---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 127

                             Headlines


AMERICAN INT'L: NY Court Allows AG to Proceed to Civil Fraud Trial
AOL: Reed Smith Discusses Approval of Class Action Settlement
AXA EQUITABLE: Plaintiffs Amended Complaint to Add More Claims
BALL STATE: Supreme Court Has Stricter Definition of "Supervisor"
BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 1,540 Portfolio Nine-Light Chandeliers

BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 20,500 Chandeliers Due to Injury Hazard
BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Illinois
CANADA: Shows No Signs of Wanting to Settle RCMP Gender Bias Suit
CASH STORE: Faces Class Actions in Ontario & Alberta
CHICAGO, IL: Police Union Accuses Mayor of Concealing NATO Ruling

CNX GAS: Senator Calls for Probe on Emails in Gas Royalties Suit
COMCAST CABLE: Schnader Harrison Discusses Class Action Ruling
CONNECTICUT: SEBAC's Class Action Goes Back to District Court
CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over $50 Gun Permit Fee
DGSE COMPANIES: Settles Class Suit Over Accounting Irregularities

DOLLAR GENERAL: Judge Orders Release of Names of Fired Workers
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Katten Muchin Discusses Class Action Ruling
EXXON MOBIL: Seeks Dismissal of Ark. Pipeline Rupture Class Action
FOREST CITY: Tentative Settlement Reached in Parking Meter Suit
FOREST PLACE: Owner Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire

FOX: Judge Grants Class Certification to Unpaid Interns
GENLYTE THOMAS: Recalls 80,300 Units of Capri Track Lighting
GERBER PRODUCTS: Fights Foley Disqualification Bid in Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Must Be Held Accountable for Street View Program
HARTFORD FIRE: Auto Body Repair Shops Awarded $20 Mil. in Damages

HEALTH NET: Judge Approves $215-Mil. Class Action Settlement
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 34,881 FIT for Model Years 2007 and 2008
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 117 Dynamite 7.4 V LiPo Batteries
INVESTORS TITLE: "Backel" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in W.V.
KELLOGG CO: Class Action Pact Fails to Answer Basic Questions

LOBLAW COS: Recalls no name(R) Chunky Vegetable Pasta Soup
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Judge Trims Claims in E-Class Gas Leak Suit
METLIFE INSURANCE: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sale Practices
MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Program
MIDSOUTH BANCORP: "Harding" Class Suit Administratively Closed

MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hunter" Suit vs. Bank
MITSUBISHI: Recalls 1,409 2011 RVR Sports Utility Vehicles
MONSANTO CO: Oregon Wheat Farmers File Class Action Over GE Crops
MONSANTO CO: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Seed Patent Suit
MUTUAL PHARMA: High Court Overturns Product Liability Judgment

NAT'L FOOTBALL: John Canzano in Favor of Class Action Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Oriska Founder Files Pro Se Class Action v. DFS
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Court Hears Arguments in Abuse Class Action
NY STOCK EXCHANGE: Judge Approves $18.5MM Class Action Settlement
OMEGA FLEX: Morgan & Morgan Files CCST Class Action in Florida

OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Merger-Related Class Suits Remain Pending
OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Prince Brand Tahini Over Salmonella Risk
OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Decides on Arbitration Issue
PALOMAR MEDICAL: Enters Into Settlement MoU With Plaintiffs
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Co-Pay Programs

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Hormone-Replacement Therapy Suits
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Off-Label Promotion Actions
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Promotion of Neurontin
PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Bapineuzumab Securities Suit Appealed

PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Antitrust Suits vs. Wyeth Stayed
PFIZER INC: ERISA Suit in Celebrex/Bextra-Related MDL Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Neurontin-Related Antitrust MDL Pending in N.J.
PFIZER INC: Protonix-Related Class Suits vs. Wyeth Still Stayed
PFIZER INC: Suits by Champix Purchasers in Canada Remain Stayed

PRUCO LIFE: 7th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit
QUINN EMANUEL: Seeks Dismissal of Attorney's Overtime Class Action
RATINAUD FRENCH: Recalls Charcuterie Brand Confit Tomatoes
SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Salsa Vaya and La Cruz Bicycle Forks
STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces 3 Suits Over Securities Law Violations

STRIDE RITE: Recalls Joanna Girls' Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Other Models of Motorhomes
TOWNSEND FARMS: Maui Couple Files Class Action Over Berries
UNFI CANADA: Recalls Prince Brand Tahini Over Salmonella Presence
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Former US Navy Sailors' Class Action

UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over PRISM Scandal
UT MEDICAL: High Court Has Stricter Standard for Retaliation Claim
VIA RAIL CANADA: Report on 2012 Train Derailment to Be Released
VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Swipe Fee Class Action Settlement Stalls
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages

WYSOKER GLASSNER: Faces $750K Verdict Over Botched Asbestos Suit
ZYNGA: Aug. 30 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss Class Action

* Bradley Arant Discusses Rise of US Multidistrict Litigation
* EU Price Fixing Draft Legislation May Spur Class Actions
* Sen. Rand Paul Calls on Americans to Join Snooping Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology Unit Inks Compliance Order with Col.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Confirms Quigley Co.'s New Exit Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celotex Claims v. Integrity Barred by Estoppel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Writ of Mandate Issued Due to Abuse of Discretion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Denies Insurer's Bid for Separate Trials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Limit Doc Examination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of PI Suit v. Boeing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Order Dismissing PI Suit v. Bechtel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 12 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare for Bondi Public School Students

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fix Delays NBN as Telstra Admits Mistakes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Admits Poor Training Caused Problems
ASBESTOS UPDATE: One-Sided Bill on Asbestos Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Fined GBP6,000 Over Fibro at Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumping Claim Probed by Fraser Coast Council

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Glue Slows Carpet Work at Store
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Activists Tell Thai Gov't to Quit Stalling Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paspaley Demolition Halts After Fibro Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Concern Hundreds During Logan Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Info on Meso Victim's Working Conditions Sought

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Left at Nature Spot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Contaminated Soil Cleared From McCains
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHS Project Back on Track After Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fair Oak Man Dies of Fibro-Related Disease


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L: NY Court Allows AG to Proceed to Civil Fraud Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Scism and Chad Bray, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
report that New York state's highest court handed a victory to the
state's attorney general, allowing him to proceed to trial on
charges of alleged civil fraud by former American International
Group Inc. Chief Executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, denying the
defendants' effort to get the case dismissed.

The case was first filed in 2005 by then-Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer.  As Mr. Spitzer's probe into alleged accounting
improprieties at the company had widened, AIG's board forced the
resignation of Mr. Greenberg, who had transformed the company from
obscurity into a global powerhouse over a nearly four-decade run.

Mr. Greenberg, now 88 years old, was one of the most prominent
executives in the financial-services world at the time.  He now
runs another property-casualty insurer, the midsize and rapidly
growing Starr Cos.

He has consistently denied wrongdoing.  In a statement on June 25,
his lawyer, David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- of Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, said, "We are confident that the action will be
dismissed by the lower courts."

Over the years, some of the original charges brought by
Mr. Spitzer were dropped from the case as the state refiled its
original complaint and narrowed its focus.  The two remaining
charges include allegations that Mr. Greenberg and the company's
then-chief financial officer engaged in a sham transaction with
Berkshire Hathaway's General Reinsurance unit to make AIG's claims
reserves appear more robust than they were.  The former chief
financial officer, Howard Smith, also denies any wrongdoing.

The state alleged that the purpose of the transaction was to make
the financial statements look more robust and bolster AIG's stock
price.

In April, Eric Schneiderman, New York's current attorney general,
dropped the state's claim for potentially billions of dollars in
damages, instead focusing on remedies such as a ban from
participation in the securities industry and a ban on serving as
an officer or director of a public company.

In a ruling released on June 25, the state's highest court said
there was sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to
trial, and that the state wasn't barred from seeking bans and
other relief.

"We have no difficulty in concluding that, in this civil case,
there is evidence sufficient for trial that both Greenberg and
Smith participated in a fraud.  The credibility of their denials
is for a fact finder to decide," the court wrote.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman said he "is
committed to ensuring that anyone who commits fraud is held
accountable for their actions no matter how wealthy they are or
how many powerful friends they have.  [Mon]day's decision means we
will have an opportunity to establish in court Hank Greenberg's
role in this fraud and hold him accountable."

The move follows a federal judge's approval in April of a $115
million pact to settle class-action shareholders' litigation
against Mr. Greenberg and some other former AIG executives that
covers the same accounting issues.

The judge in the federal case refused to allow Mr. Schneiderman to
intervene and object to the settlement.

Mr. Greenberg's attorneys had argued before the state's highest
court that the attorney general's office had failed to pursue the
injunctive relief at earlier stages of the case, so the state
shouldn't be allowed to seek those sanctions now, or continue the
case.

Mr. Boies added in his statement that his team is "pleased that
the attorney general's claim for damages, which throughout the
eight years of this litigation has been the focus of the case, has
now been dismissed.  We are disappointed that the Court of Appeals
did not dismiss the attorney general's recently raised claims for
injunctive relief, but we are confident that the action will be
dismissed by the lower courts because the state cannot demonstrate
that it is entitled to injunctive or disgorgement remedies against
Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Smith."

Vincent Sama, an attorney for Mr. Smith, also said he was
disappointed that the court didn't dismiss the claim.  "As we have
maintained all along in this eight-year-old lawsuit brought by the
New York attorney general, there is no merit to the case and no
basis for any injunctive relief."

Mr. Spitzer called arguments that the case shouldn't proceed
"frivolous" and "absurd."

"The Court of Appeals decision says precisely what I said for
years about this case.  The record and the evidence are clear,"
Mr. Spitzer said in an interview.  "There's evidence this
conspiracy of illegal conduct began with Hank Greenberg.  Only the
acolytes of Hank Greenberg ever tried to refute that fact.  It's
been true since we brought the case and continues to be true.  It
will be proven in a court of law."

In 2005, AIG restated more than four years of its earnings and
said that several former executives were able to "circumvent
internal controls over financial reporting." The restatement
reduced AIG's net worth by about 3%.

A year later, the insurer agreed to pay more than $1.6 billion to
settle accounting-fraud allegations by the New York attorney
general's office and the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Then
in 2009, Messrs. Greenberg and Smith agreed to pay $16.5 million
to settle with the SEC in relation to the same matter, without
admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Mr. Greenberg also has sued the U.S. government over a $182
billion bailout of the insurer.


AOL: Reed Smith Discusses Approval of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bond, Esq. -- pbond@reedsmith.com -- and Frederick Lah, Esq.
-- flah@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith report that after nearly
seven years of litigation, two class actions, and millions of
dollars in legal and settlement fees, AOL hopes that it can
finally put its infamous anonymization failure incident behind it.
On May 24, 2013, a Virginia federal judge gave final approval to a
class action settlement between AOL and a class of more than
650,000 AOL members whose search queries were disclosed to the
public.  The settlement agreement involves $5 million in cash
payments to class members and nearly $1 million in attorneys'
fees.

The anonymization failure incident has become almost folklore in
the privacy world.  It stemmed from an incident back in 2006 when
a few AOL employees decided to release three months of search
queries of 650,000 of its members online with the intention that
the data would be used for academic research purposes.  Although
the members had been supposedly anonymized, some of them were
re-identified based solely on the patterns in their searches.  For
example, The New York Times was able to re-identify Thelma Arnold,
a 62-year-old widow from Georgia who performed searches on her
friends' medical ailments and her three dogs, based on her search
data.  The public backlash over the incident was strong.  AOL
quickly removed the results and apologized.  Along with calls for
regulatory action by public interest groups, two nationwide class
actions were filed.  The first was filed in 2006 in California
federal court, but was subsequently dismissed on the basis of a
forum selection cause.  The second was brought in 2011 and just
recently settled.  Along with monetary relief, AOL warrants in the
settlement agreement that it will maintain policies and procedures
to mitigate the possibility of such an incident happening again.
However, the settlement notes that if Microsoft, Yahoo, or Google
employ less burdensome procedures, AOL may amend its procedures
accordingly.

2006 seems like a long time ago, but class actions based on data
breaches and other alleged privacy violations continue to be
rampant.  This case serves as an important reminder about how
drawn out and far-reaching the costs of data breaches and other
privacy violations can be.  Not only can legal fees and settlement
fees be quite high, but the costs of data breach notification
letters, settlement administration fees, and the loss in consumer
goodwill and brand reputation, can also be quite damaging.  The
fact that it took almost seven years also reminds us of how far
the law lags behind these types of privacy issues.  In this new
era of Big Data, companies continue to develop new methods to
utilize more and more bits and pieces of seemingly innocuous or
de-identified data.  The stakes are arguably even higher than they
were in 2006, as consumers seem to be more attune to privacy
issues than they were back then.  The opportunities are great, but
companies operating in this space should proceed with caution.


AXA EQUITABLE: Plaintiffs Amended Complaint to Add More Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company disclosed in its May 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that Mary Ann
Sivolella and Sanford, et al., amended in April 2013 their
complaints to add additional claims.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC ("FMG LLC") ("Sivolella Litigation").  The
lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds.  The
lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Company Act"),
for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for
investment management services.  In November 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and
26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust
enrichment.  In addition, the plaintiff purports to file the
lawsuit as a class action in addition to a derivative action.  In
the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged
overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees
paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses
and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable.
In December 2011, AXA Equitable and FMG LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  In May 2012, the Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking
restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act.
In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the
defendants' motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et
al. v. FMG LLC ("Sanford Litigation").  The lawsuit was filed
derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in
the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks
recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC for investment management
services.  In light of the similarities of the allegations in the
Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court
agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford
Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of
alleged excessive fees paid to FMG LLC in its capacity as
administrator of EQ Advisors Trust.  The Plaintiffs seek recovery
of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the
contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest,
costs and fees.

Established in the state of New York in 1859, AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company is among the largest life insurance companies in
the United States.  The New York-based Company is part of a
diversified financial services organization offering a broad
spectrum of financial advisory, insurance and investment
management services.


BALL STATE: Supreme Court Has Stricter Definition of "Supervisor"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Trottman, Lauren Weber and Jess Bravin, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that workers may have a harder time
suing their employers for discrimination in the future.

The Supreme Court sided with employers in a pair of 5-4 decisions
Monday involving workplace harassment claims, rulings that are
expected to make it more difficult for employees to bring such
cases against their employers.

In one ruling, the court set a stricter definition of "supervisor"
in determining an employer's liability for discrimination.  It
ruled against an African-American food-service worker at Ball
State University in Indiana who claimed she was harassed because
of her race by a more-senior worker who was white.

In the other ruling, involving the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, the court's majority said that a
retaliation claim -- in which someone claims to have been
retaliated against for alleging discrimination -- needed to meet a
stricter standard of proof, showing that the retaliatory action
was the motivating factor.  A doctor of Middle Eastern descent at
the medical center brought the case, claiming he didn't get a job
offer because he had complained that he was harassed by another
doctor based on his religion and ethnic heritage.

Both cases split along the court's conservative-liberal divide,
with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito backing
employers, while dissenting Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan sided with the workers.

Both cases were brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, which forbids discrimination based on sex, race, color,
national origin and religion.

David Lopez, general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, said the agency is "disappointed by the Supreme
Court's failure to defer to long-standing EEOC interpretations of
the law."  The decisions, he said, "will have serious consequences
for workers to be free from workplace harassment and to complain
about discrimination without fear of retaliation."

The first case, Vance v. Ball State University et al., was about
the definition of "supervisor," an issue over which lower courts
had divided.  The definition is significant because a company
faces greater liability if a supervisor -- as opposed to an
ordinary employee -- engages in discriminatory behavior.  Catering
worker Maetta Vance sued Ball State, alleging she had endured
racial harassment at work by a woman she characterized as a
supervisor, while the university said the other woman wasn't a
supervisor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Alito, used a narrow
definition of a supervisor -- that only a person with authority to
hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline workers
qualifies as a boss.  The plaintiff, and the EEOC, had argued that
a supervisor is anyone with authority to direct and oversee a
person's daily work.
Related

    Supreme Court Further Limits Generic-Drug Lawsuits

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar case, said that an
employee who brings a retaliation claim must prove the action was
actually motivated by the employee's discrimination complaint.

"The link in these cases is that the court essentially rejected
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's perspective on the
law," said Barry Hartstein, a co-chairman of law firm Littler
Mendelson's hiring and background checks practice group.

In sharply worded dissents to both majority opinions, Justice
Ginsburg called on Congress to nullify the rulings by amending
Title VII.  She made a similar call after a 2008 ruling blocked
many employees from bringing discrimination claims -- and Congress
heeded by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the
first measure signed by President Barack Obama.

Critics of the Vance decision said the majority misunderstood the
workplace.  Many supervisors lack formal authority to hire and
fire, but still have a high degree of influence over a worker's
daily experience, said Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the
National Partnership for Women & Families.  The ruling, she said,
will "make proving discrimination harder . . . and that is a very
distressing outcome of a very narrowly decided decision."

Management-side lawyers welcomed the pair of rulings.  Randy
Coffey, a partner with Fisher & Phillips LLP, said the decision
offers employers some clarity.  "There's a much more bright-line
standard for employers now," he said.  "Rather than fighting about
whether a person was or wasn't a supervisor, the issue will be
whether the employee can show that the employer was negligent,
that they knew about the conduct but failed to remedy it."

Most employers already offer antibias training for employees who
oversee other workers, partly to avoid such claims of negligence,
lawyers said.  Had the high court ruled in favor of Ms. Vance,
companies might have had to expand their training programs and
possibly retool the job responsibilities of workers.

The decisions will have the most impact in parts of the country
where lower courts had previously sided with the EEOC.  The San
Francisco-based Ninth Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
covers California and other Western states, along with the Second
Circuit in New York and the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Va., which
overseas East Coast states from Maryland to South Carolina, have
all adopted the agency's more expansive definition of supervisors.
In those regions, cases that were decided against employers but
are still subject to appeal could be reconsidered using the
Supreme Court's rulings.


BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 1,540 Portfolio Nine-Light Chandeliers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2013
Posting date:             June 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Tools and Electrical
                          Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34289

Affected products: Portfolio nine-light chandelier

The recalled product is a nine-light chandelier, identified by
Lowe's item number 256047 sold under the Portfolio brand and as
Transglobe item 2579 EBG.  The chandelier metal is antique bronze
in colour and the glass light shades are frosted yellow.

The mounting loop that connects the chandelier to the ceiling can
fail during use, causing the chandelier to fall, creating a risk
of injury to bystanders under or near the chandelier.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/csijzt

Bel Air Lighting has received seventeen reports of chandeliers
falling from ceilings in the United States, with no injuries
reported.  The Company has not received any reports of incidents
or injuries in Canada.

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

Approximately 1,540 units of the affected chandeliers were sold in
Canada at Lowe's stores under the Portfolio brand (item 256047)
and in lighting showrooms (item 2579 EBG).

The affected chandeliers were manufactured in China and sold from
March 2007 through September 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Pascal Bai Yun Shan Industrial Zone
                    Hui Yang City, CHINA

   Importer         Bel Air Lighting Inc.
                    Valencia
                    California, UNITED STATES

Consumers should contact Bel Air to receive a free replacement
mounting ring and installation costs if necessary.

For more information, consumers may contact Bel Air Lighting by
telephone at 1-888-803-0509 between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site.


BEL AIR LIGHTING: Recalls 20,500 Chandeliers Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bel Air Lighting Inc., of Valencia, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 20,500 Portfolio and Transglobe nine-
light chandeliers.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mounting loop that holds the chandeliers to the ceiling can
break, causing the chandelier to fall, posing an impact injury
hazard to consumers.

Bel Air has received 18 reports of the chandeliers falling from
ceilings with some incidents resulting in property damage.

The recalled nine-light chandeliers have a two-tone antique
bronze-colored metal frame with antique gold-accents and champagne
frosted color glass shades.  The six antique gold colored lamp
holders at the bottom and three at top have a floral pattern that
is repeated on components at the top and bottom of the center lamp
stem.  Antique bronze-colored ornamental scrolling connects all
the elements.  The chandeliers were sold at Lowe's as Portfolio
brand with item number 256047 and at other stores as Transglobe
item number 2579 EBG.  The item numbers are located inside the
ceiling canopy of the chandelier.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/RDV9dT

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  The Portfolio
brand is sold exclusively at Lowe's stores and the Transglobe
brand is sold at lighting stores nationwide, both from February
2007 to June 2010 for about $250.

Consumers should prevent people from going into the immediate area
under the chandeliers.  Contact Bel Air immediately to receive a
free replacement mounting ring to repair the chandelier and
instructions on being reimbursed for the cost of the installation.
Bel Air Lighting may be reached toll-free at (888) 803-0509 from
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
online at http://www.regcen.com/belair/for more information.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that The Blue
Cross & Blue Shield Association and Blue Cross and Blue Shield's
Illinois affiliate were sued for allegedly restraining health
insurance market competition.

The national association and Health Care Service Corp., which does
business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, were named in
a complaint filed on June 7 in federal court in Chicago as a class
action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of policyholders from August
2008 to the present.

The plaintiffs seek a court order barring Health Care Service from
agreeing with the 37-member association on geographic limits to
its operations.  They're also asking for unspecified money
damages.

"The independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield entities throughout
the country, including HCSC, have explicitly agreed not to compete
with each other," violating the federal Sherman Act, according to
the complaint.

The unlawful conspiracy extends to use of "non-Blue" brands, the
policyholders alleged.  Were it not for those agreements, "these
entities could and would use their non-Blue brands to compete with
HCSC in Illinois," resulting in better service and lower premiums,
they said.

Greg Thompson, a spokesman for Chicago-based Health Care Service,
didn't immediately respond after regular business hours to a
voice-mail message seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Eric Lail and Madeleine Lovette, representatives of the Chicago-
based Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, didn't immediately
reply after regular business hours to an e-mail seeking comment.

The case is Stark v. Health Care Service Corp., 13-cv-04270, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).


CANADA: Shows No Signs of Wanting to Settle RCMP Gender Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kenny, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that Public
Safety Minister Vic Toews insists he wants more women in the RCMP.
Why then, are government lawyers working so diligently to
discourage female recruitment?

Last November, the minister sent RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson a
stern letter demanding the quick formulation of an action plan to
move from the current level of around 20% women in the national
police service to 30%.  The minister also called for an end to the
RCMP's gender-biased work environment and more promotions of
female officers, who are not well represented in senior ranks.

All good.  One can imagine a qualified woman considering a police
career to read about this letter leaked by Mr. Toews' office and
be at least marginally more enthusiastic about joining the RCMP.

Except . . . well, it certainly isn't encouraging that the
government has drastically cut back on RCMP recruitment, which
means Mr. Toews' 30% solution will probably take 30 years to
achieve.

And then there are those government lawyers, acting on the
instructions of the government Mr. Toews represents.  Waves of
female RCMP officers -- active and retired -- have been coming
forward with accusations of gender bias within the service, citing
everything from sexual harassment, which gets most of the
headlines, to more prevalent problems involving lack of respect,
bullying, lack of opportunities and foot-dragging within the
complaints process.

One might expect the government to move quickly to at least settle
the recent class-action suit that has been filed by law firms
working out of Vancouver and Thunder Bay.  When there is an
acknowledged pattern of wrongdoing and if claims are reasonable,
these kinds of suits generally get settled through negotiation,
both to avoid excessive legal costs, embarrassment and ill will.

But the federal government has shown no signs of wanting to settle
the class-action suit out of court, and the approach of justice
department lawyers to individual suits doesn't arouse optimism
that the government is in any hurry to bring closure for women who
have been victimized by decades of discrimination and abuse.

Other police services don't have lawsuit after lawsuit popping up
in the news on a regular basis.  So if you were a woman who wanted
to be a police officer, and these festering suits kept reminding
you that the federal government remains more confrontational than
apologetic about the RCMP's misogynist atmosphere, would you set
your sights on joining the Mounties? Or would you turn to police
services that have shown respect for their female employees?

Take the case of Cpl. Catherine Galliford.  Ms. Galliford, a
police spokeswoman who was trusted enough to handle the Air India
and Robert Pickton cases, has filed suit against the RCMP and five
male RCMP officers, who have denied her allegations.  Denial is
one thing.  But the government statements of defense went out of
their way to depict her as a liar and a drunk who should have
filed suit two decades ago if she had really been abused.

Tough and nasty words aren't what the RCMP needs right now if it
really intends to redress and bring an end to the pattern of
gender abuse that has obviously been present in its workplace.  It
will be interesting to see the statements of defense against three
other women who filed lawsuits after Ms. Galliford went public:
Const. Susan Gastaldo (alleged sexual assault); Const. Karen Katz
(alleged harassment, sexual assault, widespread abuse); and Cpl.
Elisabeth Mary Couture (alleged harassment and intimidation).

Then there is Const. Janet Merlo, who has filed a lawsuit alleging
sexist comments, sexual pranks and derogatory remarks while trying
to perform her duties.  Her lawyer suggests many other former and
current officers will be joining the lawsuit.

Dozens? Maybe a lot more.  Her Vancouver lawyer said a year ago
that roughly 200 had already called his office with allegations of
abuse.

Both Ms. Toews and Mr. Paulson have acknowledged that there has
been a persistent pattern of gender abuse within the RCMP, and
both have committed themselves to make amends and put an end to
it.

One can see fighting a particular lawsuit if the charges against
male officers are clearly false.  But are all suits going to be
fought with the ferocity evident in the Galliford case? Are
hundreds of women who have the guts to come forward and challenge
male domination at the RCMP going to have their integrity
questioned, over and over again?

Why would the government not move to negotiate a settlement to the
class-action suit, when their lawyers have said that most of the
women who have signed up are more interested in apologies and
genuine efforts to include them in fashioning a plan for reform
than they are in large cash settlements?

Even if significant amounts of cash end up being paid out in a
settlement, isn't that better than an expensive court battle plus
the huge damage to the RCMP's reputation as the evidence hits the
news wires?

This isn't a decision for Mr. Paulson.  This is a policy matter to
be dealt with by Stephen Harper and Vic Toews.  Mr. Paulson has
already hurried to bring forward the Gender and Respect Action
Plan after Mr. Toews demanded it.  The plan has some good in it,
to be sure, but it is a top-down directive from two males --
Messrs. Toews and Paulson.  The women who have been bullied for so
long deserve to be active participants in the reform process,
whether they are still serving or retired.

What they don't deserve, after being treated as lesser beings for
so long, is to be dealt with as enemies of the RCMP.  In fact, by
bringing this huge problem to light, they are friends of the
RCMP's future.


CASH STORE: Faces Class Actions in Ontario & Alberta
----------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. on June 7 disclosed that
proposed class action proceedings have been commenced in Ontario
and Alberta against the Company and certain of its present and
former directors and officers.  The plaintiffs each allege, among
other things, that the Company made misrepresentations during the
period from November 24, 2010 to May 24, 2013 regarding the
Company's internal controls and financial reporting and the third-
party loan portfolio acquisition.

These proceedings are in addition to the previously disclosed
civil claim filed on May 20, 2013 by Globis Capital Partners L.P.
against the Company and Gordon J. Reykdal, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, in the United States District Court of the
Southern District of New York for alleged violations of Sections
10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claiming
unspecified damages.

The Company plans to defend itself vigorously against what it
believes are unfounded allegations.

                    About Cash Store Financial

Cash Store Financial is the only lender and broker of short-term
advances and provider of other financial services in Canada that
is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.  Cash Store Financial
also trades on the New York Stock Exchange.  Cash Store Financial
operates 513 branches across Canada under the banners "Cash Store
Financial" and "Instaloans".  Cash Store Financial also operates
27 branches in the United Kingdom.

Cash Store Financial and Instaloans primarily act as lenders and
brokers 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 a private-label debit card (the "Freedom" card) and a
prepaid credit card (the "Freedom MasterCard") as well as other
financial services, including bank accounts.

Cash Store Financial employs approximately 1,900 associates and is
headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta.


CHICAGO, IL: Police Union Accuses Mayor of Concealing NATO Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that Mayor
Rahm Emanuel's administration is being accused of concealing from
the police union and an independent arbitrator a ruling against
the city that could have impacted the union's quest for $1 million
in disputed overtime for 3,100 Chicago Police officers who
protected the city during last year's NATO Summit.

At issue is one of four class-action grievances filed by the
Fraternal Order of Police after a deftly handled summit that could
have been a disaster for Chicago, but instead gave the city a
chance to shine on the world stage.

The dispute stemmed from Mayor Emanuel's decision not to pay
officers time-and-a-half overtime for working a sixth or seventh
consecutive day during a calendar week.  The matter is now before
an arbitrator.

The Chicago Police Lieutenants' Association contract has language
that mirrors the FOP contract on time-and-a-half compensation for
working a sixth or seventh consecutive day.  In March, an
arbitrator ruled against the city in the lieutenants' quest for
NATO overtime.

The FOP found out about the ruling -- long after it could have
made a difference in the pending arbitration -- only after the
lieutenants' association voted to disclose the information to the
FOP, said FOP President Mike Shields.

Mr. Shields is now claiming information on the lieutenants ruling
was deliberately concealed from the FOP, its attorney and an
arbitrator hearing the FOP's case.

"That is 100 percent unethical and it makes it hard for the FOP to
trust the Emanuel administration.  We believe they lied to us
through omission," Mr. Shields said.

"They're trying to play legal trickery to screw Chicago Police
officers out of $1 million.  Their days off were canceled.  Their
right to time-and-a-half pay was not honored.  Instead, the city
took the ridiculous position that the sixth and seventh work day
could be your first two days of a new week.  The city is acting
like a big insurance company. It's deny, delay and don't pay."

Cmdr. Don O'Neill, the director of management and labor affairs
for the Chicago Police Department accused of concealing the
information, refused to comment on the FOP's claim.  The union is
considering filing a complaint against him with the Attorneys
Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Roderick Drew, spokesman for the city's Law Department, denied the
city tried to conceal anything.

"In fact, notice of the award was posted on the [lieutenants]
union website.  And the issue in that arbitration is actually
factually different from the FOP case," Drew said in an emailed
response.

The NATO overtime tiff is certain to exacerbate tensions between
the city and the FOP nearly two years after the union's contract
with the city expired.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported in March that Mayor Emanuel was
using an embarrassing paperwork mistake that Mr. Shields made last
year to deny rank-and-file police officers of their automatic
right to a retroactive pay raise in 2012.

The move was widely viewed as the mayor's attempt to get even with
Shields for working to torpedo a four-year contract with police
sergeants -- tied to pension and retiree health-care reform --
that Mayor Emanuel had hoped to use a road map to solve the city's
pension crisis.

During the NATO Summit, Police Supt. Garry McCarthy canceled days
off and ordered all 3,100 officers to work 12-hour shifts to
devote extraordinary police resources to the gathering of world
leaders and still provide a 15 percent increase in neighborhood
police protection.

Mayor Emanuel stuck his neck out to get the NATO Summit, squeezed
business leaders to fund it and imposed strict rules and fines
governing public protests before softening those regulations under
pressure from Chicago aldermen.

But all of the post-summit accolades went to McCarthy, whose
frontline leadership in helping to diffuse a potentially volatile
confrontation with Black Bloc provocateurs turned him into a
Chicago folk hero.


CNX GAS: Senator Calls for Probe on Emails in Gas Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
concerns have been raised about a series of emails between a
member of the Virginia attorney general's office and lawyers
representing energy giants CNX Gas and EQT Production in a federal
court battle against Southwest Virginia landowners over natural
gas royalties.

Virginia Senator Phillip Puckett, D-Lebanon, called on the
governor's office and state inspector general on June 10 to
investigate whether the communications violate the law and any
ethics codes.

"If that is actually factual and true then that's of great concern
to me," Mr. Puckett said in a phone conference over the chance
that legal advice might have been offered.

Hours later, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli denied allegations
that his office tried to help the private companies with their
court battles.

"My office intervened for the limited purpose of defending the
constitutionality of the law," Mr. Cuccinelli responded in an
emailed statement.  "Contrary to media reports, the gas companies
get their legal advice from their own attorneys, not this office."

State Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, labeled all criticism
of the emails as political attacks.

"Any suggestion that Attorney General Cuccinelli or his office was
involved in any impropriety should be dismissed for the Democrat
talking points they so clearly are," Kilgore said in a release.

The Bristol Herald Courier published five emails between Assistant
Virginia Attorney General Sharon Pigeon, EQT lead attorney Wade
Massie and CNX lead attorney Jonathan Blank.  Ms. Pigeon also
advises the Virginia Gas and Oil Board, which oversees the natural
gas wellheads targeted in the lawsuits.

In one email, Ms. Pigeon appears to offer legal advice to Mr.
Massie on how to attack a lawsuit filed with the intent of
representing thousands of landowners in class-action cases with
millions of dollars at stake.

"You are welcome," she wrote Oct. 22, 2011, of a file she sent.
"Now use it in response to the Motion to Certify a Class Action!"

The content of the file she sent and whether Mr. Massie used it in
court is not known.

One email is headed by the subject line "Confidential Joint
Defense Atty Work Product" while another is headed by
"Confidential Atty Work Product."

At issue is a series of five lawsuits challenging both a 20-year-
old state law on ownership claims to coalbed methane, the natural
gas siphoned from coal seams, and how energy companies deduct
post-production costs from royalties.

For nearly three years, lawyers representing the landowners have
argued that a series of class-action cases representing thousands
of people would be quicker and less costly than arguing ownership
claims one deed at a time.

Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent recently recommended
certifying their class-action requests in an 85-page report to
U.S. District Judge James P. Jones, who will issue the final
ruling.

In her report, Judge Sargent wrote that Pigeon's emails
"shockingly" show she assisted and advised EQT and CNX in their
defense strategy.

Lead plaintiff's attorney Ron Barrett dismissed Mr. Cuccinelli's
assertion that Pigeon followed only the case's constitutional
aspects.

"The constitutional argument was decided a year and a half [before
the 2011 email] and the attorney general's office had dropped from
the case," Mr. Barrett said.

CNX spokeswoman Lynn Seay said the company is still reviewing the
report and will respond to the court when finished.

EQT did not respond to a request for comment.


COMCAST CABLE: Schnader Harrison Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
John K. Gisleson, Esq. -- jgisleson@schnader.com -- and Monica C.
Platt, Esq., at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, report that
in Datascope Analytics, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
No. 13-608, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70215(E.D. Pa. May 17, 2013),
the District Court dismissed a proposed class action at the
inception of the lawsuit because defendant Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc. mooted the case by offering to settle with
the named plaintiffs for the full amount of their alleged damages
before the complaint was filed.  This decision gives potential
class action defendants an avenue for avoiding class litigation in
a narrow group of cases.

Plaintiffs were customers of Comcast's Business Class Service for
voice and/or internet services who claimed that Comcast charged
Business Class customers fees inconsistent with their contracts.
They initially sued Comcast in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  However, before the plaintiffs
moved to certify the class in that case, Comcast offered to settle
with the individual named plaintiffs by paying them the full
damages they requested, plus costs and attorney fees, and by
offering to let the only plaintiff that was still a Business Class
customer terminate its contract without paying an early
termination fee.  The total value of the settlement before
attorneys' fees and litigation costs was less than $1,200.
Following this offer, the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the Illinois action without prejudice.  Plaintiffs' counsel later
rejected the offer of settlement, however, and filed a new,
substantially identical, class action complaint against Comcast in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Comcast moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania action, arguing, among
other things, that because Comcast had already offered complete
relief to the named plaintiffs before the plaintiffs filed the
Pennsylvania suit, there was no longer a case or controversy.
Comcast argued that by mooting the named plaintiffs' claims before
any class was certified and, indeed, before the case in
Pennsylvania was filed, it had mooted the entire case.  Plaintiffs
responded that because the Illinois action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiffs were in the same
position as if the Illinois lawsuit had never been filed, and that
the offer of settlement in that case therefore had no legal
effect.  Plaintiffs also argued that the Illinois offer of relief
was incomplete because it did not address the potential class
claims.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments because the offer of
complete relief in Illinois prevented the named plaintiffs from
representing any of the proposed class members.  In order to be a
class member, a named plaintiff must have standing at the time the
complaint is filed, and, because of the offer of complete relief,
these named plaintiffs had no personal stake in the outcome.  The
court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their
claims.  The court held that it was not necessary for a defendant
to address potential class claims in its offer in order to moot
the case.  On this point, the District Court relied on the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013). In Genesis, the Court considered
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and held
that because the defendants' Rule 68 offer of judgment (which the
plaintiff did not accept) had mooted the named plaintiff's claims,
and no other claimants had opted into the collective action, the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the
alleged dispute.  In particular, the Court held that the presence
of collective allegations in a complaint cannot save a suit from
mootness once the individual claim is satisfied.

Before the Datascope decision, a decision by the Third Circuit,
Weiss v. Regal Collections, sought to protect against the mooting
of class claims by a defendant's Rule 68 offer to the named
plaintiffs by holding that a certification motion relates back to
the filing of the complaint and therefore keeps class members'
claims alive even if the named plaintiff settles.  The Supreme
Court's decision in Genesis expressed doubts about that procedure,
but left the question open.  Datascope suggests that even if the
Weiss rule remains viable, there is a narrow exception for cases
in which a defendant offers complete relief to the named
plaintiffs before suit is filed.  In that situation, the pre-
complaint offer of settlement will moot the case in its entirety,
regardless of the class allegations.  Datascope thus provides one
way for potential defendants to head off a class action by acting
quickly to settle claims after receiving a pre-complaint demand
from an unhappy consumer or customer.


CONNECTICUT: SEBAC's Class Action Goes Back to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lender, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that the
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on May 31 reversed a lower court
ruling, and gave unionized state employees a major victory in a
2003 class action lawsuit against ex-Gov. John G. Rowland and his
budget chief, Marc Ryan.

The appeals panel of three judges unanimously reversed a 2011 U.S.
District Court summary judgment in favor of the state; the panel
upheld the claim of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition
-- or SEBAC -- that Mr. Rowland, Mr. Ryan and the state acted
illegally by targeting more than 2,800 union members for layoffs
while sparing non-union workers.

The case now goes back to the district court level for a
determination of how much the state must pay in damages now, a
decade later.  The governor's office and Attorney General George
Jepsen declined to comment other than to say they are studying how
much it might cost and what the state's options may be.

But amid that uncertainty, one thing is known: It's already cost
the state nearly a million bucks to lose the case.

The attorney general's office has used hired a series of outside
law firms to defend the state in federal court, and in a related
case in Connecticut courts that the state lost in 2009, according
to records requested by Government Watch via a Freedom of
Information Act request.

Starting in February 2003, the case was handled by Carmody &
Torrance, the Waterbury-based firm of Mr. Rowland's friend and
longtime personal lawyer, James K. Robertson Jr. Carmody &
Torrance was paid $4,025 for several months of work.

Mr. Rowland resigned in mid-2004 amid a corruption scandal that
led to his conviction in federal court and a prison term of 10
months.

The Hartford firm of Day Pitney (formerly Day Berry & Howard) was
paid $520,545.11 for handling the case as it dragged on from 2003
to 2007 -- and, since 2008, the Hartford firm of McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter (formerly Pepe & Hazard) has been paid
$460,056.90.

Total legal bill to Connecticut taxpayers so far: $984,627.01.

David S. Golub -- dgolub@sgtlaw.com -- of the Stamford firm
Silver, Golub & Teitell represented the SEBAC employees.

Other than damages against the state, the other thing to be
decided when the case is taken up again at the district court
level is whether Rowland and Ryan may have any individual
liability beyond their former official capacities.

The 2nd Circuit ruling says that the Rowland administration's
layoff of union workers, while sparing non-unionized employees,
violated their constitutional right of free association.

A key passage in the appeals panel's ruling said that the state
hadn't demonstrated why its "fiscal health required firing only
union members, rather than implementing membership-neutral
layoffs."

"[A]ll state employees, whether or not they belong to unions,
receive the same health care and pension benefits," the panel
said, adding that there's no evidence to support "an argument that
union members cost more, provided fewer services, or were
distinguishable from their non-union co-workers in any way other
than their membership itself."

The Rowland administration "chose to accomplish whatever cost
savings were achieved by firing only employees who were union
members, as opposed to targeting the least valuable or most
expensive workers.  Thus, layoffs predicated on union membership
could not differentially affect the savings to be achieved, or the
efficiency of the state's work force," the panel said.

The state's "best argument," in its defense, "is that the 2003
firings were meant to compel the unions to agree to concessions,
which in turn would reduce the long-term costs of state
government, arguably a vital government interest," the panel said.
"State officials may certainly bargain hard with state employees.
. . . But for a state to fire union members -- and union members
alone -- in the hope of ultimately achieving economic concessions
is little different from refusing to hire union members in the
first place.

"Unquestionably, layoffs applied generally without discriminating
against union members would also have brought dramatic pressure on
SEBAC, by terminating the employment of workers on whose behalf
the unions were negotiating; this is particularly so in that 75%
of such layoffs could be expected to fall on union members, who
made up that proportion of the work force.  But such layoffs, in
contrast to the ones here challenged, would not have penalized
employees because of their union membership."

SEBAC, whose constituent unions represent about 75 percent of
state workers, has hailed the ruling.

"After nearly a decade, the Second Circuit Court's opinion
invalidating John Rowland's layoff of nearly 3,000 state employees
is a tremendous victory for the free speech rights of all
Americans," said Daniel E. Livingston, attorney and chief
negotiator for SEBAC.  "The court held that when a governor
punishes people because of the group to whom they belong --
whether it's a union or a political party, or a religion -- he or
she violates our Constitution's most cherished provisions."

Added Mr. Livingston: "The Second Circuit Court's opinion shows
that Rowland's treatment of public service workers as the enemy is
costly and destructive -- to the workers and the vital public
services they provide, and to every taxpayer.  Instead, it is
mutual respect -- for the law, for public service workers, and
most importantly the public we all serve -- which will move us
forward towards a better future.  Our country and state simply
function better when top officials work with and for working
families, instead of against them."

Said Larry Dorman, spokesman for Council 4 of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: "This illegal
and immoral act not only disrupted thousands of lives, but also
cost Connecticut taxpayers dearly.  What a shame -- and what a
reminder about the perils of vindictiveness and disregard for the
law."


CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over $50 Gun Permit Fee
-------------------------------------------------------
David Owens, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that a
Torrington business owner who claims he was wrongly charged $50 by
state police to apply for a pistol permit is the plaintiff in a
lawsuit that seeks to become a class action suit for all pistol
permit applicants charged the fee since Oct. 1, 2009.

James Utecht, through Torrington lawyer Rachel Baird, brought the
suit against Reuben E. Bradford, commissioner of the state
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, which
oversees the state police, and Torrington Police Chief Michael
Maniago.  Mr. Utecht sought his pistol permit through the
Torrington police department.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford, contends state
police have no authority to charge the $50 fee for a criminal
background check and began doing so without any authority on Oct.
1, 2009.

Ms. Baird said on June 7 the suit seeks to have the fee returned
to those who paid it, to have state police stop collecting the fee
and for state police to pay damages to those harmed by having to
pay the fee.

Before Oct. 1, 2009, people who applied for a state temporary
pistol permits had to pay two fees: $19.25 for an FBI fingerprint
background check and $35 to the authority that determines
eligibility, such as their local police department, first
selectman or resident state trooper.  If they received a temporary
permit, applicants could pay another $35 to the state police and
apply for a five-year state pistol permit.

Effective Oct. 1, 2009, the fees for a temporary permit increased.
The FBI fingerprint background fee remained at $19.25, but the fee
payable to the local authority doubled to $70 and state police
began charging $50 for the criminal background check.

Baird said more than $1 million has been collected improperly
since the fee was imposed.

Ed Peruta, a gun rights advocate who also works as an investigator
for Baird, began questioning state police about the $50 fee days
after state police began requiring it. A year ago, Baird sent a
cease-and-desist request, arguing that the $50 fee was improper,
to all cities and towns in the state.

Mr. Peruta and Ms. Baird argue that the local authority that
considers an applicant's pistol permit application asks for the
background check, not the applicant, and municipalities do not
have to pay the state police for criminal background checks.

In 2010, then-Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III, who
is now a state Superior Court judge, said the attempt to
distinguish between a person and a government agency making a
criminal background request was "absurd."

"Like any individual who obtains a copy of a state criminal
history record, applicants for [pistol permits] are subject to the
$50 fee provided in [state law]," he wrote.

But in February, despite Danaher's assertion that the applicants,
not the municipalities, are subject to the fee, the state police
submitted a bill to the General Assembly specifically to authorize
the collection of the $50 fee from cities, towns, state agencies
and local housing authorities.

In a letter to the General Assembly's Public Safety and Security
Committee current public safety commissioner Mr. Bradford wrote:

"Under existing law all criminal history background checks coming
from other agencies are not subject to any state fees," Mr.
Bradford wrote.  "Currently, all state and municipal agencies are
requesting criminal history background checks for free for a
variety of applicants and not paying the $50 state fee."

State police declined to comment since a lawsuit is pending.

Ms. Baird notified legislators that pistol permit applicants were
in fact being charged the $50 fee.

Ms. Baird said she never heard back from any of those legislators,
although the bill died when it did not advance beyond the finance
committee.

"For $50 people usually don't come to an attorney, and that's the
problem," Ms. Baird said.  "The state gets away with it.  If you
rip everybody off a little at a time, who's going to complain?"

The lawsuit's goal is to send a message that you can't get away
with it, Ms. Baird said.

"They know this is wrong," she said.  "They know it's wrong and
they still do it.  If telling them doesn't make them change, if
writing doesn't make them change, what makes them change? That's
what it's about."

State police also submitted a bill to charge a fee for people to
view accident reports.  The proposal was in response to a state
Freedom of Information Commission decision.

Mr. Peruta asked to look at state police accident reports.  He did
not want copies and therefore argued he did not have to pay the
$16 fee state police charge for a report.

When state police refused, he went to the state Freedom of
Information Commission, which ruled in Mr. Peruta's favor.  The
state police bill that would allow the agency to charge for
looking at a report died in committee as well.


DGSE COMPANIES: Settles Class Suit Over Accounting Irregularities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Miller, writing for Rapaport, reports that DGSE Companies and
all other defendants have entered into an agreement "in principle"
to settle class action and derivative litigation related to DGSE's
previously-disclosed accounting irregularities and subsequent
restatement of its financial results.

The proposed settlements are subject to various conditions, but
DGSE contended that it will resolve all issues which are pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.  DGSE specifically listed the following cases to be
resolved, the two filed cases entitled Grant Barfuss, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated vs. DGSE Companies Inc.;
L. S. Smith, John Benson and William Oyster (Civil Action No.
3:12-cv-3664), and Jason Farmer, derivatively on behalf of nominal
defendant DGSE Companies Inc., plaintiff, v. William H. Oyster,
James D. Clem, William Cordeiro, Craig Alan-Lee, David Rector, L.
S. Smith, and John Benson, defendants and DGSE Companies Inc.,
nominal defendant (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-3850).

The defendants have agreed to pay $2 million to resolve all claims
in both suits (including obligations to pay attorneys' fees).
DGSE expects to incur some additional fees and expenses associated
with finalizing the settlement.  It is expected that approximately
90 percent of the total settlement amount and related expenses
will be paid from insurance proceeds.

"We are pleased to put this situation behind us, and focus our
entire attention on growing our business profitably," said James
Vierling, the CEO of DGSE.  "The new leadership of DGSE, put in
place following the discovery of these accounting irregularities,
has demonstrated a firm commitment to creating and preserving
shareholder value."


DOLLAR GENERAL: Judge Orders Release of Names of Fired Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
federal judge has ruled against Dollar General's objection to
handing over the names of former employees who are potential
members of a class action lawsuit.

On June 5, U.S. District Judge Gina Groh issued an opinion that
said the plaintiff's need for the information outweighs Dollar
General's concerns.  The lawsuit alleges the company failed to pay
Stephanie Paulino's final wages within 72 hours of her
termination.

"Plaintiff has shown a legitimate need for the requested
information to determine whether common questions of law or fact
exist and whether her claims are typical," Judge Groh wrote.

"Also, Plaintiff seeks the information of potential plaintiffs
rather than disinterested third parties.  Thus, as the court
previously ordered, Defendants must disclose the names and contact
information of former employees, but the protective order in place
should sufficiently address any privacy concerns."

Dollar General argued it was premature to offer information on
former employees who were fired within the past five years, as
U.S. Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert ordered on Feb. 8.

"If defendants are required to produce names and contact
information of the former employees, it will work manifest
injustice to the defendants and former non-party employees due to
(1) the irreversible nature of the production of names and contact
information and (2) the privacy interests of non-party employees,"
its motion said.

Dollar General is also arguing that certification for the proposed
class is improper.  If it wins its argument, it will not be able
to undo the release of the contact information of former
employees, it claimed.

"Moreover, Plaintiff and her lawyers will have access to highly
confidential information to which they ultimately have no legal
need or right to effectively litigate this matter," the motion
said.

"Additionally, this confidential information could become a client
list for Plaintiff's counsel and result in further litigation for
Defendants which is fundamentally unjust and contrary to the
intent and purpose of class litigation and Rule 23."

Ms. Paulino and the proposed class are represented by Martinsburg
attorneys David Hammer, Esq., at Hammer, Ferretti and Schiavoni;
and the Law Offices of Harry P. Waddell -- hwad50@aol.com

They filed a response to the emergency motion on May 13, claiming
it is Dollar General's fourth attempt to restrict discovery on the
same issue.

"Defendants' latest motion for reconsideration is frivolous and
without basis in law or fact, and, therefore, made with improper
purpose," the response said.

"Although Defendants deny that they seek to 'unnecessarily delay
these proceedings,' nearly seven months have passed without
Plaintiff having received the full discovery to which she is
entitled to under the Rules and as ordered successively by
Magistrate Judge Seibert and by this Court."

The response also says the conduct of Dollar General's attorneys
has needlessly slowed the pace of the case and added fees and
costs to Ms. Paulino's claims.


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Katten Muchin Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Gordon, Esq., and Tenley Mochizuki, Esq., at Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, report that the Delaware Supreme Court
recently affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a derivative and
class action complaint against the general partner and other
managers of a limited partnership because the plaintiff failed to
overcome a good faith presumption in the limited partnership
agreement (LPA).  The plaintiff holds limited partnership units of
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (EEP), of which defendant Enbridge
Energy Company (EEC) is the general partner.  Canadian corporation
Enbridge, Inc. (Enbridge), also a defendant, indirectly owns all
of EEC. In early 2009, EEP decided to build and operate a portion
of an oil pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin.  To finance the
project, Enbridge proposed a joint venture with EEP.  Given the
relationships between and among Enbridge, EEC and EEP, EEC's board
created a special committee to evaluate whether the terms of the
proposed joint venture were fair and reasonable to EEP.  To review
the joint venture and negotiate on behalf of EEP, the special
committee hired various advisors, determined that the terms of the
joint venture were fair and reasonable, and ultimately recommended
that EEP accept Enbridge's proposal.  After the project was
completed in April 2010, the plaintiff sued, alleging, among other
things, that the defendants had breached their express and implied
duties under the LPA by accepting the joint venture, the terms of
which, the plaintiff alleged, were not fair or reasonable.  The
Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and
the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's
claim against EEC was barred by the terms of the LPA on the ground
that the LPA afforded EEC, as general partner, a conclusive
presumption of good faith if it relied on the opinion of a
consultant, provided the opinion was within the consultant's area
of expertise.  Moreover, although the good-faith provision did not
cover EEC's affiliates, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
lower court's holding that the plaintiff failed to plead
sufficient facts alleging the affiliates' bad faith.

Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5526
(Del. Supr. May 28, 2013).


EXXON MOBIL: Seeks Dismissal of Ark. Pipeline Rupture Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Exxon Mobil Corp.
on June 6 moved to toss a putative class accusing it of causing
significant environmental and economic damage through a recent oil
pipeline rupture, telling an Arkansas federal judge the plaintiffs
had not suffered any actual damage from the spill.

According to the oil giant, oil spilled from the March 29 rupture
of its Pegasus pipeline in Mayflower, Ark., did not come into
contact with the properties of named plaintiffs Kathryn Chunn and
Ellen Burgess, meaning they cannot make a claim for a drop in
property value because under Arkansas law such claims must show
permanent physical damage.

"The allegations of the complaint demonstrate plainly that the oil
did not come into contact with their property," Exxon said.  "With
no allegation of permanent physical damage to their real property,
Chunn and Burgess cannot recover for an alleged diminution in the
value of their real property.'

The spill occurred in the Northwoods subdivision and along North
Starlite Road in Mayflower, neither of which contains property
owned by the plaintiffs, and though they claim that the spill
affected a large area of the town through soil, water and air
contamination and forced evacuations, they do not actually allege
any particular harm to their properties, that they were evacuated
or that they were otherwise directly affected, Exxon claims.

Their claim for nuisance due to alleged interference with their
use of their properties is also invalid, because, as with the
property value claim, such claims must involve some sort of
physical harm or a "certain, substantial" interference with the
use of the land, not vague allegations based on their properties
being in the general area of the oil spill, according to the
motion.

Also, there is no claim for strict liability from the spill, as
the operation of an oil pipeline is common and thus isn't
inherently an "ultrahazardous" activity -- an uncommon activity
that involves the risk of serious harm to people or property that
can't be eliminated by the use of "utmost care" -- and an accident
doesn't make it one, Exxon said.

Even if the court doesn't dismiss the suit, it should still
dismiss class claims from the complaint, Exxon argued in a
separate motion, saying the plaintiffs' proposed class definitions
-- all Arkansas residents who owned property within a three-mile
radius of the rupture on the date of the spill or owned property
bordering nearby Lake Conway, except those with Pegasus easements
on their land -- were arbitrary and the claims of the potential
class members were too individualized.

Counsel for the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment on June 7.

The suit was filed in April, less than a week after the pipeline
rupture, alleging the resulting spill was the worst in Arkansas
history, with more than 19,000 barrels spilled.  The rupture was
the result of negligent operation, monitoring and maintenance by
Exxon and several of its pipeline units, according to the
complaint, which was amended in May, substituting Burgess for
original plaintiff Kimla Greene and narrowing the plaintiffs'
proposed class definition.

Cleanup of the spill and repair of the pipeline, which carries
Canadian oil and tar sands south from Patoka, Ill., to Nederland,
Texas, is still ongoing, but all visible "freestanding" oil has
been cleaned up and efforts have moved on to remediation, Exxon
announced in late May.  An investigation into the spill by
Arkansas' attorney general's office is also still ongoing.

The plaintiffs are represented by Phillip Duncan, Esq., Richard
Quintus, Esq., William R. Pointer, Esq., Justin C. Zachary, Esq.,
and Timothy P. Reed, Esq., of Duncan Firm PA, and Thomas P.
Thrash, Esq., and Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq., of Thrash Law Firm PA.

Exxon is represented by Edwin L. Lowther Jr. -- elowther@wlj.com
-- Stephen R. Lancaster -- slancaster@wlj.com -- Michelle M.
Kaemmerling, Michael D. Barnes, Jane A. Kim, Scott A. Irby and
Gary D. Marts, Jr. of Wright Lindsey & Jennings LLP.

The case is Chunn et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et al., case number
4:13-cv-00199, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.


FOREST CITY: Tentative Settlement Reached in Parking Meter Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Gustafson, writing for The Journal News, reports that a
tentative settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit
filed by Ridge Hill customers in the wake of revelations that the
shopping center cashed in on fees from more than 100 unauthorized
parking meters.

Kathy Andersen of Congers and Maria Lena Felidi of Yonkers filed
suit Jan. 15 in state Supreme Court in Rockland County against
Forest City and First New York Partners Management, which helped
operate the meters.

Their attorney, Daniel Szalkiewicz, said the tentative agreement
is "fair and reasonable to all parties involved," but declined to
comment further.

The women allege that Ridge Hill and its management engaged in
"wrongful business practices in deceiving the public consumers
into believing they were legally required to pay for parking
meters" that appeared to be municipally enforced.

The lawsuit came a day after The Journal News revealed that the
shopping center never got city authorization for meters that it
has since removed.

Forest City collected an undisclosed amount of fees from the
meters and possible payments of its private parking tickets --
some for as much as $75 -- over more than a year before ceasing
its operation in the fall at the city's request.

Ms. Andersen also claims to have received a bogus mall-issued
parking ticket for an expired meter.

Mr. Szalkiewicz said in January that his clients were seeking a
nominal fee, in line with what they paid to park.

Ashley Cotton, a spokeswoman for Ridge Hill developer Forest City
Ratner, also declined to discuss the tentative settlement in
detail.

"We have been negotiating a resolution of this complaint and
cannot comment on its terms before it's finalized and submitted to
the court, which should happen very soon," she said.


FOREST PLACE: Owner Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Schroeder, writing for KARK 4 News, reports that Forest
Place Apartments, on North University, has been in the news quite
a bit the past few weeks.

In May, a large fire destroyed a building there.

Early in June, a second fire caused damage to another building in
the complex.  And, a Little Rock law firm stated negligence as the
reason to file a recent class action lawsuit against the company
that owns the apartment at the Pulaski County Courthouse.

Ben Kent -- BenK@dlf-ar.com -- with Davidson Law Firm says 150
people are part of the lawsuit.

Residents say the fire, that happened in May, is just one of
several that happened at Forest Place this year.  Investigators
are still trying to figure out what caused the May 15th fire, but
residents in the lawsuit, claim it could've been prevented if
management made safety a priority at the complex.

Some residents told KARK about issues with smoke detectors, the
sprinkler system and security measures.

Mr. Kent said, "The people I spoke to have had a real rough go so
far and we're just trying to help them out."  In the end, through
the negligent lawsuit, residents want their property replaced or
to be reimbursed for what they lost in the massive blaze.

So far, the company that owns Forest Place Apartments, has not
responded to the lawsuit.  When KARK 4 News called the apartment
on June 7, a representative said they couldn't talk about the
case.


FOX: Judge Grants Class Certification to Unpaid Interns
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that as
interns flood the summer work force once again, a federal judge in
New York has just given them something to cheer about.

In an unprecedented ruling, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III
in Manhattan found that unpaid interns at various Fox subsidiaries
should be considered employees under 2010 guidelines drafted by
the U.S. Department of Labor, entitling them to compensation under
federal and state labor laws.  Rejecting various defense arguments
put forward by Fox's lawyers at Proskauer Rose, Judge Pauley
granted certification of a class of interns seeking back pay.

The class isn't large -- probably between 100-150 interns,
according to one of the lawyers involved.  But the plaintiffs'
team at Outten & Golden hailed the decision as a major
breakthrough.  "This is the first case where there has been a
ruling that establishes that unpaid interns are employees," said
Outten's Juno Turner.  "This means that if interns are providing
work of immediate benefit to employers where they are not
receiving training other than what they're learning on the job,
then they're entitled to wages."

The ruling follows a conflicting decision in the same district
just last month.  In that case, which was also brought by Outten &
Golden, an intern is seeking back pay on behalf of a proposed
class that theoretically includes thousands of past interns in the
vast Hearst Corporation magazine empire.  After conditionally
certifying a collective FSLA action last summer, U.S. District
Judge Harold Baer Jr., denied certification on May 8, finding that
the interns, who held a variety of jobs, didn't meet the higher
bar for showing class commonality established by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Dukes v Wal-Mart.  Judge Baer also found that Hearst was
within its rights to bring in the named plaintiff, Xuedan Wang,
without pay under a "trainee" exception to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Both cases look ripe for appeal.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has never ruled on the precise issue of whether
modern-day interns are to be considered employees.  The last major
decision on the issue came in 1947, when the Supreme Court ruled
in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. that prospective brakemen who
took a weeklong unpaid training were not employees under the law,
because the company received no immediate benefit from the
trainees' work.  Both judges in the intern cases cited Walling to
come to different conclusions.

Both judges also cited Dukes.  But in contrast to Judge Baer,
Judge Pauley found that plaintiffs had satisfied the commonality
requirement by providing evidence that Fox knew it had benefited
from the unpaid labor.  One piece of evidence noted that Fox
Searchlight had doubled the use of interns after overtime pay and
temporary employees were scaled back.  In another email,
Searchlight's internship recruiter said that interns were
providing benefits to the company and that "we really should pay
them" under Department of Labor guidelines.

Outten & Golden, which is representing the plaintiff interns in
both cases, has already sought leave to appeal the Hearst
decision.  Rachel Bien is leading the charge at Outten & Golden in
both cases.  Fox's lawyer, Elise Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com --
at Proskauer Rose, didn't respond to a request for comment.
(Hearst is relying on an in-house team as well as Proskauer's Mark
Batten in the case before Judge Baer.)

Whatever happens on appeal, there are at least two other new
federal cases in the wings.  On May 7, a former unpaid intern
alleged in a proposed federal class action in Pittsburgh that the
Pittsburgh Power arena football team misuses unpaid interns.  And
in February, a former unpaid intern at Elite Model Management
Corp. filed a proposed $50 million class action claiming that the
agency also violated state and federal wage laws.

Lawyers in the Elite case were due to file a motion for
conditional certification as an FSLA collective action by June 24.
The plaintiff, Dajia Davenport, is represented by Steven Wittels
-- slwittels@wittelslaw.com -- of the Law Offices of Steven L.
Wittels.  The modeling agency has tapped Gary Friedman --
gary.friedman@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges.


GENLYTE THOMAS: Recalls 80,300 Units of Capri Track Lighting
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Genlyte Thomas Group LLC, of Tupelo, Mississippi, part
of Philips Consumer Luminaires Corporation, of Elgin, Illinois;
and manufacturer, Tai Sing Group Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a
voluntary recall of about 80,300 units of Capri track lighting.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The light fixtures can fall off of the track rail, posing an
impact injury hazard to bystanders.

Genlyte has received 12 reports of the light fixtures cracking,
including three reports of light fixtures falling off of their
track rails. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Capri track lighting used in commercial
buildings and includes 15 styles of metal or polycarbonate light
fixtures, accessories and adapters. The track and light fixtures
were sold in white, black or silver colors. A complete list of
catalog numbers and date codes included in this recall is at
www.recall.philips.com. The catalog number and date code are
printed inside the lighting fixture. "Capri Lighting" is printed
on a white label inside the track rail.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/VGpDLx

The recalled products were manufactured in Hong Kong and sold at
electrical wholesale supply distributors from August 2010 through
January 2013 for between $50 and $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled track lights,
remove them from the track rail and contact Genlyte for free
replacement track lights.  Genlyte Thomas Group LLC may be reached
at (800) 375-6007 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or online at http://www.recall.philips.com/,
choose United States/English and click on the Capri track lighting
recall for more information or e-mail the firm at
capritrack@philips.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Fights Foley Disqualification Bid in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that Gerber Products Co.
urged an Arkansas federal judge on June 7 not to bar Foley &
Lardner LLP from representing Gerber in a proposed class action
don-doff suit, claiming the plaintiffs are trying to stretch
disqualification rules past their logical boundaries.

Cross Gunter Witherspoon & Galchus PC -- which represents Gerber
-- filed opposition papers taking aim at a May 24 bid to
disqualify Foley & Lardner, which claimed that Foley's Ryan
Parsons had crossed the line between attorney and advocate and
centered on a declaration he filed backing Gerber's opposition to
remanding the case to state court.

Mr. Parson's declaration addressed a discussion he had with the
court clerk's office regarding the filing date for a notice of
removal that the plaintiffs claimed was untimely and said that
Parsons had agreed to accept a different case number on the
condition that the filing date remained April 26.

Once a lawyer acts as a witness the whole firm should be
disqualified, the plaintiffs said.  That declaration could
potentially disqualify Foley, but only if Mr. Parsons was a
"necessary witness" and his testimony related to a "contested
issue," and neither of those things is actually true, Gerber said.

"Plaintiffs' strategy is clear: contest the declaration of
attorney Ryan Parsons without any good-faith basis for doing so in
an effort to get the entire firm of Foley & Lardner LLP
disqualified from the case.  The court should reject this gambit,"
Gerber said on June 7.

The plaintiffs originally filed their overtime suit in state
court, accusing Gerber of violating Arkansas law by failing to pay
them for time spent putting on and removing work clothes, walking
to and from work stations and washing their hands, and
periodically requiring them to work through lunch breaks without
compensation.

The disqualification dispute turns on Arkansas Rule of
Professional Conduct 3.7, which says that an attorney can't act as
an advocate at a trial in which that lawyer is likely to be a
"necessary witness" unless the testimony relates to an uncontested
issue or the nature or value of legal services rendered in the
case, or unless disqualifying the lawyer would mean substantial
hardship for the client.

Mr. Parsons isn't a necessary witness, Gerber said, adding that
the docket clearly reflects an April 26 filing date for the notice
of removal.  And there's no contested issue in play either, Gerber
said, going on to add that the plaintiffs can't point to any part
of Parsons' declaration that they are actually contesting.

Gerber also said that nixing the Foley firm would "substantially
prejudice" the company, noting that Foley's Bernard Bobber knows
Gerber and its employment law issues better than any other outside
lawyer.

And if the court adopts the plaintiffs' standard for
disqualification, plaintiffs' counsel should be tossed off the
case along with Foley, the June 7 filing said.  Earlier in the
case, the plaintiffs furnished a list of 186 putative class
members, though they now acknowledge there are more than 500
members, Gerber pointed out, adding that it has no way of knowing
if the plaintiffs were attempting to mislead the court.

However, Gerber has no evidence suggesting that their opponents
would lie, and that precludes them from contesting their claims or
trying to have plaintiffs counsel disqualified, the opposition
filing said, concluding that the same is true for the plaintiffs'
efforts to disqualify Foley.

Attorneys for both sides could not be immediately reached for
comment on June 10.

Gerber is represented by Carolyn Witherspoon -- cspoon@cgwg.com --
of Cross Gunter Witherspoon Galchus PC, and Ryan Parsons and
Bernard Bobber -- bbobber@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joe Byars of Byars Hickey & Hall
PLLC and Timothy Steadman, John Holleman and Maryna Jackson of
Holleman & Associates.

The case is Hewitt et al. v. Gerber Products Co. et al., case
number 2:13-cv-02117, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas.


GOOGLE INC: Must Be Held Accountable for Street View Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that a plaintiffs
attorney on June 10 urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to hold Google Inc. accountable for uploading data from
private Wi-Fi networks as part of its Street View program, saying
that even the U.S. government has stopped short of such
surveillance techniques.

If the court accepts Google's argument that Wi-Fi signals are
"radio communications" exempt from the federal Wiretap Act, "that
loophole is big enough for massive government intrusion," Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's Elizabeth Cabraser argued.

It wasn't clear if the court was moved by Ms. Cabraser's dire
warnings.  Judge Jay Bybee had only limited questions for each
side, while the two other members of the panel remained virtually
silent during the half-hour argument in Joffe v. Google.

"Obviously, it's a very complicated statute," Judge Bybee said.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati partner Michael Rubin argued that
"radio communications" mean any signal traveling on radio waves,
even if mostly within a person's home on a wireless computer
network.  To limit the exemption to "traditional" broadcast
signals, as U.S. District Judge James Ware had, would stifle
innovation by forcing tech companies to guess at definitions
"under pain of criminal liability."

Google set out six years ago to map street-level views of cities
and neighborhoods around the world.  Along with cameras, the
company's Street View vehicles also carried Wi-Fi sniffing
technology that captured data from commercial and residential
wireless networks, unless they were encrypted.  Google says the
goal was to map wireless access points, thereby helping mobile
device users better pinpoint their locations.  The company has
blamed a rogue engineer for developing a program that also
captured content as it streamed across those wireless networks.

Google has publicly apologized for the intrusion, but said the
company never has used nor intends to use the 600 gigabytes of
uploaded data.  In any event, the company argues, Wi-Fi signals
are exempt from the federal Wiretap Act as amended by the 1986
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  The law makes it illegal
to intercept electronic communications, unless they're "readily
accessible to the general public" or are a type of "radio
communication."

The Federal Communications Commission essentially agreed last
year, though it fined the company $25,000 for obstructing its
investigation.  Had Ware seen it the same way, it would have ended
the private class action Lieff Cabraser and other plaintiffs firms
are trying to bring.  But Judge Ware ruled that the concept of Wi-
Fi networks was little known in 1986 and Congress was simply
trying to make clear that short-wave, CB and other traditional
hobbyists could monitor publicly available communications. He then
certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.

For a seemingly sexy issue that's been dubbed the "Wi-Spy" affair
by some tech publications, oral arguments were surprisingly dry,
marked by long stretches of silence as Judge Bybee pored over
statutory language being cited by each attorney.

"The plain language of the statute actually does the work," Wilson
Sonsini's Rubin emphasized, but Judge Bybee sounded skeptical.

"That's a pretty cumbersome plain-text argument," he finally told
Mr. Rubin.  "Let's just say that if you'd done that in your
drafting class in law school, you wouldn't have gotten a good
grade."

"I'll stipulate to that," Mr. Rubin said, adding that grafting the
Electronic Communications Act on top of the Wiretap Act had added
some complexity.

But Mr. Rubin insisted that Congress had deliberately set out
examples of exempt radio -- like citizens band or police scanners
-- while also including a generic exception for as-yet-undeveloped
technologies.

Judge Bybee described that as "a cumbersome route" to Mr. Rubin's
destination.

When she took the lectern, Ms. Cabraser derided Mr. Rubin's
argument as "statutory deconstruction."

With a Cheshire cat grin, Judge Bybee suggested that if just a few
words were deleted from the statute, Google would win.  It wasn't
clear if that was a good thing for Ms. Cabraser or not.  But she
argued that if the law were read to allow Wi-Fi sniffing in and
around homes, it would raise Fourth Amendment concerns and invite
even more government intrusion than has been the subject of news
headlines for the past week.

"It would risk the constitutionality of the statute," she said,
noting that the Supreme Court has backed privacy recently in cases
involving GPS tracking and thermal imaging.  "They're holding the
Fourth Amendment against emerging technologies," she said, "and
they're doing that loud and clear."

                           *     *     *

In an earlier report, The Recorder's Mr. Graham said Ms. Cabraser
wrote in her appellate brief: "Although these home networks were
not password protected, the communications transmitted over them
were private and not broadcast for public consumption. . . . Such
communications are protected from prying eyes by the Wiretap Act,
as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act."

The case pits the renowned class action attorney against a pre-
eminent technology company and Silicon Valley's most famous law
firm in what some have dubbed the "Wi-Spy" affair.  But the case
seems to be flying largely under the radar, with only one advocacy
group bothering to weigh in.

"It's surprising there's not more amicus energy behind it," says
Alan Butler of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center,
which filed an amicus curiae brief in Joffe v. Google, 11-17483.
He suggests the claims asserted in the case may cut against "the
Silicon Valley culture of experimentation and tinkering."

Google's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati say the
uploading was unintentional and, in any event, not illegal because
unencrypted Wi-Fi signals are "radio communications" that anybody
can access, rendering them exempt from the Wiretap Act.

"While the Wiretap Act may not expressly define 'radio
communication,'" Wilson partner Michael Rubin -- mrubin@wsgr.com
-- writes on Google's behalf, "the statute's text, background and
structure all establish that the term refers to any communication
transmitted using radio waves.  That unquestionably includes the
unencrypted Wi-Fi transmissions at issue in this case."

U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled that the relevant provisions
of the Wiretap Act, drafted in 1986 before the advent of wireless
Internet technology, were intended to exempt only "traditional"
radio broadcasts.

Ninth Circuit Judges Jay Bybee, A. Wallace Tashima and U.S.
District Judge William Stafford, visiting from Florida, have been
assigned to hear the case.

The putative class action heading to the Ninth Circuit is being
spearheaded by Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis; Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll; and Lieff Cabraser.


HARTFORD FIRE: Auto Body Repair Shops Awarded $20 Mil. in Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas B. Scheffey, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that a Stamford complex litigation judge has awarded $20
million in punitive damages to a class of auto body repair shops.
This is believed to be the largest unfair trade practices award
ever issued in Connecticut.

Waterbury Superior Court Judge Alfred J. Jennings Jr., in a June 5
opinion, added to the $14.7 million award a jury awarded in
November, 2009, when it found the Hartford Fire Insurance Company
engaged in a scheme to unfairly decrease the rates it paid for
auto body repairs.

The Hartford used a group of its pre-approved "direct repair
providers" which agreed to accept lower rates for a high volume of
work, said plaintiff's lawyer David Slossberg, of Milford's
Hurwitz, Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff.  The Hartford, in turn, would
not pay higher rates than the direct repair providers, and in turn
put pressure on independent auto repair appraisers to write lower
than market value estimates, Mr. Slossberg said.

Jennings, in a 20-page opinion, wrote that "the neutrality and
independence of licensed vehicle damage appraisers has been
seriously compromised, thereby diluting public confidence in their
role and the respect they should be afforded as state licensees."

Thomas D. Rohback -- tgr@avhlaw.com -- of Axinn Veltrop, referred
questions about the case to his client, the Hartford Fire
Insurance Co. Spokesman Thomas Hambrick said, ""We are
disappointed in the ruling and plan to appeal."

Robert Langer -- rlanger@wiggin.com -- of Wiggin & Dana, and a
CUTPA expert, declined to comment.  He is expected to handle the
appeal.

Originally a class of 1,000 Connecticut body shops, Artie's Auto
Body, Inc., et al v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, the
class has grown to an estimated 1,500 shops affected.  The very
size of the class is an aggravating factor in determining punitive
damages, Jennings wrote.  It "shows the breadth and extent to the
damage cause by defendant's misconduct."

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act provided remedies for
economic practices that are immoral or harmful to the public, even
if they violate no specific law.

Jennings took into account the "large net worth of the Harford"
which was approximately $12 to $13 billion, in order to fashion an
award that has meaningful "deterrent motivation."

The plaintiffs had requested punitives of $59 million, or four
times the jury's award of $14,765,556.  The actual award is a
multiple of approximately 1.35 times the jury award.


HEALTH NET: Judge Approves $215-Mil. Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff S. Whelan, writing for NJ.com, reports that Health Net Inc.
has agreed to pay $215 million and make $40 million worth of
improvements in its business practices to settle three class
action lawsuits that alleged the health insurer systematically
underpaid two million customers in several states, including New
Jersey.

U.S. Judge Faith Hochberg gave final approval to the settlement on
June 24, said Barry Epstein, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs.  Mr. Epstein said it was believed to be the largest
single settlement ever reached in a health insurance class action
suit.

The agreement includes $15 million in payments for members of a
small employer plan in New Jersey in connection with a settlement
between the company and the New Jersey Department of Business and
Insurance.

The company was sued in federal court in Newark and charged with
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),
New Jersey's employer health plan law, and the U.S. Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.  The allegations
pertained to the way it paid members of its health plans for out-
of-network services.

Under the agreement, Health Net Inc. and several of its regional
subsidiaries also named as defendants did not admit liability.

Alice Ferreira, spokeswoman for Health Net, said the judge's
action finalized an agreement the company first announced back in
November 2007.

"Obviously we are pleased the court has approved the settlement.
This fully resolves this matter.  We look forward to moving ahead
and working towards improving the manner in which we conduct
business with our members," she said.

According to New Jersey Law Journal's Mary Pat Gallagher, the
judge is perturbed that $90 million has yet to be distributed five
years later.


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 34,881 FIT for Model Years 2007 and 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           34,881
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013216
TC ID number:             2013216

On certain vehicles, water may enter the driver's power window
master switch.  Although Honda previously attempted to remedy this
problem by installing a plastic cover over the switch, this fix
was inadequate.  Water intrusion could cause the switch to
overheat, which may result in a fire causing property damage
and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if
necessary, replace the driver's power window master switch.  Note:
This recall supersedes recall 2010025.  Vehicles that were
repaired under the previous campaign will also need to be repaired
under this campaign.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----      ----------------------
   HONDA     FIT              2007, 2008


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 117 Dynamite 7.4 V LiPo Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Horizon Hobby Inc., of Champaign, Illinois; and
manufacturer, Kiel Technology Ltd., of Hong Kong, announced a
voluntary recall of about 117 Dynamite 7.4 V LiPo Batteries.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The positive and negative battery leads are incorrectly wired to
the battery connector.  The use or charging of the battery can
cause the battery to overheat, posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Dynamite 7.4 volt LiPo batteries that are
used to power Horizon Hobby's Losi Micro remote control vehicles.
The batteries measure about 2 inches long by 1 inch wide by « inch
thick. The batteries were sold separately from the vehicles and
have red and black wires coming out of the end into a white
plastic connector. Dynamite, 180 mAh, 2S, 20C Li-Po and DYN1429
are printed on the side of the black and orange batteries.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/eFUZim

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at hobby
stores nationwide and online at www.horizonhobby.com from December
2012 through April 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should stop using the recalled battery immediately.
Disconnect it from the product or charger and return the battery
to Horizon Hobby for a full refund or a replacement battery.
Horizon Hobby may be reached toll-free at (877) 504-0233 from 8:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time on Saturday, and 12:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. Central Time on Sunday, or online at
http://www.horizonhobby.com/and click on Product Recalls at the
bottom of the page for more information.


INVESTORS TITLE: "Backel" Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending in W.V.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Backel v. Fidelity National Title
Insurance, et al., which involve a subsidiary of Investors Title
Company, remains pending in West Virginia, according to the
Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against several
title insurance companies, including Investors Title Insurance
Company, entitled Backel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance et
al. (6:2008- CV-00181).  The plaintiff in this case contends a
lack of meaningful oversight by agencies with which title
insurance rates are filed and approved.  There are further
allegations that the title insurance companies have conspired to
fix title insurance rates.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief.  Similar
lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions, several of which
have already been dismissed.  In West Virginia, the case has been
placed on the inactive list pending the resolution of the
bankruptcy of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.  The Company
believes that this case is without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.  At this stage in the
litigation, the Company does not have the ability to make a
reasonable range of estimates in regards to potential loss
amounts, if any.

Investors Title Company is a holding company that engages
primarily in issuing title insurance through two subsidiaries,
Investors Title Insurance Company and National Investors Title
Insurance Company.  The Company is headquartered in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.


KELLOGG CO: Class Action Pact Fails to Answer Basic Questions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Van Arsdale, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that a
settlement was previously announced in the class-action lawsuit
against Kellogg, the company that manufactures Frosted Mini-Wheats
cereal.  The settlement was years in the making, and it could mean
a few dollars back in the pockets of Maine consumers. However, the
settlement -- if approved by a judge -- fails to answer some basic
questions about what kinds of claims advertisers can and should
make about their products.

The Federal Trade Commission filed its case in 2009, charging
Kellogg with unfair or deceptive advertising.  At issue was a
series of TV commercials designed to boost lagging sales of Mini-
Wheats by telling moms the cereal could help their children in
school.

The TV ads included the claim that Frosted Mini-Wheats had been
"clinically shown to improve kids' attentiveness by nearly 20
percent."  That seemed a stretch to federal watchdogs, at a time
when many consumers had a healthy skepticism about sugary foods (a
serving of "original" Mini-Wheats today contains 11 grams, or a
little under a half ounce, of sugar).

We all want students to do better in school, and Kellogg had hoped
mothers who saw their ads would buy Mini-Wheats to help their
young scholars.  When the FTC challenged Kellogg to back up its
claim, the company agreed to tone down the rhetoric while denying
any wrongdoing or liability.  The company still says it stands by
its advertising.

The backed-off ads were termed the "full and focused" campaign.  A
bowl of fiber-rich cereal will keep the little tummies full, the
ads proclaimed, leading to "23 percent better quality of memory"
than students who ate no breakfast.  Washington Post blogger
Jennifer LaRue Huget wrote in May 2009 there was no comparison
between the 73 youngsters Kellogg fed and students who ate other
kinds of breakfasts, nor was it clear how the company measured its
results.

Some nutrition-oriented consumer websites are not all that
critical of the content of Mini-Wheats.  The Center for Science in
the Public Interest says Mini-Wheats meet CSPI's guidelines for
marketing food to children.  Caloriecount.com gives the cereal a
nutrition rating of A-, noting that it's high in niacin,
phosphorous, riboflavin and vitamins B6 and B12, as well as fiber,
and very high in iron.  The bad point, according to the calorie
counters, is the 11 grams of sugar per serving (21 biscuits).

Boxes of Mini-Wheats on the market now have the pledge to keep
eaters "full and focused all morning."  The proposed settlement
orders Kellogg to limit its claims to "Clinical studies have shown
that kids who eat a filling breakfast like Frosted Mini-Wheats
have an 11 percent better attentiveness in school than kids who
skip breakfast," or similar wording.

Consumers who feel they were misled by the earlier ads, which ran
from January 2008 to October 2009, may file claims through a
website Kellogg created, www.cerealsettlement.com.  Forms can be
completed online or printed and mailed. You may also exclude
yourself from the settlement or object to the settlement.  You can
also do nothing.

Consumers who file claims may receive up to $5 per box of Mini-
Wheats they purchased, up to a maximum of $15.  If the $4 million
Kellogg has set aside for these payouts isn't used up in the first
round of claims, it's possible consumers could receive more.

The settlement should serve as a reminder to food manufacturers
that their claims need to pass the straight-face test as well as
clearing their lawyers' desks.  Until they do, we should all read
food packaging with a healthy dose of skepticism.


LOBLAW COS: Recalls no name(R) Chunky Vegetable Pasta Soup
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer
CFIA reference number:    8122

Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is advising the public who have
sensitivities to milk not to consume 540 ml size cans of no
name(R) Chunky Vegetable Pasta Soup, as they have been mislabeled
and may contain beef and milk ingredients.  The product is sold
nationally in Loblaw banner stores.

Specifically:

                                           Affected
   Product                        Size     Codes
   -------                        ----     --------
   NN CHUNKY VEGETABLE PASTA      540 ML   Best Before:
   SOUP (no name rich & chunky             2014 DE 04
   vegetable with pasta soup)

   UPC: 060383678951

The vendor has identified the source and corrected the issue to
ensure no further product issues.

Out of an abundance of caution and care for our customers, Loblaw
has removed the affected lot code of this product from sale in
stores.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

The products were sold at:

   * BC, AB, SK, MB: Extra Foods(R), nofrills(R), Real Canadian
     Superstore(R), Shop Easy(R), SuperValu(R), Your Independent
     Grocer(R), Real Canadian Wholesale Club(R)

   * ON: Fortinos, Loblaws(R), nofrills(R), Real Canadian
     Superstore(R), Real Canadian Wholesale Club(R), Cash &
     Carry, valu-mart(R), Your Independent Grocer(R), Zehrs(R),
     Freshmart

   * Atlantic: Cash & Carry, Real Canadian Wholesale Club(R),
     Dominion, Freshmart, Red & White, nofrills(R), Save Easy,
     Real Canadian Superstore(R)

   * Quebec: AXEP, Group Distribution, L'Intermarche, Loblaws,
     Maxi & Cie, Maxi, Provigo

For a complete list of store information, please visit:
http://loblawstores.ca/LCLOnline/

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/qMiNb4

The Company sincerely apologizes to its valued customers for any
inconvenience or concern due to the unavailability of this product
and its recall.  The Company says the health and safety of its
customers is paramount to it and the Company is committed to
providing its customers with a clean and safe store environment
and offering products that are produced, sourced and handled
responsibly.

Customers can return the products to any of the Loblaw banner
stores in the provinces indicated where the customer service desk
will provide a full refund (including without receipt) or contact
customer service at Customer Service 1-800-296-2332 or
customerservice@loblaws.ca

For more information:

   Customers please contact: Loblaw Customer Relations
                             1-800-296-2332 or
                             customerservice@loblaws.ca

   Media please contact:     Public Relations Department,
                             Loblaw Companies Limited
                             pr@loblaw.ca or 905-459-2500


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Judge Trims Claims in E-Class Gas Leak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia
federal judge on June 7 trimmed several claims from a proposed
class action that alleges some Mercedes-Benz USA LLC vehicles have
a defect that causes gasoline leaks, but also allowed some
fraudulent concealment and state consumer protection law claims to
proceed.

Plaintiffs from Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Illinois and
California alleged in July that model year 2003 through 2009 W211
gasoline E-Class Mercedes-Benz cars are prone to emitting gasoline
fumes into the cabin and leaking raw gasoline from the gas tank
outside the car because of a defect in or around the evaporation
tubes in the gasoline tank.

The defect could possibly cause health issues and explosions, the
complaint said, which also names Mercedes' parent company Daimler
AG as a defendant.

But U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. dismantled some of
their case, beginning with their express warranty claims.

The companies contended the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
breach of express warranty because they did not allege that they
presented their vehicles for repairs within the warranty period.
The plaintiffs countered that Mercedes' new vehicle limited
warranty time and mileage limitations were unconscionable.

"Defendants knew or should have known that the gasoline tanks,
fuel sending units and evaporation tubes were defective when they
sold and/or leased to plaintiffs and members of the classes their
Mercedes-Benz vehicles," the complaint said.

Judge Batten found that the plaintiffs failed to identify any
authority from the relevant jurisdictions supporting their
position that a warranty's time and mileage limitations may be
rendered unconscionable simply because a manufacturer knowingly
sells a defective product.

"Therefore, with no contrary authority from the relevant
jurisdictions, the court holds that defendants' knowledge of the
alleged defect at the time of sale, standing alone, is
insufficient to render the NVLW's time and mileage limitations
unconscionable," the judge said. "Therefore, their express
warranty claims will be dismissed."

He also tossed the plaintiffs' implied warranty claims.

"Plaintiffs again contend that the time and mileage limitations
are unconscionable," the judge said.  "However, plaintiffs still
have failed to show that a manufacturer's knowledge that a part is
defective at the time of sale is sufficient by itself to render
time and mileage limitations unconscionable."

The judge also found the implied warranty claims failed because
the plaintiffs did not allege that they presented their vehicles
for repairs within the warranty period, and that the claims are
barred by the statute of limitations.

And he said since the plaintiffs' state law warranty claims were
dismissed, then their claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act must be dismissed as well because they are based on
the same allegations.

The plaintiffs' state law claims of breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing were tossed the by judge, as well,
as were unjust enrichment claims.

Surviving the judge's knife were fraudulent concealment claims in
Georgia, Texas, Virginia and California, and claims under the
Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law.  The judge also rejected Mercedes' and Daimler's
bid to toss the class allegations, finding it is too soon in the
process.

"We're delighted the court is allowing the case to go forward,
because it involves important safety issues for Mercedes owners
all across the country. And we're glad those owners will now have
an opportunity to have their day in court," plaintiffs' attorney
Ranse Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- of Conley Griggs Partin
LLP said on June 10.

A spokeswoman for Mercedes said the companies are pleased that the
court dismissed many of the plaintiffs' claims, including all of
the warranty claims and all of the Florida and Illinois claims.

"Mercedes-Benz stands behind the quality of its vehicles, and we
intend to continue fighting to vindicate ourselves against
plaintiffs' meritless allegations," spokeswoman Donna Boland said.

Daimler and Mercedes are represented by Stephen B. Devereaux,
Andrew T. Bayman and Franklin P. Brannen Jr. of King & Spalding
LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cale Conley, Ranse Partin and
Matthew Q. Wetherington -- matt@conleygriggs.com -- of Conley
Griggs Partin LLP, and Neil A. Goro and Joseph M. Dunn --
jdunn@Wigrum.com -- of Wigington Rumley Dunn & Ritch LLP.

The case is McCabe et al. v. Daimler AG et al., case number 1:12-
cv-02494, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.


METLIFE INSURANCE: Defends Suits Alleging Improper Sale Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is defending itself
against class action lawsuits alleging improper marketing or sales
of individual life insurance policies and other products,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company and certain of its affiliates have faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.  Regulatory authorities
in a small number of states and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, and occasionally the SEC, have also conducted
investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life
insurance policies or annuities or other products issued by the
Company.  These investigations often focus on the conduct of
particular financial service representatives and the sale of
unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client
assets.  Over the past several years, these and a number of
investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for
monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution
payments.  The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a
similar manner.  The Company believes adequate provision has been
made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and
reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a Connecticut
corporation incorporated in 1863 and based in Bloomfield.  The
Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.  The Company
offers individual annuities, individual life insurance, and
institutional protection and asset accumulation products.


MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Program
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carmody, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that the state
of Michigan is facing a potential class action lawsuit over a
student loan program.

According to the report, beginning in 2003, the Michigan Students
First loan program offered college students an interest rate
subsidy after their first 36 on-time loan payments, effectively
reducing their interest rate to zero.

But in 2010, the subsidy was ended.

Attorney Jeff Hank says that left thousands of Michigan college
students having to pay more in student loans than they had
originally planned.

"There were thousands of students involved in this and
collectively the value that these students did not receive . . .
overall . . . is in the hundreds of millions of dollars," says
Mr. Hank.

Last month, paperwork was filed in federal court to lay the
groundwork for a class action lawsuit.

The Michigan Department of Treasury and Michigan Finance Authority
declined to comment on the lawsuit.


MIDSOUTH BANCORP: "Harding" Class Suit Administratively Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Umeki Harding was
administratively closed pending the completion of arbitration
proceeding, MidSouth Bancorp, Inc., said in its May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In early June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary bank,
MidSouth Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was joined in a class action
lawsuit filed by Umeki Harding, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana.  Mr. Harding alleges he was
a customer and individually and on behalf of a class seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief from the Bank
relating to the collection of overdraft fees on customer accounts.
The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and sought dismissal
of the complaint.  On October 4, 2012, the Court granted the
Bank's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the referenced
matter until arbitration is conducted in accordance with the terms
of the Arbitration Agreement.  The federal lawsuit was
administratively closed pending the completion of the arbitration
proceeding.  As of this date, there has been no request by any
customer seeking arbitration.

MidSouth Bancorp, Inc., is a financial holding company
headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, that conducts substantially
all of its business through its wholly owned subsidiary bank,
MidSouth Bank, N.A.  The Company offers complete banking services
to commercial and retail customers in Louisiana and south and
central Texas.


MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Hunter" Suit vs. Bank
------------------------------------------------------------
MidSouth Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit brought by Elena Hunter, according to the
Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary bank, MidSouth
Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was joined in a class action lawsuit
filed by Elena Hunter, individually and behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.   The lawsuit
alleges violations of Title III of the American with Disabilities
Act and several other acts against the Bank for failure to design,
construct, and/or own or operate banking facilities that are
accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people and is
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief from the
Bank.  On July 27, 2012, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss this
matter, which motion is currently pending before the court.  The
motion to dismiss was granted on February 19, 2013, and the
plaintiffs were given leave to file amended pleadings within 30
days.  The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
March 26, 2013.

MidSouth Bancorp, Inc., is a financial holding company
headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, that conducts substantially
all of its business through its wholly owned subsidiary bank,
MidSouth Bank, N.A.  The Company offers complete banking services
to commercial and retail customers in Louisiana and south and
central Texas.


MITSUBISHI: Recalls 1,409 2011 RVR Sports Utility Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                June 21, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  SUV
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Other
Units affected:               1409
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013215
TC ID number:                 2013215
Manufacturer recall number:   SR13-007

On certain vehicles, primer may not have been applied during
installation of the panoramic glass roof.  Reduced adhesion could
allow the glass roof to completely detach from the vehicle,
possibly striking another vehicle, a stationary object, or a
bystander, causing property damage and/or personal injury.
Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, remove and
correctly reinstall the panoramic glass roof.

Affected products:

         Makes and models affected
    -----------------------------------
                             Model year
    Make           Model      affected
    ----           -----      --------
    MITSUBISHI     RVR          2011


MONSANTO CO: Oregon Wheat Farmers File Class Action Over GE Crops
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Valley Chronicle reports that a class action lawsuit was
recently filed on behalf of Pacific Northwest wheat farmers and
the Center for Food Safety (CFS) after Oregon wheat farmers
suffered depressed wheat prices for their crops following the
discovery of allegedly illegal genetically engineered, glyphosate-
resistant wheat plants in an Oregon field.

The genetically engineered (GE) crops, created by Monsanto, have
not been approved for sale or commercial production in the United
States.

The CFS claims the presence of the illegal crops spurred top wheat
importers such as Japan, South Korea and the European Union to
enact restrictions on American wheat or calls for testing.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced on May 29 it was
investigating the discovery of genetically modified wheat in the
Oregon field. Monsanto had conducted field trials for several
years on the wheat, which was engineered to survive application of
the herbicide glyphosate.  However the company suspended the
research in 2005 amidst concern from the U.S. wheat industry that
the seed would hurt farmers' export business. The seed was never
sold commercially.

"We farmers cannot stand idly by while companies like Monsanto
destroy our export markets and our economy," said Tom Stahl, 4th
generation Washington wheat farmer.  "These reckless open-air test
plots of GE wheat must be put to an end."

"Monsanto has put our farmer's wheat export market at grave risk.
Billions of dollars, and our food supply, is at risk because of
Monsanto's negligence.  They must be held accountable," said
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director Center for Food Safety."

Wheat farmers and anti-GMO advocacy organizations have long argued
that GE wheat would contaminate conventional wheat, making it
unsellable to many markets that reject GE products.

The Center For Food Safety claims past transgenic contamination
episodes involving GE corn and GE rice have triggered over $1
billion in losses and economic hardship to farmers.

For years the CFS tried to prevent outdoor GE crop field testing
and commercialization of genetically engineered crops for these
very reasons, it says.

Through the lawsuit filed on June 6 the Center for Food Safety and
Washington white wheat farmers are representing the broad class of
farmers affected by the contamination, seeking relief and hoping
to force Monsanto take measures to clean up the contamination and
ensure it never happens again.

"The discovery of unapproved Roundup Ready wheat in a farmer's
field in Oregon, years after Monsanto terminated field testing, is
one more example of Monsanto's inability to keep their engineered
genes under control.  Until Monsanto and USDA begin to take gene
flow from field tests more seriously, we can expect escaped genes
to continue to cause havoc," said Martha Crouch, Ph.D., Plant
Sciences and a consultant for CFS in a statement issued by CFS.

The farmers also seek compensatory damages for class members
resulting from the contamination of the general wheat supply in
the form of diminished prices for soft white wheat resulting from
the loss of export and domestic markets for wheat, and increased
grower costs resulting from the need to maintain the integrity of
the soft white wheat supply.

Monsanto's Chief Litigation Counsel Kyle McClain said in a
statement that filing a lawsuit now is premature.  Both Monsanto
and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack have said the discovery appears to
be an isolated instance.

Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership
organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the
environment by curbing the use of harmful food production
technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of
sustainable agriculture.

CFS maintains offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco,
California and Portland, Oregon, and has more than 320,000 members
across the country.


MONSANTO CO: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Seed Patent Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that an
appellate court on June 10 threw out a high-profile lawsuit that a
coalition of farmers launched two years ago against Monsanto,
hoping to invalidate the company's portfolio of patents on
transgenic seeds, on standing grounds.

The plaintiffs -- a coalition of conventional and organic farmers
that eschew genetically modified crops -- were seeking declaratory
judgment that Monsanto's patents are invalid and not infringed.
Their lawyer, Daniel Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation,
asserted that the farmers were vulnerable to infringement claims
from Monsanto if their fields were accidentally contaminated with
the company's patented seeds. The farmers also argued that
Monsanto's patents should be thrown out because they pose a danger
to the public.

On June 10 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
affirmed a judge's February 2012 decision dismissing the suit,
handing a victory to a defense team led by Seth Waxman --
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr.  The Federal Circuit agreed with Waxman that the plaintiffs
don't have standing to sue, since Monsanto has repeatedly promised
never bring infringement claims when "trace amounts of our
patented seeds or traits are present in farmer's fields as a
result of inadvertent means."

So why wasn't the litigation an all-out failure for the
plaintiffs? For one thing, it's been a serious a public relations
headache for Monsanto.

Monsanto called the suit a stunt, and it protested loudly on its
Web site and in court documents that it hasn't ever sued farmers
for "inadvertent" patent infringement.  But the litigation
highlighted how much the biochemical giant does sue farmers over
its patents: According to the June 10 ruling, the company has
brought at least 144 lawsuits and reached 700 settlements.  And as
the Federal Circuit noted, "Monsanto at oral argument made clear
that its view of what constitutes an 'inadvertent infringer' is
quite narrow, excluding those growers whose crops become
accidentally contaminated, and who do not treat their fields with
Roundup, but who, knowing of the contamination, harvest and
replant or sell the seeds."

Moreover, the Federal Circuit seemed to take the plaintiffs'
arguments a bit more seriously than U.S. District Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald in Manhattan, who called the farmers' allegations
"lame" when she dismissed the suit last year.

The appellate panel noted that half of U.S. cropland is sown with
genetically modified crops, making some contamination inevitable.
And it ruled that Monsanto's promises not to sue unwitting
infringers are now binding as a matter of judicial estoppel:
Monsanto, the court concluded, cannot sue "inadvertent users or
sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to
one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits."  That's
not the declaratory judgment the plaintiffs were seeking, but it's
much more concrete than a disclaimer on Monsanto's Web site.

The court also highlighted, at least indirectly, that farmers are
still at serious risk of infringement claims if they sell or
replant crops that are inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto's
seeds beyond the "trace" threshold.  It's quite possible, the
panel wrote, "that using or selling windblown seeds would infringe
any patents covering those seeds, regardless of whether the
alleged infringer intended to benefit from the patented
technologies."

Still, the decision itself is a knock-out win for Monsanto.  The
Federal Circuit panel -- Judges Timothy Dyk, William Bryson, and
Kimberly Moore -- unanimously agreed that the plaintiffs have no
"justiciable case or controversy," and therefore no standing,
because Monsanto can't ever sue them for the kind of accidental
contamination they say they fear.  That means the rest of the
plaintiffs' claims -- including their claims against the seed
patents themselves -- are as good as buried.

PubPat's Ravicher had no immediate comment on the ruling.
Monsanto counsel Waxman at WilmerHale was traveling abroad and
couldn't be reached.


MUTUAL PHARMA: High Court Overturns Product Liability Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall and Thomas M. Burton, writing for Dow Jones
Newswires, report that an ideologically divided U.S. Supreme Court
on June 24 further limited the rights of consumers to bring
product-liability lawsuits against generic-drug makers.

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned a $21 million judgment won
by a New Hampshire woman.  She suffered severe injuries allegedly
caused by a generic anti-inflammatory drug, sulindac, manufactured
by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., which is owned by a unit of India-
based Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

The decision was the latest in a string of rulings during the
current Supreme Court term in which justices ruled in favor of
companies that were facing civil lawsuits.

Karen L. Bartlett, who took the drug for shoulder pain, suffered
severe burns over much of her body and is nearly blind.  The
court's opinion explained her ordeal in detail: She spent months
in a medically induced coma, was tube-fed for a year and underwent
a dozen eye surgeries.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court's conservative
justices, said the case arose out of tragic circumstances, but
sympathy for Ms. Bartlett "does not relieve us of the
responsibility of following the law."

Justice Alito said the lawsuit, based on state law, was barred by
federal drug regulations.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined the
opinion.

The ruling follows an earlier 2011 Supreme Court decision that
shielded generic-drug makers from lawsuits alleging they
inadequately labeled their products, also by reasoning that
federal rules prevented a liability suit brought under state law.

The latest case involved a different type of product-liability
claim, based on allegations that the drug was unreasonably
dangerous and therefore designed defectively.

A Boston-based appeals court had ruled in favor of Ms. Bartlett's
damages award despite the earlier Supreme Court labeling ruling,
saying Mutual Pharmaceutical wasn't protected from the lawsuit
because it could have chosen not to sell the generic drug at all.

The Supreme Court's majority rejected that reasoning, saying the
company was "not required to cease acting altogether in order to
avoid liability."

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court's ruling was
"hard to accept," and wrongly expanded the scope of cases in which
lawsuits brought under state laws are pre-empted by federal
regulations.

"The court has left a seriously injured consumer without any
remedy," Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan also
dissented.

Washington lawyer David Frederick, who argued the case for
Ms. Bartlett, said the ruling highlighted the need for the Food
and Drug Administration to change its regulations to require
generic-drug manufacturers to update the safety information on
drug labels.

"Our legal system should not leave people like Karen Bartlett who
are egregiously injured by simple pain medications without a
remedy," he said.

The Obama administration earlier told the high court in a legal
brief that the FDA was considering a rule change to allow generic-
drug makers to change their drug labels in appropriate
circumstances.  If such a change is adopted, it could eliminate
the legal basis for blocking some lawsuits against generic
companies, the administration said in the brief.

An FDA spokeswoman, Sandy Walsh, said that "discussions are under
way, [but that] it is premature to cite what changes in the
regulations might be."

Mutual's lawyer at the Supreme Court, Jay Lefkowitz, said the
ruling preserves the FDA's authority to determine the safety and
efficacy of drugs.  "It would be worse if state-court juries could
effectively force FDA-approved drugs off the market," he said.

As they did in the 2011 Supreme Court case, generic-drug makers
argued that they can't change the labeling or design of their
drugs because federal law requires that generic medicines be the
same as the brand-name versions.

While the Supreme Court has been receptive to arguments by
generic-drug makers, the justices have allowed product-liability
lawsuits against the makers of branded drugs.

Critics have argued that it makes little sense that a consumer's
right to sue depends upon whether he took a brand-name drug or a
generic equivalent.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: John Canzano in Favor of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
FM News 101 reports that current NFL Hall of Famer and former San
Diego Chargers/Oakland Raiders offensive linemen Ron Mix joined
John Canzano on The Bald Faced Truth on June 7 to discuss his
legendary career as well as the current Class Action lawsuit he is
a part of against the NFL and NFL Films with the NFL Retired
Players Association.

The Intellectual Assassin spoke with Mr. Canzano about a variety
of topics but the most important of which was the Class Action
lawsuit which aims to compensate retired NFL players who have had
their likenesses used for years without receiving a dime, "The
basis of the Class Action lawsuit was that NFL Films had been
using our images, obviously long after we retired.  [NFL Films]
have been using them [our images] for the last 50 years without
any compensation [and] that was the basis."

Mix clarified, "I was not an original member of what's called the
lead plaintiffs, I was just a member of the Class [Action
lawsuit]."

Mix also gave an update on the status of the settlement that NFL
Films has offered, "There are some players and some earlier
attorneys who were associated with the litigation who are against
the settlement.  They think it should be far greater than what it
is.  I happen to be one of those players who are for the
settlement."

Mix also spoke on the possibility of selling memorabilia as well
as merchandise and why it will sell well today, "The fans adore
the teams and players that played in the 60s and 70s.  Those
people and those fans, that's why were convinced that there's room
for regional marketing of not only jerseys but of other forms of
memorabilia, of having autographs shows [and] it's really
limitless of what can be done."


NEW YORK, NY: Oriska Founder Files Pro Se Class Action v. DFS
-------------------------------------------------------------
SBWIRE reports that a pro se class action lawsuit has been filed
by James Matthew Kernan, founder of Oriska Insurance on behalf of
independent entrepreneurs, and small and minority business
enterprises.  This suit is in response to the attempt by New York
State Department of Financial Services' (DFS) to terminate
Kernan's efforts to serve these disadvantaged businesses.  Oriska
provides specialized insurance coverage and employee benefit
programs, as well as surety bonding and mentoring necessary for
these businesses to successfully bid on public works projects.

The suit challenges the underlying premise of the Department of
Insurance (DOI), and its successor, the Department of Financial
Services (DFS) that Mr. Kernan is untrustworthy and should not be
in control of Oriska Insurance.  The basis for the department's
case is that in 2008 Mr. Kernan was indicted for allowing a
convicted felon, Robert Anderson, to engage in the insurance
business.  Ironically six years earlier, in 2002, it was Mr.
Kernan who discovered Anderson was a felon and reported his
findings to the New York DOI.  Mr. Kernan later in 2003, with the
acknowledgement and consent of the DOI, Mr. Kernan consulted with
Anderson to develop guidelines to prevent the kind of fraud of
which Anderson had been convicted.  Surprisingly when the federal
government indicted Mr. Kernan for consulting with a felon,
instead of acknowledging their consent to the arrangement, the
state DOI tried to punish Mr. Kernan for it.

The DOI and DFS targeted a small boutique insurance company owned
by Mr. Kernan that never failed to pay a claim and never abandoned
an employer while looking the other way as lobbyist-laden AIG and
other financial institutions ruined their investors and nearly
destroyed our economy.  The DFS tried to place Mr. Kernan's
company in receivership, but in 2007 the NYS Supreme Court found
the department's accusations false.  Now they are again trying to
use the issue of consulting with a felon to drive Mr. Kernan from
the insurance industry.

"After dropping the ball with AIG and allowing JP Morgan to lose
billions of investor dollars, reasonable people can see that the
big firms are off limits and that the regulators target small
firms," said Mr. Kernan.  "This hurts many small, disadvantaged
businesses and swells the numbers of chronically unemployed."

The unique combination of insurance policies offered by Mr. Kernan
has enabled independent entrepreneurs, small and disadvantaged
businesses to compete for public works projects.  His company is
singularly capable of providing the workers compensation, health
and disability insurance together with surety and fidelity bonds
that these businesses need to qualify for public works contracts.
Due to the difficulty these firms have obtaining bonds, the
corrupt process of "fronting," by which a phony minority firm
flushes payroll to non-minority workers, has become endemic,
further harming the chances of a small or minority firm to
succeed.

Mr. Kernan teamed up with the Maritime College in the Bronx to run
an apprenticeship and training program which ensures that the
small and minority firms he bonds have the skilled craftspeople to
complete their jobs successfully.  He founded a nonprofit called
Oriska Jobs and Careers to oversee this effort and he is
responsible for launching many successful careers.

Mr. Kernan's decision to represent himself as a representative of
this Class is unprecedented.  "I have the experience and skills to
represent this Class, and pro bono support from the legal
community is committed to help win restraint of misguided
bureaucrats," said Mr. Kernan.  "I have for decades helped
independent entrepreneurs and small and minority businesses grow
and be able to complete large public works projects.  I'm
determined to continue helping disadvantaged workers succeed."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  Mr. Kernan now awaits a response
from the New York Attorney General.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Court Hears Arguments in Abuse Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that former
residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children and
government lawyers were set to face off on June 10 in the
province's top court, where a judge was set decide whether to
approve the residents' proposed class action against the province.

About 140 residents, who allege sexual, physical and/or
psychological abuse spanning back decades at the Dartmouth
orphanage, are suing the province for allegedly doing little or
nothing to stop it.

Provincial lawyers, however, oppose certification.  In a recent
brief filed with Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the province argued
the home was an independent facility that did not fall under the
provincial jurisdiction.

The lawyers maintained the residents were not wards of the
province, adding that children's aid societies were responsible
for their welfare.  They also said the province was only there to
"encourage," "assist," or "advise."

In a brief filed on June 7 by the residents' counsel, Halifax
lawyer Ray Wagner argued his clients were wards of the province
when placed in the orphanage.

"The province cannot ask the court to find this alleged fact
'erroneous' and 'not correct,'" he wrote.

In his submission, Mr. Wagner cited Supreme Court of Canada
precedent and rulings of other courts throughout the county that
found children in care facilities were wards of their particular
provinces or territories.  He also noted precedent that said
children's aid societies are public institutions.

"With regard to its wards, the province tries to advance the same
arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by all levels of
courts across Canada.  There is no precedent in support of the
province's position," Mr. Wagner said.

"When the province (or its agents) apprehends a child from his/her
family and take the child into custody, it assumes the rights and
responsibilities of the child's legal guardian as well as physical
custody."

Tara Walsh, spokeswoman for the provincial Justice Department,
said officials could not comment on other rulings or any other
part of the government's submission as those issues might be
involved in upcoming court arguments.

In his brief, Mr. Wagner also accused the province of arguing a
"one-sided interpretation" of the law, and pointed to historical
documents that quoted former government officials saying they
feared an investigation into the orphanage would put the province
"in a very bad light."

Justice officials also said on June 7 that they would not comment
on sections of the province's Children and Family Services Act
that state that a government representative, in this case the
minister of Community Services, is in charge of "child-caring"
facilities in Nova Scotia.

The Act, dated 1990, which has undergone some amendments since,
also states the minister has several powers over such agencies.

Ms. Walsh said she could not comment on the act or how it might
affect the province's stance in the case.

The court would ultimately "interpret our arguments," she said.

The certification hearing was expected to run at least five days.

At the beginning, however, the justice in charge is expected to
formally approve a C$5-million settlement to the former residents
from the home itself.  That settlement was reached earlier this
spring.

                           *     *     *

In an earlier report, Melanie Patten, writing for The Canadian
Press, said the case is before Judge Arthur LeBlanc.

The Canadian Press also said the court was set to deal with an
application by the province of Nova Scotia to have affidavits from
the alleged victims thrown out.

The lawsuit alleges residents were physically, sexually and
mentally abused by staff at the home over a 50-year period up
until the 1980s.  Ray Wagner, the lawyer representing the home's
former residents, said without the affidavits, there would be
virtually no evidence to support the certification motion.

Emotions from the former residents are mixed, Mr. Wagner added, as
their case crawls through the legal process.

"They're certainly feeling optimistic about it in that we're now
bringing the matter to a head," he said.  "They're also upset, of
course, that the province continues to try to deny their stories
and to prevent those stories from being told in a court of a law."

Tracey Dorrington-Skinner, one of the plaintiffs, said Premier
Darrell Dexter has spoken out about the importance of
reconciliation and healing for the home's former residents, but
that his actions suggest he's not genuine in his efforts.

"He thinks that he's doing us justice . . . but he's not providing
any healing at all," said Ms. Dorrington-Skinner, who spent about
12 years at the home as a young girl.

"He's actually making things a lot worse for a lot of people who
are just beginning to deal with all of the stuff that's attached
to growing up in the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children."

The Justice Department declined a request for an interview, saying
it won't comment on matters before the courts.

But in May, Mr. Dexter defended criticism from the opposition
parties that his government's motion to strike the affidavits was
unusually heavy-handed, particularly as it pushes ahead with an
independent panel to review the abuse accusations.

"The lawsuit is about the question of compensation and that's a
wholly different issue," Mr. Dexter said at the time.

Mr. Wagner also said it was uncommon for defendants to move to
strike affidavits while a class-action lawsuit is at the
certification stage.  He said an appeal would be launched if the
affidavits are struck and the certification is rejected.  If the
appeal failed, Wagner said the complainants would move forward
with individual cases in what would surely be a drawn-out process.

"We'll clog up the courts for about another two or three decades
of individual cases," he said.  "It will very expensive for the
judicial system to tie up this matter."

Ms. Dorrington-Skinner, 48, said she won't back down now.

"It's imperative to continue fighting," she said from her home in
Truro, N.S. "This is not something that can go unresolved.  There
are too many people who've been affected by the Nova Scotia Home
for Colored Children.

"There are people who will never heal because nobody is taking
responsibility."

Eight days have been set aside for the matter in Halifax. The
proceedings were to be webcast to the public.

The court would also be asked to approve a $5-million settlement
reached in April between the home and former residents.

According to the terms of the agreement, the money will be placed
in a trust account until the lawsuit against the provincial
government is resolved.

If that lawsuit is still ongoing a year after the settlement money
from the home has been received, the lawyers for the plaintiffs
can seek the court's approval of a plan to distribute the funds.

The home has also agreed to co-operate with the plaintiffs as they
continue their lawsuit against the government.

In December, Halifax police and the RCMP announced they would not
be laying criminal charges in the case after concluding there was
not enough evidence to support the allegations.


NY STOCK EXCHANGE: Judge Approves $18.5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on June 10 approved an $18.5 million settlement in a decade
long consolidated securities class action accusing seven
specialist firms of engaging in fraudulent trading schemes at the
New York Stock Exchange between 1999 and 2003.

The specialist firms allegedly enriched themselves by conducting
proprietary orders for their own firms' accounts to the
disadvantage of public orders.

In October, lead plaintiff California Public Employees' Retirement
System settled with LaBranche & Co. Inc., Spear Leeds & Kellogg
Specialists LLC, Van der Moolen Specialists USA LLC, Fleet
Specialists Inc., Bear Wagner Specialists LLC, SIG Specialists
Inc. and Performance Specialist Group LLC.

The class consists of all persons and entities, excluding the
settling defendants, who submitted orders to buy or sell NYSE-
listed securities during the class period that were listed on the
specialists' Display Book and subsequently disadvantaged by the
defendants.  The judge granted a March 2009 order certifying the
class on June 10, for the purposes of the settlement.

"This court . . . finds that the settlement is, in all respects,
fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the
class, including the plaintiffs," U.S. District Judge Robert W.
Sweet ruled on June 10, bringing the long-running class action to
a close.

The litigation stretches back to 2003, when Pirelli Armstrong Tire
Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust first filed suit.  Four other
suits, filed in 2003 and 2004, were consolidated with the Pirelli
suit.

The class members alleged millions of dollars in annual losses
resulting from the specialist firms' "improper trading ahead and
interpositioning."  The term "interpositioning" refers to when a
specialist firm steps between matching orders of public sellers or
buyers of stock to generate a profit, while trading ahead involves
specialists trading for their own accounts before completing
orders placed by public investors, according to court filings.

Floor traders, also known as specialists, match buyers and sellers
at the NYSE and have access to buy and sell orders before anyone
else.  Under the exchange's rules, they are only allowed to trade
for their firm's accounts if they are cushioning price movement or
dampening volatility.

In 2004, the seven firms reached a settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NYSE providing for the
payment of more than $240 million in penalties and disgorgement,
according to court documents.

The following year, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice as
to original defendant, the NYSE.

In 2007, Judge Sweet dumped Empire Programs Inc. as co-lead
plaintiff after it was found that the company wasn't incorporated
in the state of New Jersey until more than three years into the
proposed class period.

The $18.5 million settlement was reached in October following
arm's-length negotiations between the parties, according to court
documents.  Roughly 14,000 copies of the settlement notice were
sent to class members, who had until April to object to the terms
or request exclusion, court filings said.

The lone objector was Empire, which said settlement fund claims
administrator Heffler Claims Group LLC would have "unfettered
authority" to distribute the funds, which would allegedly be in
excess of $3.2 million following the initial distribution,
according to court documents.  Plaintiffs' attorneys countered
that no remaining funds were projected, and that if there were,
the first $1.45 million would revert back to the settling
defendants and any leftover money would go to a nonprofit approved
by both parties.

On June 10, Judge Sweet approved of the deal, which will be
distributed in the form of a settlement fund placed in an
interest-bearing escrow account.

Along with approving the settlement and certifying the class on
June 10, Judge Sweet also awarded $7.6 million in attorneys' fees
and $2.2 million in expenses to plaintiffs' lead counsel, to be
paid by the defendants.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment on June 10.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, the Law Offices of Allan H. Carlin, the Law Offices of Curtis
V. Trinko LLP, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and the Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray PC, among others.

The defendants are represented by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
WilmerHale, Duane Morris LLP, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and Fried
Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, among others.

The case is In re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, case
number 1:03-cv-08264, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


OMEGA FLEX: Morgan & Morgan Files CCST Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on June 7 disclosed that it has filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Florida residents who own a
house or other structure outfitted with a gas piping product
alleged to put properties at risk for lightning-related fires.

According to the complaint, Omega Flex's TracPipe, a type of
corrugated stainless steel tubing (CCST) used to transport gas
within commercial and residential properties, can fail
catastrophically in the presence of lightning.  Direct and
indirect lightning strikes can energize the CSST, inducing an
electrical current which will pass through the piping in search of
a path to the ground, the complaint alleges.  As it seeks to reach
the ground, the energy may arc or "jump" to a pathway of lesser
resistance, according to allegations posed in the complaint.  This
arc, even though it lasts for less than a second, can create a
small puncture in the thin walls of the tubing, which can ignite
the natural gas at the hole, according to the complaint.

"Our investigation leads us to believe that TracPipe is not the
only CSST product putting properties at risk for lightning-related
fires," said Rachel Soffin, an attorney in the national consumer
class action department of Morgan & Morgan.  "Our investigation
indicates that, due to their uniform design, all CSST products
fail in the same manner when insulated by lightning.  Our firm
continues to investigate claims on behalf of people across the
country whose property has been outfitted with CSST, regardless of
manufacturer."

CSST was developed in Japan in the early 1980s and was introduced
in the United States in 1989 as an easier-to-install alternative
to traditional black iron piping.  To date, more than 5 million
homes have been outfitted with CSST, according to the class action
complaint.

Morgan & Morgan is currently providing a free case review to all
property owners who suspect their home or other structure contains
CSST.  The firm is also offering to help homeowners receive a free
inspection of their property by a CSST-certified inspector.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.forthepeople.com/class-action-lawyers/csst-lawsuits

In addition to Morgan & Morgan, the plaintiff in this case is
represented by Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield
Bryson & Mason, LLP, Aaron Rihn of Robert Pierce & Associates and
Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca.

Case No. 0:13-cv-61213, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida

                      About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan -- http://www.forthepeople.com-- is one of the
largest exclusively plaintiffs' law firms in the country with 19
offices throughout Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Kentucky and New York.  The firm handles cases nationally
involving personal injury, medical malpractice, consumer class
action, and securities fraud, as well as complex litigation
against drug and medical device manufacturers.


OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Merger-Related Class Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Merger-related class action lawsuits against Outdoor Channel
Holdings, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's May 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 13, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, LLC ("KSE").  The
Company expects the KSE transaction, which is subject to
stockholder approval, to be completed in the second quarter of
2013.

On May 2, 2013, the Company amended its definitive merger
agreement with KSE to increase the all-cash consideration for the
Company's outstanding shares from $8.75 per share to $9.35 per
share.  On May 3, 2013 the Company received an all-cash offer from
InterMedia Outdoors Holdings, LLC ("InterMedia") for $9.75 per
share under essentially the same terms and conditions as the
proposed KSE merger.  On May 8, 2013, the Company and KSE further
amended the merger agreement to increase the all-cash
consideration to $10.25 per share, to increase the break-up fee to
$7.5 million and to amend the support agreement to require the
directors and certain executive officers to vote in favor of the
KSE merger, even if the Board determines an alternative proposal
is superior.  The merger transaction is subject to stockholder and
other customary approvals.

On January 2, 2013, a putative class action, entitled Hueneke v.
Massie et al., No. MCC 130001, was filed against Outdoor Channel,
the members of the Outdoor Channel Board, InterMedia Outdoor
Holdings, LLC, InterMedia Outdoor Holdings, Inc., Outdoor Channel
Sub and InterMedia Sub in the Superior Court of Riverside County,
State of California.  On February 4, 2013, a second putative class
action, entitled Crockett v. Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc., et
al., No. MCC 1300140, was filed against the same defendants in the
same court.  Both actions challenged the InterMedia merger.  The
complaints allege that the board members engaged in an unfair
process, agreed to unfair deal terms, and agreed to a price that
allegedly fails to maximize value for stockholders.  The
complaints further allege that the other named defendants aided
and abetted the purported breach of those fiduciary duties.  The
complaints seek various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the completion of the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  Given the
Company's announcement of the KSE merger agreement and the
termination of the InterMedia merger agreement, the Company
believes these specific lawsuits have, for all intents and
purposes, been rendered moot.  It is possible, however, that the
plaintiffs may seek to amend their complaints, or file new
complaints.

On March 18, 2013, a third putative class action, entitled
Feinstein v. Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 8412, was
filed against Outdoor Channel, the members the Outdoor Channel
Board, KSE and Merger Sub in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  That complaint was amended on March 28, 2013.  The
amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all the
Outdoor Channel stockholders (excluding the defendants and their
affiliates).  The complaint alleges that the consideration in the
merger agreement with KSE is inadequate and that the Outdoor
Channel Board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to undertake an adequate sales process and agreeing to preclusive
deal protection devices.  The amended complaint also asserts a
breach of fiduciary duty claim based on alleged material omissions
in Outdoor Channel's proxy statement describing the KSE
transaction.  This action further alleges that the other named
defendants aided and abetted the Outdoor Channel directors in
their purported breach of those fiduciary duties.  The amended
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive
relief to prevent the completion of the merger, and alternatively
seeks damages arising from the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.outdoorchannel.com/-
- is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Temecula, California.
The Company is an entertainment and media company with operations
in three segments: The Outdoor Channel, Inc., the Production
Services segment comprised of Winnercomm, Inc., and the Aerial
Cameras segment comprised of CableCam, LLC and SkyCam, LLC.


OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Prince Brand Tahini Over Salmonella Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 24, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Overwaitea Food Group LP
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8124

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Overwaitea Food
Group are warning the public not to consume the Prince brand
Tahini because it may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following Prince brand product, product of Israel, is affected
by the recall.

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

The distributor, Overwaitea Food Group, Langley, BC, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

The CFIA is working with Canadian importers to have these products
removed from the marketplace.

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name   Size   Code(s) on product
----------   -----------   ----   ------------------
Prince       Tahini        500g   Expiry date: November 19, 2013

UPC: 8 14417 01200 2

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/9S4PZF


OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Decides on Arbitration Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal,
report that in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, a unanimous Supreme
Court held that an arbitrator's interpretation of whether a
contract authorized class arbitration prevails, "however good,
bad, or ugly," where the parties agreed the arbitrator should make
that decision. The arbitrator does not exceed his powers in those
circumstances, according to the court.

"All we say is that convincing a court of an arbitrator's error-
even his grave error -- is not enough," wrote Justice Elena Kagan
for the court.  "So long as the arbitrator was 'arguably
construing' the contract -- which this one was -- a court may not
correct his mistakes [under the Federal Arbitration Act].  The
potential for those mistakes is the price of agreeing to
arbitration."

Oxford had sought in federal court to vacate an arbitrator's
decision that pediatrician John Sutter could bring a class action
on behalf of himself and other New Jersey physicians alleging that
Oxford had failed to make full and prompt payment to doctors who
provide medical care to members of Oxford's network.

The court left unanswered a key question in this area, according
Thomas Linthorst -- tlinthorst@morganlewis.com -- partner in the
labor and employment practice at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius:

whether a contract authorizes class procedures is a "question of
arbitrability" reserved for the courts, or a question for the
arbitrator.  "Until the 'question of arbitrability' issue is
decided, this decision is likely to result in fewer defendants
moving to compel class actions to arbitration where the
arbitration agreement does not expressly preclude class actions,"
he said.

Archis Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- co-chair of
Mayer Brown's consumer litigation and class action practice,
called the decision an "extremely narrow" one.  "Most arbitration
clauses today do not suffer in silence -- that is, they expressly
preclude class arbitration -- so businesses will not face the
issue presented in Oxford," he explained.  "Any business that does
make use of arbitration clauses that do not address class
arbitration should consider revising its provisions to do so to
remove any doubts.  But even for such 'silent' arbitration
clauses, Oxford leaves a great deal of room for businesses to
argue that class arbitration is forbidden."

Oxford was one of two class action arbitration cases on the docket
this term.  Still undecided: American Express Company v. Italian
Colors Restaurant.


PALOMAR MEDICAL: Enters Into Settlement MoU With Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. on June 10 disclosed that it
has entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in
the Delaware putative stockholder class action lawsuits described
in Palomar's definitive proxy statement, dated May 23, 2013.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the
Delaware class action lawsuits.  The stipulation of settlement
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Palomar's stockholders.  Pursuant to the
memorandum of understanding, Palomar will file with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission a Current Report on Form 8-K
that will contain disclosure that supplements the definitive proxy
statement.

                          About Palomar

Palomar designs, produces and sells the most advanced cosmetic
lasers and intense pulsed light (IPL) systems to dramatically
improve the appearance of women's and men's skin.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over Co-Pay Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits relating to
co-pay programs, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In March 2012, a purported class action was filed against Pfizer
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
entities in the U.S. and its territories that have reimbursed
patients for the purchase of certain Pfizer drugs for which co-pay
programs exist or have existed.  The plaintiffs allege that these
programs violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and federal antitrust law by, among other
things, providing an incentive for patients to use certain Pfizer
drugs rather than less-expensive competitor products, thereby
increasing the payers' reimbursement costs.  The plaintiffs seek
treble damages on behalf of the putative class for their excess
reimbursement costs allegedly attributable to the co-pay programs
as well as an injunction prohibiting us from offering such
programs.  In July 2012, a substantially similar purported class
action was filed against Pfizer in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, which action was stayed in October
2012 pending the outcome of the action in the Southern District of
New York.  Similar purported class actions have been filed against
several other pharmaceutical companies.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Hormone-Replacement Therapy Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries from
lawsuits relating to hormone-replacement therapy products,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Pfizer and certain wholly owned subsidiaries and limited liability
companies, including Wyeth and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named
as defendants in approximately 10,000 actions in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury or economic loss related
to the use or purchase of certain estrogen and progestin
medications prescribed for women to treat the symptoms of
menopause.  Although new actions are occasionally filed, the
number of new actions was not significant in the first quarter of
2013, and the Company does not expect a substantial change in the
rate of new actions being filed.  The Plaintiffs in these lawsuits
allege a variety of personal injuries, including breast cancer,
ovarian cancer, stroke and heart disease.  Certain co-defendants
in some of these actions have asserted indemnification rights
against Pfizer and its affiliated companies.  The cases against
Pfizer and its affiliated companies involve one or more of the
following products, all of which remain approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA): femhrt (which Pfizer divested in
2003); Activella and Vagifem (which are Novo Nordisk products that
were marketed by a Pfizer affiliate from 2000 to 2004); Premarin,
Prempro, Aygestin, Cycrin and Premphase (which are legacy Wyeth
products); and Provera, Ogen, Depo-Estradiol, Estring and generic
MPA (which are legacy Pharmacia & Upjohn products).  The federal
cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Prempro Products Liability
Litigation MDL-1507) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.  Certain of the federal cases have been
remanded to their respective District Courts for further
proceedings including, if necessary, trial.

This litigation consists of individual actions, a few purported
statewide class actions and a purported province-wide class action
in Quebec, Canada, a statewide class action in California and a
nationwide class action in Canada.  In March 2011, in an action
against Wyeth seeking the refund of the purchase price paid for
Wyeth's hormone-replacement therapy products by individuals in the
State of California during the period from January 1995 to January
2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California certified a class consisting of all individual
purchasers of such products in California who actually heard or
read Wyeth's alleged misrepresentations regarding such products.
This is the only hormone-replacement therapy action to date
against Pfizer and its affiliated companies in the U.S. in which a
class has been certified.  In addition, in August 2011, in an
action against Wyeth seeking damages for personal injury, the
Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class consisting of
all women who were prescribed Premplus and/or Premarin in
combination with progestin in Canada between January 1, 1997, and
December 1, 2003, and who thereafter were diagnosed with breast
cancer.

Pfizer and its affiliated companies have prevailed in many of the
hormone-replacement therapy actions that have been resolved to
date, whether by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, summary
judgment, defense verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict;
a number of these cases have been appealed by the plaintiffs.
Certain other hormone-replacement therapy actions have resulted in
verdicts for the plaintiffs and have included the award of
compensatory and, in some instances, punitive damages; each of
these cases has been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies.  The decisions in a few of the cases that had been
appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated companies or by the
plaintiffs have been upheld by the appellate courts, while several
other cases that had been appealed by Pfizer and/or its affiliated
companies or by the plaintiffs have been remanded by the appellate
courts to their respective trial courts for further proceedings.
Trials of additional hormone-replacement therapy actions are
underway or scheduled in 2013.

Most of the unresolved actions against Pfizer and/or its
affiliated companies have been outstanding for more than five
years and could take many more years to resolve.  However,
opportunistic settlements could occur at any time.  The litigation
process is time-consuming, as every hormone-replacement action
being litigated involves contested issues of medical causation and
knowledge of risk.  Even though the vast majority of hormone-
replacement therapy actions concern breast cancer, the underlying
facts (e.g., medical causation, family history, reliance on
warnings, physician/patient interaction, analysis of labels,
actual, provable injury and other critical factors) can differ
significantly from action to action, and the process of discovery
has not yet begun for a majority of the unresolved actions.  In
addition, the hormone-replacement therapy litigation involves
fundamental issues of science and medicine that often are
uncertain and continue to evolve.

As of March 31, 2013, Pfizer and its affiliated companies had
settled, or entered into definitive agreements or agreements-in-
principle to settle, approximately 95% of the hormone-replacement
therapy actions pending against the Company and its affiliated
companies.  Since the inception of this litigation, the Company
recorded aggregate charges in previous years with respect to those
actions, as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted
in verdicts against the Company or its affiliated companies, of
approximately $1.6 billion.  In addition, in previous years, the
Company recorded aggregate charges of approximately $100 million
that provide for the expected costs to resolve all remaining
hormone-replacement therapy actions against Pfizer and its
affiliated companies, excluding the class actions and purported
class actions.  The approximately $100 million charges are an
estimate and, while the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued
for these contingencies given the uncertainties inherent in this
product liability litigation additional charges may be required in
the future.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend the lawsuit captioned In re
Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

According to the Company, beginning in November 2011, purported
class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal
courts against Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most
of the actions, Ranbaxy, among others.  The plaintiffs in these
various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or
statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly
purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic
Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class
Period).  The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic
Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting
from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy
settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer
granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in
various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of
the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents
for Lipitor.  Each of the actions seeks, among other things,
treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price
overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic
Lipitor) during the Class Period.  In addition, individual actions
have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their
affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for
the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims
asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions.
These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor
Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Off-Label Promotion Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit over off-label promotion, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Pfizer and several of its current and former officers.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by
failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material
information, concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain
pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote
the sale of those products and government investigations related
thereto.  The Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.
In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S.
stock exchanges between January 19, 2006, and January 23, 2009,
and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer
common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Promotion of Neurontin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits in various
federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the
promotion and sale of Neurontin, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against the Company in various federal and state courts
alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin.
The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent
nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons,
including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications
other than those included in the product labeling approved by the
FDA.  In 2004, many of the lawsuits pending in federal courts,
including individual actions as well as purported class actions,
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales
Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed an
individual action by a third-party payer, Aetna, as well as
actions by certain proposed class representatives for third-party
payers and for individual consumers.  In April 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decisions of
the District Court dismissing the individual action by Aetna as
well as the action by the third-party payer proposed class
representatives.  The First Circuit remanded those actions to the
District Court for further consideration, including
reconsideration of class certification in the third-party payer
action.  In addition, a number of individual actions by other
third-party payers remain pending in the Multi-District Litigation
and in other courts.

In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered an order trebling a jury verdict against the
Company in an individual action by a third-party payer, the Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc., seeking damages for the alleged off-
label promotion of Neurontin in violation of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.  The verdict was
for approximately $47.4 million, which was subject to automatic
trebling to $142.1 million under the RICO Act.  In November 2010,
the court had entered a separate verdict against the Company in
the amount of $65.4 million, together with prejudgment interest,
under California's Unfair Trade Practices law relating to the same
alleged conduct, which amount is included within and is not
additional to the $142.1 million trebled amount of the jury
verdict.  In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.

The Plaintiffs are seeking certification of statewide classes of
Neurontin purchasers in actions pending in California and Illinois
that allege off-label promotion of Neurontin.  State courts in New
York, Pennsylvania, Missouri and New Mexico have declined to
certify statewide classes of Neurontin purchasers.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Bapineuzumab Securities Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a securities class action
lawsuit related to the clinical trial of bapineuzumab product,
according to Pfizer Inc.'s May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as
successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth.  The
complaint alleges that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007, through July
2008 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the
putative class.  In February 2012, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  In December 2012,
the court granted the plaintiff's motion to file an amended
complaint.

In April 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Antitrust Suits vs. Wyeth Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuits related to Effexor and
involving a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. remain stayed, according to
the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

According to the Company, beginning in May 2011, actions,
including purported class actions, were filed in various federal
courts against Wyeth, a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary, and, in certain of
the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor.  The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008, until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.  The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing
certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation
settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer with respect to
Effexor XR.  Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for
itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative
class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008.  All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  In October 2012, the court stayed these actions
pending the review by the U.S. Supreme Court of an action, to
which the Company is not a party, involving a similar legal issue.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: ERISA Suit in Celebrex/Bextra-Related MDL Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in the multidistrict
litigation related to Celebrex and Bextra was dismissed in March
2013, according to Pfizer Inc.'s May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

According to the Company, beginning in late 2004, actions,
including purported class actions, were filed in various federal
and state courts against Pfizer, Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia)
and certain current and former officers, directors and employees
of Pfizer and Pharmacia.  These actions include (i) purported
class actions alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former
officers of Pfizer violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra, and (ii)
purported class actions filed by persons who claim to be
participants in the Pfizer or Pharmacia Savings Plan alleging that
Pfizer and certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of Pfizer or, where applicable, Pharmacia and certain
former officers, directors and employees of Pharmacia, violated
certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and maintaining Pfizer stock or
Pharmacia stock as an investment alternative when it allegedly no
longer was a suitable or prudent investment option.  In June 2005,
the federal securities and ERISA actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation
MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In the consolidated federal securities action in the Multi-
District Litigation that is referred to in the clause (i) in the
first paragraph of this section, the court in March 2012 certified
a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer
stock between October 31, 2000, and October 19, 2005.  In November
2012, several institutional investors that had opted out of the
certified class filed three, separate, multi-plaintiff actions in
the Southern District of New York against the same defendants
named in the consolidated class action, asserting allegations
substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated class
action.

In March 2013, the court dismissed the consolidated ERISA action
in the Multi-District Litigation that is referred to in clause
(ii).

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Neurontin-Related Antitrust MDL Pending in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust multidistrict litigation over the sale of Neurontin
remains pending in New Jersey, according to Pfizer Inc.'s May 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidates four actions, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a
nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during
the period from December 11, 2002, to August 31, 2008, and who
also purchased generic gabapentin after it became available.  The
complaints allege that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act that
included, among other things, submitting patents for listing in
the Orange Book and prosecuting and enforcing certain patents
relating to Neurontin, as well as engaging in off-label marketing
of Neurontin.  The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages on behalf
of the class, which may be subject to trebling.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Protonix-Related Class Suits vs. Wyeth Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth, a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary, has a license to market Protonix
in the U.S. from Nycomed GmbH (Nycomed), which owns the patents
relating to Protonix.  The basic patent (including the six-month
pediatric exclusivity period) for Protonix expired in January
2011.

Following their respective filings of abbreviated new drug
applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva USA) and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries), Sun
Pharmaceutical Advanced Research Centre Ltd. and Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, Sun) and KUDCO
Ireland, Ltd. (KUDCO Ireland) received final FDA approval to
market their generic versions of Protonix 20mg and 40mg delayed-
release tablets.  Wyeth and Nycomed filed actions against those
generic manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, which subsequently were consolidated into a single
proceeding, alleging infringement of the basic patent and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Following the court's denial
of a preliminary injunction sought by Wyeth and Nycomed, Teva USA
and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Sun launched their generic
versions of Protonix tablets at risk in December 2007 and January
2008, respectively.  Wyeth launched its own generic version of
Protonix tablets in January 2008, and Wyeth and Nycomed filed
amended complaints in the pending patent-infringement action
seeking compensation for damages resulting from Teva USA's, Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries' and Sun's at-risk launches.

In April 2010, the jury in the pending patent-infringement action
upheld the validity of the basic patent for Protonix.  In July
2010, the court upheld the jury verdict, but it did not issue a
judgment against Teva USA, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries or Sun
because of their other claims relating to the patent that still
are pending.  Wyeth and Nycomed will continue to pursue all
available legal remedies against those generic manufacturers,
including compensation for damages resulting from their at-risk
launches.

Separately, Wyeth and Nycomed are defendants in purported class
actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Protonix in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
Plaintiffs seek damages, on behalf of the respective putative
classes, for the alleged violation of antitrust laws in connection
with the procurement and enforcement of the patents for Protonix.
These purported class actions have been stayed pending resolution
of the underlying patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PFIZER INC: Suits by Champix Purchasers in Canada Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits brought by those who purchased and
ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of
Champix in Canada remain stayed, according to Pfizer Inc.'s
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

According to the Company, beginning in December 2008, purported
class actions were filed against the Company in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of
Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of
British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals
and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested
Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix.  Each
of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability
law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix,
and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief,
including punitive damages.  In June 2012, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class
action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all
persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from
April 2, 2007, to May 31, 2010, and who experienced at least one
of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all
persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix
pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their
relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers
who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant
to Canadian legislation.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that
the action against Pfizer Inc. should be stayed until after the
trial of the issues that are common to the class members.  The
actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed
in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national
basis.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. -- http://www.pfizer.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures
and delivers quality, safe and effective prescription medicines to
treat and help prevent disease for both people and animals.  The
Company also partners with healthcare providers, governments and
local communities around the world to expand access to its
medicines and to provide better quality health care and health
system support.


PRUCO LIFE: 7th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in May
2013 the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company, according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and violation of Illinois law on behalf of a class
of Illinois residents whose death benefits were settled by
retained assets accounts and seeks damages and disgorgement of
profits.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential Financial
as a defendant and add the Company as a defendant.  The matter is
now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life
Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was filed.  In November 2011, the complaint was
dismissed and the dismissal appealed in December 2011.

In May 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's putative class
action complaint.

Headquartered in Newark, New Jersey, Pruco Life Insurance Company
sells variable and fixed annuities, universal life insurance,
variable life insurance and term life insurance primarily through
affiliated and unaffiliated distributors in the United States.
The Company also had marketed individual life insurance through
its branch office in Taiwan.


QUINN EMANUEL: Seeks Dismissal of Attorney's Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP took another shot on June 7 at a contract
attorney's putative class action, saying he was not entitled to
overtime pay for "extremely routine" document review because the
overtime exemption for professionals covered all types of legal
work performed by attorneys.

William Henig sued Quinn Emanuel in March on behalf of all of its
contract attorneys in New York, alleging that he and others who
worked more than 40 hours per week were wrongly denied overtime
pay.  He claims that work requiring "no legal analysis or skill"
on the part of an attorney does not fall under the professional
exemption.

The firm countered in a reply brief on June 7 supporting its
motion to dismiss the suit.  The overtime laws "were not designed
for advanced-degree professionals with employment mobility to
accept premium wages and then make 'gotcha' arguments that they
were misclassified for every period they performed a task a non-
professional could allegedly also complete," Quinn Emanuel said in
the brief.

The professional exemption, the firm argued, "does not limit the
type or nature of legal work that attorneys must perform in order
to qualify.  The only requirement for licensed attorneys to be
exempt is that they are actually practicing as attorneys."

Quinn Emanuel previously described the suit as a "misguided
attempt to expand employee-protective wage-and-hour laws beyond
the bounds established by Congress and the New York State
Legislature."

Mr. Henig, who claims he worked up to 60 hours per week during a
six-month stint at Quinn Emanuel, has said that his duties
consisted of reviewing documents to see which search terms, if
any, from a list provided by the firm "appeared in the documents
and marking those documents into the categories predetermined by
defendants."

"This type of work requires no legal analysis or skill on the part
of the document reviewer, and under these circumstances the
document reviewer is not rendering any legal advice or opinion,"
he argued in a brief opposing the motion to dismiss.

Quinn Emanuel said in the reply papers, however, that Mr. Henig
"does not deny that he was reviewing documents for responsiveness
and privilege.  These determinations inherently call for the
exercise of judgment and discretion.  Common sense dictates that a
licensed attorney relies upon his education and training in making
such determinations even when the documents and issues to be
considered are allegedly more 'routine.'"

Mr. Henig's situation, the firm said, was distinguishable from
that of a nonexempt "licensed attorney who chooses to work as a
cook in a restaurant rather than practicing law" or one who works
as a graphics consultant for a litigation support company.

"In marked contrast with those situations, document review is
legal work that Henig undertook in his capacity as an attorney,"
the brief stated, and an attorney performing such tasks "is still
practicing law, just as a doctor performing a physical examination
of a patient is practicing medicine even though nurses may also
examine patients."

Mr. Henig is represented by D. Maimon Kirschenbaum --
maimon@jhllp.com -- Denise Schulman -- denise@jhllp.com  -- and
Charles Joseph -- charles@jhllp.com -- of Joseph & Kirschenbaum
LLP.

Quinn Emanuel is represented by its own attorneys: Peter E.
Calamari, Marc Greenwald and Scott Commerson.

The case is William Henig v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
et al., case No. 13-cv-01432, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


RATINAUD FRENCH: Recalls Charcuterie Brand Confit Tomatoes
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ratinaud French Cuisine
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8112

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Ratinaud French
Cuisine are warning the public not to consume certain Charcuterie
Ratinaud French Cuisine brand Confit Tomatoes because they may be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum.  Toxins produced by these
bacteria may cause botulism, a life-threatening illness.

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

The manufacturer, Ratinaud French Cusine, Halifax, NS, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

Brand name    Common name       Size           Add'l Info
----------    -----------       ----           ----------
Charcuterie   Confit Tomatoes   sold in jars   sold only from
Ratinaud                        with no net    Ratinaud French
French                          quantity       Cuisine, 2082
Cuisine                         declared       Gottingen Street,
                                 on the label   Halifax, Nova
                                                Scotia

Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/wPFjcF


SALSA CYCLES: Recalls Salsa Vaya and La Cruz Bicycle Forks
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2013
Posting date:             June 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34293

Affected products: Salsa Vaya and La Cruz bicycle forks

This recall involves Salsa Vaya and Salsa La Cruz bicycle forks.

The recalled Salsa Vaya bicycle forks are orange or dark grey, and
are stamped with the following batch codes:

   * 2011 02 21
   * 2011 04 11
   * 2011 06 14
   * 2011 09 09

The recalled Salsa La Cruz bicycle forks are black, and are
stamped with the following batch codes:

   * 2011 03 01
   * 2011 04 08
   * 2011 05 30
   * 2011 09 09

The batch code is stamped on the steerer tube.  The forks are made
of tubular chromoly steel and can be installed on any bicycle that
takes a threadless 1 1/8 inch steerer tube.  They were sold
individually and as original equipment on Salsa Vaya bicycles and
framesets.  The manufacturer's insignia "CWI" is stamped on the
steerer tube.  "Salsa" is printed on the bicycle frame.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/kjd5DV

The bicycle fork can bend above the disc brake mount, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor Salsa Cycles has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in
Canada.

Approximately 35 of the recalled bicycle forks were sold at 7
locations in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
February 2011 to June 2012.

Companies:

   Distributor     Salsa Cycles
                   Bloomington
                   Minnesota, UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using bicycles equipped with the recalled
Salsa Vaya and La Cruz bicycle forks and contact a Salsa dealer
for a free inspection, replacement fork or a full refund.

For more information consumers can contact the Company by
telephone at 1-877-774-6208, or visit firm's Web site
[http://www.salsacycles.com/]or firm's Web site recall page
[http://www.salsacycles.com/salsaforkrecall].


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Faces 3 Suits Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Star Scientific, Inc., is facing three class action lawsuits
alleging violations of securities law, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Three individuals, Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty
Cole, recently filed separate similar purported class actions on
behalf of putative classes of persons or entities collectively
encompassing those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
the Company's common stock between October 31, 2011, and March 18,
2013.  The first action was filed on or about March 25, 2013, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Francis J. Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D.
Va. Richmond Division, 13-00183-JAG (the "Reuter Action").  The
Reuter Action names as defendants the Company, its subsidiary,
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers
and/or employees.  The second action was filed on March 26, 2013,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al. D. Mass.
13-1-695-DJC (the "Boravian Action").  The Boravian Action names
as defendants the Company and Jonnie R. Williams Sr. The Third
action was filed on or about May 7, 2013, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Cole v. Star
Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00287-JAG
(the "Cole Action").  The Cole Action names as defendants the
Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
certain of its officers and employees.

In general, the complaints collectively allege that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder as related to statements made by the Company regarding
its past and future prospects and certain scientific data relating
to its products, as well as related to specified private
placements and related party transactions it has engaged in since
2006.  The Defendants have been granted a stay of their obligation
to respond to the Reuter Action pending appointment of the lead
plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously these claims.
However, at this time, it cannot predict the probable outcome of
these claims.  Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

Based in Glen Allen, Virginia, Star Scientific, Inc., is a
technology oriented company with a mission to promote a healthy
metabolism and lifestyle.  Since the incorporation of its Rock
Creek Pharmaceuticals subsidiary in 2007, the Company has focused
on utilizing certain alkaloids found in the Solanacea family of
plants, which includes potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplants,
initially to address issues related to the desire to smoke or use
other traditional tobacco products.  More recently, Rock Creek has
been concentrating on the anti-inflammatory aspects of one of
those alkaloids, anatabine.


STRIDE RITE: Recalls Joanna Girls' Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2013
Posting date:             June 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34295

Affected products: "Joanna" girls' sandals by Stride Rite
Children's Group LLC

This recall involves the Stride Rite "Joanna" style girls'
sandals.  An ornamental metal flower is attached to the sandals.
The sandals were sold for toddlers (under 3 years of age) sizes
8.5-10 in the following style numbers:

   * CG40723 (white)
   * CG40725 (brown)

Stride Rite Children's Group LLC has determined that the
ornamental metal flower may separate from the sandal, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/FJHSgZ

Neither Health Canada nor Stride Rite Children's Group LLC have
received any reports of injuries involving the affected products.

Approximately 88 of the recalled sandals were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
February 2012 to May 2013 in Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Styletek Footwear Ltd.
                    Guangdong, CHINA

   Distributor      Stride Rite Children's Group LLC
                    Lextington
                    Massachusetts, UNITED STATES

Consumers should take the recalled sandals away from children
immediately and contact Stride Rite Children's Group LLC Customer
Service to obtain further instructions on how to return the
product for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Stride Rite Children's
Group LLC customer service at 1-800-365-4933, Monday to Friday
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, or via e-
mail.


THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Other Models of Motorhomes
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                June 25, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Motorhome
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Electrical
Units affected:               771
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013217
TC ID number:                 2013217
Manufacturer recall number:   RC000077

On certain motorhomes, the Battery Control Center (BCC) could fail
while the vehicle is underway.  This would cause the engine to
stall and all electrical components to become inoperative.  Engine
stalling would result in a loss of vehicle propulsion.  Failure of
the lighting system may result in the following road users being
unaware of the driver intentions.  It could also compromise the
driver's ability to see the road and its users, as well as
reducing vehicle conspicuity during hours of darkness.  In
conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's
reactions, these issues could increase the risk of a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will
correct the BCC electrical connection to the chassis.

Affected products:

              Makes and models affected
   -------------------------------------------------
   Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----        ----------------------
   THOR MOTOR    HURRICANE    2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
   COACH                      2011, 2012, 2013

   THOR MOTOR    WINDSPORT    2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
   COACH                      2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

   THOR MOTOR    ACE          2012, 2013
   COACH

   THOR MOTOR    MAGELLAN     2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
   COACH                      2010

   THOR MOTOR    SERRANO      2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   COACH

   THOR MOTOR    VALENCIA     2008
   COACH


TOWNSEND FARMS: Maui Couple Files Class Action Over Berries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Osher, writing for Maui Now, reports that a couple has filed
a class action suit after purchasing frozen berries from Costco in
Kahului that have since been recalled for a link to a hepatitis A
outbreak.

Attorneys for Jenabe and Motoko Caldwell say the couple purchased
the Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend frozen berry and
pomegranate seed mix at the Kahului retailer on Maui on April 13,
2013.

Attorneys released information on June 11 saying the plaintiffs
received immune globulin injections after becoming aware that the
food product they had purchased was being recalled for potential
contamination.

The lawsuit was filed by the Seattle-based law firm, Marler Clark,
firm that represents victims of foodborne illness.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Caldwells and all other
Hawai'i residents who required testing, or received vaccinations
or injections to prevent hepatitis A infections after eating the
recalled item.

According to information provided by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 87 people had been infected with acute
hepatitis A that may be linked with consumption of the
contaminated product.  The information was accurate as of June 10,
2013, however, the numbers authorities say, are expected to change
as the investigation continues.

The count includes infections in eight states: Arizona, California
Colorado, Hawai'i, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Washington.

As of June 3, officials from the Hawai'i Department of Health said
they were investigating three adult cases of hepatitis A
infection, two on O'ahu and one on Kaua'i.  The Honolulu Star-
Advertiser published an update on June 8, saying five adults in
Hawai'i had been diagnosed with hepatitis A after eating the
product.

According to information from the CDC, a hepatitis A vaccination
can prevent illness if given within two weeks of exposure to the
contaminated product.

"Costco did an excellent job of notifying customers of their
potential exposure to hepatitis A and encouraging them to receive
proper treatment to prevent infection," said attorney William
Marler, in a press release detailing the class action suit.

Marler noted that the class action lawsuit asks that all class
members be compensated for the cost of receiving vaccinations or
injections to prevent infection; as well as compensation for time
missed from work or other expenses incurred due to exposure to the
virus.

"We're also asking Townsend Farms to reimburse public health
agencies for the costs associated with providing shot clinics and
outbreak-related investigations.  Taxpayers should not be held
responsible for this company's sub-par food safety practices,"
Mr. Marler stated.

According to the recall information published by the US Food and
Drug Administration, pomegranate seeds processed in Turkey, may be
linked to the illness outbreak.

Officials with the Hawai'i Department of Health describe hepatitis
A as a virus that can cause fever, fatigue, loss of appetite,
abdominal discomfort, dark urine, diarrhea, and yellow skin and
eyes.  Authorities say illness usually occurs from two weeks to as
long as 50 days after consumption of contaminated products.

According to the recall notice, the product was sold at Costco
warehouse stores under the product name Townsend Farms Organic
Antioxidant Blend, 3 lb. bag and UPC 0 78414 404448.

The recalled codes are reportedly located on the back of the
package with the words "BEST BY" followed by the code T012415
sequentially through T053115, followed by a letter.  All of these
letter designations are included in this recall for the lot codes
listed.


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Prince Brand Tahini Over Salmonella Presence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNFI Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8125

The public warning issued on June 24, 2013, has been updated to
include additional product, importer, and distribution
information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and UNFI Canada Inc.
are warning the public not to consume the Prince brand Tahini
products because they may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following Prince brand products, product of Israel, are
affected by the recall.

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

The importer, UNFI Canada Inc., Concord, ON, is voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

Brand    Common          Code(s)
name     name     Size   on product                UPC
----     ----     ----   ------------        ---------------
Prince   Tahini   500g   Expiry date:        8 14417 01200 2
                          November 19, 2013

Prince   Tahini   18kg   Expiry date:        8 14417 01400 6
                          November 19, 2013

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/MFR1Tc


UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Former US Navy Sailors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims threw out a putative class action on June 6 brought
by hundreds of former U.S. Navy service members allegedly
discharged without a required hearing, ruling that the court
couldn't intrude on the Navy's power to manage its workforce.

Judge Lynn J. Bush issued a 30-page opinion that granted the
federal government's motion to dismiss the case, in which about
300 plaintiffs took issue with their discharges from the Navy that
occurred on or before Sept. 1.  Unlike most wrongful discharge
suits the court hears, this lawsuit took aim at a large-scale
reduction in enlisted personnel that led to 2,946 discharges from
the Navy, the June 6 ruling noted.

The sailor plaintiffs were let go before their terms of service
expired and without a required hearing, they alleged.  All the
plaintiffs had at least six years of active and reserve military
service under their belts, which meant they were entitled to an
administrative hearing upon notification of discharge, said the
third amended complaint they filed in November.

"Yes, we are planning to appeal and in our opinion, her decision
is very wrong," Elvin Keller of Keller Keller & Dalton PC, an
attorney for the plaintiffs, said of Judge Bush's ruling on
June 7.  Mr. Keller also said that the Navy saved $3 billion in
retirement costs by letting the sailors go.

According to the June 6 ruling, the plaintiffs tacked on an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act claim in a response brief,
though their complaint didn't mention any ERISA allegations.

The court said that regardless of whether the plaintiffs should be
allowed to amend their claims through a brief, they hadn't pointed
to any authority holding that ERISA actually applied to their
service in the Navy, or that ERISA claims fall under the
jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

The ruling, which touched on an array of arguments, also said that
the plaintiffs' challenges to the merits of their discharges were
not for judicial review, and such a challenge was "a
nonjusticiable controversy."

"This court cannot intrude upon the Navy's power to manage its
active-duty workforce," Judge Bush wrote.

The court also didn't buy the argument that the sailors were
entitled to a hearing under Department of Defense Instruction
1332.14, which is binding on the service branches and sets forth
procedural requirements for enlisted personnel separations.

On the question of whether the discharges ran afoul of due process
rights under the Fifth Amendment, the court found that the sailors
were entitled to a process that satisfied minimum concepts of
basic fairness, and the process at issue here met that standard.
The court also said it didn't see a violation of equal protection
guarantees.

The plaintiffs asked for class certification but Judge Bush denied
that motion as moot.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately
respond to a query about the case on June 7.

The plaintiffs are represented in this matter by Elvin Keller of
Keller Keller & Dalton PC.

The case is Philip L. Anderson et al. v. USA, case number 1:12-cv-
00486 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


UNITED STATES: NSA Faces Class Action Over PRISM Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------
TorrentFreak reports that former US prosecutor Larry Klayman and
the parents of the killed Navy Seal Team VI member Michael Strange
have filed a lawsuit against President Obama, the NSA and several
other players connected to the PRISM scandal.  Through the class
action lawsuit they demand compensation for severe privacy abuses
as well as violations of several other constitutional rights.

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald pushed out leak after leak,
revealing how millions of people around the world are being
monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.  Following the leaks the
NSA and the US Government have been heavily criticized for their
disregard of people's privacy, and perhaps not totally
unexpectedly the first legal action was filed.

TorrentFreak obtained a copy of a complaint submitted at a federal
court in Columbia, targeting President Obama, the NSA, Eric Holder
and Verizon who all played a role in the mass surveillance scheme.
The class action lawsuit was filed by Mr. Klayman, a former US
prosecutor under the Reagan administration, together with the
parents of Mr. Strange.

The plaintiffs accuse the PRISM participants of violating their
constitutional rights, reasonable expectation of privacy, free
speech and association, right to be free of unreasonable searches
and seizures, among other illegal and criminal acts.  Both
Mr. Klayman and the Navy Seal parents demand compensation for the
damage they suffered.

"This case challenges the legality of Defendants' participation
and conduct in a secret and illegal government scheme to intercept
and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephonic
communications," the complaint reads.

While there are plenty of angles to pick, the class action centers
around the classified order from the secretive Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court ordering Verizon to hand over all
call details and metadata between the United States and abroad,
without any oversight.

"This would give the NSA over one hundred millions phone records
on a daily basis.  The information would also include a list of
all the people that Verizon customers call and who called them;
how long they spoke; and perhaps, where they were on a given day."

"Further, there is nothing in the order requiring the government
to destroy the records after a certain amount of time nor is there
any provisions limiting who can see and hear the data," the
complaint states.

The complaint goes on to state that those responsible for the
PRISM scandal have done very little to explain what it entails.
Instead, there are now calls to go after the whistleblower, Edward
Snowden, to stop further leaks.

"To date, Defendants have not issued substantive and meaningful
explanations to the American people describing what has occurred.
To the contrary, criminal charges are reportedly being pursued by
Defendants Obama, Holder, the DOJ, and the NSA against the leakers
of this plot against American citizens in a further effort
suppress, obstruct justice, and to keep Defendants' illegal
actions as secret as possible."

Mr. Klayman is a known critic of the Obama administration and
believes that his private communications were tapped under the
PRISM program.  Charles and Mary Ann Strange, the parents of the
killed Navy Seal Team VI member Michael Strange, allege the same
as they have also challenged the Obama administration.

"[. . .] particularly since these Plaintiffs have been vocal about
their criticism of President Obama as commander-in-chief, his
administration, and the U.S. military regarding the circumstances
surrounding the shoot down of their son's helicopter in
Afghanistan, which resulted in the death of their son and other
Navy Seal Team VI members and special operation forces."

The complaint demands relief for violations of the defendants'
rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.  In addition it lists violations of privacy,
including intrusion upon seclusion, freedom of expression and
association, due process, and other illegal acts.

Thus far, authorities and the technology companies involved in the
surveillance scandal have refuted most accusations, claiming that
they are operating within the boundaries of the law.  Time will
tell whether the present lawsuit will arrive at another
conclusion.


UT MEDICAL: High Court Has Stricter Standard for Retaliation Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Trottman, Lauren Weber and Jess Bravin, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that workers may have a harder time
suing their employers for discrimination in the future.

The Supreme Court sided with employers in a pair of 5-4 decisions
Monday involving workplace harassment claims, rulings that are
expected to make it more difficult for employees to bring such
cases against their employers.

In one ruling, the court set a stricter definition of "supervisor"
in determining an employer's liability for discrimination.  It
ruled against an African-American food-service worker at Ball
State University in Indiana who claimed she was harassed because
of her race by a more-senior worker who was white.

In the other ruling, involving the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, the court's majority said that a
retaliation claim -- in which someone claims to have been
retaliated against for alleging discrimination -- needed to meet a
stricter standard of proof, showing that the retaliatory action
was the motivating factor.  A doctor of Middle Eastern descent at
the medical center brought the case, claiming he didn't get a job
offer because he had complained that he was harassed by another
doctor based on his religion and ethnic heritage.

Both cases split along the court's conservative-liberal divide,
with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito backing
employers, while dissenting Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan sided with the workers.

Both cases were brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, which forbids discrimination based on sex, race, color,
national origin and religion.

David Lopez, general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, said the agency is "disappointed by the Supreme
Court's failure to defer to long-standing EEOC interpretations of
the law."  The decisions, he said, "will have serious consequences
for workers to be free from workplace harassment and to complain
about discrimination without fear of retaliation."

The first case, Vance v. Ball State University et al., was about
the definition of "supervisor," an issue over which lower courts
had divided.  The definition is significant because a company
faces greater liability if a supervisor -- as opposed to an
ordinary employee -- engages in discriminatory behavior.  Catering
worker Maetta Vance sued Ball State, alleging she had endured
racial harassment at work by a woman she characterized as a
supervisor, while the university said the other woman wasn't a
supervisor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Alito, used a narrow
definition of a supervisor -- that only a person with authority to
hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline workers
qualifies as a boss.  The plaintiff, and the EEOC, had argued that
a supervisor is anyone with authority to direct and oversee a
person's daily work.
Related

    Supreme Court Further Limits Generic-Drug Lawsuits

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar case, said that an
employee who brings a retaliation claim must prove the action was
actually motivated by the employee's discrimination complaint.

"The link in these cases is that the court essentially rejected
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's perspective on the
law," said Barry Hartstein, a co-chairman of law firm Littler
Mendelson's hiring and background checks practice group.

In sharply worded dissents to both majority opinions, Justice
Ginsburg called on Congress to nullify the rulings by amending
Title VII.  She made a similar call after a 2008 ruling blocked
many employees from bringing discrimination claims -- and Congress
heeded by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the
first measure signed by President Barack Obama.

Critics of the Vance decision said the majority misunderstood the
workplace.  Many supervisors lack formal authority to hire and
fire, but still have a high degree of influence over a worker's
daily experience, said Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the
National Partnership for Women & Families.  The ruling, she said,
will "make proving discrimination harder . . . and that is a very
distressing outcome of a very narrowly decided decision."

Management-side lawyers welcomed the pair of rulings.  Randy
Coffey, a partner with Fisher & Phillips LLP, said the decision
offers employers some clarity.  "There's a much more bright-line
standard for employers now," he said.  "Rather than fighting about
whether a person was or wasn't a supervisor, the issue will be
whether the employee can show that the employer was negligent,
that they knew about the conduct but failed to remedy it."

Most employers already offer antibias training for employees who
oversee other workers, partly to avoid such claims of negligence,
lawyers said.  Had the high court ruled in favor of Ms. Vance,
companies might have had to expand their training programs and
possibly retool the job responsibilities of workers.

The decisions will have the most impact in parts of the country
where lower courts had previously sided with the EEOC.  The San
Francisco-based Ninth Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
covers California and other Western states, along with the Second
Circuit in New York and the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Va., which
overseas East Coast states from Maryland to South Carolina, have
all adopted the agency's more expansive definition of supervisors.
In those regions, cases that were decided against employers but
are still subject to appeal could be reconsidered using the
Supreme Court's rulings.


VIA RAIL CANADA: Report on 2012 Train Derailment to Be Released
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to CBC News, a report into the February 2012 train
derailment that killed three Via crew members and injured dozens
of passengers was set to be released on June 11, the
Transportation Safety Board announced on June 7.

The Toronto-bound train was travelling from the Ontario's Niagara
region and switching tracks when it derailed near Burlington,
about 60 kilometers west of Toronto, on Feb. 27, 2012.

The three engineers who died were riding in the cab of the
locomotive, which toppled onto its side and slid into a building
at the side of the tracks.

In all, 45 people were admitted to hospitals for injuries ranging
from minor scrapes to a broken leg, a back injury and a heart
attack.

The train was travelling at more than 100 km/h at the time it
derailed, that's four times above the authorized limit for
executing a crossover along that section of track.

As reported by the Class Action Report on Nov. 7, 2012, Karena
Walter, writing for QMI Agency, disclosed that a class action
lawsuit against Via Rail Canada on behalf of dozens of passengers
of a fatal train derailment near Aldershot, Ont., in February was
certified by the court.  The decision announced on Nov. 1 means a
multimillion-dollar class action suit can proceed against the
company and Canadian National Railway Co.


VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Swipe Fee Class Action Settlement Stalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Minneapolis Star Tribune, reports
that legal settlements usually resolve disputes, but a proposed
$7.25 billion class-action settlement involving Visa and
MasterCard appears to be erupting into a whole new battle over the
fees retailers have to pay when consumers pull out their plastic.

Scores of angry retailers -- from Wal-Mart and Starbucks to Target
and Domino's Pizza -- opted out of the historic settlement and
filed formal objections for U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in
Brooklyn to consider.  Some, such as Target Corp. and Macy's Inc.,
already have struck back with a new lawsuit seeking damages.

They are walking away from what's regarded as the largest private
antitrust class-action settlement in U.S. history, one that
involves more than 7 million businesses -- just about every entity
that swiped a Visa or MasterCard credit or debit card since 2004.

"It's extraordinarily rare for a class settlement to be rejected
because of concerns raised by class members," said David Fink of
Fink and Associates Law in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., who
specializes in class-action litigation.

At the heart of the battle are allegations that Visa, MasterCard
and a group of card-issuing banks illegally colluded since 2004 to
fix the swipe fees merchants pay to process cards.  The
interchange fees average about 2 percent of every purchase at the
register, and total about $30 billion a year.

Many retailers say the swipe fees rival their health care costs as
a significant operating expense.  The National Retail Federation
estimates the swipe fees drive up consumer costs by more than $250
a year per average household.

"[The settlement] fails to address the price fixing that harms
merchants and their consumers.  It takes away retailers' legal
rights to ever try again, and it offers virtually nothing in
return," said Mallory Duncan, the retail federation's general
counsel, in a news release.

Visa and MasterCard say there has never been a finding of
antitrust violations, and the swipe fees are justified for
providing a valuable service that boosts retailers' sales.  Trish
Wexler, spokeswoman for the Electronic Payments Coalition, said
her group is confident the settlement will be approved, as it was
the result of years of legal wrangling plus two years of court-
appointed mediation.

The objecting retailers "are not raising anything new that hasn't
already been discussed and over-discussed for seven years," she
said.

Ultimately, control over the U.S. interchange system for
processing cards is at stake, and the outcome of the settlement
dispute could have far-reaching consequences for Visa and
MasterCard, which dominate the credit card industry, said Patricia
Hewitt, a payments analyst at Boston-based Mercator Advisory
Group.  Consumers could see the costs for their credit cards
climb, too, she said.

"We can see that interchange as a system is being examined and
analyzed and modified all over the world," Ms. Hewitt said.  "This
industry is evolving. This is likely another evolutionary turn of
the industry."

Just how many businesses dropped out of the swipe-fee agreement
won't be known for some time.  If merchants accounting for more
than 25 percent of the total credit-card volume from 2004 through
2012 opt out, which is highly unlikely, the defendants can walk
away.

All eyes are on the judge, who must decide whether the deal is
"fair, reasonable and adequate" for the vast class of businesses.
He could reject the deal or take some other course of action.  If
the settlement fails, the dispute could proceed to trial.

Some Main Street retailers say the interchange fees are excessive,
but they are too busy making a living to give the brouhaha much
attention.

"I'm kind of a blue-collar kind of guy.  I do my 10 hours a day
here," said Ken Herren, owner of Your Art's Desire Gallery of Art
and Framing in Minnetonka, Minn.  "I'll take whatever I can get,"
he said of the settlement, adding that "if it hurts [the credit
card companies], I'm happy about that."

If the settlement is approved, payments are expected to amount to
about two to three months' worth of a business's interchange tab.
For very small businesses, it might be a few hundred dollars or
less.

The settlement stems from lawsuits merchants filed in 2005, and
attorneys for the huge class of merchants say that after more than
seven years of wrangling, it's the best deal possible.  It
abolishes the Visa and MasterCard "no surcharge" rules, permitting
merchants to pass their fees on to customers.  Experiences in
other countries such as Australia shows that merchants can drive
down interchange fees by surcharging, attorneys supporting the
deal say.

The deal also allows merchants to form buying groups to negotiate
better interchange rates, and requires Visa and MasterCard to
negotiate in good faith with them.  It cements reforms from a
consent decree between Visa/MasterCard and the U.S. Department of
Justice, as well as the Durbin Amendment, which capped debit-card
swipe fees.

Responding to media inquiries about the opposition, K. Craig
Wildfang, the Minneapolis lawyer who helped broker the deal as co-
lead counsel for the class of retailers, has challenged the
objecting retailers to present some sort of viable Plan B.

Doug Kantor, a lawyer for the National Association of Convenience
Stores, a group at the forefront of the revolt, said there is no
procedure for producing a Plan B.

"Settlements get negotiated between parties," Mr. Kantor said.
"We have looked at many different permutations, but there is no
benefit whatsoever to publicly having a discussion only with
ourselves.  The defendants have made clear they are not discussing
or negotiating anything. They are in take-it-or-leave-it mode."

Among other things, objecting retailers argue that the deal
doesn't reform the broken interchange system and leaves Visa and
MasterCard and the banks far too much power to set high rates,
costing retailers.

The retailers also say it contains a provision preventing
retailers from suing Visa and MasterCard over price-fixing in the
future, which some argue violates their constitutional right to
due process.

Target and a group of more than three dozen major retailers
escalated the fight on May 23, filing their own lawsuit against
Visa and MasterCard for damages from illegal price-fixing since
2004.

Last month, in a move to head off that and similar lawsuits, Visa
and MasterCard asked Gleeson to declare once and for all that, as
it relates to the named defendants in the settlement that opted
out, Visa, MasterCard and the card-issuing banks did not violate
federal antitrust laws between 2004 and November 2012.

A fairness hearing is slated for Sept. 12.  Most observers say any
conclusive action is likely months away.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Morales; individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma Stores,
Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-13-532344 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June
24, 2013), alleges violations of the California Labor Code
relating to unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums and unpaid minimum wages, among other
violations.

The Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and systematic scheme
of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the state of California, Ms. Morales alleges.  She contends
that this scheme involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all
hours worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law.

Ms. Morales is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.  She
was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee, from January 2000 to September 2010, in the state of
California.

Williams-Sonoma is a California corporation, and was the
"employer" of the Plaintiff within the meaning of all applicable
California state laws and statutes.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: awheeler@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


WYSOKER GLASSNER: Faces $750K Verdict Over Botched Asbestos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that a
New Brunswick law firm has been hit with a $750,000 jury verdict
for bungling a multimillion-dollar asbestos case.

The verdict against Wysoker, Glassner, Weingartner, Gonzalez &
Lockspeiser was handed down on June 5 after a nine-day trial in
Middlesex County Superior Court.

Much of the trial in Estate of Petit-Clair v. Wysoker Glassner,
MID-L-639-10, revolved around the question of how asbestos
litigation should be handled.

The suit charged that the firm used a high-volume, low-return
model for asbestos cases, sued incorrect parties and failed to sue
some culpable ones.

As a result, the estate of a shipyard worker who died of
mesothelioma recovered only $83,000 -- or $140,000, according to
the firm -- in a case worth $6 million, the suit alleged.

Alfred Petit-Clair, a welder at the Federal Shipbuilding and
Drydock Co. in Kearny from 1942 to 1947, was exposed to asbestos
in insulation and welding materials in the process.

Later, Mr. Petit-Clair spent more than 30 years as an organizer
for the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, and then the United Steelworkers of America.  He
continued to spend time in shipyards during that period,
experiencing additional exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Petit-Clair was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 1990 and died
in 1991 at age 76.  His widow, Geraldine, and his son, Alfred
Petit-Clair Jr., an attorney in Perth Amboy, met in 1992 with
Jacob Wysoker, founder of the Wysoker Glassner firm, who had
socialized regularly with Petit-Clair and another former shipyard
worker, Terry Foy.

Partner Leo Loeb, the firm's only asbestos lawyer, was at the
meeting, at which Petit-Clair's wife and son told the lawyers Foy
was a potential witness.

The firm paid a referral fee to Petit-Clair Jr., which was
improper because neither Messrs. Wysoker nor Loeb was a certified
civil trial attorney.

Mr. Loeb filed suit in Middlesex County on May 11, 1992, naming
nine companies.  He died in 1993, and Robert Krieger took over his
cases.  The suit said neither Messrs. Loeb nor Krieger interviewed
Mr. Foy, who died in 1995.

Mr. Krieger admitted in a deposition that he had no evidence
against the nine companies.

Over the years, the firm collected $22,785 from Babcock and
Wilcox, $9,000 from Johns Manville, $8,131 from Flintkote Mines,
$2,000 from Garlock Sealing Technologies, $4,941 from the Center
for Claims Resolution (a nonprofit group set up to settle, pay and
defend asbestos claims) and $36,337 from GAF Corp.

During the nine-day trial, Superior Court Judge Heidi Currier
refused to allow the defendant to shift responsibility to Petit-
Clair Jr., noting the referral payment was improper, according to
plaintiff lawyer Glenn Bergenfield, a Lambertville solo.

He claims that Wysoker Glassner's lawyer, Aileen Droughton --
adroughton@traublieberman.com -- of Red Bank's Traub, Lieberman,
Straus & Shrewsbury, argued that the younger Petit-Clair had a
duty to assist with the case because he received the referral fee
and reviewed his mother's responses to 1993 interrogatories, which
did not mention Mr. Foy.

Ms. Droughton denies that, and, at any rate, Currier turned down
Mr. Bergenfield's request to bar testimony from the defense expert
on legal malpractice, attorney Frances Tomes.

Mr. Bergenfield claimed that Ms. Tomes, of Tomes & Hanratty in
Freehold, was a fact witness because she discussed the case with
Loeb several times and shared information with him on that case
and others.

The judge rejected Mr. Bergenfield's claim that Ms. Tomes had an
interest in the outcome.  But Mr. Bergenfield says Ms. Tomes
testified that it is not unusual to sue the wrong people in
asbestos litigation.

Mr. Bergenfield says Wysoker Glassner did not conduct an
investigation, send out interrogatories or take depositions before
filing suit.  It failed to sue most of the companies that were to
blame, Mr. Bergenfield says.

And it placed its docket of roughly 2,000 cases in the hands of
one attorney, who, by his own admission, took the easy route of
suing "soft targets."

Mr. Bergenfield identified more than 400 co-workers of the
decedent and others who the firm might have interviewed to learn
about the sources of the decedent's exposure.  But, he says,
Wysoker Glassner maintained at trial that such spadework would be
fruitless.

"Their defense was, even though they did nothing, that was
consistent with the standard of care in New Jersey," Mr.
Bergenfield says.

Ms. Droughton says the 400-worker list does not demonstrate a
breach in the standard of care.  She says Mr. Bergenfield obtained
the list from the University of Maryland, whose archivist
testified that no lawyers requested the information before Mr.
Bergenfield did.  In addition, Ms. Droughton says there's no
evidence the 400 people would have pertinent knowledge.

She also disputes Mr. Bergenfield's assertion that Petit-Clair was
exposed to asbestos as a union organizer.

And she says Ms. Tomes testified that Wysoker Glassner acted
reasonably in choosing defendants because they had been found in
other cases to have supplied asbestos to the Petit-Clair's plant.

Ms. Droughton will move for a new trial and appeal if it is not
granted.

Mr. Bergenfield sought $6 million in damages, which he said was
equivalent to the average in 183 asbestos verdicts around the
country from 1989 to 2011.  Still, he says he is satisfied with
the $750,000 award, calling it "a sensible verdict."

He plans to petition under Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256
(1996), for $1.2 million in fees, expenses and prejudgment
interest.

Mr. Krieger did not return a call.


ZYNGA: Aug. 30 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hoge, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports
that even as Zynga has had massive layoffs and its business and
stock have continued to suffer, a class action lawsuit alleging
fraudulent insider trading by top executives could become a bigger
problem if a judge decides later this summer to greenlight the
case.

San Francisco-based Zynga and its underwriters recently filed
motions to dismiss the case, and a hearing is scheduled for
Aug. 30 in federal court.  They say the plaintiffs lack standing,
failed to show any fraud and cited as evidence disclosures that
the company itself made about business risks that eventually
became real.

The plaintiffs in turn have cited evidence from 11 unnamed former
employees as well as public records in alleging that Zynga
executives falsely pumped up revenue and prospects so that
insiders and underwriters could dump $593 million in personally-
held stock.

The lawsuit alleges that the company changed its accounting
methods shortly before the initial public offering to inflate
short term earnings while executives hid emerging problems.

Zynga makes free-to-play games and gets revenue from the sale of
virtual goods for things like extending play sessions,
personalizing game environments, accelerating game progress and
sending gifts to friends.

Stock analysts were, in fact, shocked when Zynga announced a bad
second quarter last year, given a series of earlier statements by
company officials suggesting that revenue was actually increasing
despite a publicly documented decline in Zynga users.

The plaintiffs say the insider stock sales -- founder and CEO Mark
Pincus sold more than $192 million worth of stock himself --
appear particularly suspicious because Zynga's underwriters took
the unusual step of lifting lockup restrictions to allow an
offering to occur 55 days before lockup provisions were set to
expire.

Defendants say in court papers that they were simply trying to
liquidate stock in an orderly manner, and insiders actually agreed
when lockup provisions were lifted on some stock to extend sale
restrictions on the majority of their shares.

Zynga's stock dropped 37% on news of a $28 million loss and a
bleak outlook for the second half of last year.

The stock, which hit a peak of $15.91 per share on March 2, 2012,
has recently been trading around $2.80, more than 70 percent below
the $10 initial public offering price.  Insiders sold at $11.41.

The plaintiffs say their informants, including a former senior
Zynga technology executive, indicate that top company executives
knew before both the initial public offering and the insider stock
sales that Zynga's business was deteriorating.  The company
closely monitored traffic and spending on all games on a daily and
weekly basis, the suit alleges.


* Bradley Arant Discusses Rise of US Multidistrict Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tripp Haston, Esq. -- thaston@babc.com -- and Fritz Spainhour,
Esq. -- fspainhour@babc.com -- at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
chart the history of the decline of class actions and the rise of
multidistrict litigation over the past 15 years.

In July 1996, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor
Company in Tennessee state court.  Along with the complaint, the
plaintiffs' lawyers filed a sweeping motion, accompanied by a
stack of exhibits requesting that the case be certified as a class
action.  By the end of the day, the judge had entered a nine-page
order creating a nationwide class of 23 million members -- one of
the largest class actions in history.  Ford had not even been
served with the complaint.

That same year, the purported beneficiaries of an Alabama state-
court class action were trying to undo the settlement their
lawyers had negotiated.  And with good reason.  While their
lawyers took home millions of dollars in fees, some class members
actually had to pay money as part of the settlement.  As the court
in the ensuing federal case described one plaintiff's predicament,
"A class action in Alabama cost Dexter Kamilewicz $91.33 in
attorney fees to recover $2.19 on the merits."

These are just two of the more notorious stories from US class
action litigation. Unfortunately, they are far from unique.  In
fact, these vignettes are simply emblematic of two problems that
were systemic in US class action litigation during the 1980s and
1990s.  First, corporate defendants often found themselves at the
mercy of state-court judges with local constituents to please,
resulting in quick certifications of class actions that led to
expensive settlements.  Second, unlike their class counsel -- and
despite the huge sums defendants were paying out -- class members
often received little to no benefit from these mega-settlements.

In part as a response to these two problems, there has been a
serious effort to reform this system.  As a result, over the last
15 years the US class action has steadily declined as a vehicle
for civil claims, especially in personal-injury, product-liability
cases.  Fewer class actions are being filed, and stories of abuse
are reported less frequently.  But in their place, another vehicle
for mass litigation has become more prominent -- the multidistrict
litigation (MDL).  While class actions have shrunk in number and
influence, MDLs have been on the rise, particularly in the
product-liability context.  And for product manufacturers, they
present many of the same challenges presented by class actions.

                  US Class Actions in Decline

In the 1990s, class action regulation began to tighten.  One of
the major changes came in 1998, with the amendment of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions, to allow for
interlocutory appeals of class certification decisions.  Before
this amendment, a defendant who wanted to challenge class
certification first had to proceed to judgment before taking an
appeal.  But given the uncertainties of class actions -- and their
inherent risks -- the certification of a large class almost always
led to settlement: defendants could not run the risk (however
small) of a bankrupting verdict against them.  As a result, few
class actions made it to appellate courts.  With the 1998
amendment, a more robust body of federal law on class actions
became possible.

In 2003, Rule 23 was amended again to encourage closer judicial
scrutiny of the class action process.  In place of the former
requirement that a court should decide class certification "as
soon as practicable" the amended rule establishes that
certification should be decided "at an early practicable time".
That change, in practice, has allowed parties to take more
discovery on the question of certification and, to some extent, on
the merits of the claims.  The revised rule also omits an earlier
provision that allowed class certification to be conditional, and
the Committee Notes now instruct courts to "refuse certification
until [the requirements of Rule 23] have been met".  These
revisions increased the burden for obtaining class certification.

Not all of the changes to the class action process have come
through amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Since the
1990s, US federal courts have issued several decisions that
further restrict class action abuses.  But federal courts have
long been a more favorable forum for corporate defendants, and
they are just one side of the equation for reform.  State courts
are often more plaintiff-friendly, and the federal reforms only
increased plaintiffs' lawyers' desire to litigate class actions in
state court.  In 2005, the US Congress acted to stunt the growth
of state-court class actions by passing the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Citing, among many other examples, the two
stories of class action abuse discussed above, CAFA made it much
easier for defendants in putative state-court class actions to
remove their cases to federal court for adjudication.  And the
federal courts have given CAFA real bite, as evidenced by two US
Supreme Court decisions issued earlier this year in Comcast Corp v
Behrend and Standard Fire Insurance Co v Knowles that further
restricted class actions.

These reforms have been effective in preventing some of the class
action abuses of the past.  Moreover, although state-court data is
difficult to track, it appear that fewer class actions are being
filed in state court, and empirical studies have concluded that
class certifications are on the decline in some states' courts.
Finally, Madison County, Illinois, which was a well-known and
challenging state court for corporate defendants, has seen a
marked decrease in class-action filings over the past several
years.

                        MDLS on the Rise

But with the decline of class actions, MDLs have been on the rise:

"In an age of increasing skepticism regarding the use of class
actions in our legal regime, the modern multidistrict litigation
(MDL) process embodied in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 is emerging as the
primary vehicle for the resolution of complex civil cases."

US District Judge Eldon E Fallon et al, "Bellwether Trials in
Multidistrict Litigation", 82 Tulane Law Review 2323, 2324 (2008).

According to Deborah Hensler of Stanford University, a leading
authority on mass tort litigation:

"After almost two decades of multilateral attacks, private class
actions are on the decline in the United States. Mass tort class
actions have virtually disappeared . . . replaced by aggregated
lawsuits resolved in multidistrict litigation."

"Goldilocks & the Class Action", Harvard Law Review Online Forum
(12 December 2012).

Indeed, the number of MDLs docketed each year has doubled between
2002 (roughly 50) and 2012 (roughly 100).  Many of the same firms
who pursued class actions in the 1980s and 1990s have now turned
to MDLs as their civil litigation vehicle of choice.  As of 15 May
2013, there were 290 MDL dockets pending in 56 separate federal
district courts, involving more than 320,000 pending and disposed-
of actions.

Although MDLs and class actions can both lead to broad
settlements, their procedures differ in a number of ways and can
have different advantages or challenges.  To create an MDL, a
party in an existing federal case must go before the judicial
panel on multidistrict litigation (JPML) to request consolidation
with other filed cases.  Thus, unlike class actions, MDLs are opt-
in: every claimant must file a lawsuit.  In this respect, MDLs
create more work for plaintiffs' attorneys, who must identify
individual clients and pay individual filing fees for each and
every claimant.

Another difference between MDLs and class actions is that MDLs
often have cases that go to trial.  But whereas class action
trials, infrequent as they may be, are all-or-nothing affairs on
behalf of the entire class, MDL trials are often "bellwethers" --
that is, test cases of individual plaintiffs' claims, without the
binding effect on the remaining cases.

Studies on MDLs show an increase in their prevalence that
coincides with the decline of product-liability class actions.
The JPML was created in 1968, but before 1990 it had set only six
product-liability MDLs.  Then, from 1990 to 2008, the JPML
established 112 products-liability MDLs (and heard requests for at
least 42 more that it chose not to create).  Excluding asbestos
cases, the 1990s had one major MDL, Silicone Gel Breast Implants,
which comprised over 10,000 constituent cases at its peak.  Since
2000, the number and diversity of major product-liability MDLs has
grown significantly and touched all facets of the product-
manufacturing industry, including prescription drugs, medical
devices, automobiles, aircraft, industrial chemicals and
construction materials.  Of the 286 currently pending MDLs,
approximately 80 of them are product-related.

MDLs present their own unique challenges for corporate defendants.
First, the sheer cost of document production and other discovery
can be overwhelming.  Culturally, for defendants based outside of
the US, the expansive reach of MDL discovery can be a disruptive
challenge and far different from the more narrowly tailored
discovery to which they are often accustomed.  Individual
causation and damages for particular actions can often get lost in
the mix of corporate-focused discovery and bellwether cases that,
although intended to be representative of the pending cases,
instead often turn out to be outliers that can effect a quicker --
but more expensive -- resolution.

Given the increased international focus on the development of
effective collective redress procedures -- and the desire by
policy makers to avoid some of the historic abuses of the US class
action procedure -- it is important to understand the series of
reforms that have occurred over the past 15 years so that others
can avoid those abuses.  Equally important, policy makers must
understand and appreciate the rise of the MDL procedure in the US
as a vehicle for resolving mass tort litigation.


* EU Price Fixing Draft Legislation May Spur Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Lianna Brinded, writing for International Business Times, reports
that the European Union is forging a battleplan to ward off
employees at companies and banks seeking to manipulate market and
product prices for financial gain, by chalking up new rules to
allow private individuals to file class action lawsuits.

While the draft legislation, which is pegged to be released, paves
the way for private individuals to file class action lawsuits
against companies that are found to be fixing prices, the raft of
recommended safeguards will make it difficult for victims to move
their claims to into the courtroom.

       Price Fixing Affects Us All But Don't Get Too Excited

The anti-trust regulator's new rules will undoubtedly streamline
the process for those who claim to have been made financially
worse off as a result of price fixing, as every jurisdiction has
different rules in terms of suing.

Libor is the London Interbank Offered Rate, but it isn't as
esoteric as it sounds, to the everyday person on the street.

It effectively is the interest rate at which banks lend money to
one another but Libor is also linked to trillions of dollars of
financial products.

The effect on the general public can be felt on an immediate level
because the wholesale rates influence how much homeowners pay on
variable rate loans and mortgages.

Some mortgages are influenced by Libor, which mean many homeowners
could have been making monthly payments that were tracking rates
that were artificially affected.

Even if a homeowner had not been on a variable rate, Libor is what
banks use to set interest rates when it comes to charging interest
on loans, credit cards and other mortgages.  Small to medium
enterprises that have loans and swaps attached to the benchmark
rate will also be affected.

Same goes for energy prices.

For instance, if a cartel of traders were found to have colluded
to manipulate prices up or down the scale, this of course would
change how much wholesalers will buy the energy for and then how
much it would cost the consumer.

But as any litigator worth their salt knows -- this is simply not
enough -- to file a successful claim.

              Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Suing someone or a company is an expensive activity, but as the
European Commission (EC) have so deftly considered, Brussels plans
to put a number of cost-effecting stoppers to prevent a re-
creation of the US' litigation culture.

While EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia will unveil
draft rules that allow potential victims in sixteen Eurozone
countries to sue for damages, it has clearly made sure that it
also wants to deter frivolous and abusive lawsuits.

According to impending draft rules, the anti-trust regulator will
install a "loser pays principle", which will mean strict
regulation on contingency fees.

This means that before you even get sign off to enter a courtroom,
you have to prove that you are able to pay the opposite side's
fees, should you lose the case.

Even if there are thousands of you, this will only increase your
contingency liability.

For example, the RBoS Shareholders Action Group had to rustle up
one the UK's largest amounts of litigation liability cover in
summer last year, to sue the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The contingency liability was in the region of GBP20 million.

Eventually, the 12,000-strong RBOS Shareholder Action Group filed
proceedings in London's High Court against former executives Fred
Goodwin, Tom McKillop, Johnny Cameron, and Guy Whittaker and the
bank itself in April this year, alleging they were sold shares
under false pretenses.

Not only will this entail substantial fees and contingency
liabilities upfront but the individual could be significantly
worse off should they lose the case.

          Class Action Lawsuits and Culling Claim Hunters

In the US, lawyers and third party companies can drum up
'business' and seek out potential claimants, even though the
individuals may have not even considered suing in the first place.

As an example, BP paid Alabama $500 million compensation payouts
for 72,000 of the US state's coastal businesses and individuals,
following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, though, said it wasn't
enough and went on a roadshow and urged state residents should
file more claims.

Alabama's court-appointed BP claims administrator Pat Juneau also
identified another 9,000 people who are eligible to file a claim
and this could add more than another $1 billion to the
compensation pot.

However, EU draft rules seem to prevent similar actions like this
taking place, making it not only harder for mass lawsuits to occur
but to also share the costs with others.

Brussels aims to implement safeguards against law firms and third
party funders hunting for potential claimants.

It will also include rules against abusive litigation and massive
payouts.

While the EC want to only allow state-appointed non-profit bodies
or public agencies to act on behalf of the individuals, draft
rules will propose an 'opt-in principle'.

This enables the claimants to decide whether they would like to
join forces with other victims to file a class action lawsuit.

                    Finding Financial Evidence

Before even thinking about raising the costs to litigate, for any
form of lawsuit, the strongest cases lie in irrefutable financial
evidence for losses.

Trying to prove that you are financially worse off as a result of
price fixing is a lot harder than you think.

While a class action lawsuit may bring more claimants to the fore,
the group litigation would be much stronger if each individual
proved that they were financially worse off, as every person's
situation is different.

Blanket claims could be invariably thrown out.

A number of banks may have settled with banks for trying to
manipulate Libor or colluding with others to rig rates but not
even the regulators have determined whether they had been
successful in actually moving them at any given time.

The way Libor is calculated makes it automatically difficult to
determine whether traders had even managed to move rates, without
knowing all the information from all the panels on the rate
setting panel.

Last month, Barclays won a US lawsuit dismissal from shareholders
that claimed former executives and the bank misled them on
activities related to Libor fixing and therefore failed to unveil
potential liabilities.

This is even despite the bank settling with US and UK authorities
in June 2012 for trying to rig rates.

In February this year in the UK, Unitech's lawsuit against
Deutsche Bank, for mis-selling derivatives linked to Libor was
thrown out.

Unitech said it wouldn't have agreed to the loan or swap had it
known Deutsche Bank was manipulating Libor, making both agreements
invalid.

However in Judge Jeremy Cooke rejected the Indian property firm's
bid saying that Germany's largest bank didn't imply Libor was
honest by linking a $150 million loan and interest rate swap to
the benchmark rate.

That is not even factoring in any attempts to prove financial
loss.

Last year, Guardian Care Homes (GCH) amended its UK High Court
case against Barclays to include Libor fixing.

However, as I detailed at length, GCH may have actually hurt their
legal case by doing so.

Meanwhile in the energy markets, the landscape for determining
market manipulation, is just as, if not more complex than Libor.

From each commodity are several forms of product and of course
regional import or export points.  Then there are the different
dates for the contracts.

For example, you can trade a certain oil product on the spot,
day-ahead, or even a full year ahead.

The way energy prices are usually set in the over-the-counter
market is by independent price reporting agencies speaking to
dozens of traders in the market and creating an average price from
the information.

While many people are chomping at the bit to stick another fixing
scandal onto companies, the way prices in the market are
envisaged, is by traders talking to one another to determine
supply and demand.

They therefore come up with a fair market price.  It's normal for
other traders to interact.

Determining financial loss is really done on a case by case basis.
One person's loose claim in your class action lawsuit could, in
fact, weaken yours even if it is strong.

Furthermore, with the complexity of market manipulation and
without authorities finishing their investigations, you'd have to
be very sure that you would be able to survive should you lose
your case.


* Sen. Rand Paul Calls on Americans to Join Snooping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Richter, writing for Newsmax, reports that with the
government looking at a billion telephone calls every day,
Sen. Rand Paul wants Americans to join a class-action lawsuit to
take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appearing on Fox News, the Kentucky Republican said he wants all
Internet providers and phone companies to ask their customers to
join his suit.

"If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone
records looked, then maybe somebody will wake up and say things
will change in Washington," Sen. Paul said.

President Barack Obama called the computer searches of metadata a
necessary compromise of privacy to ensure security.

"That doesn't sound like a 'modest invasion of privacy,'" Sen.
Paul said.  "It sounds like an extraordinary invasion of privacy."

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a specific
warrant can be asked for to obtain such record, Sen. Paul said,
but the mining of metadata of all phone calls and Internet
activity is a general warrant.

"This is what we objected to, and what our Founding Fathers partly
fought the Revolution over," Sen. Paul said.  The founders, he
said, didn't want generalized warrants where soldiers could go
house-to-house looking for things.  Today, that is being done
computer-to-computer, phone-to-phone without specifying who is
being targeted, he said.

Sen. Paul said he has no issue with the government getting a
warrant when they have probable cause to suspect terrorism.

"Get a warrant," he said.  "Go after a terrorist or a murderer or
a rapist.  But don't troll through a billion phone records every
day.  That is unconstitutional; it invades our privacy."

Sen. Paul plans to introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act
to ensure the freedoms outlined in the amendment aren't lost.
Asked whether it had a real chance of passage, Sen. Paul said
young people who use the Internet are behind him.

"So much of our life now is digitalized that we have to protect it
from a snooping government."


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ecology Unit Inks Compliance Order with Col.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC, a majority-
owned subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc., entered into a
compliance order on consent with the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013.

On September 21, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment issued a proposed Compliance Order on Consent to
the City and County of Denver and to Walsh Environmental
Scientists and Engineers, LLC.  Walsh is a majority-owned
subsidiary of Ecology and Environment, Inc. The Proposed Consent
Order concerns construction improvement activities of certain
property owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos
remediation. Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh for
Walsh to provide certain environmental consulting services
(asbestos monitoring services) in connection with the asbestos
containment and/or removal performed by other contractors at
Denver's real property. Without admitting liability or the
Department's version of the underlying facts, Walsh on February
13, 2013 entered into a Compliance Order on Consent with the
Department and paid a penalty of less than $0.1 million and paid
for a Supplemental Environmental Project to benefit the public at
large in an amount less than $0.1 million. Denver was served with
a final Compliance Order and Assessment of Administrative Penalty
against Denver alone for approximately $0.2 million. Under Walsh's
environmental consulting contract with Denver, Walsh has agreed to
indemnify Denver for certain liabilities where Walsh could
potentially be held responsible for a portion of the penalty
imposed upon Denver. Walsh has put its professional liability and
general liability carriers on notice of this indemnification claim
by Denver. The Company believes that this administrative
proceeding involving Walsh will not have an adverse material
effect upon the operations of the Company.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) is an environmental consulting
firm. E&E has completed more than 50,000 projects for a range of
clients in 113 countries, providing environmental solutions. The
Company has rendered consulting services to commercial and
government clients in a range of service sectors, such as energy,
natural resource management/restoration, green programs, planning,
emergency planning and management, hazardous material services,
international and health sciences. Its revenues originate from
federal, state and local governments, domestic private clients,
and private and governmental international clients. On March 18,
2011 the Company acquired another 5.5% of its majority owned
subsidiary Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Confirms Quigley Co.'s New Exit Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein in Manhattan on June 27 approved
a Chapter 11 plan for Pfizer Inc.'s non-operating Quigley Co.
Under the Plan, Pfizer will contribute assets worth $964 million.

Judge Bernstein rejected a prior plan for Quigley almost three
years ago, saying Pfizer was improperly using Quigley's bankruptcy
to shield itself from asbestos claims.

Bloomberg relates Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer was the sole objector
to the current plan.  The Woodbridge, New Jersey-based law firm
called it yet another flawed plan after "nine years of afflicted
deals" in which Pfizer has tried to buy votes.

The Plan will shed asbestos liability for both Quigley and Pfizer.
In addition to increasing its cash contribution, Pfizer is waiving
a $95 million secured claim, a $19 million claim for financing the
Chapter 11 case, and a $33 million unsecured claim.

                        About Quigley Co.

Quigley Co. was acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended
to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and
Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed
dust. Quigley filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and has a Chapter 11
plan and a settlement with Chrysler.

Quigley filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-15739) on Sept. 3, 2004, to implement a
proposed global resolution of all pending and future asbestos-
related personal injury liabilities.

Lawrence V. Gelber, Esq., and Michael L. Cook, Esq., at Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring
efforts.  Elihu Inselbuch Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When
the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it disclosed
$155,187,000 in total assets and $141,933,000 in total debts.

In April 2011, the bankruptcy judge approved a plan-support
agreement with Pfizer and an ad hoc committee representing 30,000
asbestos claimants.

A May 20, 2011 opinion by District Judge Richard Holwell concluded
that Pfizer was directly liable for some asbestos claims arising
from products sold by its now non-operating subsidiary Quigley.
The district court ruling was upheld in the appeals court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celotex Claims v. Integrity Barred by Estoppel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order dated June 19,
2013, on an appeal concerning excess comprehensive general
liability insurance issued by now-insolvent insurance company,
Integrity Insurance Company, to Celotex Corporation, which used
asbestos in many products it designed, manufactured, and
distributed and to a subsidiary corporation that mined the fiber.
The insureds sought bankruptcy protection in 1990 and, in 1991,
commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage from the
many insurers that had issued layers of insurance over the years.
Relevant to the appeal, a bankruptcy judge found that the insured
corporations had failed to provide timely notice to their excess
insurers and barred coverage.

In 2009, Celotex submitted two proofs of claim to Thomas B.
Considine, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance of the State of
New Jersey in his capacity as Liquidator of Integrity Insurance
Company.  Each sought the face amount of the 1982-1983 and 1983-
1984 policies, $5 million each, for bodily injury and property
damage claims arising from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing materials.  Both claims were rejected by the
Liquidator, a special master, and a trial judge.  All relied on
the order entered in the prior declaratory judgment action.  An
Appellate Division panel reversed; the Supreme Court granted leave
to appeal.

The appeal involves the application of collateral estoppel.
Determining whether collateral estoppel applies to the 2009 claims
requires a review of the circumstances that precipitated the
bankruptcy filing, the insureds' management of their insurance
program, and the declaratory judgment proceedings commenced by the
insureds regarding their insurance coverage.  The result of the
review led the Supreme Court to conclude that the claims under
review are barred.

All of the claims brought against Celotex pertain to either bodily
injury or property damage resulting from exposure to Celotex's
asbestos-containing building materials.  The very nature of the
claims in which the manifestation of injury to a person or to a
property owner may be delayed for years underscores the purpose of
timely notice of occurrence.  In this case, even at the time
Celotex obtained the first of the two Integrity excess policies,
it knew that it would face many more individual claims for
asbestos-related bodily injury and asbestos-related property
damage due to its decision to incorporate asbestos in its
products, its manufacture and distribution of those products, and
the delay in manifestation of injury to person or to property.  In
the context of the duty to provide notice of an occurrence, the
focus was on the entirety of the claims spawned by its inclusion
of asbestos in its products and the likelihood that it would
exhaust lower layers of insurance coverage.  Under the plain and
ordinary meaning of the Integrity policies, all of the claims
result from a singular occurrence, the Supreme Court held.

The Supreme Court, therefore, determined that the orders entered
in the prior bankruptcy proceeding bar the 2009 proofs of claim
filed by the Trust because of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE LIQUIDATION OF INTEGRITY
INSURANCE COMPANY/THE CELOTEX ASBESTOS TRUST, NOS. 50 SEPTEMBER
TERM 2011, 068970 (N.J.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Amsn7Hfrom Leagle.com.

David M. Freeman, Esq. -- dfreeman@mskf.net -- at Mazie Slater
Katz & Freeman for appellant Thomas B. Considine, Commissioner of
Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey in his capacity
as Liquidator of Integrity Insurance Company.  James R. Matthews,
Esq., a member of the Ohio bar, argued the cause for respondent
The Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Writ of Mandate Issued Due to Abuse of Discretion
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, issued on May 30, 2013, a peremptory writ of mandate in the
first instance to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County after
determining that the Superior Court abused its discretion both in
denying the request for continuance and in granting the motion for
summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a case involving
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products.

In this case, Edward and Barbara Catiller filed an action against
numerous defendants contending that Edward was exposed to asbestos
while in the navy, which resulted in malignant pleural
mesothelioma, a terminal cancer.  During his navy career, Edward
allegedly was exposed to asbestos contained in Hysol adhesives and
sealants manufactured by real party-in-interest Dexter Hysol
Aerospace, LLC.

According to the records of the case, a trial was scheduled for
May 1, 2013, but DHA failed provide its most knowledgeable person
to testify at deposition and did not produce the requested
documents, which, the Court of Appeals ruled, deprived the
Plaintiffs of the opportunity to obtain evidence and material
necessary to establish their allegations.  Rather than timely
responding to the discovery requests, DHA filed a motion for
summary judgment based on the contention that the Plaintiffs had
no evidence that the products manufactured, sold, or provided by
DHA caused or contributed to Edward's terminal mesothelioma.

Irrespective of DHA's failure to cooperate in discovery, the trial
court without explanation denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a
continuance and granted the motion for summary judgment.  The
Supreme Court held that where the opposing party submits an
adequate affidavit showing that essential facts may exist but
cannot be presented timely, the court must either deny summary
judgment or grant a continuance.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the fact that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to trial preference and have a preferential trial date
based on Edward's health cannot be a factor in the entry of an
adverse summary judgment particularly where, as in this case, the
primary cause of the delay in discovery was DHA's delay in
providing its most knowledgeable person for deposition.

The Court of Appeals notified the trial court and the parties of
its conclusion that the trial court had erred in its denial of the
Plaintiffs' request for a continuance and the granting of the
motion for summary judgment and directed the trial court to comply
with the procedure established in Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri,
Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, and reconsider the
order.  The trial court, however, failed to comply with the course
of action set forth in Brown.  The Court of Appeals has received
opposition and a reply brief from the parties.

Having complied with all procedural requirements and having
determined that the Plaintiffs' "entitlement to relief is so
obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary
consideration of the issue, the Court of Appeals concluded the
trial court abused its discretion both in denying the request for
continuance and in granting the motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals directed the respondent court to: (1) vacate
the order granting summary judgment; (2) provide the Plaintiffs a
10-day period to prepare a substantive response to the summary
judgment motion and allow them to incorporate the deposition of
DHA's most knowledgeable person into the opposition; (3) set a
five-day period for DHA to file and personally serve any further
briefing supporting its motion; (4) set a date for hearing the
motion for summary judgment within 10 days thereafter, and (5) if
the motion is denied immediately proceed to trial.  The Court of
Appeals also ruled that the Plaintiffs will recover all costs of
the proceeding.

The case is EDWARD CATILLER et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DEXTER HYSOL AEROSPACE,
LLC, Real Party in Interest, NO. B248439 (Cal. App.).  a full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/aP7AT0from
Leagle.com.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP for Petitioners.
Caroline E. Chan, Esq. -- cchan@lbbslaw.com -- Arezoo Jamshidi,
Esq. -- ajamshidi@lbbslaw.com -- and Arezou Khonsari, Esq. --
khonsari@lbbslaw.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,
for DHA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ct. Denies Insurer's Bid for Separate Trials
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Melinda Harmon of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued an opinion
and order dated May 29, 2013, denying defendant Continental
Insurance Company's motion for separate trials in a case alleging
breach of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and
bad faith handling and seeking a declaratory judgment that
Plaintiff Domco Products Texas Inc. is entitled to insurance
coverage under three excess liability insurance policies, issued
in the late 1970's and early 1980's, for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims asserted against it in another litigation.

Judge Harmon agreed with the case Divine Restoration Apostolic
Church v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 4:09-cv-0926, 2010
WL 1064727 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2010), in which the judge rejected
an insurer's argument on behalf of its motion for separate trials
under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
resolving the insured's breach of contract claims first would
promote judicial efficiency "because the extra-contractual claims
depend on the outcome of the contract claim" and might well moot
the extracontractual claims.

Moreover, Judge Harmon agreed with the case Hardesty Builders,
Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., Civ. A. C-10-142, 2010 WL 2787810,
*4 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2010) underwhich the judge ruled that
"separate trials will save time and resources only if, in fact,
the insurer prevails on the contractual claim. If it does not,
then a great deal of time will be wasted retaking depositions,
engaging in additional discovery, empaneling a new jury, and
conducting a second trial."

In the Domco Products case, Continental has not proven that
separation of the issues here is justified, Judge Harmon ruled.
Any saving in time and expense is speculative at this stage of the
litigation, nor can the Court now determine whether multiple
trials would not result in duplication of testimony and other
evidence, she further ruled.  Judge Harmon denied Continental's
motion but directed the Defendant to reurge the motion at a later
date if effects of bifurcation can be predicted with greater
certainty.

The case is DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
UVALDE ROCK ASPHALT, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-2072 (S.D. Tex.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Harmon's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/9Ti8T8from Leagle.com.

Domco Products Texas Inc., as Successor -in-Interest to Uvalde
Rock Asphalt Inc, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Hendryx,
Esq. -- mhendryx@strongpipkin.com -- at Strong Pipkin Bissell &
Ledyard, L.L.P., in Houston, Texas.

The Continental Insurance Company, as Successor-in-Interest to
Harbor Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Howard L
Close, Esq. -- close@wrightclose.com -- at Wright & Close, LLP,
Patrick F. Hofer, Esq. -- patrick.hofer@troutmansanders.com -- and
Steven W McNutt, Esq. -- steven.mcnutt@troutmansanders.com -- at
Troutman Sanders LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Limit Doc Examination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section III, paragraph B of the September 20, 1996
Case Management Order, as amended May 26, 2011, which governs New
York City Asbestos Litigation, defendant Blackmer Pump Company
appeals from and seeks a protective order in respect of the May 8,
2013 written recommendation of Special Master Shelley Rosoff
Olsen, which directs, among other things, the production of
certain technical manuals in Blackmer's possession.

The limited issue before the court is whether the Plaintiffs'
counsel should be permitted to examine all of Blackmer's technical
manuals at their forthcoming document inspection in Michigan, or
whether the Plaintiffs' Document Requests will be satisfied by
Blackmer's production of site-specific manuals on a case-by-case
basis.

In a decision dated June 17, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of
the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Blackmer's motion for a
protective order and confirmed the Special Master's Recommendation
confirmed as modified.

Judge Heitler explained that the NYCAL CMO is designed to "allow
the parties to obtain reasonably necessary documents and
information without imposing undue burdens in order to permit the
parties to evaluate the cases, reach early settlements, and
prepare unsettled cases for trial."  Discovery in NYCAL cases is
governed by the CMO under which there is "full authority" in the
court to issue discovery orders pertaining to ongoing asbestos
litigation, Judge Heitler added.

In these proceedings, Blackmer's corporate representative
testified that the company's technical manuals are the single best
source of information concerning the asbestos content of its
products.  Judge Heitler ruled that, in this case, the information
sought by the Plaintiffs pertains to all NYCAL cases involving
Blackmer, and accordingly, should be produced in bulk rather than
on a case-by-case basis.  Judge Heitler found that the Plaintiffs
have persuasively argued that Blackmer's technical manuals will
likely show which of its pumps integrated asbestos containing
components, whether Blackmer specified that its pumps be insulated
with asbestos or not, whether Blackmer recommended that asbestos
containing replacement parts be used in maintaining its pumps, and
whether Blackmer warned of the dangers associated with asbestos.

According to Judge Heitler, Blackmer's contention that the
Recommendation goes beyond the scope of the CMO is without merit.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION as relating
to ALL WEITZ AND LUXENBURG CASES IN WHICH BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY IS
A DEFENDANT, DOCKET NO. 40000/88, MOTION SEQ. NO. 009. 2013 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/wHrO4Lfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Recommends Dismissal of PI Suit v. Boeing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sherry R. Fallon, magistrate judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, in a June 20, 2013,
report and recommendation recommended the approval of defendant
Higbee, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a personal injury action for lack
of personal jurisdiction and the denial of the request for leave
to conduct jurisdictional discovery filed by plaintiffs Hershell
Fugate and Susan Fugate.

The action was filed against 18 defendants, including Higbee,
alleging that Mr.. suffered injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos throughout his employment and through personal automotive
work.  The case was removed to the District Court by Defendant
United Technologies Corporation.  On February 13, 2013, Higbee
filed the Motion to Dismiss.

According to the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs fail to
establish personal jurisdiction over Higbee, and therefore, the
court should grant Higbee's Motion to Dismiss.  Under the facts
presented in the instant case, the only plausible basis for
establishing jurisdiction over Higbee is 10 Del. C. Sec.
3104(c)(4).  The Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge noted, do not
assert general jurisdiction under subsection (c)(4). Nonetheless,
they seek leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery to probe the
extent of any Delaware contacts Higbee may have.

The Magistrate Judge held that in order to exercise jurisdiction
under subsection (c)(4), the court must find, among other things,
that Higbee "regularly does or solicits business" in Delaware, or
"derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or
consumed" in Delaware.  The Magistrate Judge found that Higbee
does not regularly conduct or solicit business in Delaware.

Higbee is a New York corporation that is not registered to do
business in Delaware, and does not have a registered agent in
Delaware for service of process, the Magistrate Judge pointed out.
Furthermore, Higbee does not have any offices in Delaware, have
any employees in Delaware, have any independent contractors in
Delaware, advertise in Delaware, solicit potential Delaware
customers, own or lease real estate in Delaware, hold any interest
in assets or property within Delaware, or pay taxes in Delaware,
the Magistrate Judge also pointed out.  Therefore, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that Higbee does not regularly conduct or solicit
business in Delaware.

Just as the Plaintiffs have failed to advance sufficient facts to
establish personal jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs, according to the
Magistrate Judge, have also failed to advance sufficient factual
allegations to justify jurisdictional discovery.

In the Fugate case, the Plaintiffs' factual allegations are
insufficient to warrant jurisdictional discovery, the Magistrate
Judge ruled.  The Plaintiffs fail to assert, with reasonable
particularity, facts showing that Higbee might be subject to
personal jurisdiction under Delaware's long-arm statute, the
Magistrate Judge further ruled.

The case is HERSHELL FUGATE and SUSAN FUGATE, Plaintiffs, v.
BOEING CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-152-SLR-SRF
(D. Del.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Zv3lJxfrom Leagle.com.

Hershell Fugate, and Susan Fugate, Plaintiffs, are represented by
Kara Anne Hager, Esq. -- KHager@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Boeing Co, Defendant, is represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq.
-- abocchino@cmjlaw.com -- and Jason A. Cincilla, Esq. --
jcincilla@cmjlaw.com -- at Cooley Manion Jones LLP.

Higbee Inc., Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki Mantzavinos,
Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- and Eileen M. Ford, Esq. --
eford@moodklaw.comMarks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Order Dismissing PI Suit v. Bechtel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Jean Burns, and her husband, Robert, filed a lawsuit
against Bechtel Corp. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
alleging that Bechtel was liable for Mr.. Burns' contracting
mesothelioma from asbestos exposure.  Bechtel moved for summary
judgment, and after a hearing on the matter, the trial court
granted Bechtel's motion, holding that the Appellant's claims were
barred by the Statute of Repose codified in Sec. 5-108 of the
Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2006
Repl. Vol.).  The Appellant voluntarily dismissed her remaining
claims, and a timely appeal followed.

In a decision dated May 30, 2013, the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland affirmed the trial court's ruling.  The Court of Special
Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err when it held that a
general contractor was not in actual possession and control of a
property, where the contractor's control was limited to the scope
of its construction project.  According to the Court of Special
Appeals, the Appellant's argument that Bechtel was excluded from
repose by CJ Sec. 5-108(d)(2)(i) because the firm was "in actual
possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or
otherwise when the injury occurred" fails as Bechtel was not in
actual possession and control of the PEPCO property when the
injury occurred, and CJ Sec. 5-108(d)(2)(i) does not exclude it
from the general Statute of Repose, the Court of Special Appeals
held.

The Court of Special Appeals also held that because Bechtel and
the asbestos products in this case do not fall within subsection
(d)(2)(ii)'s exception to repose, Bechtel remains shielded by the
statute and was entitled to summary judgment.

The enactment of the specific exceptions contained in CJ Sec. 5-
108(d)(2)(ii) demonstrates by contrast that subsection (a) does
not exclude from repose "damages for personal injury or death
caused by asbestos or a product that contains asbestos, [if] the
injury or death results from exposure to asbestos dust or fibers
which are shed or emitted prior to or in the course of the
affixation, application, or installation of the asbestos or the
product that contains asbestos to an improvement to real
property," the Court of Special Appeals explained.  With no other
reason to exclude Bechtel and the alleged harm in the instant case
from the statute of repose, the Appellant's claims were time-
barred by CJ Sec. 5-108(a).

The case is JEAN BURNS v. BECHTEL CORP., N/K/A SEQUOIA VENTURES,
INC., NO. 427, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2012 (Md. Spec. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision dated May 30, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/8MsGlkfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 12 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
overseeing several thousand asbestos cases in the Multidistrict
Litigation case number 875, otherwise known as the "Asbestos MDL,"
dismissed the claims of 12 Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on non-compliance with
the District Court's Administrative Order No. 12.  Specifically,
District Judge Robreno determined that the Plaintiffs' submissions
were fatally flawed in that they failed to include specific
histories of their exposure to asbestos.

In an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, the Plaintiffs contend that AO 12 did not impose this
requirement.  The Plaintiffs contend that indicating the nature
and duration of a claimant's work, as well as general allegations
of exposure history, should suffice.  The Plaintiffs urged
alternatively that under a proper balancing of the factors the
Third Circuit outlined in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), dismissal with prejudice was
not warranted.

In an opinion dated May 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the 12 cases at
issue.  The Third Circuit ruled that, while the language of AO 12
is broad, the District Court has already interpreted AO 12 in
numerous cases.

Based on the language in AO 12 that requires plaintiffs to submit
medical diagnoses or opinions based on objective and subjective
data, as well as statements from reputable medical organizations
that emphasize the importance of exposure history, the District
Court interpreted AO 12 submissions to include exposure history.
Although the broad language of AO 12 could support different
interpretations, it does not strike as an abuse of discretion,
especially given the District Court's experience overseeing these
proceedings, to require a "complete occupational and environmental
exposure history when asbestos-related disease is suspected," the
Third Circuit ruled.

On the District Court's dismissal of three cases for failure to
show an asbestos-related disease as required by AO 12, the Third
Circuit held that, as it has concluded in its Nov. 2011 order, the
District Court correctly ruled that "pleural thickening" does not
satisfy AO 12's requirement of showing an asbestos-related
disease, and the Plaintiff's AO 12 submission discusses only
"pleural thickening."

On the argument raised by the Plaintiffs that the District Court
erred in dismissing their cases with prejudice because it did not
properly consider the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit held that,
in the instant case, Judge Robreno clearly considered the
applicability of Poulis.  Not only did he discuss the Poulis
factors in the November 2011 Order, but the parties also addressed
them fully in their briefs, the Third Circuit noted.

The Third Circuit held that it has little difficulty concluding
that the District Court considered and weighed the factors,
viewing the dilatory and prejudicial aspects as outweighing all
others.  Moreover, the flaw in the submissions went to the very
heart of the "meritorious" aspect, making the weighing of that
factor impossible, the Third Circuit further held.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
pertaining to BARRY WRIGHT, Appellant in No. 12-2061, JOSEPH J.
REPISCHAK, Appellant in No. 12-2063, NANCY BRIX, Individually and
as Special Administrator of the Estate of Gerald Brix, deceased,
Appellant in No. 12-2064, ANTHONY J. ARENDT, Appellant in No.
12-2065, LUELLEN DELLENBACH, individually and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of Warren C. Hansen, deceased,
Appellant in No. 12-2066, RONALD J. MICHELS, Appellant in No.
12-2067, VIRGINIA M. MORRIS, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Roy Morris, deceased, Appellant in
No. 12-2068, TRACY BURZYNSKI, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Milo Burzynski, deceased, Appellant
in No. 12-2069, RUSSELL V. OSTRAND, Appellant in No. 12-2070,
MICHAEL R. DUFFEY, Individually and as Special Administrator of
the Estate of Paul V. Duffey, deceased Appellant in No. 12-2071,
ROGER ZERBEL, Appellant in No. 12-2072, and KATHLEEN STAFFORD,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of James
J. Wilhelm, Deceased, Appellant in No. 12-3082.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/OhRzg1from Leagle.com.

Brian A. Schroeder, Esq., Michael P. Cascino, Esq., Robert G.
McCoy, Esq., at Cascino Vaughn Law Offices, in Chicago, Illinois,
argued for Appellants.

Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq. -- mulhollanddj@fpwk.com -- John M.
Seebohm, Esq. -- jmseebohm@fpwk.com -- and David M. Setter, Esq. -
- dmsetter@fpwk.com -- at Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tarsy,
in Denver, Colorado, argued for Appellees Atlantic Richfield,
Company; CBS Corporation, a Delaware, Corporation, f/k/a Viacom,
Inc., successor by, merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania,
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric, Corporation; General
Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Ingersoll Rand Company;
Owens-Illinois, Inc. d/b/a O-I; Trane U.S. Inc., f/k/a American
Standard, Inc.; and Union, Carbide Corporation.

Eric D. Carlson, Esq. -- ecarlson@crivellocarlson.com -- and
Samuel C. Hall, Jr., Esq. -- shall@crivellocarlson.com -- at
Crivello Carlson, S.C., in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, argued for
Appellees Albany International, Corporation; Mount Vernon Mills
Incorporated; Albany Felt Company, Durox Company; Koppers
Incorporated; Rogers Corporation; Sprinkmann Sons Corporation;
West Bend, Company; Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Brake Supply
Company Incorporated; and Graybar Electric Company.

Syed D. Ali, Esq. -- syed.ali@klgates.com -- and Michael J.
Zukowski, Esq. -- Michael.zukowski@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates,
LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for Appellees Crane
Company; Schneider Engineering Services, as successor to, Square D
Company; and Schneider Electric SA.

Gregory M. McNamee, Esq. -- gmcnamee@smsm.com -- and Emily C.
Zapotocny, Esq. -- ezapotocny@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge,
Singer & Mahoney, in Chicago, Illinois, argued for Appellees
Durametallic, Corporation; DAP Incorporated; Zurn, Industries,
LLC; and Gardner Denver, Incorporated.

Kathryn R. Downey, Esq. -- kdowney@murnane.com -- Thomas A.
Gilligan, Jr., Esq. -- tgilligan@murnane.com -- and C. Todd
Koebele, Esq. -- tkoebele@murnane.com -- at Murnane Brandt, in St.
Paul, Minnesotta, argued for Appellees Bechtel Corporation;
Bechtel Construction Company; and Cornell, Pump Company.

Craig L. Unrath, Esq., -- cunrath@heylroyster.com -- at Heyl
Royster Voelker & Allen, in Peoria, Illinois, argued for Appellees
Air & Liquid Systems, Corporation as successor by merger to
Buffalo, Pumps; Parker Hannifin Corporation; and Union Carbide
Corporation.

Douglas J. Gush, Esq. -- dgush@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for Appellee
Elliott Company individually and as successor to Elliot
Turbomachniery Company.

Nancy G. Lischer, Esq. -- nlischer@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw &
Culbertson, in Chicago, Illinois, argued for Airgas Merchant Gases
LLC as, successor in interest to AGA Gas, Inc.

Edward F. Houff, Esq. -- efhouff@ewhlaw.com -- and Clare M.
Maisano, Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- at Evert, Weathersby &
Houff, in Baltimore, Maryland, argued for Appellees LINDE LLC,
sued as, Linde Inc., f/k/a The BOC Group and/or Airco; The Lincoln
Electric Company; and Hobart, Brothers Company.

Jerome D. Feriancek, Esq. -- jdf@trialgroupnorth.com -- at
Thibodeau, Johnson & Feriancek, PLLP, in Duluth, Minnesotta,
argued for Appellee Honeywell International, Inc. and Pneumo Abex,
LLC, successor in interest to Abex Corporation.

Steven L. Parrott, Esq. -- sparrott@dehay.com -- at Dehay &
Elliston, LLP, in Baltimore, Maryland, argued for Pneumo Abex,
LLC.

Thomas M. Stieber, Esq. -- tstieber@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley
& Mansfield, in Minneapolis, Minnesotta, argued for Appellee
Plastics Engineering Company.

Carter G. Phillips, Esq. -- fphilip@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin
LLP, in Washington, D.C., argued for Appellee General Electric
Company.

David L. Kelleher, Esq. -- dkelleher@jackscamp.com -- at Jackson &
Campbell, P.C., in Washington, D.C., argued for Appellee Metso
Paper, USA Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare for Bondi Public School Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shae McDonald, writing for Wentworth Courier, reported that an
asbestos removal company has moved to allay fears of parents at
Bondi Public School by saying material in trucks parked opposite
the school poses no risk to students.

According to the report, concerned parents told the Courier that
trucks containing asbestos had been parked outside the Wellington
St school regularly for six months.

The report said Asbestos Removal Sydney owner Wade Rogers
confirmed that the trucks contained asbestos, but said his company
had not endangered the school community because the fibres were
contained within sheets of cement.  But Bondi Public parent
Michelle Stone said the thought of her child being exposed to
asbestos made her sick to her stomach.

"In the 21st century, it's completely unacceptable for any company
to allow an uncovered, unsecure truck in a residential zone
outside a school, full of bags containing asbestos waste," she
told the news agency.

"It is grossly irresponsible and the company needs to act
immediately to remove what is a legitimate and serious threat to
the health of hundreds of children," Ms. Stone said, according to
the report.

Fellow parent Allan Moore noticed bags were split open, while
others were not taped closed.

Waverley Council and WorkCover were contacted and a ranger
inspected the area.

A council spokeswoman said a ranger found that the asbestos was
bonded and unlikely to break down and not considered harmful.

Any potential risk was also lessened by recent rain.

This assessment was supported by a later WorkCover inspection.

"Nevertheless, council and the mayor were very concerned about the
presence of asbestos in a public place, and the ranger contacted
the truck owner and asked them to move it,'' the spokeswoman said.

"The owner of the truck undertook to move it this morning.

"Council is treating the matter seriously and will continue to
follow up with WorkCover and the truck owner.''

Mr. Rogers said the ripped bags were unfortunate because "99 per
cent of the time the trucks are wrapped in black plastic''.

Mr. Rogers said the company did a lot of work in Bondi and the
trucks were often parked on Wellington St because some staff lived
nearby.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fix Delays NBN as Telstra Admits Mistakes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepworth and Mitchell Bingeman, writing for The
Australian, reported that Labor's flagship infrastructure project
is at risk of further delay ahead of the federal election as the
beleaguered NBN Co considers the impact asbestos concerns could
have on the pace of the rollout and Telstra tells key contractors
they cannot return to work until they meet tough new rules for
handling the deadly material.

According to the report, responding to a series of asbestos
mishandling complaints related to the National Broadband Network
construction, Telstra admitted there were gaps in the training of
workers to handle the removal of asbestos fibres and threatened to
tear up the supply contracts with its three main rollout
contractors if they did not comply with the stringent guidelines
for removing it from Telstra's pits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Admits Poor Training Caused Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Hutchinson, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reported that Telstra has conceded poor supervision and
insufficient training for subcontractors removing asbestos
material from underground pits contributed to potential
mishandling of the deadly fibres.

According to the report, the company has put its main contractors,
Visionstream and Service Stream, on notice about the issue while
pledging to review training procedures for those working with the
asbestos pits.  However, Telstra will not reveal the full details
of its three-week review into the fiasco.

A brief overview of the findings indicated that while contractors
doing the work had basic asbestos training "there were gaps in
contractor training records for their subcontractor staff," the
report related.  The findings suggested staff did not always have
adequate supplies.

Soil and asbestos-laden cement, which is estimated to account for
10 per cent to 20 per cent of Telstra's 8 million underground pits
nationally, are being dug up in preparation for the national
broadband network rollout as part of the company's $11 billion
contract with NBN Co and the federal government, the report said.

                     UNIONS VOICE CONCERNS

However, allegations of mishandling the material at locations
including Ballarat in Victoria and Penrith in Sydney's west
earlier this month stoked fears that workers and bystanders could
become exposed to asbestos fibres, the report said. It prompted an
emergency meeting in Canberra with government officials and
unions.

Union officials have also voiced concerns of a cover-up by
government agencies and Visionstream after the company was allowed
to remove and test soil allegedly tainted with asbestos from
Ballarat without independent oversight.

Telstra halted all remediation work on infrastructure pending its
internal review, while announcing a 200-strong workforce of its
own to supervise asbestos removal.

                   ASBESTOS SPECIALISTS TO BE HIRED

NBN Co has since said it would hire asbestos specialists to remove
any such material it comes across during network construction.

"Prior to allowing recommencement of works, we are requiring our
contractors make changes to ensure they comply with their
contractual commitments," Telstra's chief operations officer
Brendon Riley said in a statement.

"We are working closely with Comcare and other stakeholders to
strengthen mandatory training and field inspection for contractors
and subcontractors. Anyone working as a contractor or sub-
contractor for Telstra will be required to undertake this
retraining before commencing any remediation work on the cement
pits."

The company said it expected contractors to comply with its
agreement "otherwise they will not remain key suppliers to
Telstra".

A Telstra spokeswoman confirmed work was yet to recommence on any
remediation work but could not provide a time frame.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: One-Sided Bill on Asbestos Injuries
----------------------------------------------------
The Editorial Board of The New York Times wrote, "Republicans
rammed a bill through the House Judiciary Committee last month
that would make it harder for plaintiffs injured by asbestos to
get fair compensation. The bill is supposedly designed to root out
fraud and abuse, but there is no persuasive evidence of any
significant fraud or abuse. Before plunging ahead with this
misguided attempt to protect asbestos companies from lawsuits,
Congress ought to commission an objective study of whether there
is even a problem that needs fixing."

According to the report, millions of workers were injured by
asbestos over the years and thousands of suits were filed against
asbestos companies, which often were aware of the dangers but
concealed the risks from workers and the public. Dozens of
companies declared bankruptcy and established trusts, financed
with company money, to pay the present and future claims against
them. The trusts typically pay only a small percentage of the
value of a claim. Plaintiffs are also free to sue companies that
have not gone bankrupt.

The Republican bill, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act (FACT) of 2013, would allow asbestos companies to
demand information from the trusts for virtually any reason,
forcing the trusts to devote limited resources to responding to
fishing expeditions that will slow the process of paying claims,
the NY Times said.

The bill would also increase the burden on claimants to supply
information, the NY Times added.  But it puts virtually no burdens
on asbestos companies, like disclosing the settlements they have
reached with plaintiffs or requiring them to reveal where their
products were used and when, so that workers know which companies
or trusts might be liable for their injuries.

Fair-minded members of Congress should ask the Government
Accountability Office to determine whether there is significant
fraud in asbestos claims before enacting a law that makes it
harder to obtain fair compensation, the NY Times suggested.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Fined GBP6,000 Over Fibro at Hospital
------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that Scotland's largest health board has been
fined GBP6,000 for failing to clear asbestos from the Royal
Hospital for Sick Children at Yorkhill in Glasgow.

According to the report, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde admitted
flouting asbestos regulations by having poisonous fibres in a
basement plant room at the hospital.

The report said Glasgow Sheriff Court heard the board took no
action after a low risk problem was highlighted in a survey in
2009.  It was assessed as high risk in 2011, by which time staff
had been exposed.

The court heard that a survey in February 2009 had shown there was
the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in a number
of places within the plant room, the report related.  It said that
they were in good condition and were a low risk.

                         Sealed off

The survey recommended the ACMs should be labelled and monitored
so any future deterioration could be managed.

In January 2011, a further survey of the plant room was carried
out before the installation of a new MR.I scanner at the hospital.

This found that some of the ACMs were in a poor condition and now
posed a high risk.

The matter was reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
after air and swab samples for asbestos fibres came back positive
and the plant room was sealed off.

An investigation by the HSE found that the health board had taken
no action since the 2009 survey to monitor the ACMs within the
plant room.

No labelling of the ACMs had taken place and nothing had been done
over the following two years to maintain the materials in good
condition.

The 2011 survey showed their condition had deteriorated - from
good and low risk to poor and high risk - but it was not known
exactly how or when they had been damaged.

Employees of the health board and outside contractors regularly
had to access the plant room and could have potentially been
exposed to the harmful asbestos fibres while carrying out
maintenance work.

Managers at the health board were interviewed under caution by HSE
officials about contamination of areas within the hospital.

The matter was reported in October 2011 by the HSE.

HSE Inspector Eve Macready said: "The dangers posed by the
presence of asbestos are clear. There is no known safe limit and
it is often many years after exposure before asbestos-related
diseases appear -- so it is important that exposure to asbestos
fibres is kept to an absolute minimum.

"Glasgow health board failed in its duty to properly manage the
risks of asbestos in its premises and as a result a number of
employees and external contractors have potentially been exposed
to harmful fibres."

                            Renewed policy

Peter Gray QC, representing the health board, told the court that
the estates officer for the health board had "very significant
attendance issues and personal issues".

He said it was clear that the asbestos policy had not been
implemented properly.

The QC said it was "equally clear" that the failures had not been
detected by management.

Mr. Gray told the court a number of changes had been made,
including a renewed policy.

Following the case, NHS GGC said: "We accept that in this instance
our robust asbestos procedures fell short of the standards we
strive to maintain and the sheriff's decision to issue a fine.

"We have taken rigorous action to reinforce our asbestos
procedures including reviewing our policy.

"We have also created a dedicated post, which is currently being
advertised, to ensure our asbestos procedures are fully adhered
to."

Asbestos was widely used in industry due to its insulation and
heat and fire resistant qualities.

It was banned in the UK after it emerged exposure to the substance
could cause serious health problems.

Legal requirements are in place to strip asbestos out of old
buildings.

It was previously reported that 58-year-old Dr Kieran Sweeney died
in 2009 of mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos, while
working as a junior doctor at the city's Southern General Hospital
in the 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumping Claim Probed by Fraser Coast Council
-------------------------------------------------------------
Averyll Loft, writing for Fraser Coast Chronicle, reported that
concerns that asbestos is being illegally dumped in bushland at
Bidwill are being investigated by the Fraser Coast Regional
Council.

According to residents, Diagonal Rd has turned into an "unofficial
dumping ground" in recent years, the report related.

Everything from building materials to old household appliances
line the side of the unsealed road and more are scattered in the
bush, the report said.

One resident, who did not wish to be named, said his main concern
was what looked like sheets of asbestos, according to the report.

"There's a waterway which runs right into Tinana Creek nearby," he
said.

Cr Robert Garland said the Fraser Coast Regional Council sent
compliance officers to investigate whenever it was notified of
illegal dumping.  He said staff were not sure if any of the
material in the Diagonal Rd area contained asbestos.

"If the rubbish is asbestos, or suspected of containing asbestos,
then the council will engage a licensed removalist to clean up the
site."

Cr Garland, who holds the community health, education and training
portfolio, said compliance officers investigated up to 40
complaints of illegal dumping each year.

"The council has cleaned up a few hot spots this year and has
applied for state government funding to place cameras at the hot
spots, to help identify culprits.

"It is a shame people illegally dump because most items could be
taken to the landfill and transfer stations for free.

"It might cost $10 to de-gas a fridge but washing machines,
driers, metal, car bodies and green waste which can be recycled
can be left for free."

Illegal dumping:

   * Defined as the unlawful deposit of more than 200 litres
(about the volume of a wheelie bin) on public or private land

   * Penalties range $1600 up to $115,000 for illegal dumping
causing serious environmental harm

   * Costs the FCRC up to $200 per hour to have cleaned up, plus
$73 per tonne to dispose of


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated Glue Slows Carpet Work at Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Inter Lake reported that a project to install new carpet at
the Flathead Industries Thrift Store hit a small snag when workers
found asbestos-containing glue holding down floor tiles under the
old carpet in part of the Kalispell store.

"We wanted to pull up the old carpet and tiles to lay the new
carpet down on an even surface," Vickie Poynter, the
organization's chief executive officer, told the news agency.

"Some tiles were laid down with black mastic, which contains
asbestos. So the alternatives were to either lay down carpet over
it all or pull it up and have it abated. We chose to be good
stewards of the building and pull it up and have it abated," the
report added.

With the extra work, Poynter expects the thrift store to reopen by
June 27, the report said. "It's an easy remediation, but has
created a stir," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Activists Tell Thai Gov't to Quit Stalling Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bangkok Post reported that health activists have called the Public
Health Ministry to consider the health of the public as it
compiles a report on the impacts of asbestos.

According to the report, the ministry's findings are expected to
be released this week and will be considered by the cabinet as it
mulls placing a ban on asbestos use.

The report added that about 50 members of the Thailand Ban
Asbestos Network (T-Ban) rallied at the Public Health Ministry on
June 20 to voice their concern over a possible delay of the ban.

T-Ban coordinator Somboon Sikamdokkhae said it seems as if someone
is trying to delay the ban even though the World Health
Organisation (WHO) has confirmed that all forms of asbestos are
carcinogenic.

T-Ban coordinators Somboon Sikamdokkhae said it seems as if
someone is trying to delay the ban even though World Health
Organization has confirmed that all forms of asbestos are
carcinogenic.

The WHO says 125 million people around the world are exposed to
asbestos in the workplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paspaley Demolition Halts After Fibro Concern
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Rawlinson, writing for ABC Darwin, reported that works at
the old Paspaley building in Darwin's CBD came to a sudden halt
when the Trades Union raised concerns about asbestos sheets on the
site.

According to the report, the demolition works, in the heart of
Darwin's Smith St mall, have caused dust to spread to neighbouring
cafes and clothing stores over recent weeks, with vendors
complaining of the noise and mess.

CFMEU QLD/NT branch assistant secretary Jade Ingham said workers
at the site had come to the Union with concerns about what looked
like asbestos, the report related.

Mr. Ingham said CFMEU took four random samples of different
material from the site and one tested positive for chrysotile --
white asbestos.

"They are all killers -- it's not only a risk to workers on the
site but it's a risk to people who are passing by the site," he
said.

Mr. Ingham said he attended the site again and found many samples
of potential asbestos material.

"If you check the asbestos register for the site, the building
they demolished was riddled with it -- right throughout every
single floor of the building they demolished," he said.

But the head of the construction company behind the project, Neil
Sunners, said the site had been cleared of asbestos before
demolition works began.

"What happened was the Union was on site and they indicated they
believe there was asbestos there and that caused a bit of
concern," the Sunbuild chief told ABC Local Radio.

"We just took steps to get some samples of the particular sheets
to get them tested and confirmed they were the new sheets from
after 1983 when asbestos fibres were banned.

"People just get sort of scared when they see a sheet that looks
sort of similar."

Mr. Sunners said Sunbuild conducted three tests on material at the
site, all finding no signs of asbestos.

"We acted diligently . . . we had licenced person come out again
too, and make sure we didn't miss something," Mr. Sunners said.

"It's an old building -- it's been through the war and Cyclone
Tracy -- you might miss something so you don't know, it could be
under the ground or something."

He said he wasn't sure if the asbestos the Union had tested was
from the site.

Mr. Ingham hit back, saying the Union was not in the business of
planting asbestos at work sites.

"I take great offence to some of the allegations that the Union
would have planted some of this stuff on the site -- we don't have
asbestos in our back pockets to pull out when it's convenient," he
said.

"You'd think in 2013 people would take more care and do the right
thing -- just because its Darwin it's not a third world standard.
And it's in the middle of the city."

Mr. Summers hopes the construction will be back up and running
soon, after Worksafe inspects the site again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Concern Hundreds During Logan Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Bavas, writing for ABC News, reported that a former Logan
City council worker says he was told to dump asbestos cement in
general landfill and fears hundreds of people may have been
exposed to the deadly fibres.

According to the report, Scott Campbell was in charge of a team of
men who laid footpaths across the Logan region, south of Brisbane.
From 1999 to 2003, his team replaced old asbestos Telstra pits
with plastic pits, the report related.  He says he was exposed to
deadly asbestos fibres every day as he laid down nearly half the
footpaths in Logan suburbs.

"When you're doing footpaths you just scrape the grass off the top
and a lot of time you hit these pits," he said.

"Because they're only five to 10 millimetres thick, they just
explode."

Despite raising concerns, Mr. Campbell says the workers were not
given safety gear and were told to dump asbestos cement in general
landfill.

"You've got to compete with contractors so you've got to do
everything on the sly -- you've got to take shortcuts and that's
the way it was handled," he said.

             Crews smash asbestos pit in front of school

He says hundreds of asbestos pits were mishandled, the report
further related.  In one instance, crews hit a pit in front of
Crestmead State School as children were leaving to go home for the
day.

"Because council had a lot more overheads than contractors, we had
to cut a lot more corners to compete in the open market with
contractors," he said.

Mr. Campbell now worries he will contract an asbestos-related
disease.

A spokesman for Logan City Council says it takes both the safety
of employees and correct asbestos handling and management
procedures very seriously.

"Council is not aware of the specific allegations being raised,
however would be happy to investigate the detailed allegations
should the former employee wish to raise them directly with
council," the spokesman said.

        More workers falling ill from asbestos exposure

The ABC has also learnt that a growing number of former Telstra
workers are contracting deadly asbestos-related diseases.

Raymond Colbert from the Asbestos Related Disease Support Society
Queensland says the overall number of workers falling ill from
asbestos is steadily on the rise.

"[There's] a lot more places it's coming from now. You've got the
people who are disturbing the existing product and they're doing
it without that training and without that supervision," he said.

Among those are Telstra staff who built or maintained the pits.

"They should be sent a letter: 'You may have been exposed, monitor
your health' and all that is getting regular chest x-rays," he
said.

More than 120 compensation claims have been made to Telstra in the
past decade. Eighty people have received payouts and 11 claims are
still pending.

A Telstra spokesman says the telco aims to manage compensation
claims of any type to ensure they are handled sensitively and
expeditiously.

"We handle asbestos claims on a case-by-case basis and claims are
met from general operating costs," the spokesman said.

Asbestos support group solicitor Thady Blundell says there is
serious concern about Telstra workers.

"We're starting to see people now develop asbestos disease who
were exposed in the '70s and '80s, so there's been a regular
incidence of asbestos disease amongst Telstra workers," he said.

"These pits and pipes were used all over the country."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Info on Meso Victim's Working Conditions Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter Express and Echo reported that the friends of a widow who
died from an aggressive form of cancer associated with exposure to
asbestos are seeking information about her working conditions at
an Exeter hospital.

According to the report, Jean Cooper, from Teignmouth, died aged
79 just over 12 months after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma
-- an incurable cancer which affects the lining of the lungs.

Mrs. Cooper was employed as a switchboard supervisor at the now-
demolished Wonford Hospital on Barrack Road, Wonford in Exeter
from 1973, the report related.

Jean's friends believe she was exposed to the dust while the
hospital was under construction before she left her job there in
1974, the report said.

Following her diagnosis Jean instructed Thompsons Solicitors to
investigate a claim for compensation. Since Jean died in November
2012, her friends have continued to search for answers which could
shed light on her death.

They are now making an appeal across Exeter for anyone who may
have worked on the construction or maintenance of the hospital to
contact Thompsons Solicitors with information about when or where
asbestos was used.

Jean's close friend Howard Leach said: "Jean was shocked by her
diagnosis -- working on the switchboards, it didn't even cross her
mind that she could be at risk from an industrial disease. I
remember her saying that the hospital was an extremely dusty
environment while it was being built and that she often worked
alongside the builders, so maybe that was when she was exposed.

"If anyone knows anything about the use of asbestos in the
hospital, please get in touch."

Amanda Jones from Thompsons Solicitors added: "It is vital that we
build up a picture of Mrs. Cooper's exposure to asbestos. If Jean
was exposed to asbestos dust during her short time while working
at the hospital, her colleagues may have vital information.
"We would urge anyone who worked on the construction or subsequent
maintenance of Wonford Hospital to contact us with information
which could help us piece together what happened."

Anyone who can help can contact Amanda Jones on 01792 484922 or by
email: Amandajones@thompsons.law.co.uk

Elsewhere the widow of an Exeter police officer who died from an
asbestos-related disease has issued an appeal for his former work
colleagues to get in touch.

Charlie Troake, a retired Devon and Cornwall police officer and
former police bandsman, died in June 2012 from mesothelioma. He
had been ill for about 18 months before he died at his home.
On April 17, they would have been married for 70 years. Up until
symptoms of his asbestos disease, Charlie enjoyed driving his car
and walking his dog.

Annie said: "Charlie had been a committed and dedicated police
officer serving in the Devon and Cornwall constabulary since 1948.
He enjoyed playing in the Police Brass Band.

"After his 25 years' service in the police, as a civilian he spent
five years working at the Middlemoor HQ in Exeter."

Annie believes that he may have been exposed to asbestos while at
Middlemoor when refurbishments were taking place.

"We are hoping people will come forward, particularly if they can
remember building works being carried out at the Middlemoor when
Charlie was there between 1973 and 1978," Annie added.

Anyone who can help with either claim should contact Helen Grady
of Thrings solicitors 0800 8840555.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Left at Nature Spot
-----------------------------------------------
North West Evening Mail reported that asbestos dumped at a nature
reserve is a "substantial" risk to the public -- according to
councillors.

Building materials including asbestos roof tiles were dumped at
the RSPB Hodbarrow nature reserve, Millom, the report said.

The materials were left just past the car park by the entrance to
Redhills Recycling Centre, the report added.

Millom mayor Brian Crawford said he was made aware of the fly-
tipping by RSPB warden Mhairi Maclauchlan, and reported it to
officers at Copeland Borough Council.

"It's just by the new path paid for by Ghyll Scaur Quarry which is
annoying," he said.

"It's obviously somebody who is not from the area, but who knows
the area. I don't think any local firms would risk doing it on
their own doorstep.

"It's bad enough people dumping tyres or household waste, but with
asbestos the potential damage to young people is substantial.
Children use the nature reserve and could use the materials to
make dens. It just shows the mentality of people who would do
that."

Millom town councillor Jack Park has raised concerns about fly-
tipping before with Copeland Borough Council. He said that
although the asbestos in roofing tiles was not as dangerous as
asbestos in lagging, if the concrete dries in the sun and begins
to flake then it could pose a risk.

"It's got to be disposed of in the correct way. The people who do
this are in a minority but they still do it, and it just shows
that some people have scruples," he said.

Cllr Park also raised fears that the removal of the asbestos could
see the nature reserve landed with a bill.

"They are not exactly rolling in money and they could get a
charge," he said.

Problems with fly-tipping have plagued the nature reserve and
nearby slag bank for several years.

In April tyres were dumped and burned at the slag bank off
Mainsgate Road, Millom, while a suitcase full of x-rated DVDs was
found near Hodbarrow.

A spokesman for Copeland Borough Council said the authority was
looking into the issue and would deal with it as a matter of
urgency.  He said: "When a report like this is received, our team
of waste staff will go and remove it in a safe way as soon as
possible, take it to the treatment site and inspect it to see if
there is any evidence as to where it came from and who dumped it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags of Contaminated Soil Cleared From McCains
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Jeans, writing for The Courier, reported that dozens of bags
of asbestos-contaminated soil were removed from a disused Telstra
pit outside McCain Foods.

According to the report, the asbestos was discovered by
contractors Ballarat Underground Boring when they were preparing
installation of communication cables in a Telstra pit, for the
upgrade of McCain communication systems.  The following day, the
pit was covered over for public safety, before work commenced on
removal of the asbestos.

A spokesperson for McCain Foods said that as soon as the danger
was identified, professional asbestos remover Hazrem Pty Ltd was
called in to remove the debris, the report related.

"There was no danger to the public, and a number of bags
containing asbestos were professionally removed."

A WorkSafe spokesman confirmed it had been notified that soil
containing asbestos particles had been found at a site in Ring
Road, Wendouree.

"We attended the site to ensure that the safe removal and disposal
of the soil was undertaken by a qualified asbestos removalist," he
said.

Telstra said the pit in question was an old, disused Telstra pit
that was left safely buried in the ground.

Telstra said it was not involved in the removal of the pit in any
way and only became aware of the pit after the work had occurred.

All work by Telstra employees and contractors involving material
containing asbestos remains on hold after recent revelations of
improper handling of asbestos by contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHS Project Back on Track After Fibro Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Camille Baptista, writing for Berkeleyside, reported that despite
delays at the beginning of the school year caused by the discovery
of an unexpected type of asbestos, the Berkeley High School South
of Bancroft Project is back on schedule, according to Principal
Pasquale Scuderi.

The report related that ongoing construction project on the
southern end of campus has so far involved installing a stadium on
the east side of the athletic field, which has new bleachers
standing over a sports facility building with locker rooms, team
meeting areas, coaches' offices and a weight room. A decrepit set
of bleachers on the west side of the field has been torn down, as
has the seismically-unfit Old Gym to make way for a new academic
building along Milvia Street.

Currently underway is the construction of the new academic
building, which has yet to be named, and the installation of new
visitors' bleachers on the west side of the field. The latter
should be ready when school resumes in the fall.

Funding for the projects comes from bond measures A, AA and I.

"This is really a signature project of our 2010 bond," said Lew
Jones, Berkeley Unified School District's maintenance director,
referring to Measure I, which passed in November 2010. The costs
for the projects currently underway total $31.6 million, and the
completed phase of the construction, including the stadium, cost
an additional $9.4 million.

Delays arose at the beginning of the 2012-13 school year after
construction workers found nonfriable asbestos in the Old Gym
during demolition. Jones said that contractors had been prepared
for some asbestos and had done a survey, but the nonfriable
asbestos was different.

"We ran into a fairly large change that we weren't aware of,"
Jones said. "It's not something you could have seen before you
demolished part of the building."

Nonfriable asbestos-containing material (ACM) is a category of ACM
that does not crumble into powder when touched, the way friable
asbestos does, and it is therefore less likely to quickly
contaminate surrounding air. However, because the contractors were
not expecting to find it, it pushed the demolition schedule back
about seven weeks, as they needed to follow safety protocols and
run soil tests.

Now that construction is back on track, Scuderi hopes the new
building will be ready in spring 2014.

Administrators plan to move the school's world language department
into the first two floors of the new building and remove the
portable classrooms, where most of the department currently lives.
Classes in the Arts and Humanities Academy, one of Berkeley High's
six small schools, whose students have been continually disrupted
by a faulty heating and cooling system in the A building, will
relocate to the top floor of the new building.

"We'll have open space there in front of the new stadium building,
which I think will be nice," Scuderi said, explaining that "light
demolition" will allow for some new landscaping with benches and
trees adjacent to the new building.

Relocation of the academy's classes will also free up music
practice spaces that have been doubling as classrooms in the A
building. Scuderi said this will be particularly beneficial for
the expanding music department.

"We're buying more instruments; we're going to add a guitar class
next year," he said. "So I think it's a good trade-off there."

Administrators have yet to determine the best time for the move-
in, which will require moving furniture from other classrooms
across campus. It will likely happen over winter break or spring
break to avoid interrupting classroom instruction. Once the
classes relocate, and the school removes the portables, they
will begin reconstructing the softball field, which was taken over
when portable classrooms were installed there years ago.

Construction at the athletic field in the southwest corner of
campus is also well on its way. Next to the stadium is a smaller
building holding a snack bar, which will open for bigger games,
and a new, improved sports equipment shed.

When planning the new field layout, the community and the district
agreed on the importance of having a low-standing set of visitors
bleachers on the west side of the field so as to create a more
open view from Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Jones and Scuderi said they don't foresee anything further slowing
down the process, although certain obstacles can be unpredictable.

"With projects this size, when it comes to cost and time, those
are always big variables," Scuderi said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fair Oak Man Dies of Fibro-Related Disease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire Chronicle reported that an inquest has heard how a Fair
Oak man died from industrial disease years after throwing asbestos
around with colleagues as a joke.

According to the report, David Adams, 76, died at Winchester's
Royal Hampshire County Hospital on February 25 from a cancerous
tumour on his lung.

A pathologist's report from Dr Adnan Al-Badri, consultant
pathologist at the RHCH, said that asbestos was not found in Mr.
Adam's lungs, but that this did not exclude it as the cause of his
cancer, the report related.

The inquest in Winchester on June 19 heard that Mr. Adams, of
White Hart Road, had worked for British Rail for 33 years, the
report said.

In a statement made before his death, he said: "There were vast
amounts of asbestos dust. We apprentices threw it at each other on
occasions."

Deputy Coroner for Central Hampshire, Simon Burge, recorded a
verdict of death due to industrial disease.

Mr. Adams' wife, Annette, told the hearing: "It's very sad.
Friends of his have suffered the same fate -- a lot of them he
worked with. But that's life and these things happen."


                             *********

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. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. 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 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *