them the most humiliation and loss
of dignity was the breach of the duty by Goleman to take all
practicable steps to provide a safe and healthy workplace," Doyle
said.

"Both spoke of suffering depression and they left New Zealand to
find work."

The ERA ruling stated Goleman believed it provided Silcock and
Milner with a safe workplace, and did not believe it breached
their employment agreements.

"It says that it acted in good faith throughout their employment
and has a very strong health and safety culture and zero tolerance
to any health and safety breach," Doyle said.

She ordered Goleman to pay the pair $9000 each in compensation.
Goleman was also ordered to pay Silcock three months worth of lost
wages, and Milner one month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Mont. University Building
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Grayson, writing for MontanaKaimin.com, reported that The
University of Montana's Charles H. Clapp Building needs renovation
to remove asbestos, but UM won't make those repairs until it can
request funding from the state legislature again in 2017.

Signs at the building's entryways warn students and workers not to
disturb ceiling tiles or so much as change a light bulb.
Maintenance workers adhere to guidelines for avoiding asbestos
exposure laid out in the University's asbestos operation and
maintenance plans. When work needs to be done in the Clapp
Building, workers must contain the area so no unprotected people
will be exposed. The workers wear respiratory gear, and any
material containing asbestos is removed from the building and
disposed of carefully.

Asbestos is dangerous if the fibers are released into the air. The
University plan warns that asbestos can cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma, digestive system cancers and asbestosis. Exposure to
asbestos has no immediate effects, but these diseases usually show
up 15 to 40 years later.

Asbestos has already been removed from the third and fourth floors
of the building, but the remainder contains asbestos in the
ceiling.

"As long as it's above the ceiling, it's safe," Kevin Krebsbach,
associate director of planning and construction, said. He said the
ceiling tiles are a barrier to prevent asbestos particles from
reaching students and staff.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
exposure usually only occurs when material is disturbed and
releases the asbestos into the air.

Asbestos is a mineral that tends to break into invisible
particles. It can be present in products from fireproofing
material to hair dryers, but its main use was in cost-effective
building materials.

According to the Mesothelioma Center's asbestos website, asbestos
use in the U.S. peaked in 1973 and began to decline in the late
1970s, and the Environmental Protection Agency banned all new use
of asbestos in 1989. The Clapp Building was built in 1971.

Last legislative session, Senate Bill 416 included 10 million
dollars of funding for Clapp Building renovations, Kevin McRae,
deputy commissioner for communications and human resources in the
office of the commissioner of higher education, said. The bill
died in committee.

The University's only option is to put together another bill to
submit the next legislative session in the spring of 2017.

"The Clapp Building is a high-priority need," McRae said.

He said the renovations would be considered when coming up with
the next plan.

UM student Jason Bowman said that while he cares about the
asbestos in the Clapp Building, he trusts that if it were a big
concern, UM would have done something about it.

At the end of the day, Bowman said, "the University's going to do
what the University's going to do."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Amount of Fibro Found at Ngawha Springs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter de Graaf, writing for The Northern Advocate, reported that
the re-opening of a hot pool complex at Ngawha Springs appears
unlikely -- in the near future at least -- after contractors
reported finding large quantities of asbestos at the site.

In July lines company Top Energy bought Ginn's Ngawha Spa, just
east of Kaikohe, and the adjoining farm as part of its plans to
expand the nearby geothermal power station.

The pool complex was closed immediately, pending an upgrade, but
the campground and former spa hotel -- rented out as accommodation
-- remained open.

However, campers and a tenant were told to leave at short notice
and danger signs were erected after contractors assessing the
pools for an upgrade found more asbestos than expected.

Top Energy chief executive Russell Shaw said the company had hoped
to be able to upgrade and re-open the pools quickly, despite
"significant issues" around the condition of the site and
facilities.

Pre-sale inspections suggested a "manageable amount" of asbestos
had been used to build the pool complex.

Expert advice received, however, was that asbestos had been widely
used and no-one could safely be on site, Mr Shaw said. Other
issues included derelict and hazardous buildings and unsafe
walkways.

The company had notified staff and contractors that they may have
been exposed to asbestos.

Mr Shaw said the development was "deeply saddening".

"This is a place of significant historic and cultural importance.
It's precious to the local community and we really wanted to make
something special of it and to bring it up to the standard of
other attractions in the region."

Top Energy could not say when, or if, the pools would re-open. The
company was still digesting the reports and considering its
options, Mr Shaw said.

A security guard was making sure no one entered the site. The main
asbestos problems are thought to be in the fibrolite changing
rooms, but warning signs have also been placed on other buildings
around the site.

Fibrolite is widely used around Northland, including Ngawha
Springs, in buildings of the same era.

Ngawha Spa's closure does not affect the nearby Waiariki hot
pools, which are operated by the Parahirahi C1 Trust and remain
open.

Although rather rundown, Ngawha's hot-pool complexes are the main
tourist attractions in the Kaikohe area. Ngawha Spa had one of the
only campgrounds in the area and featured in the 2004 cult
documentary Kaikohe Demolition.

Top Energy was granted a raft of consents to expand its nearby
geothermal power plant from 25MW to 75MW, subject to conditions.

The consents may yet be appealed. Opponents include the Parahirahi
C1 Trust, which is concerned about possible effects on its hot
pools.

Ngawha's geothermal field is the biggest in the country after the
Central Plateau.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Company Fined Over School Fibro Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that State
environmental regulators have fined a Wilsonville company $4,600
for violating asbestos regulations during a project at Salem's
Swegle Elementary School.

Rose City Contracting provided the Department of Environmental
Quality with incorrect start and end dates for the project, and
failed to accurately describe the type, location and quantity of
asbestos to be removed.

DEQ discovered the violations during an inspection on June 17,
2015.

Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung
cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. To protect the public, DEQ
regulates the proper removal, packaging and disposal of asbestos.

The company had until Sept. 28 to appeal the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Macclesfield's Tesco Shut for Fibro Clean Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Tidman, writing for Macclesfield Express, reported that the
Tesco Metro store in Macclesfield town centre has closed while
asbestos is removed.

The Exchange Street store closed and will re-open on November 26
after a general refurbishment.

A spokesman from the store said: "Essential maintenance to remove
low risk asbestos will also take place and the cash machine will
be switched off as the power supply to the building is turned
off."

Cheshire East Council said they had been consulted over previous
works in the Macclesfield Tesco store on materials possibly
containing asbestos.

A council spokesman said: "The work was carried out in accordance
with laid down procedures to safeguard staff and members of the
public.

"The company has been informed that in the event of any further
work involving asbestos material or suspected asbestos, the local
authority or the Health and Safety Executive may need to be
notified."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trucking Co. Settles Fibro Suit for $150K
----------------------------------------------------------
Kron4.com reported that the Monterey County District Attorney's
office settled an environmental protection case involving the
illegal disposal of toxic asbestos waste.

Robles had improperly stripped and removed insulation consisting
of 10 percent asbestos from steam lines and steel pipes while
dismantling a greenhouse, according to Monterey County Deputy
District Attorney James Burlison.

Robles and Robles Trucking Quality Service, Inc. workers then
improperly transported and attempted to dispose of the asbestos-
containing waste at Johnson Canyon Landfill in Gonzales even
though the landfill does not accept hazardous waste, Burlison
said.

Robles and his company were stopped at the landfill and the
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District alerted,
Burlison said.

According to the office of the District Attorney, Robles and his
crew failed to perform the required work practices that must be
followed when disturbing asbestos and failed to follow the laws
involved in proper transportation and disposal of hazardous waste.

"It's a strict liability offense," Burlison said. "Their claim was
that they didn't know it contained asbestos. But at the end of the
day, they accepted liability."

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to
asbestos can increase the risk of lung cancers and lung diseases.

"It's encoded in federal law that there is no known safe exposure
level to asbestos," Burlison said. "If you are even transporting
it, people in the public can breathe the asbestos fibers."

According to the district attorney's office, the defendants
cooperated with the prosecutor in resolving the case and agreed to
pay the settlement, which includes $110,000 in civil penalties and
$40,000 for the costs of the investigation and enforcement. The
amount of civil penalties will be reduced by $30,000 if the
defendants timely dispose of the waste as set forth in the
judgment, according to the district attorney's office.

"A lot of pipes have asbestos in them," Burlison said. "Be careful
and have a professional check. Contact the air district and don't
put the public at risk. It costs a little extra, but you want to
make sure you do it the right way."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Sues School for Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Reighard, writing for Wkyt.com, reported that Roger and
Evelyn Hall are holding onto each other a little tighter these
days.

Roger was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma
about one year ago.

He taught history at the old Letcher High School from 1976 to
2003.

"If you wanted to have a decent life, you had to become a doctor,
a lawyer, school teacher, so on. So, I figured a school teacher is
easy enough," Roger Hall said.

Hall spent a lot of time in the break room at the high school.
It's now an office at Letcher Elementary. He said he ate lunch
there.

"You had no thought that you were limiting your life," Hall said.

When he found out he had Mesothelioma, he did some research. One
thing kept coming up: asbestos.

"When I asked several people I worked with is there asbestos in
that school? They said it was loaded with it," Hall said.

Hall filed a lawsuit against various members of the school
district saying asbestos exposure caused his cancer.

As of, the principal of Letcher Elementary says they are dealing
with asbestos.

"We always kind of knew it was here. We just assumed it was being
taken care of the way it was supposed to be taken care of,"
Letcher Elementary Principal Wendy Rutherford said.

Rutherford said in the seven years she's worked at Letcher
Elementary, the custodians have followed protocol. They clean and
wax the tile in order to prevent asbestos exposure.

The hallway in the school was recently sealed. However, some
classrooms and the cafeteria still have the old tile.

"It is something I do think we need to address just for the safety
of our students and staff and to help with fears any people have,"
Rutherford said. "I think it's a wise call for our board to remove
the tile."

The principal said the school sends home a letter to parents each
year discussing asbestos safety. The letter also says parents can
ask for a copy of the school's plan to keep everyone safe.

For Hall, there is no going back. At one point, doctors said he
had eight months to live.

"I had plans," Hall said. "I'm 64 years old. Other than with this,
pretty good shape and really wanting to do some things and enjoy a
little bit of my life."

Hall said he hopes this lawsuit will mean financial compensation,
but more than that, peace of mind.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Claims on the Rise, Say Experts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hartlepool Mail reported that increasing numbers of white collar
workers are succumbing to asbestos-related diseases after years of
low-level workplace exposure, a lawyer has warned.

John Hall, Esq. -- JHall@tbilaw.co.uk -- managing partner with
Tilly Bailey & Irvine Solicitors, which has offices in Hartlepool
and Wynyard Park, told of the problem.

But he also warned that the workers claims against their employers
are proving difficult to substantiate.

Mr Hall's claim comes as the British Medical Journal reports an
expected asbestos-related disease epidemic, likely to peak around
2020.

The deadliest such disease is mesothelioma, which has no cure.

He said: "Mesothelioma has mostly affected those who have worked
in heavy industry without protection against the asbestos dust
they were exposed to. However, more recently cases have appeared
where teachers and office workers have developed this disease.
These occupations were not previously considered at risk, but the
evidence shows that low level exposure to the dust is sufficient
to cause disease.

"Mesothelioma develops between 25 and 50 years after the asbestos
exposure, and many of the cases we see now involve exposure in the
1960s and 70s. At that time many white collar workers would have
been unknowingly exposed to low levels of the dust in their
workplace. Only now is it revealing itself as the disease
develops."

He added: "Whilst it is difficult to substantiate a claim against
the owners of the building where a person worked, or the local
authority if applicable, we are expecting increasing numbers of
such cases in the coming years.

"Therefore a lawyer who is tracking relevant case law will be best
able to advise anyone suffering from this disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Wash. Elementary School
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hayes, writing for Winona Post, reported that asbestos was
found in the floor tiles at Washington-Kosciusko (W-K) Elementary
after officials were searching for a leak in the art room.

At the last School Board meeting, Winona Area Public Schools
(WAPS) Building and Grounds Director Bill O'Laughlin assured the
board that measures were being taken to contain the asbestos.
Staff and students' safety was the top priority, O'Laughlin said.

On September 10, W-K developed a leak in the art room. O'Laughlin
and his team were able to contain the leak by shutting off the
water to a women's bathroom, the kitchen and the teachers' lounge.
When O'Laughlin began searching for the leak, he found that the
waterlines from the art room lead up through the ceiling and cross
beneath the floor. "The floor tile is asbestos, so we have to take
and abate that area," O'Laughlin said. He said that the cost of
abatement will be covered by the Health and Safety budget.

O'Laughlin said that several areas were affected by the asbestos,
including the cafeteria and kitchen. He is working with district
food services staff and W-K Principal Brad Berzinski to make
arrangements for students. "We'll have lunch set up in the
gymnasium area," O'Laughlin explained. "That's going to hopefully
be not too long, but it could be up to a couple of weeks before we
have the new floors installed."

Other modifications have been made.The water was shut off to the
kitchen because of the leak, and dishes are currently being
shipped back to Winona Senior High School.

The abatement process will begin on September 25. Over the
weekend, an abatement team will remove the asbestos. The air will
be tested to make sure that it is safe for students to return to
the building for school. Currently, the area is sealed off from
the rest of W-K to prevent the asbestos from contaminating any
other areas.

According to Bruce Lange, industrial hygienist at the Minnesota
Department of Health, many older buildings contain asbestos before
it was banned as a building material in 1978 after finding that
the material can cause respiratory illnesses when inhaled.
However, according to Lange, if a building was build prior to that
date, there's a possibility that it contains asbestos.

W-K was built in 1936 and O'Laughlin estimates that the abatement
area is around 81 years old. "When we're in these old buildings,
we also have to remember that that material in there potentially
has asbestos," O'Laughlin said. Asbestos can be found in a variety
of materials -- from flooring to plaster to the glue holding the
ceiling tiles together.

O'Laughlin is required to do building inspections twice a year.
According to Lange, if material with greater than one percent of
asbestos is found, district officials are required to notify the
Minnesota Department of Health.

"We manage our asbestos very well," O'Laughlin said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Liable for $13MM in Talc Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
the mesothelioma verdict was handed down quietly back in April,
but it has huge implications for any consumer and would-be
plaintiff who may have used talcum powder manufactured by Colgate-
Palmolive. And with 95 percent liability, the defendant winds up
with the largest share of the $13 million asbestos jury verdict.

Mesothelioma and asbestosis lawsuits are usually centered on
manufacturing, as asbestos was popularly used as insulation and as
a fire retardant. Asbestos is still used, albeit sparingly in some
industries. And asbestosis disease has also befallen individuals
tasked with clearing asbestos out of old buildings during
renovations. If workers are not properly protected, they can and
do become the victims of asbestosis disease and mesothelioma --
two related diseases associated with asbestos exposure.

A little-known cause of asbestosis and mesothelioma that has flown
under the radar and dwarfed by the higher-profile sources is
talcum powder. The oft-used product that was employed daily for
comfort and hygiene by a previous generation was once manufactured
with traces of asbestos, or so it has been alleged.

In her asbestos claim, plaintiff Judith Winkel noted that she was
a regular user of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder, manufactured by
Colgate-Palmolive. In January, Winkel was diagnosed with
asbestosis mesothelioma, a fatal lung disease that often takes
decades to emerge following exposure and usually claims its
victims within two years of diagnosis.

Winkel alleged in her lawsuit that Colgate-Palmolive knew or
should have been aware of the dangers of asbestos since the 1930s.
The jury in the asbestos lawsuit deliberated for just two hours
before handing the defendant the vast majority of the liability in
the case and awarding Winkel and her husband John $13 million with
a unanimous finding for the plaintiffs on five counts: consumer
expectations, risk-benefit, manufacturing defect, failure to warn
and negligence. The jury also found that Colgate-Palmolive acted
with malice.

The asbestos lawsuit was tried in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In an unrelated matter, the Attorney General for the state of
Illinois announced in August an asbestos lawsuit against the owner
of the former Pillsbury Mills manufacturing plant in Springfield,
Illinois, and its on-site demolition contractor. The allegation is
that the facility owner Pillsbury Mills, contractor Midwest
Demolition & Scrap Inc. and co-owner Joseph Chernis violated the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act as well as related federal
regulations by not properly containing asbestos during demolition.

Attorney General for the state of Illinois Lisa Madigan filed her
office's complaint in Sangamon County. "The defendants' disregard
of the proper procedures to dispose of harmful, cancer-causing
materials is inexcusable," said Madigan, in an official press
release. "This lawsuit will ensure that current operations stop,
and will require the defendants to take immediate steps to prevent
workers and residents from being exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graveyard Worker to Face Re-Trial in Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mix96.co.uk reported that an Aylesbury graveyard supervisor is to
face a re-trial over allegations he ordered his staff to bury
toxic asbestos at a cemetery.

It was claimed Robert Taft of Kings Close in Westcott asked
cemetery staff to dispose of the highly hazardous substance down a
hole that had recently been dug after large piles of rubbish had
begun to build up.

The 62 year-old is to face a re-trial at Amersham Crown Court in
December after a previous trial against him collapsed earlier.

Taft, formerly the supervisor in charge of the cemetery in
Aylesbury denies depositing a controlled waste.

The case has been brought against him by Buckinghamshire County
Council.

It's alleged a large pile of waste that had been allowed to
accumulate was simply tipped into a hole dug in a new extension to
cemetery to test how far down graves could be dug.

The full extent of the dumping was not discovered for another two
years, it is claimed, after Taft gave further instructions to
staff to dig it back up again.

Among the piles of waste were roofing tiles made of deadly
asbestos, which came from old allotment sheds that were torn down
to make way for the cemetery extension.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cue Police Station Closed Due to Deadly Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alyesha Anderson, writing for The Telegraph, reported that Cue
Police Station has been closed temporarily amid asbestos fears,
after the material was found at the neighbouring police officer's
residence.

The officers will be relocated about 800m down the street to the
Shire of Cue building on Austin Street.

Police vacated the station as a precaution after test results
indicated the presence of asbestos at the neighbouring police
officer residence.

Building works were due to commence at the 120-year-old police
station, which will now remain closed until further notice.

A police spokesman said there should be no impact on emergency
response activities and minimal disruption to front counter
services.

The building will undergo more testing and an assessment to see
how best to remove the asbestos.

There is no change to police contact numbers.

Members of the public are advised to contact 131 444 for police
attendance or 000 in a life threatening emergency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $30MM Fibro Suit vs. Nissan, Maremont Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, writing for Law360.com, reported that brake lining
manufacturer Maremont, car maker Nissan and two others on escaped
a $30 million product liability suit in California by a mechanic
who claimed exposure to asbestos in auto parts over the last 50
years led to him developing mesothelioma.

After two and a half days of deliberation, a state jury found that
Nissan Motor Co. and Maremont Corp., along with an auto parts
supplier and a brake shoe grinding machine maker, had not acted
negligently and had properly warned Steve Swasey of the potential
risks of the products they manufactured or sold, which at times
over the 50 years did contain asbestos.

According to the verdict sheet, the jury indicated that it
believed Swasey was exposed to asbestos from products made by
defendants, but it found that the products performed as safely as
an ordinary consumer would expect. The jury also decided the four
defendants had proved that the benefits of the design of the
manufactured products outweighed the risks.

Edward Slaughter of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, who
represented Maremont in the suit, told Law360 that his firm found
strong scientific evidence supporting their claim that exposure to
asbestos in brake pads doesn't cause mesothelioma. But he said
proving that to the jury came down to finding quality experts to
testify, one of which included a former director of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

"The key thing we learned is that if you get the right kind of
experts and present the right data that's out there, and in a way
that a jury can understand it that ... they listened to
complicated evidence presented by our experts and the jury got it,
and they were able to make an informed decision in this case,"
Slaughter said.

Prior to becoming an auto mechanic in 1965, Swasey was an officer
and mechanic in the U.S. Navy, working below deck among steam
pipes and insulation in ships that were notorious for containing
huge amounts of asbestos, Slaughter said. Almost all of the
experts agreed that Swasey's highest exposure to the deadly
material came from that time in his life, which likely weighed in
the jury's decision, according to the attorney.

The jury verdict brings an end to what began as a complaint lodged
by Swasey and his wife, Virginia, against more than 30 companies
in the auto industry, claiming they acted negligently, were
strictly liable and failed to warn him of the dangers of working
with their products that contained asbestos, which ultimately led
to his development of the lung disease mesothelioma, according to
an amended complaint filed in May.

By the time the case reached the trial stage, which began in late
July, the list of defendants had been cut down to 11, and by the
conclusion of the case, the defendant list was at four. Swasey's
attorney had asked the jury to award more than $30 million in
compensatory damages, to no avail.

Representatives for Swasey did not immediately return a request
for comment. Counsel information for Nissan and the other two
defendants, I.B. Benedict Co. and AMMCO Tools Inc., was not
immediately available.

Maremont Corp. is represented by Edward Slaughter, Esq. --
eslaughter@hptylaw.com -- Macy Chan, Esq. -- mchan@hptylaw.com --
and Alex Taheri, Esq. -- ataheri@hptylaw.com -- of Hawkins Parnell
Thackston & Young LLP.

Hennessy is represented by Bob Rich, Esq. -- rrich@gordonrees.com
-- Kevin Whalen, Esq. -- and Sam Jubelirer, Esq. --
sjubelirer@gordonrees.com -- of Gordon & Rees LLP.

Swasey is represented by Jessica Dean, Esq. -- jdean@dobllp.com --
and Amin Omar, Esq. -- aomar@dobllp.com -- of Dean Omar & Branham
LLP; and Roger Gold of the Gold Law Firm.

The case is Steve and Virginia Swasey v. asbestos companies et
al., case number RG15758585, in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Alameda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Condo Assoc. Fined For Improper Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Crumpacker, writing for SaintPetersblog.com, reported that
sloppy asbestos removal is costing the Portofino at Largo
Condominium Association and its parent company, Waterstone Capital
Portofino at Largo, LLC, nearly $43,000 in county fines.

The EPA's Criminal Investigation Division contacted Pinellas' Air
Quality Division in June of 2014 with a complaint about some
renovations taking place at Portofino at Largo, also known as
Portofino at Indian Rocks Beach.

Inspections by the county's Air Quality Division ensued, with two
taking place in June, three in July, and one in August of 2014.

Portofino, during renovations to eight separate condo units, was
found to have improperly "disturbed" asbestos in 25,984 square
feet of textured ceiling materials, 3,312 square feet of vinyl
floor sheeting, 2,250 square feet of drywall systems, 460 square
feet of exterior stucco, 6,800 square feet of roof shingles, and
in more than 160 square feet of exterior paint.

According to the Air Quality Division inspections, asbestos was
found coating walls, shelving and floors. It was observed
scattered as debris on stairwells, landings, parking lots and
landscaped areas.

"Friable" (easily crumbled) asbestos, part of some textured
ceiling materials, was also found to have been stripped from the
referenced facility without first being adequately wetted, as the
county code requires.

A trained on-site representative wasn't present during the removal
of the 25,984 square feet of asbestos containing ceiling materials
either, contends the inspection reports. Asbestos from this
particular removal was allegedly found in the interior of
condominium units, open back porches, stairwells, landings,
landscaped grassy areas and parking lots as well.

Perhaps the most damaging violation to the county on the whole:
asbestos was found to have been deposited in open-top roll-off
dumpster containers after first being contained in bags that were
not completely sealed, as is the county regulation. The roll-off
dumpster containers were subsequently transported to Angelo's
Recycled Materials and Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal
facilities. Since the asbestos shipment was never identified as
regulated asbestos containing waste, it was deposited into the
county incinerator, instead of being buried in the proper manner.

Certain waste shipment records were also found not to have been
created.

Pinellas County Commission approved a consent order which the Air
Quality Division and the two respondents -- Eli Dadon, of
Portofino at Largo Condo Association, and Richard Waserstein, of
Waterstone Capital Portofino at Largo -- have agreed upon. It
states that $42,945 in fines shall be paid by the respondents to
the Pinellas County Air Pollution Recovery Fund in quarterly
installments of $10,736, with the final payment being for one
dollar more, beginning August 1, 2015.

According to the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of
Epidemiology, prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause
serious and fatal illnesses, including lung cancer and
mesothelioma.

Portofino at Largo, aka Portofino at Indian Rocks, is located at
13300 Walsingham Road, in Largo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Roof Sheets Serious Threat to Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam News reported that the use of asbestos in roofing sheet
plants in Viet Nam has led to severe consequences for workers'
health, a workshop in Ha Noi was told.

The event was co-organised by the Viet Nam Union of Science and
Technology Associations (VUSTA), the Environment Health Management
Department under the Health Ministry and Viet Nam Ban Asbestos
Network (Vn-BAN).

"White asbestos is harmful to human health. It can cause
pneumoconiosis, pleural effusion and other fatal diseases such as
lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma, esophageal cancer and ovarian
cancer," said Vice Chairman of VUSTA, Phan Tung Mau.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has listed asbestos among the
most deadly occupational carcinogens. It says it causes about half
the cancer deaths in the workplace.

There are more than 40 factories making asbestos roofing across 23
provinces and cities nationwide. Over the last 10 years, the
country has been among the world's 10 largest users of asbestos.
It consumes about 65,000tonnes every year.

Hospital surveillance 2012 showed a high percentage of asbestos-
related diseases.

Viet Nam has already taken measures to reduce the harm of asbestos
to health. The use of amosite (brown asbestos) and crocidolite
(blue asbestos) were prohibited in 2004. However, chrysotile
(white asbestos) has yet to be banned.

"Asbestos is a hazardous material that affects not only workers
but also consumers of products containing it," said Tran Tuan,
director of the Research and Training Centre for Community
Development (RTCCD).

"In Viet Nam, most asbestos roofing sheets are used by people with
low incomes and in housing programme for the poor ," Tuan said.

"In the long term, those people's health will be severely
impacted, leading to poverty and illness," he added.

The Government has decided to implement a plan to replace
asbestos. The Ministry of Construction was instructed to develop a
specific roadmap for the elimination procedure of white asbestos
in roofing production in 2020.

The Ministry of Health was asked to co-operate with the Ministry
of Science and Technology to build a national action plan on
eradicating asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SBHA Spends GBP180K to Reduce Fibro Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keddie, writing for Hawick News, reported that the Scottish
Borders Housing Association (SBHA), which owns 5,663 former local
authority homes, has invited tenders for a surveying contract
which will be worth around GBP180,000 over the next three years.

"We aim to ensure all materials containing asbestos are
effectively managed and any risk to tenants is reduced to its
lowest practical level," said an SBHA spokesperson.

The new contractor will be in place before the Selkirk-based
landlord announces its new five year investment programme early.

"Most homes, not just ours, which were built between the 1950s and
the 1990s are likely to contain some materials which contain
asbestos," said the spokesperson.

"Like all housing providers, SBHA has arrangements in place for
the removal of asbestos before major works.

"We have recently introduced a new asbestos management plan and,
as part of this, we are re-tendering our arrangements for the
inspection and removal of asbestos . . . moving from a list of
preferred suppliers to a longer-term framework arrangement which
will give value for money, economy of scale and provide a faster
service.

"In future years we are likely to be undertaking considerable
works to the outside of homes, so the level of inspection will be
increasing.

"The inspections allow us to plan for and manage risks around
asbestos being disturbed during these works.

"Where removal is necessary, the arrangements are undertaken by
licensed contractors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballymena Co. Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballymena Times reported that sentencing at Antrim Crown Court
comes after a Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland
(HSENI) investigation into how, over several days in April 2014,
employees and sub-contractors at the company's premises at
Pennybridge Industrial Estate, Ballymena, were exposed to
asbestos.

On or around April 8, 2014, while preparing the site for the
installation of two overhead cranes in a workshop, asbestos
insulation board was removed in an uncontrolled manner by two
Metallix Ltd employees. In addition, from around April 8, 2014 to
April 15, 2014, the contaminated area continued to be accessed by
employees and sub-contractors.

Metallix Ltd manufactures metal components and sub-assemblies for
the automotive industry and employs around 130 staff, with
approximately 50 based at its Pennybridge site.

Speaking after sentencing Jonathan Knox, an inspector with HSENI's
major investigation team, said: "Metallix Ltd needlessly put at
risk the health of more than 50 people by its failure to properly
manage asbestos containing materials at its Pennybridge site. This
failure was compounded by the fact that, after two of its
employees destructively removed asbestos insulation board, the
company then failed to prevent access to the contaminated area
over a number of days.

"Any company that intends to do work on buildings built prior to
the year 2000 must ensure that they have taken all reasonable
steps to check whether asbestos is present before work starts.
This information must then be shared with anyone involved in the
proposed work."

On average over recent years, more than 60 people die every year
in Northern Ireland as a result of breathing in asbestos fibres,
making it the biggest single cause of work-related deaths here.

When asbestos fibres are breathed in, they can become lodged in
the lungs or digestive tract which can lead to lung cancer or
other diseases. However, symptoms usually don't appear until
several decades after exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former School Caretaker Dies of Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Get Reading reported that a school caretaker who was in the middle
of High Court action against three employers who he blamed for
exposing him to asbestos, died before he could get the case into
court, an inquest heard.

David Hummerstone died of industrial disease caused by asbestos
and had filed a statement with the High Court revealing that in
all three jobs -- the last of which was as caretaker at a primary
school in Reading, he was working in areas containing the deadly
fibres.

The 77-year-old was able to give evidence at his own inquest
because he had prepared legal statements which were to be used in
his High Court action.

Assistant coroner for Berkshire, Emma Jones, read out paperwork
prepared for a High Court judge in a writ against his former
employers.

The inquest at Reading Town Hall on heard Mr Hummerstone had
peritoneal cancer which occurs in the abdominal walls and is known
to be caused by asbestos exposure.

"I wore my own clothing. I was not provided with a mask or any
form of protective equipment."

Ms Jones said: "I have a statement by David Hummerstone himself
because he had a case at the High Court for asbestos-related
disease."

She explained how Mr Hummerstone was employed by a firm called
Columbus Dixon from 1961-62 then 1965-66, where he worked with
industrial floor cleaning machines. He was employed as a design
craftsman.

His statement read: "The company was based in the building of an
old cinema. I had to go down into the storage area three or four
times a week to clean. It had asbestos material downstairs. The
lagging was often dislodged.

"I wore my own clothing. I was not provided with a mask or any
form of protective equipment."

He later was employed at Thorn EMI music company as a procurement
engineer.

He said: "Within my duties there were asbestos panels and
coverings that had to be removed. This was very dusty work and the
dust would go everywhere. I would be walking through the asbestos
lagging.

"I went down to this floor once or twice a day.

"I am not aware of any precautions to remove the asbestos. I wore
my own clothes, had no mask or protective equipment provided."

Before retiring he worked at the EP Collier Primary School in Ross
Road, Reading.

He was at the school between 1993 and 1996 as a caretaker and was
responsible for all of its maintenance.

His statement read: "I believe there was asbestos material in
parts of the school's site. There was asbestos lag panels in the
boiler room.

"I believe there may have been some asbestos lag panels in the
loft. I wore my own clothes to work and was not given a mask."

Assistant coroner Emma Jones: "He was exposed to asbestos in three
possible jobs.

"I conclude that his death was due to industrial disease."

Recording her verdict, the coroner said: "His cause of death is
given as (1) extensive mesothelioma, and (2) hypotensive heart
disease and cirrhosis.

"He was exposed to asbestos in three possible jobs.

"I conclude that his death was due to industrial disease."

David's partner Christine is to continue plans to take legal
action against some of his former employers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Historic NZ Village Bldg.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reported that asbestos has been found on the
mezzanine floor of a building at the Historic Village, says
Tauranga City Council.

The city council were alerted to possible asbestos contamination
in a closed-off storage area on the floor of a Historic Village
building.

Earlier, TCC tested the area and received the results late
afternoon.

Two of the four samples tested positive for asbestos.

Accredited contractors were on site to clean the equipment in the
building and provide advice on how to remove the asbestos.

The council alerted the tenant and closed the building.

Tauranga City Council advise the area is not used by the public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Cotton Weaver Dies of Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------
Burnley Express reported that Maureen Howlett, formerly Maureen
Dunn, was just 70 when she died from mesothelioma in December,
just a week after she was told she had cancer.

Even at that stage she was unaware of the fact the cancer was
mesothelioma, an aggressive and incurable disease caused by
exposure to asbestos decades before symptoms begin to show.

Her daughter Jeanette Hodkinson, 52, said: "My mum had been ill
since May but it was only a few days before her death that the
doctors found out she had developed mesothelioma. It was terrible
to watch her struggle on and not to know what was making her so
unwell."

Jeanette had instructed specialist industrial disease lawyers at
Irwin Mitchell to investigate the circumstances in which her
mother was exposed to asbestos.

She told her legal team her mother worked as a weaver for the
Stonebridge Cotton Manufacturing Company at the Broughton Mill
between 1961 and 1962 and then again between 1964 and 1967, before
moving on to be employed by the GPO in the telephone exchange in
Colne between 1967 and 1970.

Jeanette believes her mother was exposed to asbestos in one of
these jobs.

"She was extremely ill and suffered horrific pains and
breathlessness, which really affected her later life," said her
daughter. "We are looking to her former colleagues for information
on how she was exposed to the dust and fibres and what measures,
if any, were taken to protect her and her colleagues from the
dangers posed by the material.

"We would urge anyone with details on the Stonebridge Cotton
Manufacturing Company's Broughton Mill or the Telephone Exchange
in Colne to come forward and help us find the answers we need."

Mark Aldridge, a lawyer specialising in asbestos-related disease
claims at Irwin Mitchell, said: "Mesothelioma causes untold misery
for its victims, like Maureen, as well as their families and is
responsible for the deaths of more than 2,500 people in the UK
every year.

"It is an unusual condition in that symptoms may not become
apparent until 40 or 50 years after the exposure takes place and
those affected were often not warned of the risks posed by
asbestos and can't recall the exact details of their exposure.

"We are hoping this appeal will strike a chord with former work
colleagues of Maureen and they will come forward and provide
whatever information they can."

Anybody with any information should contact Mark Aldridge at Irwin
Mitchell Solicitors on 0113 394 6757 or at
Mark.Aldridge@IrwinMitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Factors in Barrow Fitter's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
North-West Evening Mail reported that the hearing relating to the
death of Alan Wilson was held in Barrow Town Hall.

The dad-of-six, of West View Road, Barrow, died in Furness General
Hospital on April 17, aged 82, after his health deteriorated
around the turn of the year.

The inquest heard the retired fitter worked in Barrow steelworks,
where he regularly came into contact with asbestos.

His daughter, Julie Thomson, told the hearing her dad had said it
was often floating in the air and sometimes had to be physically
removed from the furnaces.

Mr Wilson, whose wife Mary died seven years earlier, had also been
a lifelong smoker, smoking up to 40 cigarettes a day for the best
part of 65 years.

Mr Paul O'Donnell, assistant coroner for Cumbria, recorded the
conclusion that Mr Wilson died of industrial disease.

However, the inquest heard he had experienced a variety of
ailments.

He had been dealing with bladder cancer since 2007 and suffered a
stroke in 2011, prompting surgery for carotid artery stenosis. Mr
Wilson, who worked at Bowater-Scott, in Barrow, before retirement,
had also suffered with lung problems, chiefly chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.

He also had pleural plaques -- a benign thickening on the lining
of the lungs, due to asbestos exposure -- and a tumour had
developed on his lung.

Mr O'Donnell said the tumour had most likely been mesothelioma --
a cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

The coroner said a person who has worked with asbestos and smokes
is 92 times more likely to suffer from lung cancer.

He added: "At the time of his death, he was suffering from lung
cancer.

"It was not his primary cause of death, but it's quite clear the
deterioration in his condition can be attributed to a number of
explanations.

"His lungs were failing him and while COPD has been designated as
the primary cause of death, I take the view that you cannot ignore
the fact he had lung cancer.

"He was a lifelong smoker and had been exposed to asbestos during
his lifetime."

Figures released showed Barrow has the highest rate of mortality
for mesothelioma in England and Wales -- with the death rate now
sitting at three and a half times the national average.

Barrow has a rate of 14.3 deaths per 100,000 people compared to an
average for England and Wales of 4.4.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Presence Confirmed at Quincy High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plumas County News reported that Quincy High School will be closed
again on following an evacuation Sept. 24 when asbestos was
discovered in the roof of the former art building.

"It's asbestos," said Peter Connell, the principal scientist for
PFC Industrial Hygiene Consulting, principal of suspicious
material removed from the roof and tested shortly after the
evacuation around 6:00 p.m. "School will be closed on as a
precaution."

School officials said the football game in Biggs will kick off as
scheduled. All other Quincy schools are operating on normal
schedules.

"We felt the need to take the prudent step of canceling school
activities," Assistant Superintendent Terry Oestreich stated in an
email to staff members.

A phone tree is being used to alert families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford, Honeywell Settle Fla. Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that Ford
Motor Co., Honeywell International Inc. and three other companies
settled with the estate of a Eustis woman who died of mesothelioma
after alleged asbestos exposure.

The last remaining defendant is preparing for a 10-day federal
trial in Miami.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Borg-Warner Corp., Genuine Parts Co., Ford and
Honeywell reached confidential settlements with the family of
Carol A. Bean.

Bean died at 67, less than a year after she and her husband,
Eugene Bean, filed the products liability lawsuit. The Beans
alleged she contracted mesothelioma from asbestos fibers on her
husband's clothes after he came home each day from his job at
General Electric in the late 1960s.

Exposure to the mineral fiber increases the risk of lung disease,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos
was commonly used in building materials until the EPA began
implementing asbestos bans in the 1970s.

Bean's family is set for trial against Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc.
starting Oct. 19 before U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams.
The Beans allege the company, formerly Norton Co., made grinding
wheels that Eugene Bean used to sharpen steel tools to manufacture
military weapons for GE in Burlington, Vermont.
Carol Bean testified a few months before her death that she used
to shake out her husband's dirty work clothes before washing them
and breathed in the dust that came off the dirty laundry.
Saint-Gobain contends its products were not defective and it was
not negligent. The company also argued Eugene Bean never used an
asbestos-containing product made by Norton or, if he did, it
didn't release enough asbestos for him to carry the fibers home
with him.

The Paris-based manufacturer also argued other companies
contributed to any asbestos exposure to the Beans, according to a
joint pretrial stipulation filed.

Saint-Gobain attorney Todd Alley, Esq. -- talley@hptylaw.com -- of
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young in Atlanta did not respond to a
request for comment by deadline. Joining him on the case are
Evelyn Davis, Esq. -- edavis@hptylaw.com -- and Frances
Spinthourakis, Esq., of Hawkins Parnell and John Farrish, Esq. --
john.farrish@qpwblaw.com -- of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer in
Miami.

The Beans' attorney, Marc Kunen of the Ferraro Law Firm in Miami,
had no comment by deadline. The firm recently won a $17.2 million
verdict against Georgia-Pacific LLC in another asbestos case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Plagues Mt. Vernon City Hall Basement
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesa Glass, writing for Mt. Vernon Register-News, reported that
the city council has received cost estimates to remediate black
mold, water and do asbestos abatement in the City Hall basement.
"It was discussed months ago about the problems in the basement,"
explained City Manager Mary Ellen Bechtel.

"There is black mold, water standing in it, and asbestos, which
will have to be remediated before we can deal with the water and
the mold."

During city council workshop, Bechtel presented estimates for the
entire project, which came in with a price tag of $124,497.47 --
which has not yet been budgeted.

"There is asbestos around the pipes down there and it is flaking
off," Bechtel explained. "That has to be addressed ... then we can
talk about removal of the water and mold."

According to estimates, the asbestos survey, abatement, project
oversight and re-insulation of the pipes will cost about $63,900;
mold remediation and anti-microbial sealing will cost about
$12,341.47; and water infiltration for the south and north
basements at City Hall will be $48,256.

In addition, the council was told the boiler in the building has
been "on its last leg" for the past five years and the air
conditioning in the building is "spotty."

"It's an old boiler and needs replaced," explained Nathan McKenna,
assistant to the city manager. "Chances are, due to its age, it
has asbestos. ... To provide HVAC in the areas that don't have it
... we're looking at a $100,000 price tag."

Councilman Dennis McEnaney said the council needs a "complete
picture" of the needs at City Hall before any money is spent so
the council will know the total amount needed. Councilman Donte
Moore said he believes the projects are capital expenditures.
Councilman Jeff May said the project is not a "want" but a "need."

"This is an operating expense," May said. "This building is high
maintenance, with a high operating cost, even if we get everything
fixed. I agree with Councilman Moore, this is a capital
expenditure. It's a need, not a want."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Inspector Exposed to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Inman, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
demolition of a Mr Fluffy house reportedly created large plumes of
asbestos-contaminated dust, exposing a WorkSafe inspector to the
deadly fibres.

Residents who lived near the Torrens home were not told of the
incident, though WorkSafe ACT and the ACT government were
notified.

The government said air-monitoring equipment on the property's
perimeter, set up and analysed by a licensed asbestos assessor,
found no evidence that the deadly fibres had breached the site's
boundaries.

But the head of the federal asbestos agency said air monitoring
outdoors was not totally reliable and the neighbours should have
been told as a precaution to reassure them they were not at risk.
WorkSafe ACT has since confirmed the private demolition of 9 Darke
Street on August 20 created an asbestos-contaminated dust cloud.

At least three workers, including a WorkSafe inspector, were
exposed to the fibres as a result. They immediately decontaminated
themselves and sealed their clothes in bags.

Tests confirmed the presence of asbestos fibres on the clothes and
equipment of the inspector.

In July, the government published the addresses of 1022 Mr Fluffy
homes in Canberra. All but a handful of owners are taking part in
the buy-back program, selling their properties to the government.
However, one of the eight owners who declined to take part
organised a private demolition of the Torrens house.

WorkSafe said safety procedures were adhered to strictly before
the demolition: the work plans were scrutinised, all visible
asbestos was removed, a glue was used to seal in as much of
remaining fibres as possible, and a licensed assessor issued a
clearance for the demolition to go ahead.

But it is understood an excavator driver then smashed the building
by dropping the machine's bucket through the roof before the
WorkSafe inspector had completed further checks, reportedly
sending large plumes of dust into the air.

Some of the asbestos-laden dust landed on the inspector.
WorkSafe was notified of the incident but nearby residents were
not told of the potential danger.

The response differs markedly from that which followed a
suspicious fire that gutted a Mr Fluffy home in Page.

In that case, air-monitoring equipment was immediately installed
around the house, and government staff door-knocked five
neighbours and letter-dropped 43 properties in the area the next
day to tell them about the incident.

ACT Worksafe commissioner Mark McCabe said tests indicated that
asbestos did not breach the Darke Street property's exclusion
zone.

"The licensed asbestos assessor has concluded 'it is safe to say
that no elevated airborne fibre exposure occurred at 9 Darke
Street'," he said.

"All of the normal controls to ensure that everything that could
reasonably be done to ensure asbestos fibres would not be released
on to surrounding properties had been put in place."

Mr McCabe said the contractor had told neighbours that the
demolition would occur, but did not mention the incident.

He said WorkSafe did not inform the property's owner and "we are
unclear what conversations the homeowner may have had with the
contractor".

Meanwhile, federal Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief
executive Peter Tighe said air-monitoring outdoors could be
unreliable.

He said the equipment took samples by sucking air that flowed past
it, but dust that escaped upwards into the atmosphere would not
have been detected.

He questioned the wisdom of relying on the air-monitoring results.

"The problem is if there is a prevailing breeze taking the dust or
fibres away from the monitor, then it's not going to pick up
anything," he said.

"You can monitor an area where there's friable asbestos, but if
it's upwind of the fibres then it's not going to pick up anything
because it's picking up air coming from another area."

Asbestos fibres were very light and could sit in the air for up to
three days before settling, he said, adding that neighbours should
have been notified.

"People need to be reassured that they weren't at risk and need to
have it explained to them as a precautionary approach to protect
the public interest."

Mr McCabe said an investigation to determine whether action should
be taken against those involved had been launched.

The government would also conduct an independent review after that
investigation concluded.


                            *********

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  * * *