CAR_Public/151009.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 202


                            Headlines


1285 BAKERY: "Masoud" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
1720 FOOD: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
1801 PURDY: Faces "Tomasutti" Suit Over FLSA Violation
9221-9104 QUEBEC: Recalls Dried Dioscorea Due to Sulphites
ADVENTIS HEALTH: "Stoute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages

ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Testosterone RT Action Still Open
ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Currently Stayed
ALLERGAN PLC: Parties Working on Discovery in Employee Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Defending 200 Actonel(R) Cases
ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel Product Liability Suits Pending in Canada

ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Alendronate Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 225 Actions Related to Benicar(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Nov. 30 Trial Scheduled in Celexa/Lexapro Case
ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Actions Pending Involving Celexa or Lexapro
ALLERGAN PLC: 1,500 Cases Remain Pending Over Metoclopramide

ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Product Liability Suits Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Early Stages in Testosterone Suit
ARCHER WELL: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ATLANTIC SUPERSTORE: Recalls Butcher's Ground Beef Products
BAKKAVOR USA: "Petrelli" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wage

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Oval Roasting Pans
BSH HOME: Recalls Dishwashers Due to Defective Power Cord
CASH STORE: Settlement Hearing Set for November 19
CENTURYLINK INC: "Fulghum" Defendants Win Judgment

CENTURYLINK INC: Class Action Settlements Okayed in 32 States
CHARLES SCHWAB: Bond Market Fund Case Proceeding in Trial Court
CHEMOURS COMPANY: 2nd Trial in Drinking Water Actions Next Month
CHEWBEADS INC: Recalls Pacifier Clips Due to Choking Hazard
CHUBB CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Related to ACE Merger

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Cassandra Warren Action
CUBIC CORP: Company, Transit Customer Face Class Suits
DEAN FOODS: Recalls Sunkist Mango Fruit Sorbet Bars Due to Milk
FATIMA BROTHERS: Recalls Raisin Products Due to Sulfites
FLANAGAN FOODSERVICE: Recalls Wendy's Taco Chips Due to Milk

FOOD FETISH: "Warren" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
FORD: Recalls Windstar 1998 Model Due to Crash Risk
FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Model Due to Cash Risk
FORD: Recalls Fusion and MKZ 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk
FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Model Due to Crash Risk

FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oysters Due to Generic E. coli
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cheerios Cereal Due to Wheat
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Green Beans Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
GLAVAL: Recalls Titan II 2011 Model Due to Fire Risk

K-9 KRAVING: Recalls Chicken Patties Dog Food Due to Listeria
KIM CHAU: Recalls Meat Products Due to Wheat
MAZDA: Recalls Mazda3 2015 Model Due to Fire Risk
MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Action at Early Stage of Proceedings
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Kid's Bike Helmets

NAVISTAR: Recalls 9900 & Durastar 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
ORANGE TKO: Recalls All Purposes Cleaner Due to Mislabeling
PIER 1: Recalls Patio Armchairs Due to Fall Hazard
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Pending
RCR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Synthetic Chamois Products

SALIX ANIMAL: Recalls Beefhide Chicken Sticks Due to Salmonella
SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SNACK OUT: Recalls Sea Salt Crunchy Bean Snacks Due to Milk
SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Boas and Angel Wings
SQUARE INC: Bankr. Lawyer Sues Over Discriminatory Practices

STARS TRADING: Recalls Instant Coffee & Almond Jelly Due to Milk
TEXAS STAR: Recalls Macadamia Nuts & Trial Mix Due to Salmonella
THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Mr. Brown Coffee Products Due to Milk
THORNLOE CHEESE: Recalls Cheese Curd Products Due to Mustard
UNITED TC: Recalls Raisins Products Due to Sulfites

VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta and Golf Models Due to Injury Risk
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jaffe" Suit Over Emission Scandal
WYANDOT INC: Recalls Tortilla Products Due to Milk


                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smoking History OK'd as Evidence in "Greenleaf"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smoking History OK'd as Evidence in "Kochera"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reargument Bid in "Pienta" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in 8 NYCAL Cases Tolled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Melendrez" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Hindle" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Bergstrom"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800K Verdict Against Sid Harvey Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Vuskovich Testimony in "Kochera"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Limit Ohar Testimony in "Relyea" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Watts"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. High Court Flips Ruling for Abatement Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Kochera"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carver Pump Dismissed in "Watts"




                            *********


1285 BAKERY: "Masoud" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Masoud, and all others similarly situated v. 1285 Bakery
Inc. dba Pulse Restaurant and Nicholas Castigliano, Case No. 1:15-
cv-07414 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a private event business at Pulse
Restaurant in Rockefeller Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon, Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 688-5640
      Fax: (212) 688-2548


1720 FOOD: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Noe Garcia, Anibal Garcia, and all others similarly situated v.
1720 Food Corp., A.M.I.S. Food LLC, Nahred Supermarkets, Inc., Ali
Darhan and Mohammed Darhan, Case No. 1:15-cv-05396 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate supermarkets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


1801 PURDY: Faces "Tomasutti" Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Luca Tomasutti, and all others similarly situated v. 1801 Purdy,
LLC, Antonio Gallo and Pietro Vardeu, Case No. 1:15-cv-23517 (S.D.
Fla., September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant 1801 Purdy, LLC is a Florida for-profit company that
owns and operates the Sardinia Enoteca Restaurant in Miami Beach.
Defendants Antonio Gallo and Pietro Vardeu own and manage 1801
Purdy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
      Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 358-6800
      Fax: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


9221-9104 QUEBEC: Recalls Dried Dioscorea Due to Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: 9221-9104 Quebec Inc. (Heng Hing Dry Sea Foods)
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10061

  Brand     Common    Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name      name      ----      product       ---
  -----     ------              ----------
  Top       Dried      454 g    28-04-2016    6 881236 000132
  Quality   Dioscorea


ADVENTIS HEALTH: "Stoute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natonya Stoute, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Adventist Health System/West, Adventist
Health, Cerner Corporation, Cerner Health Connections, Inc.,
Cerner Health Services, Inc., Cerner Healthcare Solutions, Inc.,
and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 596285 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Div., September 29, 2015), seeks to
recover overtime pays and minimum wages under the Labor Code and
the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders.

This action arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
for all hours, including overtime, worked at the legal minimum
wage rate.

The proposed Classes are to be defined as:

     Minimum Wage Class: "All current and former non-exempt
employees employed in California at any time within the four years
prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and
through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who were
under control of Defendants and/or suffered and permitted to work
during time periods Defendants did not pay wages at the legal
minimum wage rate."

     Overtime Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees
employed in California at any time within the four years prior to
the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the
date notice is mailed to a certified class who were under control
of Defendants and/or suffered and/or permitted to work during time
periods they had already worked in excess of 8 hours in a day, 40
hours in a week, or were working on a seventh consecutive day of
work and Defendants did not pay wages for that time."

     Vacation Class: "All former non-exempt employees employed by
Defendants in California who did not receive all accrued vacation
pay and who were involved in a termination or resignation at any
time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to
a certified class."

     Wage Statement Class: "All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within
the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in
this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified
class who received inaccurate or incomplete wage statements."

     Waiting Time Class: "All former non-exempt employees employed
by Defendants in California at any time within the four years
prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and
through the date notice is mailed to a certified class whose
employment ended and they did not receive payment of all unpaid
wages within the statutory time period after separation of
employment."

Defendant Express Energy Services GP, LLC is a foreign limited
liability company organized under the laws of Texas. Further, it
is a well construction and well testing company active in all
major hydrocarbon basins in the United States.

Defendant Adventist Health System/West is a citizen of California
authorized to do business within the State of California and is
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants
DOES 51-100 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons
acting on behalf of Adventist Health System/West who violated or
caused to be violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Labor Code and/or any provision of the Industrial Welfare
Commission's wage orders regulating hours and days of work.

Defendant Adventist Health is authorized to do business within the
State of California and is doing business in the State of
California and/or that Defendants DOES 51-100 are, and at all
times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of Adventist
Health who violated or caused to be violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Labor Code and/or any provision of the
Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders regulating hours and
days of work.

Defendant Cerner Corporation is a citizen of Delaware
(incorporated in Delaware) and Missouri authorized to do business
within the State of California and is doing business in the State
of California and/or that Defendants DOES 51-100 are, and at all
times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of Cerner
Corporation who violated or caused to be violated the minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Labor Code and/or any provision of
the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders regulating hours
and days of work.

Defendant Cerner Health Connections, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware
and Missouri authorized to do business within the State of
California and is doing business in the State of California and/or
that Defendants DOES 51-100 are, and at all times relevant hereto
were persons acting on behalf of Cerner Health Connections, Inc.
who violated or caused to be violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Labor Code and/or any provision of the
Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders regulating hours and
days of work.

Defendant Cerner Health Services, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware
and Missouri authorized to do business within the State of
California and is doing business in the State of California and/or
that Defendants DOES 51-100 are, and at all times relevant hereto
were persons acting on behalf of Cerner Health Services, Inc. who
violated or caused to be violated the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Labor Code and/or any provision of the
Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders regulating hours and
days of work.

Defendant Cerner Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a citizen of
Delaware and Missouri authorized to do business within the State
of California and is doing business in the State of California
and/or that Defendants DOES 51-100 are, and at all times relevant
hereto were persons acting on behalf of Cerner Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. who violated or caused to be violated the minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Labor Code and/or any
provision of the Industrial Welfare Commission's wage orders
regulating hours and days of work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Testosterone RT Action Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Testosterone Replacement Therapy
Class Action remains pending.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third
parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its
insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring
restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and
multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after which plaintiff
amended its complaint.

Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
and the motion remains pending. The Company believes it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends
to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination
in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Currently Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
TNS Products Litigation is currently stayed pending the decision
of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving
similar legal issues.

On March 19, 2014, a complaint was filed in the federal district
court in California. The complaint alleges violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and the False Advertising Law, and deceit. On June 2, 2014,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 23, 2014,
Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On
September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part
Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 8, 2014, the court set
trial for September 1, 2015. On November 4, 2014, Allergan and
SkinMedica filed a motion to dismiss.

On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica's motion to dismiss
was denied.  The case is currently stayed pending the decision of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving
similar legal issues.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Parties Working on Discovery in Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an
employee litigation is still in its early stages and the parties
are beginning to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as
defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal
district court in New York. The action is a putative class and
collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female sales
representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from
2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy
sub-class includes all current and former female sales
representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while
employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date
of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class
includes current, former, and future female sales representatives
who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male
employees during the applicable liability period. The Second
Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of
certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and
retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an
Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company
has opposed. The litigation is still in its early stages and the
parties are beginning to work on discovery matters.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Defending 200 Actonel(R) Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Warner
Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 200 cases and a potential
defendant with respect to approximately 415 unfiled claims
involving a total of approximately 627 plaintiffs and potential
plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either
federal or state courts in the United States.  Warner Chilcott is
in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations.



ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel Product Liability Suits Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Warner
Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability class
actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial
courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R)
caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested
Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It
is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification.
Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees.

Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel
claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two
parties' co-promotion of the product in the United States and
other countries.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the
Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending
at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical
business in October 2009.

In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two
settlement agreements which will resolve a majority of the then-
existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by
the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Alendronate Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
Company continues to defend against the Alendronate Litigation.

Starting in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on
behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the
Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt
Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of
alendronate for personal injuries including AFF and ONJ allegedly
arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in
various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.
In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey
MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Any new cases against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to
dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should
be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. Other cases were
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New York, where the
Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in
part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted in the dismissal of
several other cases. The Company has also been served with nine
cases that are part of a consolidated litigation in the California
state court.

In 2012, the California court partially granted a motion filed on
behalf of all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the
California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against it. All cases pending in state courts in Kentucky and
Missouri have been discontinued against the Company. The remaining
active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey state court.

In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion
to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces 225 Actions Related to Benicar(R) Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
Company is named in approximately 225 actions involving
allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that
Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008,
caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's Co-
Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in
these lawsuits.


ALLERGAN PLC: Nov. 30 Trial Scheduled in Celexa/Lexapro Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that one
trial is scheduled for November 30, 2015 in the
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Litigation.

Forest and its affiliates are defendants in approximately nine
actions pending in various federal district courts involving
allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to
individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent
event. The Company was granted summary judgment in three cases,
all of which are being appealed. Two other matters have been
stayed pending a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
At present, one trial is scheduled for November 30, 2015.  The
only other two trials currently scheduled are set to begin on
January 5, 2016 and March 21, 2016 with the possibility that
additional cases could be set for trial in 2016.


ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Actions Pending Involving Celexa or Lexapro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
approximately 195 actions are pending against Forest and its
affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R)
caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve
multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been
consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for
trial in May 2016. In addition, one matter is pending in federal
district court in Missouri and set for trial in August 2016. Five
actions remain in New Jersey state court, none of which are set
for trial.  There are birth defect cases pending in other
jurisdictions but none currently are set for trial.


ALLERGAN PLC: 1,500 Cases Remain Pending Over Metoclopramide
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
approximately 1,500 cases remain pending related to
Metoclopramide.

Starting in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the
Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either
initiating or defending appeals on such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company
believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these
cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do
not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Product Liability Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
Company is still defending against Propoxyphene product liability
litigation.

Starting in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400
plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in
federal district court in Kentucky.

On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014,
the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state
court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and,
after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state
court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the
removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in
California federal courts were transferred to the MDL in Kentucky.
Once the remaining procedural matters are resolved, the defendants
will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits. In
addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in Oklahoma
which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from federal to
state court.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Early Stages in Testosterone Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
discovery is in the early stages in the Testosterone product
liability litigation.

Starting in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.
Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 135 currently pending actions, all of
which are pending in federal court. These actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint.
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating to any of
Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases.  These cases are in
the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ARCHER WELL: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stanley, and all others similarly situated v. Archer Well
Company Inc. and Great White Pressure Control, LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00260 (S.D. Tex., September 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide oil well drilling services and well
maintenance services for oil wells throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711W Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


ATLANTIC SUPERSTORE: Recalls Butcher's Ground Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 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: Atlantic Superstore - Starrs Road, Yarmouth, NS
Distribution: Nova Scotia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10064

  Brand name   Common   Size      Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   name     ----      product        ---
               ------             ----------
  Butcher's    Medium   Variable  Best Before:   Starts with
  Choice       Ground             15 SE 19       217403
  (Prepared    Beef                              or 200302
  in Store)    Butcher
               Pack


BAKKAVOR USA: "Petrelli" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Achille Petrelli, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Bakkavor Foods USA, Inc., Bakkavor USA,
Inc., Realtime Staffing Services, LLC, Two Chefs On A Roll, and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC-595726 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Div., September 24, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

This action arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
employees meal and rest periods (or compensation therefor) as
required under California law, unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wage, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Bakkavor USA is a California corporation that maintains offices
and facilities, conducts business, and engages in illegal
practices in the County of Los Angeles.

Real Time Staffing is a California-based company that maintains
offices and facilities, conducts business, and engages in illegal
practices in the County of Los Angeles.

Two Chefs is authorized to conduct business in the State of
California. It maintains offices and facilities, conducts
business, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310) 531-1900
Fax: (310) 531-1901


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and all others similarly situated
v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO Capital Markets
Corp.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Countrywide
Securities Corporation; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa
Capital Markets America Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC;
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC; Nomura Securities International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets,
LLC; RBS Securities Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD
Securities (USA) LLC and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07420 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), seeks actual damages, treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and
other relief to remedy the Defendants' breaches of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust enrichment
in violations of the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.

This action concerns the Defendants' collusion in and manipulation
of the market for U.S. Treasury securities, including Treasury
bills, notes, bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and
floating rate notes, and derivative instruments based on such
securities, including U.S. Treasury futures and options.

The Defendants are registered primary dealers of Treasury
securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Oval Roasting Pans
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 2, 2015
Posting date: October 2, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55164

This recall involves Good Cook Jumbo Roaster oval roasting pans.
The large grey roasting pans have a non-stick coating and were
stamped from one piece of metal to form built in handles. The
roaster has exterior dimensions 53.34 cm x 38.1 cm (21 inches x 15
inches) and interior dimensions 43.2 cm x 34.29 cm (17 inches x
13.5 inches). There are 26 indents on the handle and 11 ridges in
the bottom of the roaster.

The roasters were sold individually in packages labelled "Jumbo
Roaster" with "Bradshaw International Inc.", and either UPC 0-
76753-04315-1 or 0-41220-32403-3 on the back of the package.

The roaster rim is partially rolled and can have sharp edges,
posing a laceration hazard.

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

In the United States, Bradshaw International, Inc. has received
three reports of injuries involving cuts

Approximately 41 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from August 2014 to November 2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Hansom Commodity (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
              Guangdong
              CHINA

Distributor: Bradshaw International Inc.
             Rancho Cucamonga
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasting pans
and contact Bradshaw International for a free replacement pan.

For additional information, consumers may contact Bradshaw
International by telephone toll-free at 1-877-614-9571, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday.

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://tinyurl.com/olhn2d5


BSH HOME: Recalls Dishwashers Due to Defective Power Cord
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Posting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55022

This recall involves power cords supplied with certain Bosch(R),
Thermador(R), Gaggenau(R) and Kenmore Elite(R) brand dishwashers
that were manufactured from January 2008 through December 2013.
Model and serial numbers are located on the top side of the
dishwashers' inner door panels.

Model Number Information for Units Sold in Canada

  Brand      Model Numbers Starting With      Serial Number Range
  -----      ---------------------------      -------------------
  Bosch      SGE63E, SGV63E, SHE68E, SPX5ES   FD8801 to FD9312
             SHE7ER, SHE8ER, SHE9ER, SHE9PT,
             SHV58E, SHV68E, SHV7ER, SHV9ER,
             SHV9PT, SHX58E, SHX5ER, SHX68E,
             SHX7ER, SHX8ER, SHX9ER, SHX9PT,
             SPE5ES, SPV5ES
  Thermador  DWHD64, DWHD65                   FD8908 to FD9312
  Gaggenau   DF2417, DF2607, DF2617           FD8904 to FD9312
  Kenmore    630.13003, 630.13023,
  Elite      630.13993, 630.14003             Serial numbers
                                              starting with 010
                                              or 013


The power cord can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

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

BSH Home Appliances has received ten reports of the electrical
cord overheating, including five reports of fire resulting in
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

One of the ten reported incidents occurred in Canada.  No injuries
or property damage was involved.

Approximately 45,200 of the recalled units were sold in Canada and
about 149,500 units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from January 2009 to May 2014 in
Canada and the United States at appliance and specialty retailers,
department stores, and home improvement stores nationwide as well
as online.

Manufactured in Germany.

Manufacturer: BSH Hausgerate GmbH
              Dillingen
              GERMANY

Distributor: BSH Home Appliances Corp.
             Irvine
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the dishwasher and contact
BSH Home Appliances for a free inspection and repair.

For more information, consumers may contact BSH Home Appliances
Repair Hotline toll-free at 1-888-965-5813 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
EST Monday through Sunday or visit the brand websites as seen
below.

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://tinyurl.com/oduy7p5


CASH STORE: Settlement Hearing Set for November 19
--------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be held on Nov. 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (ET) in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice to seek an ordering approving
the proposed settlement, the method of distributing the settlement
funds, and the fees and expenses to be paid to lawyers in
connection to the proposed C$13,779,167 settlement reached in the
securities class action commenced in Canada, and the United States
against Cash Store Financial Services Inc. nka 1511419 Ontario
Inc.

To participant in the settlement, parties must file a claim by
Jan. 8, 2016.  Objections to the approval order, if any, is due on
Nov. 9, 2015.

For additional information, parties may visit
http://www.classaction.ca/cashstore,and read the "Cash Store
Securities Litigation - Notice of Proposed Settlement" to learn
how to file a claim to participate in the settlement, and how to
object to the approval order, or call tel: 1-800-461-6166 x 2380.

                   About Cash Store Financial

Cash Store Financial and Instaloans primarily act as lenders to
facilitate short-term advances and provide other financial
services to income-earning consumers who may not be able to obtain
them from traditional banks.  Cash Store Financial also provides
private-label debit cards.

Cash Store Financial is not affiliated with Cottonwood Financial
Ltd. or the outlets Cottonwood Financial Ltd. operates in the
United States under the name "Cash Store".  Cash Store Financial
does not do business under the name "Cash Store" in the United
States and does not own or provide any consumer lending services
in the United States.

Cash Store Financial reported a net loss and comprehensive loss of
C$35.5 million for the year ended Sept. 30, 2013, as compared with
a net loss and comprehensive loss of C$43.5 million for the year
ended Sept. 30, 2012.  As of Sept. 30, 2013, the Company had C$165
million in total assets, C$166 million in liabilities, and a
C$1.32 million shareholders' deficit.


CENTURYLINK INC: "Fulghum" Defendants Win Judgment
--------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, 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 district court in
the case, William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation,
et al., granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining
and unadjudicated vested benefits claims.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants
include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee
Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of
certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court
certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected
class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in the case. On interlocutory appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled on
February 24, 2015, that the plan documents reviewed do not support
any claim for vested benefits, and affirmed the district court's
dismissal of claims based on those documents. The Tenth Circuit
decision allowed a subset of claims for vested benefits to return
to the district court for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit
also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all age
discrimination claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district
court's determination that ERISA's statute of repose is a time bar
to the breach of fiduciary duty claims of fifteen named
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review on their
claims for vested benefits.

"We petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review regarding the
ERISA statute of repose," the Company said.

On April 27, 2015, a revised Tenth Circuit panel opinion was
issued with no material change in the outcome. On June 10, 2015,
the district court in Fulghum granted summary judgment to
defendants on an additional group of claims for vested benefits.
On July 27, 2015, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation by the
parties, the district court in Fulghum granted judgment in favor
of defendants on all remaining and unadjudicated vested benefits
claims. This judgment is without prejudice to any rights the
parties may have to pursue any additional appellate relief.

"As to any further proceedings that may occur in the district
court, defendants will continue to vigorously contest any
remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott," the Company said. "We
have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe
it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted
and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable
liability."


CENTURYLINK INC: Class Action Settlements Okayed in 32 States
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, 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 parties in putative
class actions have received final approval of settlements in 32
states.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

"For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install
our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints
allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that
did not include the right to permit us to install our cable in the
right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent," the Company said.

In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass
and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous
attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single
court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court
approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis.

To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 32 states. The settlement administration process,
including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in
relation to a number of these settlements.

The parties have not yet received final approval in one state (New
Mexico). There is one state where an action was at one time, but
is not currently, pending (Arizona).

"We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for
resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to
our consolidated financial statements," the Company said.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Bond Market Fund Case Proceeding in Trial Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation 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 Total Bond
Market Fund Litigation is proceeding in trial court, with
plaintiff having filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25,
2015, and defendants filing a motion to dismiss on July 24, 2015.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The lawsuit
which alleges violations of state law and federal securities law
in connection with the fund's investment policy, names Schwab
Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and CSIM
as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly
deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings. Defendants petitioned for Supreme Court review of the
Ninth Circuit decision on July 27, 2015. Concurrently, the case is
proceeding in trial court, with plaintiff having filed a fourth
amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and defendants filing a motion
to dismiss on July 24, 2015.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: 2nd Trial in Drinking Water Actions Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 second trial in the
so-called Drinking Water Actions is scheduled to begin in November
2015.

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

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

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

In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an
escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical
Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical
panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account. As of June 30, 2015, less
than $1 million had been disbursed from the escrow account related
to medical monitoring.

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

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2015 and March 31,
2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits filed in various
federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. The number of
lawsuits pending at June 30, 2015 reflects the filing of about 50
additional cases and plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of about 40
cases during the second quarter of 2015. In accordance with a
stipulation reached in the third quarter of 2014 and other court
procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and
consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court
(MDL). Based on the information currently available to the
company, the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury
claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from
exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 37 lawsuits alleging
wrongful death. In the third quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from
the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first trial is
scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November
2015. Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these
lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. No claims have been
settled or resolved during the periods presented.


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

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://tinyurl.com/pjcxrnv


CHUBB CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Related to ACE Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation on June 30, 2015, entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement), with ACE Limited (ACE), a
company organized under the laws of Switzerland, and William
Investment Holdings Corporation (Merger Sub), a New Jersey
corporation and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE,
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Chubb, with
Chubb surviving as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of ACE (the
Merger). At the effective time of the Merger, each share (except
for certain shares held by ACE, Chubb or their subsidiaries) of
common stock of Chubb, par value $1.00 per share, will be
converted into the right to receive 0.6019 of a common share of
ACE, par value CHF 24.15 per share, and $62.93 in cash.

The Chubb Corporation 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 Chubb, the Board, ACE
and/or Merger Sub have been named as defendants in ten putative
class actions brought by purported Chubb shareholders challenging
the Merger in the New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County,
Chancery Division. The suits are captioned The Sadie Nuay
Charitable Found. v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012040-15 (filed
July 10, 2015); Anne Cutler v. John D. Finnegan, et al., C-012041-
15 (filed July 10, 2015); Sidney Weiman v. The Chubb Corp., et
al., C-012043-15 (filed July 14, 2015); Renee Sayegh v. The Chubb
Corp., et al., C-012045-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Judy Mesirov v.
The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012046-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Shiva
Stein v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012047-15 (filed July 21,
2015); Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. The Chubb Corp., et al.,
C-012048-15 (filed July 22, 2015); Jane Schwartzman v. Zoe Baird
Budinger, et al., C-012049-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Saunders v.
The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012050-15 (filed July 23, 2015); and
Polatsch v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012051-15 (filed July 23,
2015). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Chubb through an
unfair and inadequate process and by failing to maximize the value
of Chubb. Several of the complaints also allege that Chubb, ACE
and/or Merger Sub have aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things,
an injunction against the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the
extent it is already implemented, and an award of damages. Chubb
believes the lawsuits are without merit.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Cassandra Warren Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, 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 customer filed on
August 15, 2014, a purported class action complaint against the
Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.  The case is
Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No. 1416-CV19197).
In the case, the customer alleges violation of the Missouri usury
statute in connection with the Bank charging overdraft fees in
connection with point-of-sale/debit and automated-teller machine
cards. The case seeks class-action status for Missouri customers
of the Bank who may have been similarly affected.  The Company
believes the complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.


CUBIC CORP: Company, Transit Customer Face Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Cubic Corporation 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 Company intends to
defend lawsuits against the Company and one of its transit
customers.

The Company said, "In October and December of 2013, and January of
2014, lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division against us and
one of our transit customers alleging variously, among other
things, breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds
Act."

"In January 2014, these cases were consolidated into a single case
and the plaintiffs are seeking to have the case certified as a
class action. Plaintiffs variously claim, among other things,
that: (i) they were wrongly charged for calling the call center
that we operate for patrons of our transit customer, (ii) they
were wrongly charged for a transfer and a second fare, (iii) they
were not credited the cost of a transit card even after
registration of the card, as is required under the terms of the
cardholder agreement, and (iv) they were double charged for rides
taken.

"We are undertaking the defense of the transit customer pursuant
to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are
investigating the matter and are vigorously defending this
lawsuit. As this case remains in its early stages, we cannot
estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of
possible loss."


DEAN FOODS: Recalls Sunkist Mango Fruit Sorbet Bars Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods of Decatur, Indiana, is voluntarily recalling Sunkist
brand Frozen Mango Fruit Sorbet Bars because these products may
contain undeclared milk. 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. While none of
these products have been linked to any illness related to
allergens at this time, Dean Foods is taking this precautionary
measure because the mango fruit bars may contain milk, an
allergen, which has not been declared on the packaging.

  Product Name   Brand    Size       Code, Best Before date, UPC
  ------------   -----    ----       ---------------------------
  Frozen Mango   Sunkist  74ml bars, Plant code 18-1681B
  Fruit Sorbet            6 per box  Best Before 2016 APR 27
  Bar - Gluten                       Best Before 2016 APR 28
  Free                               UPC: 851819003030

The code date can be found on the right side flap of the box. The
affected product has a date of "BEST BEFORE 2016 APR 27" and "BEST
BEFORE 2016 APR 28," and was sold by retailers in Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Due to a manufacturing error, a small amount of dairy may have
been mixed with fruit bar mix. To date, no complaints or reactions
have been reported.

Consumers who purchased the product listed above may discard it
and return the product package to the place of purchase for a full
refund or exchange. Consumers with questions can contact 1-800-
587-2259 between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465555.htm


FATIMA BROTHERS: Recalls Raisin Products Due to Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Brothers Inc. is recalling its 7 oz. and 14 oz. packages of
SHAD RAISINS because they contained undeclared sulfites. Consumers
who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recall SHAD RAISINS comes in an uncoded 7 oz. and 14 oz.
plastic bag and was sold in retail stores in New York and New
Jersey.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of SHAD RAISINS,
which did not declare the sulfites on the label. The consumption
of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to
elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock
could occur in certain sulfite-sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 milligrams or more sulfites. Analysis of SHAD RAISINS
revealed they contained 38.19 milligrams per serving.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased the SHAD RAISINS should
return it the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact Enamul Khan at (347) 639-
1426.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465061.htm


FLANAGAN FOODSERVICE: Recalls Wendy's Taco Chips Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Flanagan Foodservice Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10080

  Brand name   Common   Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   name     ----     product        ---
               ------            ----------
  Wendy's      Taco     42.5 g   DEC04 P 2015   0 70061 60282 6
               Chips             DEC04 V 2015
                                 DEC04 N 2015


FOOD FETISH: "Warren" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Warren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Food Fetish, Inc., Joel Boardman, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 595877 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Div., September 24, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Order.

According to the Complaint, Defendants have allegedly failed to
provide meal and rest periods to their hourly catering workers,
failed to pay them premium wages, took unlawful wage deductions
from them, failed to indemnify them for expenses incurred in using
their personal vehicles for Defendants' business purposes,
unlawfully converted gratuities, failed to timely pay all earned
and unpaid wages to separated employees, and failed to provide
accurate written wage statements.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
following class and subclasses, defined:

Plaintiff Class: "All hourly or non-exempt employees of Defendants
in California who performed catering, food service, bartending,
and/or similar job duties during the period beginning four years
before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is
entered. "

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class
definitions.

Former Employee Subclass: "All Plaintiff Class members who
voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment with
Defendants during the period beginning three years before the
filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered."

Penalties Subclass: "All Plaintiff Class members who have been
employed by Defendants during the period beginning one year before
the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is
entered."

Defendant Food Fetish, Inc. is a corporation organized under
California law that employs persons and does business in Los
Angeles County, California. It offers catering and bartending
services in Los Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Louis Benowitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310)844-5141
Facsimile: (310)492-4056
Email: louis@benowitzlaw.com

     - and -

David Pourati, Esq.
LAWOFFICE OFDAVID POURATI, APC
12400Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 494-7900, Extension 160
Facsimile: (310)494-7901
Email: david@pourati.com


FORD: Recalls Windstar 1998 Model Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 58858
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015437TC
ID number: 2015437
Manufacturer recall number: 15S27

On certain vehicles that had rear axle reinforcement brackets
installed as part of safety recall 2010-284, the brackets may not
have been installed properly, which could limit the effectiveness
of the recall service repair in addressing the safety defect.
Safety recall 2010-284 was conducted to address the risk that the
combined effects of corrosion and stress can lead to a complete
fracture of the axle. If the rear axle fractures, and the
reinforcement brackets were not installed properly, vehicle
handling may be adversely affected, increasing the risk of a
crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the rear axle
reinforcement brackets that were installed as part of recall 2010-
284. If one or both brackets are found improperly installed, the
dealer will replace the rear axle.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  FORD      WINDSTAR    1998


FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Model Due to Cash Risk
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 3376
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015440TC
ID number: 2015440
Manufacturer recall number: 15S29

On certain vehicles equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
when the ACC is engaged, the driver may experience unexpected
braking while passing a large, highly reflective vehicle. An
unexpected ACC braking event could increase the risk of a crash
involving a trailing vehicle. During this unexpected braking
event, the Collision Warning System red warning light may also
flash and an audible tone may be heard. Correction: Dealers will
reprogram the cruise control module with updated ACC radar
software. Note: The brake lights would illuminate while the brakes
are applied by the ACC system, and the driver could still override
the ACC system at any time using the accelerator pedal, brake
pedal or by cancelling ACC through the steering wheel switches.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  FORD      F150       2015


FORD: Recalls Fusion and MKZ 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 28
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015441TC
ID number: 2015441
Manufacturer recall number: 15C11

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 - Fuel System Integrity. The
affected vehicles may have a fuel tank that was not manufactured
to specification and may cause the vehicle to fail to meet the
requirements of the standard. Improperly manufactured fuel tanks
have thin walls that may crack if the vehicle is involved in a
crash, which could result in a fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the
presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing
injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace
the fuel tank.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       FUSION      2016
  LINCOLN    MKZ         2016


FORD: Recalls F150 2015 Model Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 3376
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015440TC
ID number: 2015440
Manufacturer recall number: 15S29

On certain vehicles equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
when the ACC is engaged, the driver may experience unexpected
braking while passing a large, highly reflective vehicle. An
unexpected ACC braking event could increase the risk of a crash
involving a trailing vehicle. During this unexpected braking
event, the Collision Warning System red warning light may also
flash and an audible tone may be heard. Correction: Dealers will
reprogram the cruise control module with updated ACC radar
software. Note: The brake lights would illuminate while the brakes
are applied by the ACC system, and the driver could still override
the ACC system at any time using the accelerator pedal, brake
pedal or by cancelling ACC through the steering wheel switches.

  Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----     ----------------------
  FORD     F150      2015


FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oysters Due to Generic E. coli
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Future Seafoods Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail,
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10078

  Brand      Common    Size    Code(s) on product    UPC
  name       name      ----    ------------------    ---
  -----      ------
  Future     Oysters   25      Harvest / Process     None
  Seafoods             Count   date 09/11/15
  Inc.                         Harvest Area: PE9B
  Future     Oysters   100     Harvest / Process     None
  Seafoods             Count   date 09/11/15
  Inc.                         Harvest Area: PE9B


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cheerios Cereal Due to Wheat
---------------------------------------------------
General Mills is voluntarily recalling several days of production
of Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios cereal produced at its Lodi,
California facility on certain dates in July of this year because
of an undeclared allergen -- wheat -- with potential adverse
health effects.

Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios produced on these dates at the
company's Lodi, California facility are being recalled because an
isolated incident resulted in wheat flour being inadvertently
introduced into the gluten free oat flour system at its Lodi
facility. As a result, the products may contain an undeclared
allergen -- wheat -- in products labeled as gluten-free.

General Mills will recall and retrieve affected cereals produced
on those dates from customer warehouses and store shelves.
Consumers with wheat allergies, celiac disease or gluten
intolerance should not consume products bearing the affected code
dates and should contact General Mills for a replacement or full
refund.

This voluntary recall includes four days production of original
(yellow box) Cheerios, and thirteen days of production of Honey
Nut Cheerios at its Lodi, California facility with the following
"BETTER IF USED BY" code dates and the plant code LD which
indicates the product was produced at Lodi, California:

  Honey Nut Cheerios            Yellow Box Cheerios
  ------------------            -------------------
  12JUL2016LD  17JUL2016LD      23JUL2016LD  14JUL2016LD
  13JUL2016LD  18JUL2016LD      24JUL2016LD  15JUL2016LD
  14JUL2016LD  20JUL2016LD      25JUL2016LD  16JUL2016LD
  15JUL2016LD  21JUL2016LD      17JUL2016LD
  16JUL2016LD  22JUL2016LD

Products containing wheat can cause illness or severe reactions
for individuals with wheat allergies or celiac disease. Products
containing wheat can also cause illness or discomfort for
individuals with gluten intolerance.
General Mills is transitioning five varieties of Cheerios to
gluten free. Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios cereals produced at
General Mills' other facilities, or on dates other than those
noted at the Lodi, California facility, are not impacted. General
Mills' other gluten-free Cheerios varieties -- including Apple
Cinnamon Cheerios, Frosted Cheerios and MultiGrain Cheerios -- are
not impacted and are not being recalled. No other General Mills
cereals are affected

Consumers requesting refunds or calling with further questions
should contact General Mills Consumer Services at 1-800-775-8370.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465988.htm


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Green Beans Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Mills announced a voluntary class 2 recall of a limited
quantity of frozen Cascadian Farm Cut Green Beans produced on one
day in June 2015.  The recall is being issued as a precaution
after one package of finished product tested positive for the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes.  No illnesses have been
reported in connection with this product.

This voluntary recall is limited to 16-ounce bags of frozen
Cascadian Farm Cut Green Beans with a "Better If Used By" date
printed on the package:

29JUN2017

No other varieties or production dates of Cascadian Farm products
are affected by this recall.

The product was distributed to retail establishments nationwide.

Consumers are urged to dispose of the products affected by this
recall and contact Cascadian Farm Consumer Relations at 1-800-624-
4123 for a replacement.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465924.htm


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1073
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015449TC
ID number: 2015449
Manufacturer recall number: 15780

Certain vehicles may have been assembled with a defective front
windshield wiper motor that could overheat when in use. This could
cause the windshield wiper motor cover to melt, smoke and/or catch
fire, which would increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the
front windshield wiper motor cover assembly.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  GMC         ACADIA      2016
  BUICK       ENCLAVE     2016
  CHEVROLET   TRAVERSE    2016


GLAVAL: Recalls Titan II 2011 Model Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 18
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015443TC
ID number: 2015443

On certain buses, during the floor decking process, a screw may
have pierced the exhaust tube of the engine. If the screw were to
come loose or be removed, hot exhaust gases could pass through the
hole in the floor exposing occupants to exhaust fumes, smoke and
increase the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and repair the vehicles
as necessary.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  GLAVAL   TITAN II   2011


K-9 KRAVING: Recalls Chicken Patties Dog Food Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
K-9 Kraving Dog Food has announced a voluntary recall of their
Chicken Patties Dog Food shipped between July 13th - July 17th,
2015 because these products may be contaminated with Salmonella
and Listeria monocytogenes. Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans
from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have
not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the
products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal
cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. 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.

The affected product was distributed to retail stores only in
Maryland. No other K-9 Kraving Dog Food products are affected.

No illnesses have been reported to date. Even though no illnesses
have been reported, consumers should follow the Safe Handling
Instructions printed on the K-9 Kraving Dog Food package when
disposing of the affected product.

K-9 Kraving Dog Food became aware of a potential issue after
receiving notification from the FDA that a routine surveillance
sample of Chicken Patties tested positive for Salmonella and
Listeria monocytogenes.

Consumers feeding the affected product should discontinue use and
monitor their pet's health, and contact their veterinarian if they
have concerns. Consumers who purchased the product can obtain a
full refund or exchange by either returning the product in its
original packaging or bringing a proof of purchase back to their
retailer.

Consumers with additional questions can call our Consumer
Relations team at 1-800-675-1471 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, EST.

Robert Barrett, Chief Executive Officer of K-9 Kraving Dog Food,
stated, "At K-9 Kraving Dog Food we take quality and safety very
seriously. We believe that under all circumstances, health and
safety comes first, and we are committed to providing the best
possible nutrition for pets."


KIM CHAU: Recalls Meat Products Due to Wheat
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kim Chau Vietnamese Deli Ltd.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10077

Kim Chau Vietnamese Deli Ltd. is recalling Kim Chau brand meat
products from the marketplace because they contain wheat which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to wheat or a
sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products
described below.

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.

If you have an allergy to wheat or a sensitivity to gluten, do not
consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. 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    Common    Size     Code(s) on         UPC
  name     name      ----     product            ---
  ------   ------             ----------
  Kim      Beef      454 g    All codes where    6 22384 00001 0
  Chau     Balls              wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Beef      2.27 kg  All codes where    6 22384 00001 0
  Chau     Balls              wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Pork      454 g    All codes where    6 22384 00002 7
  Chau     Balls              wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Chicken   454 g    All codes where    6 22384 00003 4
  Chau     Balls              wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Pork      370 g    All codes where    6 22384 00020 1
  Chau     Roll               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Pork      370 g    All codes where    6 22384 00004 1
  Chau     Roll               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Pork      370 g    All codes where    6 22384 00005 8
  Chau     Roll               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Fried     370 g    All codes where    6 22384 00006 5
  Chau     Pork Roll          wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Ham       395 g    All codes where    6 22384 00007 2
  Chau                        wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Pork      1 kg     All codes where    6 22384 00101 7
  Chau     Roll               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Seafood   N/A      All codes where    6 22384 00022 5
  Chau     Meat               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label
  Kim      Marinated N/A      All codes where    6 22384 00008 9
  Chau     Pork               wheat is not
                              declared on the
                              label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/n9p2au6


MAZDA: Recalls Mazda3 2015 Model Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 5349
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015444TC
ID number: 2015444
Manufacturer recall number: 8615J

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with defective fuel
tank shut-off-valves. Under certain conditions, this could cause
fuel to flow through the shut-off-valve into the charcoal canister
and leak from the external vent. Fuel leakage, in the presence of
an ignition source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the
charcoal canister and associated fuel tank components.

  Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----     ----------------------
  MAZDA     MAZDA3    2015


MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Action at Early Stage of Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company 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 notice of action
captioned David Hughes and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control
Board of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada
LP, Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-
518059-00CP was filed on December 12, 2014, in Ontario, Canada in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. BRI and its owners,
including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the LCBO are named as
defendants in the action. The plaintiffs allege that The Beer
Store (retail outlets owned and operated by BRI) and LCBO
improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices and market
allocation within the Ontario beer market to the detriment of
licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have the claim
certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario beer
consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in the
amount of CAD 1.4 billion.

"Although we are at an early stage of the proceedings, we note
that The Beer Store operates according to the rules established by
the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and distribution of
beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The Beer Store are
independently set by each brewer and are approved by the LCBO on a
weekly basis. As such, we currently believe the claim has been
made without merit, and we intend to vigorously assert and defend
our rights in this lawsuit," the Company said.


MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Kid's Bike Helmets
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 6, 2015
Posting date: October 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55256

This recall involves MEC Speed Kids' Bike Helmets. The bike helmet
has an outer shell in a variety of bright colours covering a
crushable foam liner. The helmet interior has a suspension system
consisting of a knob-adjustable fit ring and a set of nylon
retention straps.

The following bike helmets are included in this recall:

  Style Number     SKU        Colour
  ------------     ---        ------
  5036-593         438144     Pink castle
                   438145     Blue/green alligator
                   467861     Light blue cats
                   467862     Pink/flower print
                   438146     Race cars
                   438147     Red

The hook-and-loop tabs holding the liner can detach from the
helmet, posing a risk of the fit ring partially or fully
separating.

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

Approximately 4,470 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled bike helmets were sold between April 24, 2015 and
September 14, 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Cypress Inc.
              Wan Chai
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Distributor: Mountain Equipment Co-op
             Vancouver
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the bike helmets and
return it to MEC for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may call the MEC customer service
centre at 1-888-847-0770, Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30
p.m. PST, and Saturday to Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PST
or by email. Consumers can also visit MEC's website for additional
instructions.

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://tinyurl.com/otb773o


NAVISTAR: Recalls 9900 & Durastar 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 11
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015448TC
ID number: 2015448
Manufacturer recall number: 15E-073

On certain vehicles, the Engine Control Module (ECM) may develop
an internal electrical short circuit that could blow a fuse in the
ECM's electrical supply circuit. This could cause the engine to
stall without warning and prevent the vehicle from being
restarted. Engine stalling would result in lost propulsion which,
in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace
the ECM and fuse.

  Make            Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----        ----------------------
  INTERNATIONAL   9900         2016
  INTERNATIONAL   DURASTAR     2016


ORANGE TKO: Recalls All Purposes Cleaner Due to Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
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) 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.

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://tinyurl.com/o49bk32


PIER 1: Recalls Patio Armchairs Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Posting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55148

This recall involves the outdoor patio Katerina Swivel Armchair
(SKU 2899742). The chair is made of black/brown powder-coated
aluminum and features swivel and rocking motions. The chair
measures 27.5 inches wide, 31.5 inches deep and 36.5 inches high.

The Katerina Swivel Armchair can tip backwards while rocking,
posing a potential fall hazard for consumers.

Neither Pier 1 imports nor Health Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this product.

Pier 1 Imports has received four reports of the chair tipping over
in the USA, including one minor injury.

Approximately 31 Katerina Swivel Armchair were sold in Canada and
approximately 2,500 were distributed in the United States of
America. The chairs were sold exclusively at Pier 1 Imports retail
stores and online at www.pier1.com.

The recalled products were sold from December 2014 through July
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Wujiang Kailian Outside Furniture Co., Ltd.
              Wujiang, Jiangsu
              CHINA

Distributor: Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.
             Fort Worth
             Texas
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
return them to the nearest Pier 1 Imports' retail store to receive
a refund for the purchase price or a merchandise credit.

For more information, consumers may visit the Pier 1 Imports web
site.

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://tinyurl.com/o9a5t5n


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, 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
Provectus' Motion to Dismiss a consolidated class action complaint
is pending.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in
these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties
of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome
of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No
amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial
statements as the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and
the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the Class
Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual
defendants made knowingly false representations about the
likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD,
and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and
other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant.

On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On July 20,
2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Response"). Pursuant to order of the
Court, Provectus must reply to the Response no later than August
19, 2015.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in the
Consolidated Complaint. However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this
litigation, the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be
predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss
cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in
the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of the Class
Action Case cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential
loss is not estimable at this time.


RCR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Synthetic Chamois Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Posting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55144

This recall involves the following Topis Clean Pilot PVA drying
towels (synthetic Chamois):

  --- 16.5" X 12.25" (model number TCTM44);
  --- 24" X 17" (model number TCTSC2412).

The ingredient used to wet the fabric may contaminate the product
and cause mould growth.

Neither RCR International Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

A total of 7,356 synthetic Chamois were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from February 2015 to September
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: RCR International, Inc.
             Boucherville
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the synthetic Chamois. If
the product has already been opened, consumers may throw away the
product or hand-wash the towel properly with an antibacterial
soap. If the product has not been opened, they may contact RCR
International Inc. to obtain a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact RCR International Inc.
at 450-670-0757, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm (EST) Monday to Friday, 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://tinyurl.com/nvspwhd


SALIX ANIMAL: Recalls Beefhide Chicken Sticks Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Animal Health, LLC announced it has initiated a voluntary
recall of one lot of "Good 'n' Fun - Beefhide Chicken Sticks"
because it may have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk
to humans from handling contaminated products.

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. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. 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.

The recalled "Good 'n' Fun - Beefhide Chicken Sticks" was
distributed nationwide by Salix Animal Health to Dollar General
and Dollar Tree retail stores.

The recalled product is packaged in a 2.8 ounce bag stamped on the
back side with lot # AO15010 and with an expiration date of
03/2018. The UPC code is 0 91093 82247 1.

No pet or consumer illnesses from this product have been reported
to date. However, because of our commitment to safety and quality,
Salix Animal Health is conducting a voluntary recall of this
product.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the Georgia Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of
Salmonella in one 2.8 ounce package of "Good 'n' Fun - Beefhide
Chicken Sticks" labeled with the recalled code.

No other product is affected at this time. Customers should look
at the lot code and expiration date on the product package to
determine if it is subject to the voluntary recall. Customers who
have purchased the product subject to this recall are urged to
dispose of the product or return it for full refund.

We take our responsibility to pets and their owners seriously and
as a result we are investigating the cause of this problem so that
we can prevent it from occurring in the future. Salix Animal
Health, is also working with retailers to ensure that the affected
product is no longer sold and removed from inventory.

If you have these products, please contact Salix Animal Health's
consumer affairs team at 1-800-338-4896, Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time for a
refund. Customers with questions may call the consumer affairs
team at the number listed above.

For press inquiries, please contact Connie Caldwell at 314-683-
2460, Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM Eastern Standard
Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465184.htm


SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Patton, Erica Kitts, and Marilee Harrison, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE, Inc., Defendant, Case 3:15-cv-01013 (M.D.
Tenn., September 21, 2015), to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, ServiceSource Delaware, Inc., is among
"the world's leading B2B companies with expert managed services,
best-practice processes, and cloud software proven to increase
customer success, drive revenue growth and decrease churn from
existing customers. ServiceSource's solutions help companies with
onboarding and adoption, upsell and cross-sell, retention and
renewals-across the entire revenue lifecycle."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
Robert C. Caldwell Esq.
Joseph K. McKinney Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 1401
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-6538


SNACK OUT: Recalls Sea Salt Crunchy Bean Snacks Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Snack Out Loud Foods(TM) announced a recall of  56 cases of Sea
Salt Crunchy Bean Snacks labeled with the lot #63361, UPC
#760055900037, Expiration Date 7/9/2016. This recall has been
voluntarily initiated due to the possibility of Ranch product
being packaged in Sea Salt single-unit serving film, which does
not list milk as an allergen. Consumption of this product may
cause an allergic reaction to milk. This recall will affect the
entire lot identified.

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 Crunchy Bean Snacks were distributed to Colorado and
California, and the company has reached out to consumers through
its distributors and retail stores. The Crunchy Bean Snacks being
recalled can be identified as Snack Out Loud Sea Salt Crunchy Bean
Snack, 1.2oz, Lot #63361, UPC #760055900037, Expiration Date
7/9/16. The product would come in a small, single-serving bag.

No confirmed illnesses have been reported to date.

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

"At Snack Out Loud we take the utmost care to make sure our
products are safe to eat and so we are voluntarily recalled the
1.2oz Sea Salt Crunchy Bean Snacks within this specific lot," said
Liz Myslik, chief bean at Snack Out Loud.

Consumers who have purchased Snack Out Loud Sea Salt Crunchy Bean
Snacks 1.2oz package with Lot# 63361, UPC #760055900037, and
Expiration Date of 7/9/16 are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-855-888-8108 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. MST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465990.htm


SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Boas and Angel Wings
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Posting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55104

This recall involves the following feather boas of various colors
and black and white large feather angel wings:

  Product         Colour       Item Number
  -------         ------       -----------
  Feather boa     Black        00175448
                  Red/Black    00175430
                  White        00175331
                  Purple       01238492
  Large feather   Black        01039619
  angel wings     White        01039627

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the feather boas and large feather angel wings do not meet
the requirements for textile flammability under the Canada
Consumer Product Safety Act.

If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches or lighters, the
feather boas and large feather angel wings could catch fire and
possibly cause burns to consumers.

Neither Spirit Halloween nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these costumes.

For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.

Approximately 28 units of the recalled feather angel wings and
approximately 37 units of the feather boas were sold at Spirit
Halloween stores across Canada during the current 2015 Halloween
season.

The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to September 2015
and from the 2012 to the 2014 Halloween seasons.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Spencer Gifts, LLC
              Egg Harbour Township
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should not wear nor let their children wear the recalled
products and should either dispose of them or return them to
Spirit Halloween for a refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Spirit Halloween
at toll-free at 1-866-586-0155 between 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, EST,
Monday to Friday or visit the firm'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://tinyurl.com/nr4tvrs


SQUARE INC: Bankr. Lawyer Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Batchelor at Bankruptcy Law360 reported that a bankruptcy
attorney launched a putative class action in California federal
court on Oct. 1, 2015, against financial service and mobile
payment company Square Inc. for allegedly discriminating against
bankruptcy attorneys and other business on its so-called Bad List
of prohibited users.

Robert White, a bankruptcy attorney from California, alleges he
discovered through a separate legal proceeding that Square's terms
and conditions prohibits a number of businesses, including
bankruptcy lawyers and debt collection services, from using its
service.


STARS TRADING: Recalls Instant Coffee & Almond Jelly Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Stars Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Possibly National, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10079

Stars Trading Co. Ltd. is recalling Mr. Brown Coffee brand instant
coffees and Chin Chin brand Almond Jelly from the marketplace
because they contain milk which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled
products described below.

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.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. 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          ---
                                      ----------
  Chin Chin    Almond Jelly   540 g   All codes where  4 710487-
                                      milk is not      051568
                                      declared on the
                                      label
  Mr. Brown    Arabica Blend  180 g   All codes where  4 710085-
  Coffee       Coffee         (15 g   milk is not      122370
                              x 12    declared on the
                              sachets) label

  Mr. Brown    Blue Mountain  180 g   All codes where  4 710085-
  Coffee       Blend Coffee   (15 g   milk is not      200627
                              x 12    declared on the
                              sachets) label

  Mr. Brown    Mandheling     192 g   All codes where  4 710085-
  Coffee       Blend Coffee   (16 g   milk is not      122486
                              x 12    declared on the
                              sachets) label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nthorkt


TEXAS STAR: Recalls Macadamia Nuts & Trial Mix Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Star Nut and Food Co., Inc. voluntarily recalls Nature's
Eats, Natural Macadamia Nuts 6oz and Southern Grove, Simply Raw
Trail Mix 8oz with the following lot codes because of a possible
health risk:

  BRAND      PRODUCT      SIZE     LOT CODES    BEST BY DATES
  -----      -------      ----     ---------    -------------
  Nature's   Natural      6 oz     35897001     3/6/2016
  Eats       Macadamia             36157001     3/12/2016
             Nuts                  37777001     7/14/2016
  Southern   Simply Raw   8 oz     36242004     3/13/2016
  Grove      Trail Mix             37534004     6/26/2016
                                   37409004     7/15/2016
                                   38177004     8/17/2016

The above products have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.
No illnesses have been reported in relation to this product to
date.

These products were distributed to Retail Locations in Texas,
North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee. The products were
sold between 6/20/2015 and 9/9/2015. This notification is intended
to inform consumers that may still have any of the above listed
products in their possession.

The recall was as the result of a routine, random sampling program
conducted by a FDA contracted lab which revealed that the Nature's
Eats Natural Macadamia Nut product contained Salmonella.

The company has ceased the distribution of this specific lot of
macadamia nuts from the supplier.

Consumers who have purchased any of the above listed lot codes are
urged to not eat or discontinue consuming the potentially affected
product and contact the company at 1-844-571-5555 for refund or
product replacement information from 8:30am to 5:30pm Monday-
Friday, Central Standard Time.


THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Mr. Brown Coffee Products Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Thai Indochine Trading Inc.
Distribution: British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10069

Thai Indochine Trading Inc. is recalling Mr. Brown Coffee brand
Mandheling Blend Instant Coffee (3 in 1) and Chin Chin brand
Almond Jelly from the marketplace because they contain milk which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled products described below.

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.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. 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       ---
                                        ----------
  Mr. Brown   Mandheling Blend  480 g   All codes    4 710085-
  Coffee       Instant Coffee           where milk   122523
              (3 in 1)                  is not
                                        declared
                                        on the
                                        label
  Chin Chin   Almond Jelly      540 g   All codes    4 710487-
                                        where milk   051568
                                        is not
                                        declared on
                                        the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/phgq8a3


THORNLOE CHEESE: Recalls Cheese Curd Products Due to Mustard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Thornloe Cheese Factory
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10082
Thornloe Cheese Factory is recalling Thornloe brand Cheese Curds
from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should
not consume the recalled products described below.

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.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. 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     Common name   Size   Code(s) on       UPC
  name      -----------   ----   product          ---
  -----                          ----------
  Thornloe  Cheese Curds  300 g  All codes where  6 61138 42254 8
            with BBQ             mustard is not
            Seasoning            declared on the
                                 label
  Thornloe  Cheese Curds  50 g   All codes where  6 61138 70052 3
            Light with           mustard is not
            BBQ Seasoning        declared on the
            and Probiotics       label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nj8mx8p


UNITED TC: Recalls Raisins Products Due to Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------
United TC of Dayton, NJ is recalling Basma Golden Raisins, 16 oz.
and bulk cartons of Golden Raisins, 30 Lb. because they may
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

  --- Basma Golden Raisins, 16 oz. and bulk cartons of Golden
      Raisins, 30 Lb. were distributed in New York and
      Pennsylvania through retail stores.

  --- Basma Golden Raisins, 16 oz. are packaged in a clear
      plastic package. Bulk cartons of Golden Raisins, 30 Lb. are
      packaged in a plastic bag placed in a sole carton box.

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

This recall was initiated after NYSDAM sampling and analysis
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Basma Golden
Raisins. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was due to
the lack of an ingredient declaration on the 30 Lb. bulk cartons.

Consumers who have purchased the affected products are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at (732) 355- 9600.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta and Golf Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 356
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015445TC
ID number: 2015445
Manufacturer recall number: 69L6

On certain vehicles, an electro-magnetic coil inside the Passenger
Occupant Detection System (PODS) control module was manufactured
with improper insulation between the coil layer. This could result
in the failure of the PODS control module, or misclassification of
the front passenger seat occupant, which could prevent proper
passenger airbag deployment during a crash where deployment is
warranted, potentially increasing the risk of injury to the front
passenger seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the PODS
control module. Note: Should this occur, vehicle occupants would
be alerted of a problem by the airbag monitoring light
illuminating or by a false indication of the Passenger Airbag OFF
indicator.

  Make          Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----     ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN    JETTA     2015
  VOLKSWAGEN    GOLF      2015


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jaffe" Suit Over Emission Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Jaffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and
DOES 1-20, Defendant, Case No. RG15787348 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Div., September 24, 2015), September 25, 2015), seeks to
recover monetary damages under the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising
Law.

According to the Complaint, by manufacturing and selling cars with
defeat devices that allowed for higher levels of emissions than
were certified to EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act,
defrauded its customers, breached its contracts, violated
warranties, and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices under
state and federal laws.

Volkswagen, one of the world's largest car manufacturers, owns and
controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Audi,
Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. Volkswagen AG delivers its products
into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be
purchased by consumers in every state in the United States. From
January through June, 2015, Volkswagen AG delivered 294,992
passenger vehicles to the United States.

Excluded from the Class are individuals who have personal injury
claims resulting from the "defeat device" in the Clean Diesel
system. Also excluded from the Class are Volkswagen and its
subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely
election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and
the judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate
family.

Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based
upon information learned through discovery.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing
business in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the
State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the affected vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Edward K. O'Brien, Esq.
One Sundial Avenue, 5th Floor
Manchester, NH 03103
Telephone: (603) 672-3800
Email: eobrien@ekoblaw.com


WYANDOT INC: Recalls Tortilla Products Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------
Wyandot Inc. is recalling select packages of Yellow Round
Tortillas due to potential milk contamination. We were notified by
a customer that they found cheese curls, a milk containing
product, mixed in the bag with the tortilla chips. 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 recalled units were distributed in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, Kansas, California
and Canada between September 3 and 11, 2015. No other products are
involved.

The recalled products can be identified as follows:

  Brand Name        Size     Use By Date       UPC
  ----------        ----     -----------       ---
  Always Save       12 oz.   DEC9 CN 2015 21   0 7003833975 5
  Always Save       32 oz.   DEC9 CN 2015 23   0 7003833953 3
  Meijer            18 oz.   NOV 23 15 W23CA   7 1928373629 1
  Meijer            18 oz.   NOV 23 15 W23CB   7 1928373629 1
  Better Made       13 oz.   DEC02 CN 2015 13  0 4163300777 6
  Wendy's           1.5 oz.  DEC04 P 2015      0 7006170096 6
  Wendy's (Canada)  1.5 oz.  DEC04 P 2015      0 7006160282 6
  Wendy's (Canada)  1.5 oz.  DEC04 V 2015      0 7006160282 6
  Wendy's Canada)   1.5 oz.  DEC04 N 2015      0 7006160282 6
  7-Eleven          2.0 oz.  DEC9 CP 2015 13   0 5254800012 7
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CP 2015 17   0 5254800011 0
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CP 2015 19   0 5254800011 0
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CP 2015 21   0 5254800011 0
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CV 2015 17   0 5254800011 0
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CV 2015 19   0 5254800011 0
  7-Eleven          3.75 oz. DEC9 CV 2015 21   0 5254800011 0

To date, the company has not received any reports of adverse
reactions or illnesses due to the consumption of this product.
Consumers who have purchased product with the above expiration
dates should not consume it.
The Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this
voluntary recall.

Wyandot, Inc. is committed to producing safe, quality food
products that customers can enjoy at home every day. Customers may
return affected product to the retailer where it was purchased for
full refund

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm465278.htm


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation discloses that it is subject to legal
proceedings, which include asbestos exposure allegations,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2015.

The Company states: "We are subject to various other legal and
governmental proceedings and investigations, including some
involving the practices and procedures in our more highly
regulated businesses. Some matters contain class action
allegations, environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and
other consumer-based, regulatory or qui tam claims, each of which
may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims
(potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of relief.
Additionally, some of these claims or actions, such as the qui tam
claims, have the potential for significant statutory penalties."

                           About Sears

Sears Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: SHLD) --
http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is an integrated retailer focused
on seamlessly connecting the digital and physical shopping
experiences to serve members.  Sears Holdings is home to Shop Your
Waytm, a social shopping platform offering members rewards for
shopping at Sears and Kmart as well as with other retail partners
across categories important to them.

The Company operates through its subsidiaries, including Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corporation, with more than 2,000 full-
line and specialty retail stores in the United States and Canada.

Kmart Corporation and 37 of its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary
Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Lead Case No. 02-02474) on
Jan. 22, 2002.  Kmart emerged from chapter 11 protection on May 6,
2003, pursuant to the terms of an Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization.  Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP,
represented Kmart in its restructuring efforts.  Its balance sheet
showed $16,287,000,000 in assets and $10,348,000,000 in debts when
it sought chapter 11 protection.

Kmart bought Sears, Roebuck & Co., for $11 billion to create the
third-largest U.S. retailer, behind Wal-Mart and Target, and
generate $55 billion in annual revenues.  Kmart completed its
merger with Sears on March 24, 2005.

For the year ended Jan. 31, 2015, the Company reported a net loss
attributable to Holdings' shareholders of $1.68 billion compared
to a net loss attributable to Holdings' shareholders of $1.36
billion for the year ended Feb. 1, 2014.  As of May 2, 2015, Sears
Holdings had $13.3 billion in total assets, $14.5 billion in total
liabilities, and a $1.20 billion total deficit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation discloses that it is subject to
various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course
of its business.  These actions typically relate to product
liability, including asbestos-related liability, patent and
trademark matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers,
distributors and dealers, competitors and employees, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2015.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation is a producer of air cooled gasoline
engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company designs,
manufactures, markets and services these products for original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide. In addition, the Company
markets and sells related service parts and accessories for its
engines. The Company manufactures, markets generators, pressure
washers, snow throwers, lawn and garden powered equipment
(primarily riding and walk behind mowers) and related service
parts and accessories. The Company operates in two segments:
Engines and Power Products. Briggs & Stratton manufactures four-
cycle aluminum alloy gasoline engines with displacements ranging
from 125 to 993 cubic centimeters through its Engines segment.
Power Products' principal product lines include portable and
standby generators, pressure washers, snow throwers and lawn and
garden powered equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard W.
Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci
M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied defendant Honeywell International,
Inc., as successor of Bendix Corporation's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The Court finds that there are sufficient facts in the affidavits
and expert reports to establish that decedent Richard Bell was
exposed to asbestos from Honeywell's products with the frequency,
regularity, and proximity required by Illinois law.  Honeywell has
not affirmatively shown that the materials cited by Plaintiff fail
to create genuine issues of material facts as required by Rule
56(c)(1).  Based on the evidence viewed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, a fair-minded jury could return a
verdict for the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Oct. 2, 2015, memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/0nkbpufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smoking History OK'd as Evidence in "Greenleaf"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in an Oct. 2, 2015 memorandum and
order, denied, among other things, asbestos plaintiff Kenneth R.
Greenleaf's motion to prohibit defendant John Crane Inc., its
counsel and witnesses from testifying about, relying upon, or
referring to any evidence or testimony regarding whether the
Plaintiff or witnesses tried, smoked, or consumed tobacco products
in the past.

The case is KENNETH R. GREENLEAF, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-51-SMY-SCW
(S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/rHplP0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smoking History OK'd as Evidence in "Kochera"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in an Oct. 2, 2015 memorandum and
order denied, among other things, asbestos plaintiff Andrew
Kochera's request to prohibit Defendant John Crane Inc., its
counsel and witnesses from testifying about, relying upon, or
referring to any evidence or testimony regarding whether the
Plaintiff or witnesses tried, smoked, or consumed tobacco products
in the past.

The case is ANDREW V. KOCHERA, JR., Plaintiff, v. FOSTER WHEELER,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-29-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/36nzGOfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reargument Bid in "Pienta" Denied
--------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, in a memorandum and order dated October 2, 2015,
denied a motion for reargument or Leave to Appeal to the Court of
Appeals IN THE MATTER OF EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF
THE ESTATE OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, AND CRANE CO.,
Defendant-Appellant, MOTION NO. (651/15), CA 14-02303 (N.Y. App.
Div.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in 8 NYCAL Cases Tolled
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in decisions dated Oct. 1, 2015, enlarged to the
February 2016 Term the time to perfect the appeal in the New York
City asbestos cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, relating to
D'ANDRADE, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-
3648 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/LGEhygfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GILL, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3646 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/7sKZU9from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to VIOHL,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3644 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/5YvNuDfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CICHY,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3643 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Wax95Lfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-
3647 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/53rWa3from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BATTIPAGLIA, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3642 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/kLlgVKfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. HISCHE, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3645 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MShOdUfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR
& LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-3641 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/eTg0qifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Melendrez" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
For approximately 24 years, Lario Melendrez worked for Ameron
International Corporation, where he was exposed to asbestos in the
manufacture of Ameron's Bondstrand pipe products.  In 2011, he
died of asbestos-related mesothelioma.  His survivors, Mary
Melendrez, individually and as personal representative of
Melendrez's estate, Mario Melendrez, Phillip Melendrez, David
Melendrez, and Veronica Pueyo, filed a complaint for wrongful
death against Ameron, alleging that in addition to his workplace
exposure to asbestos, Melendrez was also permitted to take waste
or scrap pipe home, where he was exposed to asbestos in using the
pipe for home projects.  Ameron moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the plaintiff's sole and exclusive remedy against
Ameron lies in the California Workers' Compensation Act.  The
trial court agreed, and granted summary judgment.

In consolidated appeals, the plaintiffs first challenge the grant
of summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation does not
cover Melendrez's injury to the extent his exposure to asbestos
was from working with Bondstrand pipe on his own time at home.
Second, the plaintiffs challenge the trial court's award of expert
fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an opinion dated Sept. 17, 2015, a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/XnTg4ofrom Leagle.com,
concluded that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy rule
applies and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment.  The
Court further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding Ameron expert witness fees.  Accordingly,
the Court affirmed the judgment.

The case is MARY MELENDREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
AMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, NOS.
B256928, B259423 (Cal. App.).

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Foley & Mansfield, J. Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com
-- Suzanna L. Minasian, Esq. -- sminasian@foleymansfield.com --
Anna K. Milunas, Esq. -- M. Amadea Groseclose, Esq. --
mgroseclose@foleymansfield.com -- and Duncan Lemmon, Esq. --
dlemmon@foleymansfield.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Hindle" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum order dated
Sept. 17, 2015, denied defendants American Premier Underwriters,
Inc., and Consolidated Rail Corporation's motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiff Roger Lee Hindle and granted the motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiff Mary Lou Hindle.

Judge McHugh held that although the release in question in the
case mentions cancer as one of the risks from exposure to
asbestos, it also purports to release the Railroad Defendants from
liability for "any injuries, known or unknown, foreseen or
unforeseen" as a result of exposure to "any condition, material,
substance, product and/or good(s) of any kind or nature."  This,
according to Judge McHugh, seems to be the kind of "boiler plate"
language reciting "a series of generic hazards" about which the
Wicker court was suspicious.  The parties signed the release in
connection with a settlement of Mr. Hindle's claim for a modest
amount of money, Judge McHugh noted.  Since the Plaintiffs dispute
Mr. Hindle's understanding of the scope of the claims waived in
the Release Agreement, and the Court must view the facts in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party, Judge McHugh found
that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact.  Summary
judgment is therefore inappropriate, Judge McHugh ruled.

With respect to the Mrs. Mary Lou Hindle's loss of consortium
claim, Judge McHugh ruled that the overwhelming weight of
authority is that there is no recovery for a derivative loss of
consortium claim in an FELA action.  Because the Plaintiffs do not
dispute this, and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on this issue, Judge McHugh granted summary judgment
as to Mrs. Hindle's claim.

The case is ROGER LEE HINDLE and MARY LOU HINDLE, Plaintiffs, v.
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-6297 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge McHugh's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/EnlQgxfrom Leagle.com.

ROGER LEE HINDLE, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. PAUL, PAUL
REICH & MYERS, PC.

MARY LOU HINDLE, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. PAUL, PAUL
REICH & MYERS, PC.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DAVID A.
DAMICO, Esq. -- dadamico@burnswhite.com -- BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by STEWART
R. SINGER, SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP.

PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DANIEL L.
JONES, DINSMORE & SHOHL & JOHN J. DICHELLO, JR., BLANK ROME, LLP.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Cross Claimant, represented by
STEWART R. SINGER, SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Cross Defendant, represented by
STEWART R. SINGER, SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by
DAVID A. DAMICO, BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON.

PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DANIEL
L. JONES, DINSMORE & SHOHL -- CINCINNATI & JOHN J. DICHELLO, JR.,
Esq. -- DiChello@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Bergstrom"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert G. Dowd, Jr., of the Court of Appeals of Missouri,
Eastern District, Division One, in an opinion dated Sept. 22,
2015, reversed a trial court's grant of Welco Manufacturing
Company's motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit filed by David and Kaye Bergstrom.

Judge Dowd pointed out that there are 17 years of Bergstrom's
career in which he could have been working with asbestos-
containing Welcote joint compound.  Even if Welco's evidence that
it removed asbestos from its products, it still leaves at least 14
years of Bergstrom's career when he alleges he worked with Welcote
joint compound that would have contained asbestos according to the
record before the court.

Accordingly, Judge Dowd ruled that the trial court erred in
granting Welco's motion for summary judgment because Welco failed
to establish there was no genuine issue as to any material fact.
Once the disputed facts are determined by a trier of fact, there
could be sufficient evidence to support a finding that Bergstrom
worked with or around asbestos-containing joint compound supplied
by Welco between the years of 1962 and 1976, Judge Dowd held.

The case is DAVID BERGSTROM and KAYE BERGSTROM, Appellants, v.
WELCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, NO. ED102125 (Mo. App.).
A full-text copy of Judge Dowd's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wDXHMkfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800K Verdict Against Sid Harvey Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Sid Harvey Industries, Inc., appeals from the trial court's
judgment following a jury trial finding it liable for negligent
failure to warn Lawrence Foreman of asbestos-related dangers
contained in products the company delivered, which were a
substantial factor in Mr. Foreman developing mesothelioma.  The
trial court issued a judgment of $800,000 against Sid Harvey.

In a decision dated Sept. 22, 2015, Judge Roy L. Richter of the
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four,
affirmed, holding that even if its finds the verdict inconsistent,
the Appellant had every opportunity to object to the verdicts
before the jury was discharged and failed to do so.  Thus, the
Court considered the claim waived.

The case is LAWRENCE FOREMAN, ET AL., Respondent, v. AO SMITH
CORP., ET AL., Appellant, NO. ED101525 (Mo. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/YDFGoPfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Vuskovich Testimony in "Kochera"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated
Sept. 21, 2015, denied Defendant General Electric Company's Motion
in Limine to exclude the testimony of Matthew A. Vuskovich, M.D.,
M.S.P.H., in the asbestos-related case captioned ANDREW V.
KOCHERA, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-0029-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

Judge Yandle ruled that Dr. Vuskovich does state that asbestosis
is a cumulative disease, which "means that every exposure to
asbestos that is non-trivial in context contributes to the
interstitial scarring in the lungs, which is the disease of
asbestosis."  Judge Yandle notes that Dr. Vuskovich also states,
"it is not possible to say, within a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, what the threshold exposure requirement is for
asbestosis."  His opinion, however, takes into account Mr.
Kochera's occupational and military history and his ultimate
conclusion is that the Plaintiff's exposures were not trivial,
Judge Yandle pointed out.  The Court finds nothing scientifically
invalid about Dr. Vuskovich's theory under Daubert, nor any
unjustifiable extrapolation as cautioned against by the Rule 702
advisory committee.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/nWIBwEfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew V. Kochera, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson,
Jr., Vinson Law, Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC & John D
Sloan, Jr, Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond R.
Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

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

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Grabowski,
Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Limit Ohar Testimony in "Relyea" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deste C. Relyea, as executor of the estate of Jo Ann Relyea, filed
a wrongful death action contending that prolonged exposure to
brake dust from asbestos-containing brake pads caused Jo Ann
Reylea, who was employed as a part-time bookkeeper at a gas
station and auto repair shop from 1984 to 1990, to develop
mesothelioma.

Defendant Honeywell International Inc. now moves in limine to
preclude testimony from the plaintiff's expert Dr. Jill Ohar with
respect to two related issues.  They seek to preclude under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 573 (1993), any testimony that brake dust causes
mesothelioma and any expert opinion based on the theory that
"every exposure counts."  In addition, the defendant seeks to
preclude any testimony that asbestos or chrysotile cause
mesothelioma absent a showing that such evidence applies to brake
dust specifically.

To the extent the motions seek to preclude Ohar's testimony as it
is reflected in her expert reports, they are denied.  To the
extent it derives from certain facts and methodology, therefore,
Ohar's testimony is not barred by Rule 702.  To the extent Ohar
attempts to testify in a manner different from the above and in
reliance on the theory that "every exposure counts," defendants
may renew their challenge to such testimony as that time.

A full-text copy of the Sept. 22, 2015 opinion and order penned by
Judge Denise Cote United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York is available at http://is.gd/Veucbofrom
Leagle.com.

For plaintiff Deste C. Relyea, as Executor to the Estate of Jo Ann
Relyea: Amber R. Long, Keith W. Binder, LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP, New
York, NY.

For defendant Honeywell International Inc.: Andrew Sacher, Esq. --
asacher@mwe.com -- McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, New York, NY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Dropped as Defendant in "Watts"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in separate orders dated Sept. 22,
2015, dismissed, without prejudice the asbestos-related claims
filed by Steven Watts against Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
and Carver Pump Company.

The Plaintiff entered into a Joint Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice with Foster Wheeler where the parties agreed to dismiss
the case as to Foster Wheeler without prejudice under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill).

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Order relating to Foster
Wheeler is available at http://is.gd/h2sL94from Leagle.com.

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli
Bern, et al., Christopher Fonville, Napoli Bern et al. & Kardon
Stolzman, Napoli Bern et al..

84 Lumber Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog
Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Wilson Elser et al. & Karen E Bettcher, Wilson, Elser et
al.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald W.
Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson.

Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld, Walker & Williams.

Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S
Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et
al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & Stephanie Tomal, Segal, McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison
K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann
Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP &
Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephanie Tomal,
Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Carver Pump Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld, Walker & Williams.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. High Court Flips Ruling for Abatement Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, the Illinois Department of Public Health issued an
emergency stop work order to Lake Environmental, Inc., based on
alleged violations of the Department's regulations committed
during an asbestos cleanup job at Scott Air Force Base.  The
Department also removed Lake Environmental's name from the list of
state-approved asbestos abatement contractors.  Several months
later, the Department dismissed the stop work order proceedings
voluntarily, after finding that the violations had been remedied.

In 2010, the Department notified Lake Environmental that it
intended to revoke its asbestos abatement contractor license based
on the alleged violations that occurred at the Scott Air Force
Base job. The director of the Department, upon the recommendation
of the administrative law judge, granted summary judgment for the
Department and revoked Lake Environmental's license.

In the meantime, the Department filed a civil lawsuit against Lake
Environmental seeking monetary penalties for the 2008 violations.
The circuit court found that the Department should have sought
those penalties during the 2008 administrative proceedings and
granted summary judgment for Lake Environmental based on the
doctrine of res judicata.

Lake Environmental then filed a petition for administrative review
challenging the Department's decision to revoke its license.  Lake
Environmental argued that the attempt to revoke its license was
barred by res judicata because the Department had voluntarily
dismissed the emergency stop work order action.  Alternatively,
Lake Environmental argued that the Department lacked authority to
seek revocation based on alleged violations of federal
regulations.  The circuit court granted summary judgment for Lake
Environmental after concluding that the Department was barred
under the doctrine of res judicata from revoking Lake
Environmental's license based on the 2008 conduct at issue in the
original emergency stop work order proceeding.

Lake Environmental then moved for sanctions based on its argument
that the Department should have known that its claim would be
barred by res judicata and thus that its continued defense against
Lake Environmental's petition for administrative review violated
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.

In an opinion filed Sept. 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of Illinois
held, "The plain language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137
imposes no requirement on a circuit court to explain its reasons
for denying a motion for sanctions.  The appellate court, when
reviewing a circuit court decision to deny sanctions, should look
to the record to determine whether the circuit court had an
adequate basis for making its decision.  In the event the
appellate court finds that the record is insufficient for such
purposes, then remanding the case may be appropriate.  However, a
record is not inherently insufficient when the circuit court does
not provide its reasons for denying the motion.  Therefore, we
remand this case to the appellate court with instructions that it
review the record on appeal to determine whether the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying Lake Environmental's motion for
sanctions."  Accordingly, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court judgment.

The case is LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Appellee, v. DAMON T.
ARNOLD, Director of Public Health, et al., Appellants, NO. 118110
(Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/bG1ynkfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Kochera"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois in the case captioned ANDREW V.
KOCHERA, JR., Plaintiff, v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-29-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), separately
denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants
General Electric Company, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and John Crane,
Inc.

With respect to GE and Ingersoll-Rand, Judge Yandle held that the
Court is convinced that a manufacturer should avoid liability on a
failure to warn theory where it designed its products to be used
with asbestos-containing materials.  A jury, Judge Yandle held,
could certainly conclude that it was foreseeable the product would
subject those working with it to the possible hazards of asbestos
exposure.

With respect to John Crane, Judge Yandle held that the record
contains enough circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue
of material fact.  When viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonably jury could infer that the
Plaintiff was exposed to John Crane asbestos-containing products
while performing his duties aboard the Roosevelt.

Judge Yandle's Decision relating to GE is available at
http://is.gd/AxDDDXfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Yandle's Decision relating to Ingersoll-Rand is available at
http://is.gd/i055wRfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Yandle's Decision relating to John Crane is available at
http://is.gd/5KB3OUfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew V. Kochera, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson,
Jr., Vinson Law, Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC & John D
Sloan, Jr, Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond R.
Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Erik David Nadolink, Wheeler, Trigg et al., John Michael
Fitzpatrick, Wheeler, Trigg et al., Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

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

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Grabowski,
Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carver Pump Dismissed in "Watts"
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated Sept. 23, 2015,
granted the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff
Steven Watts and Defendant Carver Pump Company, wherein these
parties request the dismissal of the Defendant without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).  Accordingly, the
claims against Carver Pump are dismissed without prejudice.

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Yandle's Order is available at http://is.gd/yUEioM
from Leagle.com.

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli
Bern, et al.e, Christopher Fonville, Napoli Bern et al. & Kardon
Stolzman, Napoli Bern et al..

84 Lumber Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog
Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Wilson Elser et al. & Karen E Bettcher, Wilson, Elser et
al.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald W.
Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D.
Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld, Walker & Williams.

Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson,
Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S
Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et
al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & Stephanie Tomal, Segal, McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison
K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann
Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver,
Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP &
Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephanie Tomal,
Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Carver Pump Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld, Walker & Williams.


                            *********

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  * * *