---

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

           Friday, September 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 182

                             Headlines



ADDERLEY INDUSTRIES: New Plaintiffs Added in "Salomon" Case
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
AETNA: Court Sets March 2014 Hearing on Final Approval of Accord
AMERICAN HOME: Court Rules on Davis' Matrix Compensation Benefits
AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed CapLease Merger

AMERICAN REALTY: Yet to File Settlement of Merger-Related Suit
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Recent Ruling May Revive Class Action
ARGENTINA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Repsol Nationalization Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Baker & Hostetler Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million

BARNES & NOBLE: Baker & Hostetler Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider Toy Sets
BEST BUY: Court Tosses Motions to Dismiss "Heron" Class Suit
BLOOMBERG LP: Class Cert. Bid in Unpaid Overtime Suit Denied
BODY CENTRAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Mogensen" Suit

BOEING COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss "Keyter" Class Action Denied
BP PLC: Lawyers Faces Probe Over Role in Oil Spill Claims Accord
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Guzman" Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Parties in WARN Suits Select Arbitrator
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending

CALIX INC: Reply Brief in Occam Acquisition Suit Due Sept. 17
CANADA: Veterans' Class Action Over Benefits Can Proceed
CAPITAL ONE: Discriminatory Lending Practices Suit Dismissed
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Northera Suit
CNN MANAGED: Schools Get $1.25-Mil. Disbursements From Settlement

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bennett Jones Discusses Class Action Ruling
ECO-NOVELTY: Recalls Cosmo Beads Toys Due to Ingestion Hazard
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Athletes' Likenesses
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Ninth Circuit Rejects Argument in Wi-Fi Sniffing Suit

GOOGLE INC: Awaits Approval of Privacy Class Action Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Gmail Litigation Under Advisement
HACHETTE BOOK: Children's Books Recalled Over Choking Risk
HAWAII: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Driver's License Exams
HOME DEPOT: Customers Accused of Shoplifting File Class Suit

HURONIA REGIONAL: Common Issues Trial to Begin on September 16
INTELIUS: Nov. 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LG ELECTRONICS: "Perrotta" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
LIVE NATION: Parties Have Yet to Present Ticketing Fee Suit Deal
LONDON DRUGS: Recalls Indoor Hanging Chairs

LYFT: Faces Class Action for Driver Misclassification
MF GLOBAL: Workers Appeal Dismissal of WARN Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Court Junks Motion to Dismiss "Rock" Class Suit
NEW YORK: Davis Ruling Paves Way for Stop-and-Frisk Trials
NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. OTDA, HRA

OFFICEMAX INC: Has Yet to Finalize Settlement of Merger Suits
RESERVE PRIMARY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $54.5MM
RESTAURANT.COM: Class Action Looms Over Expiry Dates in Coupons
RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Setback in Engle Progeny Tobacco Cases
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Attorneys May Claim Up to $24.8-Mil. in Fees

TIPTREE FINANCIAL: "Curran" Class Suit vs. Parent Dismissed
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Antitrust Suit Trial to Start Aug. 2014
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Orders in Fuel Temperature Suits
VELTI PLC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Seeks to Block Vodafone Deal

VITACOST.COM INC: "Miyahira" Plaintiffs Did Not Seek S.C. Appeal
VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
VONS COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Falsely Advertised Discounts
ZILLOW INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington

* Judge Recommends Disbarment of Bay Area Attorney in Class Action


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Nixes 3 WR Grace Plan Challenges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bermuda Ministry Allays Fibro Fear in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Labor Law Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Station Worker Wins Disease Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Public Inquiry Into Fibro Dumping at Quarry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Koziol School Fibro Discovery Adds $56K to Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement on Tap for Older Clayton Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Snowy Hydro Removes Fibro Found at Tumut Station

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Solons Propose Medical Criteria Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minister Came Close to Losing Jersey's Fibro Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement at St. Lawrence Central Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Exposure Not a Factor in Cumbria Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont AG Reaches Deal with Fibro Mine Owner

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge May Rule on Reserve Fibro Suit This Month
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Concerned Over Dump Plans at Chew Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich D-95 Considers 2nd Fibro Inspector
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Man Gets Prison Time in Illegal Dumping Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Names 37 Defendants in Fibro-related Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Turns Botswana Library Into White Elephant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Fibro Burden Still Growing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont Town Removing Fibro From Old School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lewisboro School to Open After Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No More Than $4MM Proposed for Woodreef Mine Road

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aging Catholic High School in Ohio May Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Hits Melbourne Fire Trucks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Shingles Halt Town Hall Clock Tower Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter's Death Due to Deadly Dust Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sparks Patient Switch at Ilkeston Hospital

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears at Bulli Public School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Seeks Revisions to Eligibility Criteria
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Man Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tice Elem. School Needs $350,000 to Clean Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Fibro Plaintiffs File Supplemental Brief

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Summary Judgment Bids in "Morgan" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion for Sanctions in "Cabasug" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed With Exposure Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rulings Issued in WTC Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Summary Judgment in Meso Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Inmate's Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Verdict in "Barile" Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hobart's Appeal From "Campbell" Ruling Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Exposure Suit Remanded for New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing 2 Inmates' Lawsuits Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Pipefitters' Claims Vacated


                             *********


ADDERLEY INDUSTRIES: New Plaintiffs Added in "Salomon" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geordany J. Salomon and Danielle Lewis, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and Dwight Edghill and Shanroy
Powell, individually, moved for leave to file a Proposed Amended
Complaint in this action, adding American Communications
Industries, Inc., Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, and Vincent
Cestaro as additional defendants, and adding an additional claim
under New York Labor Law Section 195.  Defendant Adderley
Industries, Inc. opposed the motion.

District Judge Paul A. Crotty granted the Plaintiffs' motion with
respect to adding new parties and denied it with respect to adding
the new claim. Specifically, ACI and Messrs. Presser, Misseri, and
Cestaro are added to the action as additional defendants, but the
Plaintiff's claim under NYLL Section 195 is disallowed.

"Plaintiffs' perfunctory argument falls far short of establishing
"good cause" to justify the addition of this claim to this
action," Judge Crotty ruled.

The case is GEORDANY J. SALOMON and DONIELLE LEWIS, individually
and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated, DWIGHT EDGHILL,
and SHANRAY POWELL, individually, Plaintiffs, v. ADDERLEY
INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, NO. 11 CIV. 6043 (PAC),(S.D. N.Y.).

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/8yD0mMfrom Leagle.com.

Geordany J. Salomon, Plaintiff, is represented by:

   Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
   Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
   Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
   FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
   E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
           egitig@fslawfirm.com
           jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com

- and -

   Marijana Frances Matura, Esq.
   Ilan Weiser, Esq.
   SHULMAN KESSLER, LLP
   510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
   Melville, NY 11747
   Phone: 888-831-8615
   Fax:   631-499-9120

- and -

   Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
   Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP
   510 Broadhollow Rd Ste 110
   Melville NY 11747
   Phone: (888) 831-8615
   Fax: (631) 499-9120

Donielle Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Scott Schaffer,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker,
Pa, Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP, Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP, Brian Scott Schaffer, Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Ilan
Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, Pa, Joseph A.
Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, Marijana Frances Matura, Shulman
Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Dwight Edghill, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Scott Schaffer,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker,
Pa, Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Shanray Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Scott Schaffer,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker,
Pa, Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer, Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Emma Noel Espinals, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal
Pordy & Ecker, Pa & Marijana Frances Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP.
Edward Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal
Pordy & Ecker, Pa & Troy L. Kessler, Shulman Kessler, LLP.
Enlil Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Marijana Frances Matura, Shulman
Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Johan Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Michael Jean-Pierre, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Royce Mensah, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Agustin Bello, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Rafael Barret, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Thomas Mann, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jhonn Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jermal Lincoln-Dawson, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jamel Browning, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Brigido Mercado, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Damien D. Bryan, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jose A. DelRosario, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Khayton Christie, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Kendall Murray, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Hector Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Darnell Callwood, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Rudy R. Tatis, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Waynewright Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

James W. Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Juliano Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Luis M. Stubbs, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Brian Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Stanely Colbert, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Lincoln Paisley, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Willie McMillian, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Barry Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Germaine Patton, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Luis Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Julien George, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Jimmy Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances Matura,
Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman Capetola &
Kessler, LLP.

Jose A. Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Christopher Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Miguel Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Leandro Quezada, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Ronald J. Salomon, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jason Coward, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Dwayne Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Winston Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Williams Deshawn, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Moses Dejesus, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

David Santana, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

As-Samad Jordan, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Harvey Cameron, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Sean Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Thomas Holder, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Francisco Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Joseph Chaffatt, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Juan M Ogando, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Joel Arias, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Calvin Edinborough, Plaintiff, represented by Marijana Frances
Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Milton Tait, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Samuel Payamps, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Abe Banton, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Rolando Lawson, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Trent Riley, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Royston Reche, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Jaime Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Pablo Cuevas, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Carlos M Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Quincy Montrose, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Raymond Mendez, Plaintiff, represented by Troy L. Kessler, Misiano
Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Olson Van Rossum, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP & Troy L. Kessler, Misiano Shulman
Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Adderley Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by David B.
Gordon, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Ralph
Ferrara, Richardson & Patel, LLP.

Dale Wellington, ADR Provider, represented by Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Juan Giraldo, All Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal
Pordy & Ecker, Pa, Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer,
Marijana Frances Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.

Shellie Jones, All Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Joshua Gitig,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Ilan Weiser, Shulman Rogers Gandal
Pordy & Ecker, Pa, Joseph A. Fitapelli, Fitapelli & Schaffer,
Marijana Frances Matura, Shulman Kessler, LLP & Troy L. Kessler,
Misiano Shulman Capetola & Kessler, LLP.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lozada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, d/b/a
Advocate Medical Group, also d/b/a Advocate Health Care, an
Illinois corporation, Case No. 2013-CH-20390 (Ill. Ch. Ct., Cook
Cty., September 4, 2013) is brought in connection with the loss in
early July 2013 of four unencrypted laptop computers containing
sensitive information of approximately four million Advocate
patients, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, social
security numbers, medical diagnoses, medical record numbers, and
health insurance information.

Advocate failed to protect its patients' sensitive information,
including their protected health information as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, social
security numbers, and medical histories, as statutorily and
contractually required, Mr. Lozada contends.  He adds that it took
a massive medical data breach to reveal -- for the first time --
that Advocate has failed to provide its patients with the level of
data protection that they paid for.

Mr. Lozada is a citizen of the state of Illinois.

Advocate is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.  Advocate is one of Illinois's largest health
care providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          EDELSON LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  cgivens@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com


AETNA: Court Sets March 2014 Hearing on Final Approval of Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERISAclaim.com on Sept. 7 disclosed that on August 30, 2013, a
federal court in New Jersey preliminarily approved an Aetna $120
million UCR (Usual, Customary & Reasonable) class-action
settlement with both out-of-network (ONET) providers and patients.
The court set a hearing on March 18, 2014 to consider final
approval of the settlement.  The court appointed attorneys for
both patient-subscriber class and provider class. The court set a
March 28, 2014 filing deadline for submitting claim forms.
ERISAclaim.com's ONET UCR Claim Specialist Certification Program
demystifies this landmark UCR court decision for all out-of-
network providers and patients.

Case info: In RE AETNA UCR litigation, civil action NO. 07-3541
(KSH) (CLW), MDL NO. 2020, United States District Court, D. New
Jersey, Filed August 30, 2013.

"Nowadays, $120 million settlement seems to be very usual,
customary and reasonable (UCR) for out-of-network provider ERISA
class actions.  This court decision has profound new impact in
out-of-network reimbursement litigation because both patients-
subscriber class and provider class jointly sued Aetna under
ERISA, especially when about 74% of the PPO plans nationwide offer
Americans out-of-network coverage in private industry," says
Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert in
ERISA compliance and UCR appeals.

"ERISA class-action lawsuit proves to be the only revenue for the
malingering improper UCR denials in US healthcare system, because
UCR denials are usual, customary & unreasonable, the No. 2
denials, only secondary to No. 1 denials, overpayment denials and
offset," says Dr. Zhou.

ERISAclaim.com's ONET UCR ERISA Claim Specialist Certification
Programs will systematically demystify this landmark UCR court
decision for 2013, especially the essential elements of ERISA
claims regulation, successful ERISA administrative appeals as the
prerequisites for ERISA judicial reviews on behalf of all
similarly situated patients and healthcare providers.

The court preliminarily proved the following settlement terms:

I.    "Under the terms, Aetna will pay $60 million to a general
settlement fund. [Settlement Agreement at Sec. 9.] Attorneys'
fees, administration costs, and service payments to the
representative plaintiffs will be paid out of the general
settlement fund first. [Id. at Secs. 9.2, 11.]3 Upon timely
submission of a claim form, members of the two settlement classes
will be entitled to a pre-determined reimbursement amount from the
remainder of the general fund -- up to $40 per year that they are
eligible, subject to a pro rata reduction." according to the court
document.

II.    "In addition to the $60 million in the general settlement
fund, Aetna will pay up to an additional $60 million to two prove-
up funds -- a subscriber fund ($40 million) and a provider fund
($20 million). [Id. at Secs. 10.1, 10.2.]" according to the court
document.

III.    "Members of each of the two proposed settlement classes
may elect to seek compensation either from the general settlement
fund without supporting documentation, or from the relevant prove-
up fund with supporting documentation establishing timely and
valid prove-up claims for reimbursement." according to the court
document.

IV.    "Aetna agrees to make available to the settlement
administrator certain claim information for the relevant class
periods to assist claimants in fulfilling the requirements of the
prove-up funds. [See Class Notice, appended as Exh. F to the
Settlement Agreement, at Section VI ("Important Information").]"
according to the court document.

V.    "A claimant who does not qualify for payment in one of the
prove-up funds, can apply to the general settlement fund.
[Settlement Agreement at Secs. 10.1(d), 10.2(d); see also "NOTE"
in Section B of the Subscriber and Provider Claim Forms, appended
to Settlement Agreement as Exhs. A & B ("Subscriber/Provider
Settlement Claims declared ineligible will be considered for
eligibility under the General Settlement Fund"); Class Notice,
appended as Exh. F to the Settlement Agreement, at Section VI
(same).]" according to the court document.

VI.    "In exchange, the settlement classes will provide a broad
release of claims against Aetna and all other released persons.
[Settlement Agreement at Sec. 13.] United and Ingenix are not
considered "released persons." [Id. at Sec. 1.41.]" according to
the court document.

The court appointed the following attorneys for patients-class and
providers-class:

"The Court preliminarily finds that the following counsel fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Classes
and hereby appoints James E. Cecchi as Settlement Class Counsel
for both Settlement Classes pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Court also
appoints D. Brian Hufford and Robert J.Axelrod as Provider Class
Counsel, along with Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Edith Kallas, Andrew S.
Friedman,and Christopher P. Ridout.  The Court hereby appoints
Stephen A. Weiss, Diogenes P. Kekatos, David R.Scott, Christopher
M. Burke, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Raymond R. Boucher, H. Tim Hoffman,
and Kevin P.Roddy as Subscriber Class Counsel." according to the
court document.

To find out more about PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance
Services from ERISAclaim.com:
http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 14 years,
ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing
and website resource for healthcare providers in the country.
ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced
educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification
programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well
as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation
support.  Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of
ERISA claims" for healthcare providers.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


AMERICAN HOME: Court Rules on Davis' Matrix Compensation Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, District Judge Harvey Bartle, III
issued a memorandum determining whether John V. Davis, a class
member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement
Agreement with Wyeth, who seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement
Trust, has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support his
claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits.

Judge Bartle concluded that Mr. Davis has met his burden of
proving that he is entitled to "Level V" benefits but has not met
his burden of proving that he is entitled to "Matrix A-1"
benefits.

Therefore, Judge Bartle affirmed the Trust's denial of the claim
of Mr. Davis for Matrix A-1, Level V benefits but will reverse the
Trust's denial of the claim of Mr. Davis for Matrix B-1, Level V
benefits.

This ruling relates to the case captioned SHEILA BROWN, et al. v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593,
(E.D. Penn.).

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/Zw5cwEfrom Leagle.com.

ANGELA JENSEN, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOANN READ, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOYCE MAUDIE, Claimant, represented by:

   MICHAEL L. HODGES, Esq.
   HODGES LAW FIRM, CHARTERED
   13420 Santa Fe Trail Drive
   Lenexa, KS 66215 USA
   Telephone: 800-221-5560
              913-888-7100
   Facsimile: 913-888-7388

CINDY SORENSON, Claimant, represented by WAYNE H. BRAUNBERGER --
wbraunberger@cs.com -- at BRAUNBERGER BOUD & DRAPER PC.


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed CapLease Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., is facing class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with CapLease, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "CapLease Merger Agreement") with CapLease, Inc., a
Maryland corporation ("CapLease"), and certain subsidiaries of
each company.  The CapLease Merger Agreement provides for the
merger of CapLease with and into a subsidiary of the Company (the
"CapLease Merger").

Substantially all of the Company's business is conducted through
its ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "OP"), a
Delaware limited partnership.

CapLease, its directors, and its affiliates, CapLease's operating
partnership and the general partner of the operating partnership,
as well as the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related
subsidiary, have been named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit in connection with the proposed merger, styled
Mizani v. CapLease, Inc., No. 651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by CapLease's directors
because the CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair
value for the CapLease's stockholders, the CapLease Merger was not
the result of a competitive bidding process, the CapLease Merger
Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures, and the
CapLease Merger Agreement and the CapLease Merger were approved as
a result of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would
receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and
continued employment pursuant to the CapLease Merger Agreement.
The complaint also alleges that CapLease, the Company, the OP and
a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the CapLease
Merger.  The Company believes that the allegations of the
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Separately, CapLease, its directors and its affiliates, the
CapLease's operating partnership and the general partner of the
CapLease's operating partnership, as well as the Company, the OP
and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in
connection with the proposed merger, styled Tarver v. CapLease,
Inc., No. 24C13004176, in the Circuit Court of the State of
Maryland, Baltimore City.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the product of
breaches of fiduciary duty by CapLease's directors because the
CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the
CapLease's stockholders, the CapLease Merger Agreement contains
coercive deal protection measures, the CapLease Merger was not the
result of a competitive bidding process, and the CapLease Merger
Agreement and the CapLease Merger were approved as a result of
improper self-dealing.  The complaint also alleges that CapLease,
CapLease's operating partnership, the general partner of the
CapLease's operating partnership, the Company, the OP and a
CapLease Merger related subsidiary aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the CapLease
Merger.  The Company believes that the allegations of the
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Separately, CapLease, its directors and its affiliates, the
CapLease's operating partnership and the general partner of the
CapLease's operating partnership, as well as the Company, the OP
and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in
connection with the proposed CapLease Merger, styled Carach v.
CapLease, Inc., No. 651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the product of
breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease's directors because the
CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the
CapLease's stockholders, the CapLease directors failed to take
steps to maximize the value of CapLease or properly value
CapLease, failed to protect against various alleged conflicts of
interest, and failed to fully disclose material information
concerning the process that led to the CapLease Merger.  The
complaint also alleges that CapLease's operating partnership, the
general partner of CapLease's operating partnership, the Company,
the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary aided and abetted
the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
CapLease Merger.  The Company believes that the allegations of the
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

New York-based American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. --
http://www.americanrealtycapitalproperties.com/or
http://www.americanrealtycap.com/-- was incorporated in 2010 as a
Maryland corporation that qualified as a real estate investment
trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.  The Company was
formed to acquire and own single-tenant, freestanding commercial
real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases with high
credit quality tenants.


AMERICAN REALTY: Yet to File Settlement of Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. has yet to file its final
settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from its acquisition
of ARCT III, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.
("ARCP") announced the completion of ARCP's acquisition of
American Realty Capital Trust III, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("ARCT III"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of December 14, 2012, by and among ARCP, ARCT III, Tiger
Acquisition, LLC ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP, ARCT III's
operating partnership and ARCP's operating partnership.

Substantially all of ARCT III's business is conducted through
American Realty Capital Operating Partnership III, L.P. (the
"OP").

Since the announcement of the ARCT III Merger Agreement on
December 17, 2012, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action
lawsuit filed on January 19, 2013, against the Company, the OP,
ARCT III, ARCT III OP, the members of the board of directors of
ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York.  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the board of ARCT III breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the transactions contemplated under the ARCT
III Merger Agreement.  In February 2013, the parties agreed to a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims
asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders.
In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum
of understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval.  The proposed
settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain additional
disclosures related to the ARCT III Merger, which were included in
a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with the SEC on
February 21, 2013.  The memorandum of understanding also added
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement,
which will be subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to ARCT
III's stockholders.  If the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding, therefore any losses that may be
incurred to settle this matter are not determinable.

The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance
which the Company believes should provide coverage to the Company
and its officers and directors for most or all of any costs,
settlements or judgments resulting from the lawsuits.

New York-based American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. --
http://www.americanrealtycapitalproperties.com/or
http://www.americanrealtycap.com/-- was incorporated in 2010 as a
Maryland corporation that qualified as a real estate investment
trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.  The Company was
formed to acquire and own single-tenant, freestanding commercial
real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases with high
credit quality tenants.


APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Recent Ruling May Revive Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh O'Leary, writing for Iowa City Press-Citizen, reports that
a string of recent small claims court victories by college
students has given the lawyer leading the fight against Iowa City
landlords optimism that his pending class-action cases will
continue to gain traction in the courts.

A magistrate judge ruled in favor of a former Kirkwood Community
College student who sued Apartments Downtown after the company
fined her $600 for briefly bringing her family dog into her
apartment.

Sixth judicial district judge Karen Egerton ruled that the pet
provision in Apartment Downtown's lease agreement was illegal, and
awarded tenant Sophie Borer $840 for the pet penalty and late
fees, plus $4,047 in damages.

Christopher Warnock of the Iowa City Tenants' Project, one of two
attorneys who represented Ms. Borer in the case, is pursuing
class-action lawsuits against Apartments Downtown and the
affiliate companies owned by the Clark family -- the area's
largest off-campus student housing providers -- as well as two
other local landlords.

Mr. Warnock said his goal is to level the playing field in the
Iowa City area between tenants and landlords, who have for years
been accused by students of retaining security deposits for minor
issues and leveling undue fees and fines.

Mr. Warnock said the victory in the Borer case is the latest in a
series of wins for Iowa City tenants, and shows that the courts
are beginning to recognize the illegality of parts of local
landlords' leases.

"It's a very strong message from the judiciary this is not right,
things have to change with landlords," Mr. Warnock said.  "And
that's all we're interested in doing."

In the Borer case, Ms. Egerton said that the $600 fine Apartments
Downtown specified in its lease for having any animal on the
premises for any amount of time was "outrageous, unreasonable, and
unconscionably disproportionate to the offense."

Ms. Borer, who lived in a Dodge Street apartment while attending
Kirkwood last year, said her father only had the family's small
dog in her apartment for a minute or so when she received a call
from management telling her it was against her lease.

Ms. Borer, who suspects management saw her enter the apartment
with the pet, said the small dog had caused no damage and made no
noise, so she was shocked when she later learned about the $600
fine.

Ms. Borer said her lawsuit was not about getting her money back
but standing up against unfair practices by landlords.

"I definitely hope Apartments Downtown, the Clarks, open their
eyes and see they can't do this," said Ms. Borer, who now lives in
Sycamore, Ill.  "And if they do keep doing it, people can go
forward and say this is wrong, they're taking advantage of me and
I'm going to do something about it."

Apartments Downtown general manager Joe Clark and attorney
Joe Holland, who represents the company, did not return calls on
Sept. 6 seeking comment.

The case went to trial in September 2012, but Ms. Egerton only
last week issued her 11-page judgment -- an unusually long ruling,
said Mr. Warnock, given that it was a small claims case.

In another ruling in May, Ms. Egerton found that Apartments
Downtown wrongfully withheld deposit money from one of Warnock's
clients and had illegally charged a tenant for damage after an
unknown third party had damaged the apartment.

Also in May, Magistrate Judge Lynn Rose ruled that provision in
local landlord Tracy Barkalow's lease fining tenants $150 for
having an open window when the building's heat was on, even when
there was no damage, was excessive and illegal.

"You can see where the judges are going on these cases,"
Mr. Warnock said.  "In these small claims cases, when the judges
actually look at the lease, everything we bring up, they're
basically like, 'That's illegal.' "

The nonprofit Iowa City Tenants' Project is pursuing class-action
certification in cases against Apartments Downtown, Barkalow and
Houser Enterprises.

A district court judge had previously ruled to not certify the
class-action lawsuit against Mr. Barkalow, but earlier this year,
an appeals court ordered a trial court to certify a class action
and review the legality of the Barkalow lease.

That also could revive the dormant class action case against
Apartments Downtown, Mr. Warnock said, because the two companies
use the same lease.

"This is David versus Goliath," Mr. Warnock said.  "No one's stood
up to them like this before."


ARGENTINA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Repsol Nationalization Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, report that a
New York federal judge refused on Sept. 6 to dismiss a class
action accusing Argentina of violating shareholder agreements when
it nationalized Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF SA's Argentine
operation in May 2012, despite the country's contention that an
alleged nondisclosure didn't constitute commercial activity.

U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa refused to dismiss the suit,
saying his order was based on in-court arguments that took place
earlier in the day.

Argentina has argued that Repsol's claim wasn't based upon the
sale of securities but rather upon a disclosure obligation that
allegedly arose when the country renationalized the oil company.
The country's renationalization of YPF was sovereign, not
commercial, in nature, Argentina has alleged.

Repsol has claimed Argentina conceded that it broke an investment
protection requirement that anyone who acquires ownership of more
than 5 percent of a security registered with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission has to file a beneficial ownership report
detailing the acquisition.

YPF, or Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales, was a state-run
monopoly until the early 1990s, when Argentina began privatizing
the company.  Repsol bought a 57 percent, $15 billion stake in the
company in 1999 and then operated it as Repsol YPF.

But Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, alleging
Repsol had underinvested in YPF and underutilized the company,
introduced a bill to renationalize YPF in 2012.  The Argentine
Congress voted to back Fernandez's bill, which empowered the
government to take more than half of YPF.

In response to the nationalization bill, Repsol's stock plummeted,
Spain moved to bar imports of Argentine biodiesel and the European
Union vowed strong retaliation.

Repsol claimed in its suit that when Argentina took control of
YPF, it breached agreements with shareholders that promised the
country wouldn't renationalize without offering investors their
money back.  The country made the deals back in 1993, when it
began privatizing YPF and launched an initial public offering on
the New York Stock Exchange.

Repsol and Texas Yale Capital Corp., a financial adviser, sought
to represent a class of YPF investors who bought shares but didn't
receive an offer for appropriate compensation from the Argentine
government since the takeover.

The two companies wanted compensation for the investors and an
injunction barring further action by Argentina until it made a
tender offer to shareholders.

In a February memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss the
suit, Argentina said Repsol hadn't shown that a foreign sovereign,
in its capacity as corporate shareholder, engages in commercial
activity by not making a disclosure under U.S. securities laws.

The country cited a Second Circuit ruling that said a sovereign's
repayment obligation under a borrowing relationship with the
International Monetary Fund was immune under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act.

The idea that Argentina's decision not to make disclosures in 2012
in connection with the country taking YPF public and issuing stock
20 years ago "defies common sense" and ignored Second Circuit
precedent, according to the February filing.

Repsol claimed that same month that investors needed information
about the YPF acquisition, including Argentina's future plans for
YPF assets, in order to decide whether they would sell or keep
their shares.

"Defendant's failure to file [the beneficial ownership report] is
the latest in a series of actions reflecting its belief that it is
beyond the reach of U.S. law and courts," Repsol said.  "Worse
yet, Argentina wants it both ways: Despite intentionally violating
U.S. securities laws, defendant has announced that it intends to
keep YPF registered in the [U.S.]"

Repsol further claimed that a New York federal court had
jurisdiction over the dispute because its initial public offering
took place in the state.

Attorneys for Repsol and Argentina didn't immediately respond on
Sept. 6 to requests for comment.

Repsol is represented by Miles N. Ruthberg --
miles.ruthberg@lw.com -- James E. Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com --
and Christopher R. Harris -- christopher.harris@lw.com -- of
Latham & Watkins LLP.

The Republic of Argentina is represented by Edward Scarvalone --
escarvalone@doarlaw.com -- of Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack and Jonathan
A. Willens of Jonathan A. Willens LLC.

The case is Repsol YPF SA v. the Republic of Argentina, case
number 1:12-cv-04018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


AT&T MOBILITY: Baker & Hostetler Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
C. Zachary Rosenberg, Esq. at Baker & Hostetler LLP reports that
on August 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lowered the burden of proof
for class action defendants to remove their cases to federal
court.  Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 13-56149,
2013 WL 4516757.  The Class Action Fairness Act gives federal
courts the power to hear class action cases if the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million and certain other requirements are
met.  Class action defendants used to have to prove the $5 million
amount in controversy to a "legal certainty" when lead plaintiffs
alleged lower amounts.  Relying on a recent Supreme Court
decision, the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez held that class action
defendants may now meet their burden of proof by showing a simple
preponderance of the evidence.

The "legal certainty" standard originally arose out of the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National
Association. 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007).  In Lowdermilk,
the court ruled that when a class action complaint alleges damages
below the $5 million minimum, the removing defendant must show to
a legal certainty that the damages in fact exceed that amount.  At
the time, the court held that the plaintiff could choose to stay
in state court by foregoing any damages over $5 million, and that
the court need not look beyond the four corners of the complaint.
However, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Standard Fire Ins.
Co. v. Knowles undermined that decision, holding that "a plaintiff
who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of
the proposed class before the class is certified."   Standard Fire
Ins. Co. v. Knowles.  133 S.Ct. 1345,1349 (2013).  Id. at 1349.
Courts, therefore, must "ignore" any "non-binding stipulation"
waiving damages in excess of $5 million, and instead do "what the
statute requires, namely aggregat[e] the claims of the individual
class members."  Id. at 1350.

In Rodriguez, the plaintiff, Robert Rodriguez, brought a purported
class action against AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated retail sales managers of AT&T
wireless stores in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.  Rodriguez
originally filed his complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, but AT&T removed it to federal court.  Rodriguez moved to
remand the case back to state court, pointing to his complaint
allegations that "the aggregate amount in controversy is less than
five million dollars," and that he "waive[d] seeking more than
five million dollars ($5,000,000) regarding the aggregate amount
in controversy for the class claims alleged."  Rodriguez, at *1.
In its opposition to Rodriguez's motion, AT&T submitted
declarations from AT&T representatives regarding the potential
number of class members and the size of their claims and argued
that those declarations, coupled with the allegations in
Rodriguez's complaint, established that the amount in controversy
could not possibly be less than the roughly $5.5 million and was
likely $11 million.

The District Court, which issued its ruling prior to the Standard
Fire decision, held that AT&T could not demonstrate the $5 million
amount in controversy to a legal certainty because Rodriguez's
waiver of any excess amount controlled and foreclosed the issue.
The parties agreed that the District Court's decision needed to be
vacated because the waiver no longer applied in light of Standard
Fire.  However, they disagreed on the burden of proof AT&T would
need to meet in order to stay in federal court.  Rodriguez claimed
that Lowdermilk controlled and AT&T should be required to prove
the amount in controversy to a legal certainty.  AT&T, on the
other hand, argued that Standard Fire fatally undermined
Lowdermilk's legal certainty standard, and that the preponderance
of the evidence standard, which already applied where a plaintiff
fails to plead a specific amount of damages, should now apply to
all cases regardless of the plaintiff's allegations in the
complaint.

The Ninth Circuit sided with AT&T for two reasons.  First,
Lowdermilk adopted the legal certainty test in part to preserve
the plaintiff's ability to waive a larger recovery and remain in
state court.  Since Standard Fire forecloses that possibility, the
purpose of the heightened standard no longer applies. Second,
Lowdermilk held that courts "need not look beyond the four corners
of the complaint" when a plaintiff limits damages to $5 million.
Lowdermilk at 998. Standard Fire, however, requires courts to add
up all potential class members' individual claims, which
necessarily requires going beyond the four corners of the
complaint.  Because Standard Fire negated Lowdermilk's purpose and
is inherently inconsistent with Lowdermilk's holding, the Ninth
Circuit held that Standard Fire effectively overruled Lowdermilk.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Outten & Golden LLP on Sept. 6 announced a $39 million settlement
with Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. on behalf of women employed in
the United States, Puerto Rico, or Guam as Financial Advisors or
licensed Financial Advisor trainees at Banc of America Investments
Services, Inc. or Merrill Lynch from August 2, 2007 (and earlier
for certain employees) through September 15, 2013.  Plaintiffs
alleged that Defendants discriminated against women in
compensation and business opportunities.

The parties entered into a three-year settlement agreement that is
subject to Court approval.  The settlement includes programmatic
relief -- to be overseen by an Independent Monitor -- regarding
teaming and partnership agreements, business generation, account
distributions, manager evaluations, promotions, training, and
complaint processing and procedures, among other things.  Further,
an Independent Consultant will conduct an internal study of the
bank's FA teaming practices.  The settlement also establishes a
significant monetary fund of $39 million to resolve the Class' and
Named Plaintiffs' claims.

"Female Financial Advisors at Merrill Lynch have straightforward
goals: to work hard for their clients, to flourish professionally
and succeed financially, and to compete on a level playing field.
The monetary and programmatic relief this settlement provides
furthers these important goals of fairness and opportunity," said
Rachel Geman -- rgeman@lchb.com -- a partner at Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Co-Lead Class Counsel.

Co-Lead Class Counsel Cara E. Greene, a partner at Outten & Golden
LLP, stated, "This settlement helps ensure that Merrill Lynch is a
place where women can thrive and be successful.  Hopefully others
will follow Merrill Lynch's example."

Lieutenant Julie Moss (U.S. Navy), one of the named plaintiffs in
this lawsuit, stated, "The settlement will advance our efforts to
foster diversity and professional success within the workforce.
Equality in the workplace should take on the same meaning as it
does in our everyday life.  Every individual deserves to be
treated fairly.  It is my hope that this settlement produces
substantial benefits to the class."

The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations supervised
by experienced neutral mediator David A. Rotman of San Francisco,
CA.

The parties expect to present the settlement for consideration of
final approval in mid- December, 2013.


BARNES & NOBLE: Baker & Hostetler Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Selby. Esq. at Baker & Hostetler LLP reports that relying
heavily on the Supreme Court's recent Clapper decision, a federal
court dismissed a class action lawsuit arising out of a "skimming"
data breach against Barnes & Noble (BN).  In re Barnes & Noble Pin
Pad Litigation, Case # 12-cv-8617 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 3, 2013) The
plaintiffs filed suit against BN following its disclosure that
"skimmers" potentially stole customer credit and debit card
information from 63 BN locations in nine states.  The skimmers had
tampered with PIN pad devices in BN stores in order to steal
information from customers who used the devices to process
payments.  BN announced the breach to the press and on its website
almost six-weeks after it became aware of the breach.

The plaintiffs filed suit against BN in federal court in Illinois,
alleging damages including: untimely and inadequate notice of the
breach, improper disclosure of their personally identifying
information (PII), loss of privacy, expenses incurred to mitigate
the increased risk of identify theft, deprivation of the value of
their PII, anxiety and emotional distress.  Only one plaintiff
incurred a fraudulent charge on her credit card following the BN
breach.  Her credit card company notified her of the charge,
confirmed that it was fraudulent, then cancelled the card and
provided her with a replacement.

BN moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that plaintiffs
lacked Article III standing and that they failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  The court granted BN's motion
on standing and therefore declined to reach its failure to state a
claim defense.

The court cited the fundamental principle that to establish
standing, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate (1) that they suffered
an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to BN's actions (3)
that will likely be redressed with a favorable decision.
Frequently citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Clapper
v. Amnesty int'l USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013), the court held that
the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury and rejected each of the
plaintiffs' claims.

Untimely and/or Inadequate Notification of the Security Breach

The plaintiffs claimed that the alleged delay and inadequacy of
BN's breach notification increased their risk of identify theft or
fraud.  The court noted, however, that "[m]erely alleging an
increased risk of identity theft or fraud is insufficient to
establish standing."  Quoting Clapper, the court stated:
"threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute
injury in fact and . . . [a]legations of possible future injury
are not sufficient."  The court acknowledged that, under Clapper,
"substantial risk" of harm can establish standing where the
plaintiff pleads and proves concrete facts showing that the
defendant's actions caused the substantial risk of harm.  Because
"[n]othing in the Complaint indicates Plaintiffs have suffered
either a 'certainly impending' injury or a 'substantial risk' of
an injury," their claimed injuries based on BN's allegedly
defective notice did not establish standing.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they
suffered injuries because BN's notice violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and the
Database Breach Act.  "Even assuming the statutes have been
violated by the delay or inadequacy of [BN's] notification, breach
of these statutes is insufficient to establish standing without
any actual damages due to the breach.  Plaintiffs must plead an
injury beyond a statutory violation to meet the standing
requirement of Article III."

Improper Disclosure of Plaintiffs' PII

This claim was insufficient to establish standing.  "[T]here is no
actual injury pled because there are no facts to support the
allegations that the information was disclosed."  The fact that
the plaintiffs made credit and debit card purchases at BN stores
affected by the breach was too tenuous to support a reasonable
inference that their data actually was stolen.

Loss of Privacy

This claim also was insufficient to establish standing because
there were no facts alleged to support the conclusion that PII was
disclosed.

TIme and Expenses Incurred to Mitigate the Risks of Identity Theft

Even if the plaintiffs had alleged with specificity the expenses
that they allegedly incurred to mitigate their risks (which they
failed to do), under Clapper, plaintiffs "cannot manufacture
standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harm."
The plaintiffs could not carry their burden because, as discussed
above, they could not sufficiently allege the predicate that the
information they were trying to protect was, in fact, stolen.

Increased Risk of Identity Theft

Because speculation of future harm does not constitute actual
injury under Clapper, the court held that this claim was
insufficient to establish standing.

Deprivation of the Value of Plaintiffs' PII

The court explained that "[a]ctual injury of this sort is not
established unless a plaintiff has the ability to sell his own
information and a defendant sold the information."  Noting that
the plaintiffs did not allege that their PII was sold or that they
could sell it for value, the court held that there was no actual
injury to establish standing.

Anxiety and Emotional Distress

Citing the Third Circuit's decision in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.,
664 F.3d 38 (3rd Cir. 2011), the court held that "[e]motional
distress in the wake of a security breach is insufficient to
establish standing, particularly in a case that does not involve
an imminent threat to the information."

Diminished Value of Products and Services

The plaintiffs claimed that they overpaid for products and
services from BN because the price included security measures to
protect their electronic transactions.  The court found that
argument unpersuasive, "particularly as Plaintiffs have not pled
that BN charged a higher price for goods [when] a customer pays
with credit, and therefore, that additional value is expected in
the use of a credit card."

One Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Charge

The "only cognizable potential injury" alleged by plaintiffs was a
fraudulent charge on one plaintiff's credit card following a
purchase made at BN.  Even if its assumed that the fraudulent
charge was due to BN's actions or inactions, the plaintiff alleged
only that she was without the use of her credit card for an
unspecified period of time until she received her replacement
card.  However, '[i]n order to have suffered an actual injury, she
must have had an unreimbursed charge on her credit card."  Without
any such injury, "there is no actual injury and therefore, no
standing."

Conclusion

Noting that standing is "an indispensable part" of the plaintiffs'
case, the court ruled that there was no subject matter
jurisdiction and that the complaint must be dismissed.

The court's reliance on Clapper in this case is not surprising.
Although Clapper did not involve a data breach, its ruling on
speculative damages is applicable in many data breach case.
Although plaintiffs may seek to limit Clapper's application, we
can expect to see data breach defendants and courts continue to
rely on the Supreme Court's reasoning to defeat data breach claims
in the absence of actual, well pled damages.


BE AMAZING!: Recalls Monster Science Growing Spider Toy Sets
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Be Amazing! Toys, of Salt Lake City, announced a voluntary recall
of about 26,500 water-absorbing polymer balls.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The soft and colorful product can be mistaken by a child for
candy.  When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it can expand
inside a child's body and cause intestinal obstructions, resulting
in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life
threatening.  The toys do not show up on an x-ray and need surgery
to be removed from the body.

There were no incidents that were reported.  CPSC is aware of one
incident with a similar water absorbing polymer ball product in
which an 8-month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be
surgically removed.

The recall involves Monster Science Growing Spider toy sets, with
model number 7280 for product sold at Cracker Barrel Old Country
Stores and Spirit Halloween and model number 7289 for product sold
at Target.  The sets contain marble-sized polymer ball "spider
eggs" that can absorb from 300 to 800 times their weight in water
and can grow up to eight times their original size.  The sets
consist of one polymer spider and three "spider eggs".  The Be
Amazing! Toys star logo and the words Monster Science Growing
Spider, Ages 8+, Just drop in water, Grow Giant Spider Eggs and
Eggs Grow Up to 8X Original Size are printed on the front of the
packaging.  The model number is on the bottom of the back of the
packaging.  The front and back of the packaging have warnings not
to use the toy without adult supervision.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores nationwide from August 2011 to
August 2013, Spirit Halloween stores nationwide from August 2011
to November 2011 and from August 2012 to November 2012, and Target
stores nationwide September to November 2012 for between $3 and
$5.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from
children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund.


BEST BUY: Court Tosses Motions to Dismiss "Heron" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In HERRON v. BEST BUY STORES, LP, Defendant Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc. moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
12(b)(6), while Defendants Best Buy Stores, LP and Bestbuy.com,
LLC separately moved to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations
under Rule 12(f).

Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., denied both
motions.

The case is CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY STORES, LP,
a Virginia limited partnership; BESTBUY.COM, LLC, Virginia limited
liability company; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 3-100, inclusive, Defendants, NO.
12-CV-02103-GEB-JFM, (E.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Rel9S4from Leagle.com.

Chad Herron, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger --
gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- at Stonebarger Law, Anne Marie
Murphy -- amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP, Elaine Wing Ling Yan -- eyan@stonebargerlaw.com -- at
Stonebarger Law, APC, Jonathan C Hsieh -- jhsieh@cpmlegal.com --
at Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy, LLP, Niall P. McCarthy --
nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP &
Richard David Lambert -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- at
Stonebarger Law.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Andrew D. Muhlbach -- amuhlbach@mofo.com -- at Morrison &
Foerster LLP, John Michael Stusiak -- MStusiak@mofo.com -- at
Morrison and Foerster LLP, Penelope A. Preovolos --
PPreovolos@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP & Samuel James
Boone Lunier -- SLunier@mofo.com-- at Morrison and Foerster LLP.

Best Buy Stores, LP, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman
-- jscasselman@rkmc.com --at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP
& Michael Aaron Geibelson -- mageibelson@rkmc.com -- at Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Bestbuy.com, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jill S. Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP & Michael Aaron Geibelson,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.


BLOOMBERG LP: Class Cert. Bid in Unpaid Overtime Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Cote issued an opinion and order denying a
motion to certify a class in LEE SIEGEL, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLOOMBERG L.P.,
Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 1351 (DLC), (S.D. N.Y.).

Lee Siegel brought the case as a collective action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor
Law against Bloomberg L.P.  On May 20, 2013, Siegel moved for
conditional certification of the action as an FLSA collective
action, and for class certification of his NYLL claims pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Mr. Siegel sought to certify a class consisting of all Service
Desk Representatives who are or were employed by Bloomberg and who
were not paid overtime at the rate of time-and-one-half for all
hours worked over forty in one or more weeks.  Bloomberg SDRs are
PC support staff members who provide technical support for the
defendant's employees.  Mr. Siegel worked at Bloomberg from
January 1998 until June 26, 2012. He worked as a Bloomberg SDR
from September 2010.

Judge Cote ruled that the Plaintiff's May 20, 2013 request for
Rule 23 class certification is denied.  The Plaintiff's request to
distribute FLSA collective action notice is granted.  Pursuant to
the Plaintiff's request, the Court ordered Bloomberg to produce
these contact information for all current and former Bloomberg
SDRs employed since March 2010 in computer-readable form: names,
addresses, and e-mail addresses.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Opinion & Order is
available at http://is.gd/lnIbUjfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Getman, Esq.
   Lesley Tse, Esq.
   Getman Sweeney, PLLC
   New Paltz Office
   9 Paradies Lane
   New Paltz, NY 12561
   Phone: 845-255-9370
   Fax: 845-255-8649

Thomas H. Golden -- tgolden@willkie.com -- Deirdre N. Hykal --
dhykal@willkie.com -- Colleen M. O'Brien -- co'brien@willkie.com -
- Jill K. Grant -- jgrant@willkie.com --  at Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.


BODY CENTRAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Mogensen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Body Central Corp. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in Florida,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2013.

On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body
Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.  The amended complaint, filed on
February 22, 2013, on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's
stock between November 10, 2011, and June 18, 2012, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or
misleading statements about the business and operations, thereby
causing the stock price to be artificially inflated during that
period.  The complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.  The Company
believes that the complaint lacks merit and intends to defend the
position rigorously.  The Company does not believe the outcome of
the class action will have a material adverse effect on the
business, financial statements or disclosures.  The defendants
have moved to dismiss the complaint.

Founded in 1972, Body Central Corp., a Delaware corporation, is a
multi-channel specialty retailer offering on-trend, quality
apparel and accessories at value prices.  The Company operates
specialty apparel stores under the Body Central and Body Shop
banners, as well as a direct business comprised of the Company's
Body Central catalog and its e-commerce Web sites at
http://www.bodycentral.com/and http://www.bodyc.com/


BOEING COMPANY: Motion to Dismiss "Keyter" Class Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In KEYTER v. BOEING COMPANY, District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez
issued an order denying Defendant's request for summary dismissal
of Anthony Keyter's putative class action complaint, which was
originally filed in King County Superior Court and removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Judge Martinez held that Boeing makes valid arguments supporting
summary dismissal. However, given the ambiguity surrounding which
of Mr. Keyter's claims are subject to the Bar Order, the Court, in
an abundance of caution, declined to dismiss the case on that
basis.

The Court also denied the Plaintiff's motions for disqualification
of judges and to consolidate cases.

Judge Martinez ruled that Mr. Ketyer's motion to disqualify is
frivolous and warrants flat denial. "Mr. Keyter seeks to
disqualify all United States District Court Judges in the Western
District of Washington, as well as several from the Eastern
District and Districts outside of Washington. As a recusal of all
is a recusal of none, the motion shall be denied," he said.

The Court also found the Motion to Consolidate frivolous, saying
Mr. Keyter provided no authority to support consolidation of his
action with one that has previously been dismissed.

The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint so
that he may be afforded an additional opportunity to plead a
viable whistleblower or retaliation action.

"The claims shall be made on his own behalf and not on behalf of a
putative class of plaintiffs," Judge Martinez said.  "The amended
complaint shall contain a single, concise statement of his claims
setting forth the specific facts giving rise to a plausible
inference that the named defendant is liable to plaintiff for
money damages. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or
before September 13, 2013. Failure to comply with this Order will
result in dismissal of the action."

The case is ANTHONY KEYTER -- Lead Plaintiff (Retired Boeing
Instructor Pilot); NEXT OF KIN of Deceased, Flight IX-812; INJURED
PASSENGERS, Flight IX-812, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant, CASE NO. C13-982-RSM, (W.D. Wash.).

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/4KXdwOfrom Leagle.com.

Anthony Keyter, Lead Plaintiff (Retired Boeing Instructor Pilot);
NEXT OF KIN of Deceased, Flight IX-812; INJURED PASSENGERS, Flight
IX-812, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas Jeffrey
McLaughlin -- TMcLaughlin@perkinscoie.com -- at PERKINS COIE.


BP PLC: Lawyers Faces Probe Over Role in Oil Spill Claims Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge overseeing the Deepwater Horizon litigation
has found no evidence that conflicts of interest tainted the
claims process in the $9.6 billion settlement, but ordered four
lawyers to explain why they should not be disqualified from
representing oil spill victims.

Additionally, a special master has referred those attorneys to
federal authorities for potential criminal investigation.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans, citing the
special master's report, concluded on Friday that the settlement
distribution process was fair, despite some "problematic" behavior
by former employees and vendors working for claims administrator
Patrick Juneau.  The 93-page report, conducted by former FBI
director Louis Freeh, was made public on Sept. 6.

"The Court notes that the Special Master has not found any
evidence that the Claims Administrator, Patrick Juneau, engaged in
any conflict of interest, or unethical or improper conduct,"
Judge Barbier wrote.  "The Special Master also did not find any
evidence that Claims Administrator Office officials or employees
manipulated the valuation of claims, although a comprehensive
examination of this issue was not part of the Special Master's
mandate."

But Judge Barbier ordered Lionel "Tiger" Sutton III and his wife,
Christine Reitano, both former senior attorneys for Mr. Juneau, to
demonstrate within 14 days why they should not be disqualified
from representing oil spill claimants because they accepted fees
for a client that they referred to The Andry Law Firm in New
Orleans.

He issued the same order against The Andry Law Firm regarding a
$7.6 million claim for its own losses, and against Jonathan Andry,
part owner of The Andry Law Firm and principal at another law
firm, Andry Lerner, whose 489 oil spill clients had their claims
payments frozen pending the investigation, as well as Glen Lerner,
the other principal of Andry Lerner.

The judge did not expand on his order, but Mr. Freeh found that
Sutton, Reitano, Lerner and Andry may "have violated the federal
criminal statutes regarding fraud, money laundering, conspiracy or
perjury."  The report recommended that the findings pertaining to
the four attorneys -- all graduates of Tulane Law School -- be
referred to the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. attorney's
office for the Eastern District of Louisiana for further
investigation and to "the responsible professional bar committees
in their licensing jurisdictions."

"In this matter, the conduct of The Andry Law Firm is particularly
egregious," Mr. Freeh wrote.  "In effect, Mr. Jon Andry's Andry
Lerner firm was making secret, improper payments to Mr. Sutton at
the precise time Mr. Sutton was a senior . . .  [claims
administration] attorney, working in concert with Mr. Jon Andry to
expedite payment of The Andry Law Firm claim.  The undisclosed
financial interest between Mr. Sutton and Mr. Jon Andry tainted
and corrupted the integrity of the . . . [claims] process and
payment of The Andry Law Firm claim should therefore be prohibited
under the Unclean Hands Doctrine and well settled principles of
equity, fairness and justice."

Such disqualification also should apply to Mr. Sutton, who helped
expedite the payment to The Andry Law Firm while receiving
referral fees from Andry Lerner, Andry and Lerner, Mr. Freeh said,
and to Ms. Reitano, who denied any involvement despite helping
arrange those payments.

Mr. Juneau praised the report's findings in a written statement.
"I found the Freeh report to validate the work that our team of
2,700 hard working professionals has been doing since June 4,
2012," he said.  He called the actions of Ms. Reitano and Mr.
Sutton isolated events.

A representative of Jonathan Andry referred a reporter to court
document set to be filed on Sept. 10 in which Andry Lerner
continues to advocate that the freeze on its clients' claims be
lifted.  "While Andry Lerner strenuously denies the Special
Master's findings in all regards, it is concerned that its clients
are being unnecessarily and improperly affected by the Courts
continued hold on all of its claims," the document says.

A BP representative did not respond to a request for comment.
Neither did Glen Lerner.

On July 2, Judge Barbier ordered Freeh to investigate the claims
process in light of the potential misconduct regarding Mr. Sutton
and Ms. Reitano.  Mr. Sutton resigned and Ms. Reitano was
terminated.

Mr. Freeh found that Mr. Sutton and Ms. Reitano, who practiced
together at Sutton & Reitano before joining Mr.  Juneau's staff
last year, referred Casey Thonn, a shrimper with an oil spill
claim, to Andry Lerner.  The agreement, through which Sutton
received three payments totaling $40,600 while working for Juneau,
wasn't in writing -- a violation of the Louisiana Code of
Professional Conduct.

Sutton, who continued to represent Mr. Thonn in an unrelated
personal injury case, Lerner and Andry all failed to mention this
referral agreement to Juneau, according to Mr. Freeh's report.

Sutton also failed to mention that he and Lerner owned a water
reclamation company, Crown LLC. The report found that Andry made
the payments through Lerner's Las Vegas law firm, Glen J. Lerner &
Associates, which transferred the money to a Crown corporate
account to which Sutton had access.

"Mr. Sutton set up an elaborate and circuitous channel through Mr.
Jon Andry and Mr. Lerner, his Tulane Law School classmates, to
receive the agreed upon Thonn referral fee payments, in effect
'laundering' these payments through Andry Lerner, Glen Lerner
Associates and Crown bank accounts," according to the report.

The report also concluded that Sutton failed to disclose to
Juneau, and then lied about, his partial ownership of another
company with an oil spill claim.

The report also took Mr. Juneau and his vendors to task, finding
that many key executives and senior attorneys engaged in
"improper" or "unethical" conduct.

"The nature and seriousness of this type conduct varied in degree
but was pervasive and, at its extreme, may have constituted
criminal conduct," according to the report.

One vendor, BrownGreer, for instance, failed to scrutinize
Mr. Thonn's claim, which likely was fraudulent, Mr. Freeh
concluded.  For instance, it was one of two claims submitted by
Mr. Thonn that were eligible for $1,550 in reimbursement but ended
up with approved payments totaling $357,000.  The report concluded
that BrownGreer failed to inform Mr. Juneau that one of its former
employees had given birth to Mr. Thonn's son on May 9.

Among Mr. Juneau's staff, the appeals coordinator had lunch twice
with Andry while his firm had hundreds of claims pending and The
Andry Law Firm had appealed its own claim.  And Ms. Reitano tried
to get her husband a job with one of Mr. Juneau's vendors.

Furthermore, senior officials in claims administration submitted a
proposal to a vendor that they were supervising in a bid for work
in an unrelated case, it said.

Mr. Freeh, however, found no evidence that Mr. Sutton or
Ms. Reitano, or any other of Juneau's employees, manipulated the
valuation of claims.

Although he found that "the conduct of certain Claims
Administrator Office employees and vendors described in the Report
is problematic," that should not prevent Juneau from "continuing
to fairly and efficiently process and pay legitimate claims in a
timely manner," Judge Barbier wrote.

He ordered that Mr. Freeh, in conjunction with Mr. Juneau, design
"internal compliance, anti-corruption, anti-fraud and conflicts of
interest policies and procedures" and investigate any conflicts of
interest involving past or pending claims and refer any suspicious
conduct to the U.S. Department of Justice or "other appropriate
authorities." He also ordered Freeh to take legal action against
fraudulent claims and report back every 30 days on his progress.

"We welcome the recommendations from the Freeh report and we look
forward to working with him to help improve all aspects of the
claims process," Juneau said.

BP first raised the conflict issues surrounding Mr. Sutton,
Ms. Reitano and the Andry attorneys as part of a demand to halt
payments on the settlement.  But Judge Barbier denied that motion,
citing a lack of evidence.

BP, which has appealed an earlier ruling in which Judge Barbier
refused a similar injunction request, moved a third time last
month to halt claims in light of new allegations of potential
fraud.

BP asserted that at least two members of the appeals panel were
reviewing payments while their law firms were submitting claims,
and that a claims administration employee in Mobile, Ala.,
encouraged family members to submit "fraudulent subsistence
claims" in exchange for a share of the payments.

Judge Barbier rejected that motion on August 28, and BP has
appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

Andry Lerner's attempt to lift the freeze on claims payments to
its oil spill clients isn't new.  On July 29, Judge Barbier
rejected a similar request made by the firm.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Guzman" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to deny class certification in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Betty Guzman, according to the Company's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al., and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students.  The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005, through the present.  In March
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October
2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss.  In May 2012, the
Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by
the Company and Ashford University.  The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.  In August
2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting
similar claims and the same class period.  The second amended
complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all
profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part.  The
lawsuit is proceeding to discovery.  On March 14, 2013, the
Company filed a motion to deny class certification for students
enrolled on or after May 2007 when Ashford University adopted a
binding arbitration policy.  The motion is currently pending with
the Court.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  However, because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on the
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and
accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Parties in WARN Suits Select Arbitrator
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act are
in the process of selecting an arbitrator, according to
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court by former employee Marla Montano naming
the Company and Ashford University as defendants.  The case is
entitled Marla Montano v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford
University.  The complaint asserts a putative class consisting of
former employees who were terminated in January 2012 and July 2012
as a result of a mass layoff, relocation or termination and
alleges that the defendants failed to comply with the notice and
payment provisions of the California WARN Act.  A substantially
similar complaint, entitled Dilts v. Bridgepoint Education and
Ashford University, was also filed in the same court on the same
day by Austin Dilts making similar allegations and asserting the
same putative class.  The complaints seek back pay, the cost of
benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class
members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company and Ashford University intend to vigorously defend
against these actions.  On January 25, 2013, the Company filed
motions to compel binding arbitration with the Court, which were
granted on May 20, 2013.  The parties are in the process of
selecting an arbitrator.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Andrew Clark,
Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly
making false and materially misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results, specifically the
concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University.  The
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3,
2011, to July 6, 2012.  A substantially similar complaint was also
filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012,
making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine.  The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012.  Finally, on
July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same
defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and
class period.  The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated
action and filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013, which
is currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


CALIX INC: Reply Brief in Occam Acquisition Suit Due Sept. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. and other defendants' reply brief on their motion for
summary judgment is due on September 17, 2013, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29,
2013.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam Networks, Inc. entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement").  In response to the announcement of the Merger
Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint
was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of
Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-
VCL).  On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended
complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint").  The amended
Steinhardt complaint names Occam and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants.  The amended Steinhardt
complaint does not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011.  On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead
plaintiffs.  The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael
Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex
Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had
engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the
Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.  The court
further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from
receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-
report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper
trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and
(iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be
distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam
stockholders.  The Delaware court also granted the motion of the
remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for
class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as
class representatives.  The certified class is a non-opt-out class
consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were
converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates.  Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013.  On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint").  The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs' answering brief
to the motion for summary judgment was to be filed by August 27,
2013, and defendants' reply brief is to be filed on or before
September 17, 2013.  A hearing on the motion for summary judgment
will likely follow later in the fall of 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
contest the action.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will be successful in defending this ongoing action.  In
addition, the Company has obligations, under certain
circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the former
Occam directors and officers against judgments, fines, settlements
and expenses related to claims against such directors and
otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and
Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation.  Such obligations
may apply to this lawsuit.

Calix, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a provider in North
America of broadband communications access systems and software
for fiber- and copper-based network architectures that enable
communications service providers, to transform their networks and
connect to their residential and business subscribers.  The
Company is headquartered in Petaluma, California.


CANADA: Veterans' Class Action Over Benefits Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia Supreme Court
justice says current and former members of the Canadian Forces who
were injured in Afghanistan can continue their class-action
lawsuit against the federal government.

The lawsuit was filed last fall, with plaintiffs arguing the new
Veterans Charter and the changes it brings to the compensation
regime for members of the Canadian Forces violate the constitution
and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada asked the court to
throw out the case, arguing it had no chance of success and was
not the appropriate way for the veterans to express their
concerns.

Justice Gordon Weatherill dismissed the federal government's
application on Sept. 6, but also threw out three smaller arguments
made by the veterans.

"This action is about promises the Canadian government made to men
and women injured in service to their country and whether it is
obliged to fulfill; those promises," he said.

Justice Weatherill struck an argument made by the veterans that
they have been unlawfully deprived of their property rights
without due process of law and contrary to the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Justice Weatherill also struck arguments that Parliament had not
scrutinized a set of rules known as the Table of Disabilities and
Instructions and that the Crown owed the veterans a duty of care
consistent with the social covenant.

None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the
Attorney General of Canada has yet to file its response to the
veterans' lawsuit.

Lifetime pension eliminated

The new Veterans Charter eliminated the lifetime disability
pension for disabled soldiers and replaced it with lump-sum
payments.

The veterans argue the disability payments for injured soldiers
pale in comparison to awards handed out for worker's compensation
claims and by civil courts for far lesser injuries in motor
vehicle accidents or personal injury.

The lawsuit they filed said each received a pension and other
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, including
lump sum payments ranging from C$41,000 to nearly C$261,000.

The veterans include Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas
Campbell, Gavin Michael, David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry,
Bradley Darren Quast and Aaron Michael Bedard.

Mr. Campbell is a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who
served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In June 2008, Mr. Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess
Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improvised
explosive device and Taliban ambush.

He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous
lacerations and a ruptured eardrum.  He has since been diagnosed
with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Campbell received a lump sum payment for pain and suffering of
C$260,000.  He will receive his military pension, with an earnings
loss benefit and a permanent impairment allowance but he is
entirely unable to work and will suffer a net earnings loss due to
his injuries, the lawsuit claims.

Another plaintiff soldier suffered severe injuries to his leg and
foot in the blast that killed Canadian journalist Michelle Lang
and four soldiers.  He was awarded C$200,000 in total payments for
pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress.


CAPITAL ONE: Discriminatory Lending Practices Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the case captioned
IBELKA VARGAS, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL ADVISORS a/k/a
Greenpoint Savings Bank, a/k/a Greenpoint Mortgage Funding et al.,
Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 5728 (LTS)(DCF), (S.D.N.Y).

Ibelka Vargas brought this putative class action against Capital
One Financial Advisors; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Bank of
America, NA; IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc.; and
Seterus, alleging that the Defendants engaged in discriminatory
lending practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Capital One moved to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that he Plaintiff is
bound by a previous class action settlement between Capital One's
predecessor in interest and a class of which the Plaintiff was a
member, and that the Plaintiff is, therefore, barred from bringing
the action under the doctrine of res judicata and the settlement
release.

Accordingly, Judge Swain granted Capital One's motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint as against Capital One.

"Because there are no other named plaintiffs, Plaintiff's claims
for relief against the other defendants are derivative of her
precluded claims against Capital One and all of the other
defendants are "Released Parties" under the terms of the Ramirez
settlement, the action is dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice," Judge Swain added.

Judge Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
dismissing the Amended Complaint and close the case.

A copy of the District Court's August 15, 2013 Memorandum Order
is available at http://is.gd/NTfONCfrom Leagle.com.

Ibelka Vargas, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Jaffe, Attorney
at Law.

Capital One Financial Advisors, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Craig Robinson -- stephen.robinson@skadden.com -- at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Anand S Raman --
anand.raman@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP & Joseph L. Barloon -- joseph.barloon@skadden.com -- at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Countrywide Bank, Defendant, represented by Christine B. Cesare,
Bryan Cave LLP & Scott Harris Kaiser, Bryan Cave LLP.

Countrywide Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christine B. Cesare -- cbcesare@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave LLP
& Scott Harris Kaiser -- scott.kaiser@bryancave.com -- at Bryan
Cave LLP.

IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Allison J Schoenthal -- allison.schoenthal@hoganlovells.com --
at Hogan Lovells US LLP & Courtney Lynne Colligan --
courtney.colligan@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Seterus, Defendant, represented by Allison J Schoenthal, Hogan
Lovells US LLP & Courtney Lynne Colligan, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Bank of America, NA, Defendant, represented by Christine B.
Cesare, Bryan Cave LLP & Scott Harris Kaiser, Bryan Cave LLP.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Northera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit relating to Northera(TM), according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Following the receipt of the complete response letter (CRL) from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the New Drug
Application (NDA) for Northera(TM) (droxidopa) in March 2012 and
the subsequent decline of the price of the Company's common stock,
two purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012,
and another purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1,
2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to the Company's development of Northera for the treatment
of symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.  Following consolidation of the three
lawsuits and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from November 3, 2008, through
March 28, 2012.  On November 16, 2012, the Company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  A hearing on the
motion to dismiss was heard on June 19, 2013, but a decision has
not yet been issued.  The Company and its officers intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit but are unable to predict
the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at
this time.

Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. --
http://www.chelseatherapeutics.com/-- is a Delaware corporation
based in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The Company is a development
stage pharmaceutical company that seeks to acquire, develop and
commercialize innovative products for the treatment of a variety
of human diseases.


CNN MANAGED: Schools Get $1.25-Mil. Disbursements From Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a
St. Louis law firm has disbursed $1.25 million to various
providers of continuing medical education as part of a settlement
of a class action lawsuit.

The recipients are Southern Illinois University School of Law,
University of Chicago Center for Continuing Medical Education,
American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians, American
Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and the Illinois
Osteopathic Medical Society.

The disbursements are included in a settlement of a class action
lawsuit that was filed in 2004.  Two providers claimed that
defendants CNN Managed Care and First Health Group Corp., now
known as Coventry, failed to provide adequate incentives to people
injured in workers' compensation and automobile accidents to use
the services of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are Lawrence Shipley, D.C., and Richard C. Coy,
doing business as Coy Chiropractic Health Center.

The disbursements were made by the law firm, SL Chapman, which has
offices in St. Louis, Phoenix and Southern Illinois.  The firm was
founded by the late former Madison County circuit judge and 5th
Appellate District Judge Charles Chapman and attorney Brad Lakin,
former managing partner of the Wood River-based Lakin Firm.

The firm is managed by Rob Schmieder, a graduate of Southern
Illinois University School of Law.

"The collaborative efforts of the School of Law and School of
Medicine greatly enhance society.  This was an opportunity to
benefit our community as a whole, while simultaneously providing
direct benefits to Illinois medical providers, the class members,"
Mr. Schmieder said.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bennett Jones Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Eizenga, Esq., Julia E. Schatz, Esq. and Ilan Ishai,
Esq. at Bennett Jones LLP reports that in a decision released on
August 27, 2013, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice certified a class action against DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.
on behalf of persons who were surgically implanted with any one of
two DePuy hip systems.  The core allegation against the defendants
is negligence in the design and manufacturing of the hip
replacement systems and in the defendants' failure to warn.
Justice Belobaba's decision in Crisante v DePuy Orthopaedics Inc,
2013 ONSC 5186 (DePuy) seems to indicate a retreat from certain
recent cases which applied a more cautious approach to the
certification of medical device class actions.

The Action

This action was brought on behalf of the 400 to 4,000 persons who
were surgically implanted with a DePuy hip replacement system.  Of
the four representative plaintiffs, two were implanted with the
DePuy ASR XL hip system in 2008.  Two years later, both of them
had to undergo revision surgeries.  This coincided with a higher
than normal failure and revision rate for both of the new DePuy
hip implants being reported by medical registries, which
ultimately led to DePuy's voluntary recall of the implants in
2010.  The two recipients of the implants (along with their
spouses) then commenced the proposed class action.

The Certification Decision

The defendants raised numerous objections to certification of the
proposed class action, including arguments that the class
definition was overly broad, that the proposed common issues were
inappropriate and could not be decided on a class wide basis, and
that a class action was not the preferable procedure in the
circumstances.  Justice Belobaba ultimately dismissed all of the
defendants' objections, finding that the plaintiffs satisfied all
five of the prerequisites to certification under s. 5(1) of the
Class Proceedings Act.

Identifiable Class and Class Definition

On the issue of whether there was an identifiable class, the
defendants had argued, among other things, that the class
definition should include only those who had revision surgery, as
opposed to all persons who have been implanted with either of the
DePuy hip systems, regardless of whether revision surgery was
required.  In rejecting this argument, Justice Belobaba held that
the broad class definition was appropriate given the broad
pleading and the fact that the recall notices from 2010 had not
differentiated between the two products.  The proposed class
definition reflected the plaintiffs' claim that the DePuy implants
were improperly designed and should not have been sold or
implanted at all, and therefore anyone with a DePuy implant is
entitled to damages for the implant surgery, related personal
injury, emotional distress and associated out-of-pocket expenses.

Justice Belobaba relied on the fact that "an implant definition
(rather than revision surgery)" had been accepted in a number of
previous medical device cases, and determined that limiting the
class to those who had sustained an injury would improperly
introduce a merits analysis to the determination of class
membership.1

Common Issues

One of the proposed common issues in the case was whether the
defendants breached a duty of care in the design of the implants
and/or failed to warn of the materially increased risk of revision
surgery associated with the implants.  While the defendants argued
that a breach of this duty of care could only be determined on an
individual basis, Justice Belobaba rejected this position, relying
on the plaintiff's expert evidence from an orthopaedic surgeon
that there are ten "design defects" in the products and that there
was a generalized failure to warn.2 Such evidence was held to be
sufficient to satisfy the s. 5(1)(c) requirement since none of the
defects identified was dependent on individual circumstances.

Despite finding for the plaintiffs on the other principal issues,
the judge made short shrift of the plaintiffs' proposed common
issue of whether the defendants should be required to implement a
medical monitoring regime.  He noted that no court would impose a
mandatory order requiring the defendants to establish and fund a
monitoring system within the framework of a negligence/damages
action.3 Specific performance is not available as a remedy in such
a case.

Preferable Procedure

With respect to the preferability analysis, Justice Belobaba
stated that, while this was the defendants' strongest argument
opposing certification, he was satisfied that a class action was
the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues.
The defendants urged the court to reshape the claim such that (i)
the focus would only be on the 30 to 40 people who had, thus far,
undergone revision surgeries; and then (ii) the preferable
procedure would be case management rather than a class proceeding.
Justice Belobaba rejected this position on the basis of his
earlier finding that the action as pleaded was not just about the
individuals who have endured a premature revision surgery but also
those who claim damages, including emotional distress damages,
simply on the basis that they were implanted with allegedly
defective devices.  Notably, in reaching this conclusion, Justice
Belobaba stated that "it is not the job of the court to redraft
the statement of claim or reshape the proposed class action to
accommodate the defendants' or even the judge's notion of a more
sensible or more efficient litigation.  Provided the minimal
statutory prerequisites are satisfied, the court is obliged to
certify a proposed class action."4 Since at least 400 people fell
under the claim as pleaded, it was therefore too large for case
management and, in the absence of any better suggestion by the
defendants, was found to be suited to a class proceeding.

Justice Belobaba further held that a class proceeding was
preferable given that the proposed common issues trial would
answer the breach of duty and defective design questions, and
therefore move the litigation forward one way or another and
perhaps help the parties achieve an overall settlement.5  This was
the case even though Justice Belobaba accepted that a finding on
the common issues in favor of the class members would lead to a
plethora of individual trials being required to determine (a) the
specific causation (even if the implants were defective, did they
cause the harm alleged?) and (b) the individual damage claims
(what losses were actually sustained by the class member?).

Conclusion

Prior to 2012, medical product liability class proceedings had
been viewed to be a relatively plaintiff-friendly environment
where certification of a proposed class action against
manufacturers and distributors of allegedly defective products,
particularly medical products, was almost assured.  A series of
decisions in 2012, such as Martin v AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
PLC6 and Arora v Whirlpool Canada,7 prompted some to suggest that
the pendulum may have started to swing to a more central position,
as the courts appeared to be applying greater scrutiny to, and in
some cases refusing, certification.  As such, it had been
anticipated by some that courts would continue to advance a more
cautious approach to the certification of product liability class
actions.  It is unclear whether DePuy represents a return to the
more plaintiff-friendly approach.  This case involved a narrow set
of issues and only two specific products.  Future cases displaying
a greater diversity of products and alleged problems may yet prove
more difficult to certify.


ECO-NOVELTY: Recalls Cosmo Beads Toys Due to Ingestion Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eco-Novelty Corp., of Troy, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,500 water-absorbing polymer beads.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hard and colorful toy can be easily mistaken for candy by a
child.  When the bead is ingested, it expands and can cause
intestinal obstructions inside a child's body, resulting in severe
discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life threatening.
The toys need surgery to be removed from the body.  Similar toys
have not shown up on x-rays.

There were no incidents that were reported.  CPSC is aware of one
incident where an 8-month-old girl ingested a similar water-
absorbing polymer ball that had to be surgically removed.

Cosmo Beads Jumbo Size Colorful Water Balls and Jumbo Multipurpose
Colorful Water Balls toys are being recalled.  The toys are water
absorbing beads that when placed in water will hydrate up to the
size of a racquetball.  On the front of the toy packages it states
Cosmo Beads Colorful Water Balls, Just Add Water, Biodegradable,
Non-toxic and Colorfast.  The packages have yellow and black color
on the upper left corner and red in the lower right corner.  The
beads can be seen through an oval, cellophane window near the
bottom of the package.

Cosmo Beads Jumbo Size were sold as single packets of beads in
various colors: clear, green, purple, red and mixed colors. Each
packet contains a variety of bead sizes.  The front of the Jumbo
Size package has a picture of a hand holding two water balls and
the words "Grows up to 600X (1.5") Size."

Cosmo Beads Jumbo Multipurpose came in three packets per set.
Each packet contains beads in one size and comes in clear, dark
purple and orange colors.  The front of the Jumbo Multipurpose
packet has a picture of flowers in a glass vase and the words
"Deco Centerpiece: Toys-Games: Plant-Vacation watering."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/CZXU0N

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
Amazon.com, ifleemarket.com and crystalsoilusa.com from June 2011
through August 2013 for between $2 and $20.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from
children and contact Eco-Novelty for a refund.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Athletes' Likenesses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that lawyers
representing a former West Virginia running back have filed a
proposed class-action suit against video game manufacturer
Electronic Arts in federal court in New Jersey, alleging "blatant
and unlawful" use of college athletes' names and likenesses in its
football and basketball games.

This lawsuit is similar to, but separate from, another proposed
class-action case against EA that is proceeding in federal court
in New Jersey on behalf of former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart.
The Hart case already has been before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, which has returned it to the district court level.

The new matter is being pursued by Shawne Alston, who played for
West Virginia from 2009 through 2012.  His lawyers also are
representing former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam
Keller in a suit related to video games against EA, the NCAA and
the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing
firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., that is now with the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

One of the lawyers said on Sept. 4 they filed the Alston case last
week because of concerns about how Hart's lawyers have defined
their prospective class of plaintiffs.

"We think the class definition is too narrow and complicated,"
Robert Carey said.  "We want to make sure (all players with
potential claims) are protected."

In an added twist, Mr. Alston's suit alleges that an avatar
mirroring him in many ways not only appears in various versions of
the game, it also appears on the back cover of the 2013 NCAA
Football game for the Xbox.  The complaint adds that the player in
the primary image on the back cover, former Baylor and now
Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III, "was paid --
after exhausting his collegiate eligibility and becoming a
professional player -- to appear on the back cover of the game.
Plaintiff and the other students on the back cover were not paid
for use of their likenesses, nor did they consent to the use."

Mr. Carey said Mr. Alston's legal team will seek to have its case
consolidated with the Hart case.  If permitted by the judge, this
likely would not keep Hart's case from continuing to advance
separately but it could make it difficult for Hart's lawyers to
settle with EA without the involving the Alston/Keller lawyers.

EA spokesman John Reseburg could not be reached for immediate
comment.

EA has said in a court filing in conjunction with the Keller case
that it intends to seek Supreme Court review of both the Keller
case and the Hart case.  In each instance, it has received
unfavorable rulings from appellate panels. But while the 9th
Circuit has delayed referral of the Keller case back to the
district court, pending EA's bid for Supreme Court review, the
Hart case remains active.

One of Hart's lawyers, Eugene Egdorf, said on Sept. 4 a status
hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 24.  Before then,
however, Egdorf said a new version of their complaint will be
filed that adds a plaintiff to cover each year of EA's games, and
that a current college athlete will be among the new plaintiffs.

He added that Mr. Alston already would be covered by the Hart
litigation.

"Our class definition is very broad," Egdorf said. "It covers
everybody that matters in this situation. (The Alston suit) is
just a case of lawyers jumping in when it's not necessary.  It
doesn't change how we'll move forward in our case, and our case is
the one that's in front (procedurally) and will get to court the
fastest."


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against The First Marblehead Corp. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 13-cv-12121-
PBS, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of First Marblehead
between November 4, 2010 and August 15, 2013 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased First Marblehead securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 2013 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

First Marblehead is a specialty finance company focused on
education loan programs for K-12, undergraduate and graduate
students in the United States, as well as tuition planning,
tuition billing, refund management and payment technology
services.  The Company partners with lenders to design and
administer education loan programs, which are typically school-
certified and marketed through educational institutions or
prospective student borrowers and their families directly, and to
generate portfolios intended to be held by the originating lender
or financed in the capital markets.  First Marblehead also offers
a number of ancillary services in support of its clients,
including loan origination, retail banking, portfolio management
and securitization services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and financial performance.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's tax treatment for its sale of the Trust
Certificate and similarly situated securities was inappropriate;
(2) such treatment exposed the Company to significant liability,
threatening the future viability of the Company; (3) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 15, 2013, in its press release announcing quarterly
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Company
disclosed that the tax liability related to its IRS audit would
amount to $300 million, more than the Company's reported cash on
hand, and nearly double its market capitalization.  On this news,
First Marblehead shares declined $0.57 per share or over 36%, to
close at $1.00 per share on August 16, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


GOOGLE INC: Ninth Circuit Rejects Argument in Wi-Fi Sniffing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that in what could
be a painfully expensive rebuke to Google, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Sept. 10 that the company
can be sued under the Wiretap Act for sniffing out data from home
Wi-Fi networks.

The ruling potentially exposes Google to many millions, if not
billions, in statutory damages and attorney fees, though the
litigation is still in early stages.

"It's a great day for privacy," said Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein partner Kathryn Barnett, one of the lead lawyers on the
case.  "We're excited to go back and prepare our claims and have a
trial."

Google and its attorneys at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati had
argued that unencrypted Wi-Fi transmissions are "radio
communication" easily accessible to the public, making them exempt
from the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986.  But a Ninth Circuit panel led by Judge Jay Bybee said
Google's definition "does not conform with the common
understanding held contemporaneous with the enacting Congress."

"Google's proposed definition is in tension with how Congress --
and virtually everyone else -- uses the phrase" radio
communication, Judge Bybee wrote.  Television is technically
broadcast via radio wave, but "in common parlance, watching a
television show does not entail 'radio communication,'" he wrote.
"Nor does sending an email or viewing a bank statement while
connected to a Wi-Fi network."

The decision means a potentially massive class of home computer
users can move forward against Google in multidistrict litigation
in San Francisco federal court.  The case was recently reassigned
from retired Judge James Ware to Judge Charles Breyer.

Google set out six years ago to map street-level views of cities
and neighborhoods around the world.  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 payload content -- including user names, passwords,
email addresses and other sensitive data -- as it streamed across
those wireless networks.

Google has publicly apologized, insisting the company never has
used nor intends to use the 600 gigabytes of uploaded data.  The
engineer Google blamed invoked the Fifth Amendment before the
Federal Communications Commission.  Now Lieff Cabraser and co-
counsel at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Spector Roseman
Kodroff & Wills are likely to pursue discovery from the engineer
and other Google executives.

At the Ninth Circuit, Google argued it was not illegal to
intercept "radio communications" that are "readily accessible to
the general public."

In addition to rejecting Google's definition of radio
communication, Judge Bybee held that Wi-Fi transmissions on home
computer networks are not "readily accessible to the general
public," regardless of whether they're encrypted.

Google's formulation is untenable, Judge Bybee wrote, because a
computer user who took great care to encrypt sensitive information
in email to a doctor, lawyer, accountant, priest or spouse could
lose that privacy if the recipient did not take the same care.

"Google, or anyone else, could park outside of the recipient's
home or office with a packet sniffer while she downloaded the
attachment and intercept its contents because the sender's 'radio
communication' is 'readily accessible to the general public,'"
Judge Bybee explained, rejecting the notion.

Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima and U.S. District Judge
William Stafford, visiting from Florida, concurred.

Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser argued the case for the
plaintiffs.  Wilson Sonsini partner Michael Rubin --
mrubin@wsgr.com -- argued for Google.

The Wiretap Act provides statutory damages of $100 per day, and
the potential class would appear to cover all U.S. computer owners
surveyed by Google Street View who use wireless routers without
encrypting their data.  Lieff's Barnett said plaintiffs would also
seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

"It's important for companies to understand that just because they
can come up with a technological method to see people's private
communications, that doesn't mean it's acceptable," she said.


GOOGLE INC: Awaits Approval of Privacy Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S. Vogel, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that Google
may get out of a big class-action privacy lawsuit virtually
unscathed if its settlement proposal is approved.  However, EPIC,
Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Digital
Democracy, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse contend that 1) it
fails to require Google to make any substantive changes to its
business practices; and 2) it provides no monetary relief to the
class.

An October 2010 class action lawsuit against Google included
allegations that "Google transmitted user search queries to third
parties without knowledge or consent in order to enhance
advertising revenue and profitability." Following three years of
litigation, Google and the plaintiff users this June presented a
settlement proposal to the federal court. However, Google is not
proposing to change its privacy policies.

Interestingly, the class of plaintiffs is yet to be determined.
The proposed settlement identifies the class as "all persons in
the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at any time from
Oct. 25, 2006, until the date of the notice of the proposed class
action settlement."  That must be a huge number.

As of July 2013, Google accounts for about 67 percent of the U.S.
searches and about 90 percent of searches in the EU, based on
comScore's latest research.

Before the Lawsuit

On April 14, 2010, before the lawsuit was filed, Google sent a
letter to the Federal Trade Commission expressing its views on
transparency and privacy. Google specifically stated its view on
these two topics:

    Strong industry commitments to ensure transparency, user
control, and security in Internet services for consumers.  Self-
regulatory standards, such as the recent work done in online
behavioral advertising, have encouraged companies to innovate in
the area of privacy and have enhanced user choices in the
environment as a whole.

    Comprehensive privacy standards and strengthened protections
from government intrusion. Google has long supported comprehensive
federal privacy legislation to establish baseline privacy
protections for consumers.  In addition, Google recently announced
its support for the reform of federal law governing government
access to online records as part of the Digital Due Process
coalition.

Google also told the FTC that Google believes "that there is an
important role for the development and enforcement of industry
self-regulatory privacy principles . . . ."

How ironic, given what the plaintiffs complained about in their
lawsuit.

What Are the Alleged Privacy Violations?

Among other things, the Second Amended Complaint against Google
derides its famous motto "Don't be evil," and a provision of its
Code of Conduct that asks users

    . . . to trust [it] with their personal information.
Preserving that trust requires that each of us respect and protect
the privacy of that information. Our security procedures strictly
limit access to and use of users' personal information.

Further, the Second Amended Complaint includes the following
allegations:

    . . . Google has consistently and intentionally designed its
services to ensure that user search queries, which often contain
highly sensitive and personally identifiable information (PII),
are routinely transferred to marketers, data brokers, and sold and
resold to countless other third parties.

    . . . user search queries disclosed to third parties contain,
without limitation, users' real names, street addresses, phone
numbers, credit card numbers, Social Security Numbers, financial
account numbers and more, all of which increases the risk of
identity theft.  User search queries also contain highly personal
and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information,
racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or
sexuality, which are often tied to the user's personal
information.

The plaintiffs asserted that Google violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.  The ECPA broadly defines an
"electronic communication" as "any transfer of signs, signals,
writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature
transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic,
photoelectronic or photo-optical system that affects interstate or
foreign commerce . . . ."

The plaintiffs also alleged that Google violated the Stored
Communications Act of 1986 in that "Google intentionally disclosed
its users' communications to third parties to enhance its
profitability and revenue.  The disclosures were not necessary for
the operation of Google's systems or to protect Google's rights or
property."

Also, the plaintiffs complained that Google breached its own Terms
of Service and Privacy Policy, since the class "agreed to use
Defendant's services and transmit sensitive personally
identifiable information to Google in exchange for Google's
promise that it would not share that personal information with
third parties without users' authorization."

The motion to settle the lawsuit, which came after four days of
mediation, includes the following:

    . . . the proposed Settlement also requires Google to post
disclosures on its website concerning user search queries.  As a
result of this Settlement, users will be given information about
whether their search queries are transmitted to third parties and
have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their
privacy choices.

As part of the settlement Google agreed to pay US$8.5 million in
damages, which is "within the range of similar class action
settlements."

Opposition to the Proposal

The Electronic Privacy Information Center last month sent U.S.
District Judge Edward Davila a letter opposing the settlement on
behalf of Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center
for Digital Democracy, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

The letter contends that Google's settlement proposal is
unacceptable because

    1) it fails to require Google to make any substantive changes
to its business practices; and
    2) it provides no monetary relief to the class.

Among other complaints, EPIC specified that because few people
ever read privacy notices, Google's settlement offer to modify its
Privacy Policy was a meaningless gesture.

EPIC was very critical of the $8.5 million not going to Google
search engine users. Instead, much of the money

    . . . is meant to cover settlement administration expenses and
part will be paid to the World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon;
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University; and
Stanford Center for Internet and Society, among others.

In Conclusion

Concerns about Internet privacy are front page news these days.
Since Google has more than the lion's share of the search
business, Google's privacy protection activities remain critical,
and other Internet businesses may follow its example in managing
privacy for their customers.

As of this writing, Google's proposed settlement has yet to be
accepted or rejected by the trial judge, so this case may not be
over.


GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Gmail Litigation Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge seemed unwilling to toss out a sprawling class action that
accuses Google of using Gmail to mine data and invade the privacy
of users.

Updates that the Company made to its privacy policy last year drew
a tsunami of class actions that accused Google of aggregating the
information it collects from users of its various apps and
platforms.  The plaintiffs in those cases claimed that the new
policy -- which went into effect in March 2012 -- violates various
state and federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws.

In California, lead plaintiffs Brad Scott and Todd Harrington
claim that the web-based service scans e-mails for words and
content, and intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail
subscribers and subscribers.

Describing such actions as wiretapping and eavesdropping, the
class there says Google is in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, or CIPA.  Google pointed out last year, however,
that the Scott and Harrington cannot cloak themselves with
California privacy laws by filing suit in Marin County when they
actually reside in Alabama and Maryland, with no connection to the
Golden State.

The claims have since been combined into the massive In re Google,
Inc. - Gmail Litigation, leading Google to ask U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh for dismissal at a hearing Thursday, September 5, 2013.

Google lawyer Whitty Somvichian of the firm Cooley LLP said the
Company's practice of scanning e-mails is used solely for its
targeted advertising scheme and to enhance its other services.

"It's a legitimate business function," Somvichian argued.  "All
users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be
subject to automated processing."

Google defended its various privacy policies and terms of service
going back as far as 2007, which all warn users that information
the Company gets from the use of its services may be used to
target advertising or enhance the Google experience.

Judge Koh indicated, however, that the policies do not go far
enough to inform users of the scope of Google's practices.

"I don't see any explicit warnings in the user agreements that
emails will be read for targeted advertising purposes," Koh said.

Citing the March 2012 privacy policy, Somvichian said:
"'Information we get from your use of our services.'  I don't
think there's any ambiguity."

Koh pressed the lawyer as to Google would not "just say 'the
content of your emails.'"

Somvichian noted that Google's privacy policy is an attempt at a
streamlined policy encompassing its many services.  He also said
that Gmail users can opt out of targeted advertising and added
that its scheme is for "the benefit of the user."

But plaintiffs' attorney Sean Rommel fired back, saying Google's
practices benefit Google alone.

"Emails are not postcards, they're private transmissions protected
by Congress," Rommel said.  "Google reads every single email sent.
Advertising is the greatest smokescreen in the modern era."

Google again reiterated that the non-California plaintiffs have no
standing to sue under CIPA.  The fact that the company is
headquartered in California is not sufficient for nonresidents to
invoke state laws to make their claims, Somvichian said.

Rommel reminded the court, however, that federal privacy and
wiretapping laws are at issue in the case as well.

"This company reads on a daily basis every email that's submitted,
and when I say read I mean looking at every word to determine
meaning," Rommel said.  "Including messages from non-Gmail users
to Gmail users, who never agreed to Google's terms of service."

"Every Gmail user gives Google a lifetime license to use every
email received and sent," Rommel added.  "That's astonishing and
the scariest thing I've ever heard."

While Koh indicated she would take Google's dismissal motion under
advisement, she did not say when she would make her decision.  She
also informed the parties that they would meet next month to
decide on a 2014 trial date.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
          1111 Exposition Boulevard, Suite 602
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 567-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 567-1112
          E-mail: kirk@cwclawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Whitty Somvichian
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com

The case is In Re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-
02430-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


HACHETTE BOOK: Children's Books Recalled Over Choking Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 10, 2013
Posting date:             September 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35527

The recall involves these two books titled:

   -- Count my kisses, 1, 2, 3, ISBN:978-0-316-13354-8, has five
      colored cylindrical wooden beads with printed hearts on the
      rod; and

   -- red, green, blue, I love you, ISBN: 978-0-316-13353-1, has
      five colored circular wooden beads on the metal rod.  The
      shaped children's board books have cut out covers that serve
      as a handle and include an embedded bar in the handle with
      beads for children to play with. "Ages 3+" is printed on the
      back covers and the ISBN numbers are also on the back covers
      near the bar code.

A metal rod holding small beads on the cover of the books can
detach and release small parts that present a choking hazard.  A
detached metal bar can expose a sharp edge posing a laceration
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Hachette Book Group, Inc. has received
any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
books.

Approximately 3,423 units of the recalled books were sold in
Canada and approximately 70,000 books in the United States at
Barnes & Noble, online at Amazon.com and by other booksellers and
retailers.

The recalled books were manufactured in China and sold from June
2013 to August 2013 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Starlite Holdings Ltd.
                   Shaoguan
                   China

  Importer         Hachette Book Group Inc.
                   New York City
                   New York
                   United States

Consumers should take the recalled books away from children
immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.


HAWAII: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Driver's License Exams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that Hawaii discriminates against immigrants by only allowing
driver's license exams to be taken in English, a federal class-
action lawsuit filed on Sept. 6 claims.

The class-action lawsuit by Faith Action for Community Equity, or
FACE, and two unnamed Hawaii residents wants to force the state
Department of Transportation to offer the test in other languages.
According to FACE, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire and South
Dakota are the only states that don't offer a driving test in any
language other than English.

That wasn't always the case in Hawaii, a state with a diverse
population.  In 2001, the state began offering the exam in
languages including Tagalog, Japanese, Mandarin, Korean,
Vietnamese, Samoan and Tongan.  But those tests were no longer
offered when new questions were added.  It's not clear when those
tests stopped, but the group began getting complaints last year.

The transportation department doesn't comment on pending
litigation, spokeswoman Caroline Sluyter said.  But she said the
department has already been working to reinstate the previously
offered tests and also add Ilocano, Chuukese, Marshallese, Spanish
and Hawaiian.  The translations are expected to be completed by
the end of the year, she said.

The group has been trying to get the translations in place since
the beginning of the year, said Gavin Thornton, deputy director of
the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, but
transportation officials have refused to confirm the translations
will be provided.  Kim Harmon, of FACE, said the lawsuit was filed
as a last resort after unsuccessful meetings with the DOT.

According U.S. Census data, nearly 300,000 people in Hawaii out of
about 1.2 million spoke a language other than English at home from
2006-08.

"Kentucky offers 22 different translations," Mr. Thornton said.
"We have close to six times the immigrant population of Kentucky."

The ability to drive is especially important on outer islands
where there's limited or no public transportation, Mr. Thornton
said.

"Some members of the class have felt compelled to drive without a
license because they have no other viable means of getting to work
and supporting their families," the lawsuit states.  The lawsuit
describes a plaintiff only identified as John Doe 1 who is a
Chuukese citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia living on
Maui.  "In spite of his efforts to learn English by taking
classes, he has had difficulty with the vocabulary and idioms on
the exam, which includes words like 'inadvertently' and 'abreast'
and phrases like 'ride up.'"  He took and failed the test three
times.


HOME DEPOT: Customers Accused of Shoplifting File Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Home Depot demands "damages"
from customers accused of shoplifting and misleads them into
believing that failure to pay will end in criminal prosecution, a
class claims.

Plaintiff Jimin Chen is represented by:

          Nance F. Becker
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: nance@chavezgertler.com

The case is Chen v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. RG13694413,
in the California Superior Court for Alameda County.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Common Issues Trial to Begin on September 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP disclosed that on Monday, September 16, 2013 the
common issues trial will begin in Dolmage et al v Her Majesty the
Queen in the Right of Ontario, a class action brought on behalf of
survivors of the Huronia Regional Centre, a provincially operated
residential institution for persons with developmental
disabilities, who lived there at any time between 1945 and 2009,
when it finally and mercifully closed.

The Representative Plaintiffs will seek to prove that the Province
breached their fiduciary, statutory and common law duties to those
former residents through the negligent establishment, operation,
and supervision of Huronia.  Specifically, it is alleged that the
Province's failure to care for and protect those former residents
resulted in loss or injury, including psychological trauma, pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and exacerbation of
(existing) disabilities.

The Representative Plaintiffs commenced this action in April 2009.
After almost 5 years of litigation, the production of over 65,000
documents, numerous motions, pre-trials and failed mediations, the
common issues trial is set to begin on Monday, September 16, 2013
before the Honourable Madame Justice Horkins at 330 University
Avenue, Courtroom 5 at 10:00 a.m.  The trial is set to continue
for at least four months.

The Representative Plaintiffs are eager to have their day in court
and make public all the clear and immutable violations of their
basic rights and dignity over a period of over 65 years by the
Provincial government who swore to protect and care for them.
Kirk Baert, lead counsel for the class, said "The Huronia Regional
Centre was operated by the Provincial Government in a deplorable
and reprehensible manner.  The institution quickly became an
unsafe and unhealthy warehouse for some this province's most
vulnerable people.   The institution was grossly overcrowded and
understaffed, abuse reporting and prevention policies were
ineffective or ignored, and residents were exploited as cheap
labour to offset the running of the institution.  Residents grew
up as children in this toxic environment.  The manner in which the
Province operated this institution resulted in systemic abuse of
the residents under their care, the most vulnerable of society."

On Sept. 6, the Plaintiffs filed their written opening submissions
with the court, which clearly identifies the gross breaches of the
class members' rights.  The Defendants were ordered to provide
their written opening submissions by Monday, September 9.

Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiffs in this action.  For
more information on this class proceeding please visit
http://www.kmlaw.ca/huroniaclassactionor call 1-866-777-6311


INTELIUS: Nov. 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keithly et al. v. Intelius, Case No. 09-1485RSL: Notice of Class
Action Settlement And Settlement Fairness Hearing

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ENROLLED IN ADAPTIVE MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS
THROUGH INTELIUS.COM OR A RELATED INTERNET SITE BEFORE AUGUST 12,
2013, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, AND YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, that a
hearing will be held on November 21, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Washington, in Courtroom 15106, 700
Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101-9906, for the purpose of
determining whether the proposed settlement of the above-captioned
litigation should be approved.

The proposed settlement benefits members of the class who make
valid claims by submitting a Claim Form through the Settlement
Website, http://www.intelius-post-transaction-settlement.com
Class member benefits consist of a cash payment and vouchers (good
for purchases at intelius.com).  The proposed Settlement Class is
comprised of all persons residing in the United States who
provided credit or debit card information to a website owned,
operated, or controlled by Intelius between the dates of July 2007
and August 12, 2013 and were subsequently charged for services
offered through post-transaction marketing for the benefit of
Intelius and/or Adaptive Marketing LLC, and have not enabled or
used any benefit associated with the service.

This settlement covers only those claims related to Intelius's
post-transaction marketing of certain membership programs offered
by Third-Party Defendant Adaptive Marketing, LLC through the
Intelius website.  Claims related to Intelius's marketing of
Identity Protect subscriptions were settled previously.

The hearing will determine whether the partial settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class, and whether the claims described in the
Settlement Agreement should be dismissed on the merits and with
prejudice as against the Defendants.  You are not required to take
any action at this time. You may choose to make a claim.  You may
file written objections to the settlement and appear at the court
hearing.  You may choose to exclude yourself from the settlement
but if you do so you cannot make a claim and cannot object to the
settlement.  If the settlement is approved and you do not exclude
yourself, you give up the right to sue for the claims the
settlement resolves, and you will be bound by the terms of the
settlement.

Plaintiffs' counsel intend to make a request for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with this settlement at a point in the future.

A copy of the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
and Settlement Fairness Hearing is available at
http://www.intelius-post-transaction-settlement.com
The Notice contains further information regarding the proposed
partial settlement, the benefits available to Settlement Class
Members and their rights under the Settlement Agreement, how to
make a claim, object to the settlement or exclude yourself from
the settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

                           *     *     *

The case is, BRUCE KEITHLY AND DONOVAN LEE, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. INTELIUS,
INC., A Delaware Corporation; and INTELIUS SALES, LLC, A Nevada
Limited Liability Company, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs,
v. ADAPTIVE MARKETING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Third Party Defendant, NO. C09-1485 RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Class Counsel are:

         Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
         Karin B. Swope, Esq.
         David J. Ko, Esq.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Tel: (206) 623-1900
         Fax: (206) 623-3384
         E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                 kswope@kellerrohrback.com
                 dko@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

         Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
         Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
         Whitney R. Case, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West
         Washington, DC 20005-3964
         Tel: (202) 408-4600
         Fax: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                 vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
                 wcase@cohenmilstein.com

According to the July 2010 Amended Consolidated Class Complaint,
the Additional Plaintiffs' Counsel are:

         Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
         FELGOISE LAW FIRM
         261 Old York Rd., Suite 518
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         Telephone: (215) 886-1900
         Facsimile: (215) 886-1909
         E-mail: felgoiselaw@verizon.net

              - and -

         Roy Jacobs, Esq.
         ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
         One Grand Central Place
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 867-1156
         Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
         E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

Attorneys for Intelius, Inc and Intelius Sales, LLC, are:

          Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., Esq.
          Chris Wion, Esq.
          Tyler Farmer, Esq.
          DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON, LLP
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-1700
          E-mail: arthurw@dhlt.com
                  tylerf@dhlt.com

Attorneys for Adaptive Marketing LLC are:

          Cori Gordon Moore, Esq.
          Thomas L. Boeder, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, 40th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98101
          E-mail: cgmoore@perkinscoie.com
                  tboeder@perkinscoie.com


LG ELECTRONICS: "Perrotta" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned LISA PERROTTA, and MICHAEL PERROTTA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG
ELECTRONICS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10
(presently known [sic] individuals, partnerships, companies,
and/or other entities), Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-246 (JLL)
(MAH), (D. N.J.).

This matter came before the Court by way of Defendant LG
Electronics USA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second
amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The Court grants the defendant's Motion and dismisses the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's August 15, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/nXK5aUfrom Leagle.com.

LISA PERROTTA, Plaintiff, is represented by:

   ANDREW P. BELL, Esq.
   MICHAEL A. GALPERN, Esq.
   LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
   457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
   Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

MICHAEL PERROTTA, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW P. BELL, LOCKS
LAW FIRM LLC & MICHAEL A. GALPERN, LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC.

LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, represented by MARK M.
ROTTENBERG -- mrottenberg@rlrpclaw.com -- at ROTTENBERG LIPMAN
RICH, PC & THOMAS J. HALL -- thall@chadbourne.com -- at CHADBOURNE
& PARKE LLP.


LIVE NATION: Parties Have Yet to Present Ticketing Fee Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit over ticketing fees have yet
to present their revised settlement to the court for preliminary
approval, according to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's Web site
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees.  The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present.  The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.  In
March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with
the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification
order.  In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification
order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for
Writ of Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and
second claims.  In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior
Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to
Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein.  In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form.  Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
approved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval.  The parties have agreed in principal on
the terms of a revised settlement and intend to present those
terms to the court for preliminary approval upon execution of a
long-form settlement agreement.  Ticketmaster and its parent, Live
Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability
in connection with the matter.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company has accrued $35.4 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement.  This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.

Based in Beverly Hills, California, Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc. -- http://www.livenation.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware
in 2005 in preparation for the contribution and transfer by Clear
Channel Communications, Inc. of substantially all of its
entertainment assets and liabilities.  The Company's reportable
segments are Concerts, which involves the global promotion of live
music events; Ticketing, which is primarily an agency business
that sells tickets for events; Artist Nation, which primarily
provides management services to music artists; and Sponsorship &
Advertising, which employs a sales force that creates and
maintains relationships with sponsors.


LONDON DRUGS: Recalls Indoor Hanging Chairs
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 10, 2013
Posting date:             September 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35549

Affected products: Indoor Hanging Chairs

The recall involves two London Drugs indoor hanging chairs.  The
product is a single weave basket-type chair that comes with two
cushions and a steel frame.  The chairs involved in this recall
are identified by model numbers AF9840 (dark grey wicker) and
AF9864 (PE wicker).

The chairs may become unbalanced and tip when swung beyond certain
tolerances, posing a fall hazard.

London Drugs has received four reports of falls involving the
chairs at their retail locations.

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

Approximately 1,247 units of the recalled chairs were sold at
London Drugs stores in western Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  Model number
AF9840 was sold from February 20, 2012 to February 16, 2013.
Model number AF9864 was sold from June 15, 2012 to August 12,
2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     London Drugs Limited
                  Richmond
                  British Columbia
                  Canada

Consumers should stop using these chairs immediately and return
them to a London Drugs customer service counter for a refund.


LYFT: Faces Class Action for Driver Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------
KQED News reports that pink-mustachioed ride-share firm Lyft is
facing a federal class-action lawsuit from drivers who say they're
being misclassified as independent contractors and that the
company improperly takes a cut of the "gratuity" passengers give
drivers.  Lyft is the second of the new wave ride-sharing services
to face a class-action suit.  Last month, a suit was filed against
Uber, targeting the company's policy on tips.

Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and other ride-share services argue that,
unlike traditional cab companies with an employed labor force,
their only products are apps, and their only function is to
connect drivers to passengers.  Drivers provide their own cars and
gas, and their own insurance policies (though the ride-share
services provide additional coverage for excess liability).

In its story on the Lyft lawsuit, filed in federal court in
San Francisco, SF Weekly reports that plaintiffs argue drivers are
company employees and should be protected by the California Labor
Code.  The story continues:

[The suit says] Lyft should be prohibited from skimming 20 percent
from drivers' gratuities, and it should provide wage statements
that accurately reflect the number of hours that each driver
worked.  It should also reimburse drivers for mileage . . .

The suit demands $4.5 million in classwide damages, based on
calculations that most drivers average $15 per tip, and Lyft
filches 20 percent of that.

The plaintiffs and their S.F.-based lawyer, Matthew Carlson, are
also seeking an estimated $2 million in derelict wage statements,
and $4.5 million in mileage costs for the 1.5 million Lyft rides
that have occurred so far.

Lyft described the legal action against the company as "without
merit."  Uber dismissed the suit it's facing as "frivolous."

The ride-share industry has exploded in the last year.  Uber alone
now operates in 40 cities across the country.  It recently raised
$258 million in funding from Google Ventures and TPG Capital,
valuing the company at $3.5 billion.  It also hired away high-
profile executives from Google, Facebook and Klout.

The California Public Utilities Commission proposed a set of rules
for ride-share companies -- insurance requirements, driver
background checks and drug tests, among other proposals. . The
CPUC also put ride-share companies under a new legal label:
transportation network companies, or TNCs -- not taxis.  It is
scheduled to vote on the proposal Sept. 19.


MF GLOBAL: Workers Appeal Dismissal of WARN Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that workers who said they
were terminated without proper warning after MF Global Holdings
Ltd. went bankrupt in 2011 said on Sept. 6 they are challenging a
New York bankruptcy judge's dismissal of their Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act class action.

The former employees filed a notice of appeal in bankruptcy court
taking aim at U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn's Aug. 23 ruling
that threw out their second amended complaint with prejudice, and
faulted the plaintiffs for relying on the "single employer"
doctrine instead of identifying which specific MF Global entity
employed them.

Pepper Hamilton's Robert Hertzberg -- hertzbergr@pepperlaw.com --
an attorney for Louis Freeh, the Chapter 11 trustee for MF Global
Holdings, MF Global Finance USA Inc. and MF Global Holdings USA
Inc., told Law360 on Sept. 6 that he was confident about Judge
Glenn's ruling's prospects for standing up on appeal.

"I think we had strong grounds that supported the dismissal by the
[bankruptcy] court, and I believe the appellate court will uphold
this dismissal," said Mr. Hertzberg.

The plaintiffs brought claims under the federal WARN Act, which
requires most employers with 100 or more workers to give 60 days'
notice before a plant closing or mass layoffs, as well as New York
state law WARN corollary.  They said more than 1,000 MF Global
workers were laid off without any notice in Nov. 11.

The workers' most recent complaint was filed in the aftermath of a
ruling last year that said MF Global Inc. -- the broker-dealer
where the Chapter 11 trustee said the five plaintiffs worked --
couldn't be sued under the WARN Act.

That October ruling nixed the plaintiffs' claims against MF Global
Inc. with prejudice, but left the door open for the workers to
amend their complaint against MF Global Holdings and other MF
Global debtor-defendants and fill in blanks such as where the
plaintiffs worked and who gave them notices of termination.

The amended complaint they subsequently filed in November still
wasn't up to snuff, Judge Glenn said.  Instead of complying with
the court's directive that the plaintiffs identify the entity
which employed each of them, they argued that the single employer
doctrine made the remaining MF Global defendants liable no matter
which the plaintiffs actually worked for, the order said.

"Rather than amending the complaint as directed by the court,
plaintiffs' counsel chose instead to rely on the 'single employer'
doctrine that cannot apply in the circumstances present in this
case," Judge Glenn wrote.

If a parent of affiliate company decides to shut down a business,
it maybe appropriate to extend liability to that affiliate or
parent pursuant to the single employer doctrine, but that makes no
sense for a broker-dealer like MF Global Inc. that's subject to
the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, the judge found.

In this case, the Securities Investor Protection Corp. -- which
was established by SIPA and steps in to get money back to
investors when brokerage firms go belly-up -- launched the
proceeding that led to the liquidation of MF Global Inc.

In a scenario like this, there is no basis for extending WARN
liability to other members of the corporate family because the job
losses that would otherwise trigger WARN liability stemmed from
the commencement of SIPA liquidation proceedings, Judge Glenn
said.

MF Global entered bankruptcy in October 2011 listing around $40
billion in liabilities shortly after $1.6 billion belonging to the
commodity customers of its broker-dealer unit went missing.  Judge
Glenn approved its liquidation plan in April.

Attorneys for the WARN plaintiffs were not immediately available
for comment on Sept. 6.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jack A. Raisner and Rene S.
Roupinian of Outten & Golden LLP, Charles Ercole --
cercole@klehr.com -- and Jeffrey Kurtzman -- jkurtzman@klehr.com
-- of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP and Mary Olsen and
Stuart Miller of Lankenau & Miller LLP.

Freeh is represented by Robert S. Hertzberg and James D.
VandeWyngearde -- vandewyj@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton
LLP.

The case is Thielmann et al. v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al.,
case number 1:11-ap-02880, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Chapter 11 case is In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al., case
number 1:11-bk-15059, and the SIPA case is In re: MF Global Inc.,
case number 1:11-ap-02790, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Court Junks Motion to Dismiss "Rock" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson issued an order denying a
motion to dismiss the case captioned JOHN ROCK, Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. 1:12-CV-
1019-JMS-DKL, (S.D. Ind.).

The National Collegiate Athletic Association filed the motion to
dismiss, arguing that John Rock's Second Amended Complaint is
insufficient as a matter of law.

According to Judge Magnus-Stinson, this is the third time that the
Court has ruled on the sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint
challenging two NCAA bylaws at issue -- the prohibition on multi-
year scholarships and the cap on the number of allowable
scholarships.

"This is the first time, however, that the Court concludes that
the complaint at issue pleads the rough contours of a relevant
market that is plausible on its face and in which anticompetitive
effects of the challenged regulations could be felt. This ruling
should not be read too broadly. The burdens at the subsequent
stages of litigation are significantly higher than they are in
opposing a motion to dismiss, and Mr. Rock may struggle to
identify admissible evidence to support some of the allegations
that the Court was required to accept as true for purposes of
ruling on the NCAA's motion. Nevertheless, because Mr. Rock has
alleged sufficient factual allegations to support an antitrust
claim that is plausible on its face, the Court denies the NCAA's
motion to dismiss," ruled Judge Magnus-Stinson.

Mr. Rock's motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(d) to exclude a portion of the NCAA's reply brief or convert to
motion for summary judgment and allow discovery is granted in
part.

Because the Court did not feel that oral argument was necessary to
reach these conclusions, the NCAA's Motion for Oral Argument was
denied.  The Court asked the Magistrate Judge to hold a status
conference with the parties at her earliest convenience to
establish a case management plan.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Z035Nhfrom Leagle.com.

JOHN ROCK, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan --
beth@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Joseph N.
Williams -- jwilliams@price-law.com -- at PRICE WAICUKAUSKI &
RILEY, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart McKinley Paynter -- stuart@smplegal.com
-- at The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & William N. Riley --
wriley@price-law.com -- at PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented
by Gregory L. Curtner -- gcurtner@schiffhardin.com -- at SCHIFF
HARDIN, LLP, Jessica A. Sprovstoff -- jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com
-- at SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Kathy Lynn Osborn --
kathy.osborn@faegrebd.com -- at FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Kimberly
K. Kefalas -- kkefalas@schiffhardin.com -- at SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP,
Robert James Wierenga -- rwierenga@schiffhardin.com -- at SCHIFF
HARDIN, LLP & Suzanne L. Wahl -- swahl@schiffhardin.com -- at
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP.


NEW YORK: Davis Ruling Paves Way for Stop-and-Frisk Trials
----------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reports that Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal
District Court in Manhattan made the right decision when she
granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by public housing
residents and visitors who say they were illegally stopped or
arrested by the police in their buildings.

The ruling in Davis v. the City of New York clears the way for a
trial in one of three federal class-action suits challenging
different aspects of the New York Police Department's stop-and-
frisk program, under which hundreds of thousands of times a year
people are detained, often while doing nothing wrong.

Judge Scheindlin, who oversees all three cases, has issued a
blistering series of rulings making it clear that many police
stops in New York City violate the Fourth Amendment.  Courts have
long ruled that police officers can legally stop and detain a
person only when they have reasonable suspicion that the person is
committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime.

Earlier this year, in Ligon v. City of New York, Judge Scheindlin
excoriated the Police Department for persisting in making illegal
stops and arrests outside private apartment buildings -- even
after prosecutors had pointed out that they were wrongful.  Last
month, she ruled in Floyd v. City of New York that street-stop
tactics violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens
who were disproportionately singled out.  She also appointed an
independent monitor who will be responsible for reforming Police
Department practices.

The city has sometimes tried to deny that the Police Department
has an actual stop-and-frisk program.  But the judge points out in
the Davis case that police training materials actually direct
officers to approach and question people in New York City Housing
Authority buildings "without reasonable suspicion of trespass, and
to arrest for trespass those who fail to leave or affirmatively
establish their right" to be present in a building.

The Housing Authority's population is larger than most cities. It
houses more than 400,000 New Yorkers in more than 330 developments
spread around the five boroughs.

In certifying the class action, Judge Scheindlin said that the
police policy has led to "large numbers of apparently unjustified
trespass arrests," and testimony presented thus far supported the
inference that many of the Housing Authority's black or Hispanic
residents had been "impeded in coming and going freely from their
homes and having guests."

One resident, the president of a public housing leadership group,
testified that life for families harassed by stop-and-frisk
policies in their own apartment buildings was like life in a
"penal colony."

Beyond being illegal, abusive stop-and-frisk practices have made
law enforcement even more difficult by causing law-abiding people
to be deeply wary of the police.  Instead of appealing these
cases, the next mayor needs to bring department policy in line
with the Constitution.


NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. OTDA, HRA
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court of New York County denied
respondent Robert Doar's motion to dismiss the proceeding: In the
Matter of the Application of QUANISHA SMITH, Petitioner, For a
Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules, v. ELIZABETH BERLIN, as Executive Deputy
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, and ROBERT DOAR, as Administrator of the
New York City Human Resources Administration, and BQNY PROPERTIES,
LLC, Respondents.

Judge Billings ruled that the proceeding will proceed as a class
action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plus attorneys'
fees.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 15, 2013 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/jYXmbzfrom Leagle.com.

Lester Helfman, Esq., Legal Aid Society, 111 Livingston Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, Susan Jacquemot, Esq. --
sjacquemot@kramerlevin.com -- and Matthew B. Moses Esq. --
mmoses@kramerlevin.com -- at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP,
1177 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10036, For Petitioner and
Intervenor.

Stephanie A. Feinberg, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, New
York City Human Resources Administration, 180 Water Street, New
York, NY 10038, For Respondent Doar.

Domenic Turziano, Assistant Attorney General, 120 Broadway, New
York, NY 10271, For Respondent Berlin.


OFFICEMAX INC: Has Yet to Finalize Settlement of Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Incorporated has yet to finalize its settlement of
merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, OfficeMax entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Office Depot, Inc.
("Office Depot"), Dogwood Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned direct
subsidiary of Office Depot ("Merger Sub Two"), Dogwood Merger Sub
LLC, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Office Depot ("Merger Sub
Three"), Mapleby Holdings Merger Corporation, a wholly owned
direct subsidiary of OfficeMax ("New OfficeMax"), and Mapleby
Merger Corporation, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of New
OfficeMax ("Merger Sub One"), pursuant to which, through a series
of transactions, OfficeMax will become an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Office Depot and OfficeMax stockholders will become
stockholders of Office Depot.  Upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) Merger Sub One
will be merged with and into OfficeMax (the "First Merger"), and
OfficeMax will continue as the surviving corporation and become a
wholly owned subsidiary of New OfficeMax, (ii) OfficeMax will be
converted into a Delaware limited liability company (the "LLC
Conversion"), (iii) Merger Sub Two will be merged with and into
New OfficeMax (the "Second Merger"), and New OfficeMax will
continue as the surviving corporation and become a wholly owned
subsidiary of Office Depot, and (iv) New OfficeMax will be merged
with and into Merger Sub Three (the "Third Merger" and, together
with the First Merger, the LLC Conversion and the Second Merger,
the "Merger Transactions"), and Merger Sub Three will continue as
the surviving limited liability company.  Upon completion of the
Transactions, OfficeMax will be a wholly owned direct subsidiary
of Merger Sub Three, and Merger Sub Three, in turn, will be a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of Office Depot.  The First Merger
and the LLC Conversion, taken together, and the Second Merger and
the Third Merger, taken together, are each intended to constitute
a "reorganization" within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

As previously disclosed, eight putative class action lawsuits
challenging the Merger Transactions were filed on behalf of a
putative class consisting of OfficeMax stockholders.

Six lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois (the "State Court"):
(i) Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case
Number 2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH000776),
filed on February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al.
(Case Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The
Feivel & Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14,
2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant, et al. (Case Number
2013CH1107), filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v.
OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed
on March 29, 2013.  The actions have been consolidated in Venkata
S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number
2013L000188) (the "State Action").  A consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed in the State Action on April 25, 2013.

Two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) Eric
Hollander v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-
03330), filed on May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas and Beverly DeFabio
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03385),
filed on May 6, 2013 (the "Federal Actions").

The State Action and the Federal Actions named OfficeMax, Office
Depot and the directors of OfficeMax, among others, as defendants.
Each of the lawsuits was brought by a purported holder or holders
of OfficeMax common stock, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of OfficeMax stockholders.  The lawsuits generally
alleged, among other things, that the directors of OfficeMax
breached their fiduciary duties to OfficeMax stockholders by
agreeing to a transaction with inadequate and unfair consideration
and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process.  The lawsuits
further allege that OfficeMax and Office Depot, among others,
aided and abetted the OfficeMax directors in the breach of their
fiduciary duties.  In addition, the lawsuits alleged that the
disclosure in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of
OfficeMax and Office Depot filed with the SEC on June 10, 2013,
was inadequate.

OfficeMax believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure was required to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate
the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation,
on June 25, 2013, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") regarding the
settlement of the State Action and the Federal Actions.  The
Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the State Action and the Federal
Actions.  In consideration for such settlement and release, the
parties to the State Action and the Federal Actions agreed that
OfficeMax and Office Depot would make certain supplemental
disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus, which
OfficeMax made in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC
on June 27, 2013.  The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates
that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon
a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the State Court for
approval at the earliest practicable time.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the State Court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement.  The stipulation
of settlement will provide that OfficeMax (or its successors in
interest) will pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to approval by the State
Court, in the amount of $0.7 million, following dismissal of both
the State Action and the Federal Actions with prejudice.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the State Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, or if the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and
effect.

OfficeMax Incorporated -- http://www.officemax.com/-- is a leader
in both business-to-business and retail office products
distribution.  The Naperville, Illinois-based Company provides
office supplies and paper, print and document services, technology
products, solutions and office furniture and facilities products
to large, medium and small businesses, government offices and
consumers.


RESERVE PRIMARY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $54.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that money market
pioneer Bruce Bent and others involved in the management of
Reserve Primary Fund have reached a settlement worth at least
$54.5 million in a shareholder lawsuit stemming from the fund's
collapse at the height of the financial crisis.

The accord, disclosed in papers filed late on Sept. 6 in U.S.
District Court in Manhattan, comes less than two weeks before the
five-year anniversary of when the one-time $62 billion fund "broke
the buck" after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

"We are very pleased to have reached this hard-fought settlement,
which is an excellent result for investors," said John Browne --
johnb@blbglaw.com -- a lawyer for the investors.

The class action lawsuit was filed soon after Reserve Primary Fund
disclosed on September 16, 2008, that its net asset value fell
below $1 per share.

The drop followed losses incurred on more than $785 million in
investments in commercial paper and other debt issued by Lehman,
which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection the day
before.

It was the first time in more than a decade that a money market
mutual fund had "broke the buck."  Those types of funds are
designed to maintain a constant $1 per share net asset value.

The fund subsequently entered into liquidation.  The U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission meanwhile sued Bent, his son
Bruce Bent II, and two Reserve corporate entities, accusing them
of making false statements to investors.

A federal jury in November 2012 cleared the senior Bent on all
charges.  Bruce Bent II was cleared of violating securities fraud
laws but was found liable for a single negligent violation.

The jury found two of the Bents' companies, Reserve Management Co.
Inc. and Resrv Partners Inc., liable of violating securities laws
as well.

The class action, which was led by Third Avenue Institutional
International Value Fund LP, named as defendants both Bents as
well as Arthur Bent III, another of the senior Bent's sons, and
three corporate entities including Reserve Management Co.

U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in September 2012 dismissed
claims under state law and the Investment Company Act, but allowed
various claims the defendants violated other federal securities
laws to move forward.

Mr. Browne, a partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
said the settlement if approved by Judge Gardephe will "ensure the
prompt distribution to shareholders of substantial amounts of
shareholder money that has been withheld from investors, and
steadily depleted, for nearly five years."

As part of the class action settlement, the defendants will pay
$10 million in cash to investors in the Reserve Primary Fund,
which will be bring the fund's assets to $107 million.

The defendants, who continue to deny wrongdoing, will also give up
more than $42 million of $72 million in claims they had asserted
for indemnification, expenses and management fees against a court-
ordered expense fund established to provide money to pay
operational expenses of the Reserve Primary Fund.

As part of the accord, the defendants also will release claims
against State Street Corp., allowing $2.5 million that the court
previously ordered held back to be distributed to shareholders.

Richard Mahoney, a spokesman for the Bents, said they were pleased
to bring the case to a close.  He said investors in Reserve
Primary Fund have already received more than 99 percent of their
investment from 2008.

"This class action settlement ensures they will receive even
more," Mr. Mahoney said.

Under the settlement, up to $4 million in the court-ordered
expense fund will be held back to cover future defense costs for
the Bents and other defendants in the SEC lawsuit and other
litigation.

The Bents and other defendants will meanwhile release claims
against the independent trustees of Reserve Primary Fund for
misappropriation of fund assets.  A lawyer for the trustee did not
immediately respond to a request for comment after normal business
hours on Sept. 6.

Lawyers for the investors will also apply for up to $5 million in
attorneys fees and reimbursement of $250,000 in expenses,
according to court papers.

The case is In re The Reserve Primary Fund Securities & Derivative
Class Action Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan), No. 08-8060.


Managed by Reserve Management Company, Inc., the Reserve Primary
Fund is a large money market mutual fund that is currently in
liquidation.  On Sept. 16, 2008, during the global financial
crisis, it lowered its share price below $1 because of exposure to
Lehman Brothers debt securities.  This resulted in demands from
investors to return their funds as the financial crisis mounted.
The Reserve had multiple other funds frozen because of this
failure.


RESTAURANT.COM: Class Action Looms Over Expiry Dates in Coupons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loop North News reports that as a class action lawsuit looms for
Restaurant.com, the online seller of restaurant coupons -- that is
owned by two River North residents -- is serving as an example of
what not to do for any business offering gift cards and
certificates.

On July 9, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided against the
Arlington Heights, Illinois company in a complaint over expiration
dates on gift certificates the company sold that have conflicted
with state laws, including laws in New Jersey and Illinois, which
define how long a gift certificate must be valid.

The decision clears the way for a class action lawsuit to resume
against Restaurant.com, owned by Dr. Kenneth Chessick and his
wife, Ellen Chessick (right), who is president of the condo board
at Marina City.  The case could affect thousands of consumers who
purchased gift certificates from RDC between 2006 and 2010.

Although they currently do not expire at all, for four years
starting on April 4, 2006, Restaurant.com coupons expired one year
from the date they were issued, according to the fine print,
"except in California and where otherwise provided by law."

A lawyer in Cincinnati who is also a columnist says the case
should be a caution for any business offering coupons online.
Writing in his Strictly Legal column for a Gannett-owned news
site, Jack Greiner says fine print such as "void where prohibited"
is not good enough.

"Sellers have to be more specific and tell consumers if a
particular provision is void in the Garden State," says
Mr. Greiner, referring to New Jersey.  "Suffice it to say,
Restaurant.com didn't make the necessary disclosure."

Reacting to its state's Supreme Court ruling, an insurance agency
in New Jersey is advising its business customers not to put an
expiration date on gift cards and certificates.  In a recent news
release, Clarke Insurance Agency offered tips to minimize the risk
of a lawsuit.

"Understand that a gift card transaction online must include all
the features of a contract, such as an offer, acceptance,
consideration, and performance by both parties."

Complaints to Illinois AG are from restaurants, not customers

Meanwhile, the Illinois Attorney General's office says it has
received 19 complaints about Restaurant.com since 2004.  While
this is a fraction of the 560 complaints filed against RDC with
the Better Business Bureau in the past three years, what makes the
complaints with the Attorney General unique is that most of them
are not from consumers buying coupons but from businesses that
signed up to allow RDC to offer coupons to their restaurants.

The most recent complaint, filed on April 19, 2013 by the owner of
a small seasonal restaurant in Sycamore, Illinois, west of
Chicago, claims RDC "aggressively" called him to advertise on its
website.  While he said he was interested, he also said he would
have to wait until after tax season.

"The next thing I know," writes the owner, "three customers are at
my store with coupons they purchased on the Restaurant.com
website."

He emailed, then called the company and was told they could not
cancel the service without first checking with their sales staff.
His restaurant, says the owner, "is just a small business in the
county and I cannot afford this, nor do I have the time for this
ridiculous behavior."

Another Restaurant.com advertiser says he tried to get RDC to stop
listing his restaurant but was told he would first have to
participate in an "exit interview."  For four weeks, the owner
said he tried to arrange such an interview but RDC would not
return calls and emails.

Still another restaurant owner says he agreed to participate but
told Restaurant.com he would be closed for about seven months.
Shortly after speaking with an agent, the owner says RDC started
issuing coupons to his closed restaurant.

"Repeated complaints to this unscrupulous outfit forced me to
engage [an] attorney," the owner wrote in his complaint.

Ellen Chessick has not responded to requests for comment.


RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Setback in Engle Progeny Tobacco Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. experienced another legal setback on
Sept. 6 when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the company's
right to due process was not violated in two Engle progeny cases
in Florida.

The Engle cases have been scrutinized since they sprang from a
decision in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court that decertified a
class-action lawsuit initially filed by Howard Engle.  That ruling
allowed former class members to file individual lawsuits stating
that cigarettes caused their respective illnesses.

About 8,000 plaintiffs have cases pending in Florida courts.

Reynolds' attorneys have argued that the jury verdicts should be
overturned because Florida judges aren't making plaintiffs prove
cigarette makers knowingly sold dangerous and defective products,
as well as having to identify individual cigarette brands.

People suing cigarette companies only have to prove addiction, and
that their illnesses, or deaths of family members, were caused by
cigarettes.  In many Engle cases, the jury places a percentage of
the blame for the smoker's death on the individual and a
percentage on the tobacco manufacturer.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor Jr. said in his opinion that
Reynolds "had a full and fair opportunity to be heard in the
Florida class action and the application of res judicata under
Florida law does not cause an arbitrary deprivation of property."

Reynolds said it is requesting rehearing of the case before the
entire Circuit Court and is willing to take the case for review
before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are disappointed that the court rejected our constitutional
arguments," said Jeff Raborn, assistant general counsel for
Reynolds.

"It is both unfair and unprecedented to impose liability unless
and until some jury has actually decided all of the facts on which
liability depends, and we continue to believe that it is
impossible to determine whether the earlier Florida jury in fact
made those decisions."

"The company is still awaiting a decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court in a similar case (Douglas v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.)."

The circuit court's decision affected cases involving the families
of Sarah Duke and Albert Walker.

The District Court jury in the Duke case allocated 75 percent of
the liability and negligence belong to Duke and 25 percent to
Reynolds, entering a judgment of $7,676 against Reynolds.

The jury in the Walker case allocated 90 percent of the liability
and negligence belong to Walker and 10 percent to Reynolds,
entering a judgment of $27,500 against Reynolds.

The "ruling makes it even more unlikely that the U.S. Supreme
Court will consider the tobacco companies' appeal of the Douglas
ruling in March by the Supreme Court of Florida," said Ed Sweda, a
senior lawyer for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at
Northeastern University School of Law.

Twice in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Reynolds'
appeal of a multimillion-dollar jury award.  In each case, the
company had no further legal recourse.  The company set aside $64
million in charges related to the Engle cases in 2011.  It faced
combined awards of at least $53 million in 2012.

Analysts say that as manufacturers absorb more multimillion-dollar
jury awards, they may be compelled to pursue a multibillion-dollar
settlement in the Engle cases similar to the landmark 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement of $206 billion over 25 years.

Since the participating Master Settlement Agreement states have
become increasingly dependent on tobacco excise taxes, the
likelihood of more successful individual litigation may compel the
states to push for an Engle settlement that keeps the
manufacturers in business and preserves their MSA revenue stream.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Attorneys May Claim Up to $24.8-Mil. in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Humboldt County approved
payments from the settlement escrow in the Humboldt County
Litigation of up to $24.8 million for attorneys' fees and costs
and $10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs, according to
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of the class
action litigation against Skilled and certain of its subsidiaries
related to, among other matters, alleged understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries (the "Humboldt County Action"), Skilled and its
defendant subsidiaries (collectively, the "Defendants") entered
into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs and intervenor and
agreed to an injunction.  The settlement was approved by the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County on November 30,
2010.  Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant
entities deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts
to cover settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise.  Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million was initially released by the court to the Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the
State of California for their release of the Defendants.  The
remaining $4.0 million was available for the settlement and
releases by the California Attorney General and certain other
District Attorneys.  However, in the event that any of these
government authorities were to instead file certain actions
against the Defendants by the second anniversary of the effective
date of the settlement agreement, which occurred in February 2013,
the entire $4.0 million would have reverted to the Defendants upon
their request to the Settlement Administrator.  No such actions
were filed, however, resulting in an additional $1.0 million
distribution to the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and
the remaining $3.0 million being distributed to the class
settlement fund, as required by the settlement agreement.

In addition to the payments to the Humboldt County Treasurer-Tax
Collector on behalf of the People of the State of California, the
court also approved payments from the escrow of up to
approximately $24.8 million for attorneys' fees and costs and
$10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs.  Pursuant to the
injunction, the twenty-two Defendants that operated California
nursing facilities were required to provide specified nurse
staffing levels, comply with specified state and federal
regulations governing staffing levels and posting requirements,
and provide reports and information to a court-appointed auditor.
The injunction was to remain in effect for a period of twenty-four
months unless extended for additional three-month periods as to
those Defendants that may be found in violation.  The Defendants
demonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period that ended
September 30, 2012, were permitted to petition for early
termination of the injunction.  The Defendants were required to
demonstrate over the term of the injunction that the costs of the
injunction met a minimum threshold level pursuant to the
settlement agreement, which level, initially $9.6 million, was
reduced by the portion attributable to any Defendant in the case
that no longer operated a skilled nursing facility during the
injunction period.

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare
Group, Inc., is a holding company that owns subsidiary companies
that in turn own and operate long-term care facilities and provide
a wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic
emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care.  The Company
operates facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada,
Nebraska, New Mexico and Texas, including skilled nursing
facilities, which offer sub-acute care, rehabilitative, specialty
healthcare, and skilled nursing care, and assisted living
facilities, which provide room and board and assistance with
activities of daily living.


TIPTREE FINANCIAL: "Curran" Class Suit vs. Parent Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving Tiptree Financial Inc.'s then-
parent was dismissed in May 2013, according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On December 31, 2012, Tiptree Financial Partners, L.P. (the
Partnership) entered into an agreement (the Contribution
Agreement) to combine its businesses with the business of its
majority-owned subsidiary, Care Investment Trust Inc. (Care), to
form a financial services operating company that will hold and
manage their combined assets and liabilities.

On July 1, 2013 (the Closing Date), the Partnership completed the
transaction between Tiptree and Care.  In connection with the
closing of the transaction, Care changed its name to "Tiptree
Financial Inc." and remains a public company.

In an action entitled Carol B. Curran et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AGL Life Assurance
Company, et al, Case No. 2009CV907, the plaintiffs filed a class
action in August 2009 in the District Court of Boulder County,
Colorado against Philadelphia Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries
Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company (PFLAC),
Philadelphia Financial Distribution Company, and Joseph A. Fillip,
Jr., Philadelphia Financial's Executive Vice President and General
Counsel (the AGL Defendants), and other parties.  Philadelphia
Financial Group is a subsidiary of Tiptree.  The Plaintiffs
asserted various claims under Colorado statutory and common law,
including state securities act claims, breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent omission.

On March 15, 2013, the court granted its preliminary approval to a
class settlement of the proceeding.  On May 28, 2013, the court
held a final hearing to approve the settlement.  On May 29, 2013,
the court adopted the proposed order approving the settlement and
dismissing the case.  The Phoenix Companies (from whom Tiptree
acquired Philadelphia Financial) has agreed to indemnify
Philadelphia Financial in connection with this litigation.

Tiptree Financial Inc., formerly known as Care Investment Trust
Inc., is an equity real estate investment trust that invests in
healthcare facilities including assisted-living, independent-
living, memory care, skilled nursing and other healthcare and
seniors-related real estate assets in the United States of
America.  The Company was incorporated in Maryland in 2007 is
headquartered in New York.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Antitrust Suit Trial to Start Aug. 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in an antitrust class action lawsuit involving TravelCenters
of America LLC will begin on August 4, 2014, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add TravelCenters of America LLC (TA or the Company)
as a defendant, which was allowed on March 25, 2010.  The amended
complaint also added as defendants Ceridian Corporation, Pilot
Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.
Comdata markets fuel cards which are used for payments by trucking
companies at truck stops.  The amended complaint alleged antitrust
violations arising out of Comdata's contractual relationships with
truck stops in connection with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs
have sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  On
March 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the claims against TA in the
amended complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file a new
amended complaint.  Four independent truck stop owners, as
plaintiffs, filed a new amended complaint against the Company on
April 21, 2011, repleading their claims.  On May 6, 2011, the
Company renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice
while discovery otherwise proceeded.  The Court denied the
Company's renewed motion to dismiss on March 29, 2012, and the
Company filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2012.  The
Court has set a schedule that provides that trial shall begin on
August 4, 2014.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against the Company.  The
Company cannot estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or
liability, if any, related to this lawsuit, but the continued
costs to defend this case could be significant.

TravelCenters of America LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/--
operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Westlake, Ohio-based Company
offers a broad range of products and services, including diesel
fuel and gasoline, truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, more than 20 different brands of quick serve
restaurants, travel and convenience stores and various driver
amenities.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Orders in Fuel Temperature Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC is awaiting court decisions on
pending motions in lawsuits related to fuel temperature, according
to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the Company's predecessor and the Company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleges that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  A third theory, advanced more
recently in connection with plaintiffs' request for class
certification, alleges that all purchasers of fuel at any
temperature are harmed because the defendants do not use equipment
that adjusts for temperature or disclose the temperature of fuel
being sold, and thereby deprive customers of information they
allegedly require to make an informed purchasing decision.

The Company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel"
lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek nonmonetary relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to install devices that
display the temperature of the fuel and/or temperature correcting
equipment on their retail fuel pumps and monetary relief in the
form of damages, but the plaintiffs have not quantified the
damages they seek.  The "tax" cases also seek monetary relief.
The Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the Company
disputes) to measure these damages as the difference between the
amount of fuel excise taxes paid by defendants and the amount
collected by defendants on motor fuel sales.  The Plaintiffs have
taken the position in filings with the Court that under this
approach, the Company's damages for an eight-year period for one
state would be approximately $10.7 million.  The Company denies
liability and disagrees with the plaintiffs' positions.

All of these cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to multi-district
litigation procedures.  On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that,
with respect to two cases originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief
(implementation of fuel temperature equipment and/or posting of
notices regarding the effect of temperature on fuel).  On
January 19, 2012, the Court amended its prior ruling, and
certified a class with respect to plaintiffs' claims for damages
as well.  A TravelCenters of America LLC (TA) entity was named in
one of those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  TA
was thereafter dismissed from the Kansas case, and TA entities
have been dismissed voluntarily from several other cases as well.
Several defendants in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum
refiners, have entered into multi-state settlements.

Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining defendants
in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in
the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-jury claim.  In early
2013, the Court announced its intention to remand three cases
originally filed in federal district courts in California back to
their original courts.  A TA entity is named in one of these three
California cases.  Recently, the Court severed one defendant from
these California cases and announced that the cases would proceed
with respect to that defendant, and would be stayed as to all
others, including TA.

On April 9, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the California cases.  The class is limited to
the "liability" and injunctive aspects of plaintiffs' claims,
leaving the question of relief in the form of damages for a second
phase of the trial.  The Court has not issued a decision on class
certification or motions for summary judgment with respect to the
remaining cases that have been consolidated in the multi-district
litigation.

The Company says it cannot estimate its ultimate exposure to loss
or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits, but, the
continued costs to defend these cases could be significant.

TravelCenters of America LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/--
operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.  The Westlake, Ohio-based Company
offers a broad range of products and services, including diesel
fuel and gasoline, truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, more than 20 different brands of quick serve
restaurants, travel and convenience stores and various driver
amenities.


VELTI PLC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Sept.6 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Velti plc on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from
January 27, 2011 through August 20, 2013.

Velti engages in the provision of mobile marketing and advertising
technology and solutions for brands, advertising agencies, mobile
operators, and media companies primarily in Europe, the Americas,
Asia, and Africa.

The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Velti's statements and reported financial results.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:

(1) that the Company was having difficulties collecting certain
receivables;

(2) that certain of the Company's receivables were uncollectible;

(3) that, as a result, the Company's revenues and receivables were
overstated during the Class Period;

(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and

(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
and reported financial results were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 20, 2013, the Company reported its 2013 fiscal second
quarter financial results and disclosed that the Company had made
the decision to write-down approximately $111 million to its trade
receivables and accrued contract receivables relating to its
enterprise business.  Moreover, the Company announced a "major
restructuring" of its business.  Furthermore, Velti announced that
revenue had decreased 47% to $31.2 million from the second quarter
2012. On this news, shares of Velti declined $0.66 per share, more
than 66%, to close at $0.34 per share on August 21, 2013 on
unusually heavy trading volume.  You may obtain a copy of the
Complaint and join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Velti stock between January 27, 2011 and August
20, 2013, you may contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com
-- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Velti common stock during the Class Period of
January 27, 2011 through August 20, 2013, and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than October 21, 2013.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.

Contact: Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Tel: (561) 394-3399
         Fax: (561) 394-3382
         E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Seeks to Block Vodafone Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dolmetsch, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Verizon
Communications Inc. shareholder sued to stop its acquisition of
Vodafone Group PLC's 45 per cent stake in Verizon Wireless for
$130 billion in what may be the first investor class action
stemming from the deal.

Natalie Gordon alleged in her complaint that the agreement is
"insufficient and inadequate" to shareholders of New York-based
Verizon, which Ms. Gordon says overpaid for the stake.  She seeks
group status for the lawsuit on behalf of all affected
shareholders.

"Verizon shareholders are being shortchanged and their investment
in Verizon will be diminished and diluted as a result of the stock
purchase agreement," Ms. Gordon said in the complaint, filed in
New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Verizon Communications earlier last week agreed to buy Vodafone's
stake in Verizon Wireless, seeking full control of the most
profitable U.S. mobile phone carrier in the biggest acquisition in
more than a decade.

"We believe this lawsuit is entirely without merit and Verizon
intends to defend itself vigorously," Randal S. Milch, executive
vice-president and general counsel for the company, said.

The deal, sought by Verizon since at least 2004, implies a total
value for Verizon Wireless of almost $290 billion -- larger than
the market capitalization of Google Inc. or the gross domestic
product of Singapore.

The wireless unit produces $21.8 billion in operating income a
year, all of which can now go into Verizon's coffers so it can
fund more network investments to take on mounting competition.
Vodafone can exit a business whose dividends and operations it
didn't control.  If completed at $130 billion, almost Verizon's
entire market value, the deal would be the biggest since
Vodafone's acquisition of MannesMann AG in 2000.

              Faruqi & Faruqi Represents Shareholder

Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that three days after
Verizon announced its $130 billion purchase of Vodafone's interest
in their Verizon Wireless joint venture, New York attorney Juan
Monteverde filed a thoroughly investigated, good-faith lawsuit in
New York challenging the deal.

In a 19-page complaint that draws heavily from materials easily
accessed on the Internet, the Faruqi & Faruqi partner lays out his
case that the officers and directors of Verizon abandoned their
fiduciary duty to shareholders and paid too much in the long-
debated takeover.  The evidence consists of an analyst's quote in
a Reuters story, Moody's downgrade of Verizon bonds after the
news, and the 10% drop in Verizon stock on the announcement of the
third-largest takeover in history.

Mr. Monteverde's studied conclusion: "It is evident that Verizon
has overpaid."

This is the kind of lawsuit you expect from Faruqi & Faruqi, who
dwell on the outer edges of the securities-litigation business and
rarely appear as lead attorneys in a major case.  But it also
strays into the realm of Anthony Weiner-like compulsive behavior,
in my opinion.  Mr. Monteverde has never been accused of sending
dirty tweets (although a former lawyer with his firm has leveled
extremely graphic sex-discrimination claims against him, which he
calls "false and defamatory").

But for lawyers like him, a deal this big simply can't go down
without a lawsuit attached to it, lamprey-like, sucking a tiny
fraction of the wealth coursing through the bank accounts of
Vodaphone, Verizon and the bankers and law firms that engineered
the transaction.  There's no way they can't sue.

The plaintiff is one Natalie Gordon, who is not unfamiliar with
the class-action game: Mr. Monteverde filed a number of suits on
behalf of a plaintiff with that name challenging Con Ed's
executive pay practices this year, and a plaintiff with that name
has appeared in federal class actions against Netflix, Harrah's
and other companies.

The Verizon lawsuit would be comical except for the cost it will
impose on Verizon shareholders, Mr. Monteverde's would-be clients.
Large sections are ripped verbatim from news reports and other
phrases can easily be Googled for their source material. (Entire
passages were taken from here and here.) He names  each of
Verizon's directors, as if management and independent directors
collectively colluded to drive down Verizon's stock and diminish
the value of their bonuses and stock holdings because -- well,
there is no explanation why they might have done this.  Just the
conclusory statement: "Verizon has overpaid."

Mr. Monteverde is seeking a judge's order blocking the transaction
until "the Company adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain a merger agreement providing fair terms for shareholders."
Oh, and reasonable attorneys' fees.  A lot of work went into this
complaint, and it deserves compensation.  A phone call and e-mail
to Monteverde weren't immediately answered.

"We believe this lawsuit is entirely without merit, and Verizon
intends to defend itself vigorously," Randal Milch, Verizon
executive vice president and general counsel, said in a statement
to Reuters.

Mr. Monteverde has been accused by former Faruqi lawyer Alexandra
Marchuk of repeatedly harassing the Vanderbilt Law grad during her
unhappy four-month stint at Faruqi & Faruqi, before finally
forcing drunken sex upon her.  This episode followed a frank
discussion in a nearby bar about her badly needed bonus,
Ms. Marchuk's suit says.  Mr. Monteverde calls her claims "false
and defamatory" and has returned fire with allegations that Ms.
Marchuk told her doctor the drunken sex was consensual and she
destroyed evidence that could be useful to Mr. Monteverde's
defense. In a puzzling twist, Mr. Monteverde also claims copies of
Ms. Marchuk's salacious lawsuit were e-mailed out of Faruqi &
Faruqi's offices the day it was filed.

That might indicate strife within the New York law firm, which was
founded by lawyers and self-described "first-generation
immigrants" Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi in 1995.  F&F doesn't have a
great reputation, even in the less-than-respectable securities
class-action business where two of the giants of the trade,
Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss, went to prison for paying plaintiffs to
sign off on their lawsuits.  As Above the Law reported earlier,
this exchange between Mr. Monteverde and Delaware Judge Judge
Travis Laster illustrates the testy relations that have developed
between Faruqi lawyers and the Delaware courts.

"I actually don't understand anything you just said," Mr. Laster
told Monteverde in a discussion about a Berkshire Hathaway suit.
"You said a lot of words, but none of them actually seem to cohere
into something that I could comprehend."


VITACOST.COM INC: "Miyahira" Plaintiffs Did Not Seek S.C. Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the dismissal of the class
action lawsuit titled Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., et al.,
passed on August 5, 2013, and lead plaintiff did not file a
petition, according to Vitacost.com, Inc.'s August 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  After being
appointed to represent the purported class of shareholders, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Vitacost, its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO").  On
December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters.  The Lead
plaintiff purported to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009, and April 20, 2010.  The complaint
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the period by, among other things, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts concerning
the Company's current and prospective business and financial
results.  The complaint also alleged that as a result of these
actions the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during
the class period.  The complaint sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.  On
July 23, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On May 5, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion
affirming the dismissal.  The deadline to file a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court passed on August 5,
2013, and lead plaintiff did not file a petition.

Vitacost.com, Inc. -- http://www.vitacost.com/-- is an online
retailer of health and wellness products, including dietary
supplements like vitamins, minerals, herbs and other botanicals,
as well as cosmetics, natural personal care products, pet
products, sports nutrition and health foods.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Volterra directors used false
and misleading statements to sell the Company for their own
interests to Maxim Integrated Products for $605 million or $23 a
share, shareholders claim in Alameda County Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The case is Posner v. Volterra Semiconductor Corporation, et al.,
Case No. RG13694441, in the California Superior Court for Alameda
County.


VONS COMPANIES: Faces Suit Over Falsely Advertised Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vons grocery stores defraud
holders of Vons Club Cards by falsely advertising "discounts," a
class action claims in California Superior Court.


ZILLOW INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit pending in Washington, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle.  The complaint purports to
state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf
of a class of those who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 15, 2012, and November 6, 2012.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in June 2013.  In general, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that during the period
between February 15, 2012, and November 6, 2012, the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its
business practices and financial results.

The Company says it intends to deny the allegations of any
wrongdoing and vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit.  The
Company has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of
June 30, 2013, or December 31, 2012, as the Company does not
believe a material loss is probable.  It is a reasonable
possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible
loss or range of loss is not estimable.

Seattle, Washington-based Zillow, Inc. -- http://www.zillow.com/-
- operates the leading real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio
of brands and products to help people find vital information about
homes, and connect with local professionals.  In addition to its
Web sites, including Zillow.com, the Company also owns and
operates Zillow Mobile, Zillow Mortgage Marketplace, Zillow Digs,
Zillow Rentals, Postlets, Diverse Solutions, Agentfolio, Mortech
and HotPads.  Zillow provides products and services to help
consumers through every stage of homeownership -- buying, selling,
renting, borrowing and remodeling.


* Judge Recommends Disbarment of Bay Area Attorney in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that a
State Bar judge has recommended disbarment of a Bay Area attorney
after a jury found he had cheated an elderly client out of $3.5
million.

Wade Robertson, 45, of Stanford, obtained the money in 2004 and
2005 by telling William Cartinhour Jr., a 77-year-old Maryland
physician, that it would finance a class-action lawsuit that was
likely to yield substantial returns, Judge Lucy Armendariz of the
State Bar Court said in a ruling made public on Sept. 6.

The class-action suit was dismissed in April 2005, but Robertson
reassured Mr. Cartinhour that the case was going well, while he
transferred the money to his own accounts and lost much of it in
securities trading, Judge Armendariz said.

When Mr. Cartinhour became suspicious and contacted other lawyers,
Robertson claimed he had violated their agreement and sued him,
Judge Armendariz said.  Mr. Cartinhour countersued, and a jury in
Washington, D.C., found in February 2011 that Robertson had
breached his duties as a lawyer and a business partner.  Jurors
awarded Mr. Cartinhour $3.5 million in compensation and another
$3.5 million in punitive damages.

An appeals court upheld the verdict, but Robertson has continued
to fight the damages, and engaged in "corrupt and dishonest"
maneuvers in a Bankruptcy Court, Judge Armendariz said.  She said
Robertson, who has practiced law since 2001 and represented
himself in the State Bar disciplinary proceedings, "has shown no
remorse" and has claimed he acted reasonably.

Robertson engaged in "a well-implemented, well-thought-out and
deviously orchestrated plan to defraud Cartinhour and
misappropriate large sums of money," Judge Armendariz said.

She suspended Robertson from law practice as of Sept. 7 while he
appeals her recommendation to a State Bar Court review panel and
then to the state Supreme Court, which decides whether a lawyer
should be disbarred.

Mr. Robertson said Judge Armendariz's account of his actions was
contradicted by records showing that he had acted solely as Mr.
Cartinhour's business partner and had notified him of all
developments in the class-action suit, and that the jury never
found he had defrauded Mr. Cartinhour.  He also said Judge
Armendariz disregarded testimony from a psychiatric witness that
Mr. Cartinhour was mentally ill.

"I strenuously disagree with her findings," he said.  "I don't
believe that (the disbarment) will be upheld on review."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Nixes 3 WR Grace Plan Challenges
----------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, composed of Judges Ambro, Fisher and Jordan, issued two
opinions on Sept. 4 dismissing the objections raised by the State
of Montana, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (the
"Crown"), and Anderson Memorial Hospital to W.R. Grace & Co.'s
confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

                    Montana and Crown's Appeals

The Third Circuit backed a Delaware federal court's decision to
affirm the bankruptcy court's order overruling the objections
raised by the state of Montana and the Canadian government.  The
panel said that the plan sufficiently covers their asbestos
liabilities claims.

W.R. Grace, which has been in bankruptcy since 2001, had its
reorganization plan confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and
affirmed by the District Court.  The Company, however, remains in
bankruptcy because several parties-in-interest appealed from the
confirmation and affirmation orders, complaining the Plan
prejudices their rights.  Among those who filed appeals were the
State of Montana, where Grace's former vermiculite mine is
located, and the Crown.

The State of Montana and the Canadian Government seek
contribution and indemnification from the Debtors for claims
filed by victims of exposure to asbestos-containing products
produced by the Debtors, and, in the case of the State of
Montana, claims filed by victims of exposure to asbestos mined at
the Debtors' vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana.  As a result of
Grace's production of asbestos-containing materials, Montana and
the Crown have been subject to asbestos-related lawsuits due to
their alleged failure to warn their citizens of the risks posed
by Grace's products and activities.

Montana and the Crown contend that their particular "requests"
for contribution and indemnification somehow fall outside of the
channeling injunction's scope. They say that their "requests"
cannot be considered "claims" because claims for contribution and
indemnification do not technically arise until a judgment or
settlement has been paid, and at the time of Grace's bankruptcy
petition no such judgments had been entered against either
Montana or the Crown. Their "requests" are also not "demands,"
they explain, because those requests are not personal injury,
wrongful death, or property damage claims, and thus they did not
"aris[e] out of the same or similar conduct" as the claims
subject to the injunction.

On the issue of "claims," the Third Circuit held that a "claim"
can exist "before a right to payment exists under state law."
Regardless of when Montana and the Crown may have had judgments
entered against them, the material fact is that Grace's asbestos-
related activities underlie any rights to indemnification and
contribution that they can assert, the Third Circuit ruled.
Grace's relevant activities all occurred long before its
bankruptcy filing, and thus, to the extent that Montana and the
Crown have "claims," those claims arose before confirmation of
the Joint Plan, the Third Circuit added.

With regards to the issue of "demands," the Third Circuit also
ruled that Montana's and the Crown's argument also fails.  The
Third Circuit held that although they claim that requests for
contribution and indemnification do not arise from the same
conduct as personal injury or property damage claims, that
argument ignores the underlying basis for such requests --
Grace's alleged asbestos liability.  Any action that Montana and
the Crown say they have against Grace arises from the same events
as do all the other claims and demands covered by the channeling
injunction, namely Grace's production of asbestos-containing
materials, the Third Circuit pointed out.  Therefore, if Montana
and the Crown have requests for payment that were not "claims"
during the bankruptcy proceeding, those requests would meet the
definition of "demand" in Section 524(g), the Third Circuit
ruled.

More fundamentally, the arguments made by Montana and the Crown
are based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of Section 524(g),
the Third Circuit held.  By arguing that they have "requests" for
payment from Grace that cannot be called "claims" or "demands,"
Montana and the Crown suggest that those terms constitute
discreet categories, and that some asbestos-related actions fall
into neither category and thus cannot be subject to Section
524(g), the Third Circuit added.

The Third Circuit further stated, "The text and history of
Section 524(g) tell us just the opposite.  As for the text,
Section 524(g)'s definition of "demand" overlaps to some degree
with the Bankruptcy Code's definition of "claim" -- a "demand"
could be a request for payment that was not raised during the
bankruptcy proceeding, which also fits the Code's definition of a
"claim."  Furthermore, by taking the already broad definition of
"claim" and expanding it to include all other "demands for
payment" that arise from the same conduct, Section 524(g) evinces
an intent to include all potential asbestos-related liability of
a debtor, regardless of when such liability arose."

In July, the Third Circuit also denied Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC's appeal from W.R. Grace's Plan, holding that
Garlock lacked standing to block the reorganization plan,
rejecting Garlock's contention that it would be injured by the
plan.  In the last quarter of 2012, a group of claimants called
the Libby Claimants withdrew their appeal from the Plan following
a settlement agreement with the Debtors and other plan
proponents.

                      Anderson Memorial

The Third Circuit junked AMH's appeal from the orders confirming
the Plan of Grace.

AMH, which first filed suit against Grace and its affiliates in
South Carolina state court in 1992, seeking class-wide redress
for property damage caused by asbestos-containing products that
Grace had manufactured, argued in its appeal that (A) the Plan
does not meet the requirements of Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code, (B) the Plan fails to provide equal treatment
pursuant to Section 1123(a)(4), (C) Grace has not shown that the
Plan was proposed in good faith pursuant to Section 1129(a)(3),
and (D) Grace has not shown that the Plan is feasible pursuant to
Section 1129(a)(11).

The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
The Third Circuit explained that Section 524(g) explicitly states
that the asbestos trusts can cover property damage, so an
interpretation that makes those trusts impossible cannot be
consistent with congressional intent.  Furthermore, as the
Bankruptcy Court demonstrated, AMH's "mutual exclusivity" theory
would effectively read the category of present demands out of the
statute, the Third Circuit pointed out.  For these reasons, the
Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's conclusion that
because "[i]t still remains unknown (and may never be ascertained)
how many entities and individuals were affected by these products,
the precise quantity of asbestos-laden products that were sold,
which buildings the products were used in and how much was used
per building, or the percentage of these entities that have
successfully removed the asbestos products from their buildings,"
"there remains a significant chance that future property damage
claims will be asserted against Grace by property damage
claimants."

The Third Circuit further ruled that, in this case, Grace has
demonstrated that the Plan is fair, and AMH has provided no real
argument that the Plan was not "proposed with honesty and good
intentions and with a basis for expecting that reorganization can
be effected."  Moreover, the Third Circuit held that none of
AMH's arguments led the Circuit Court to conclude that the
District Court clearly erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's
factual conclusion that the Plan would likely succeed.  As the
District Court noted, Grace needed only to demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of success, not an absolute certainty.
Grace's evidence remains uncontradicted, the Third Circuit said.
AMH has produced no evidence supportive of its objection, the
Third Circuit pointed out.

Although Grace has offered little insight into the methodology
used to arrive at the conclusion that $37.3 million provides an
adequate reserve for the PD liability payments, the scale of
related claims satisfies the Circuit Court that $1.6 billion in
possible funding (an amount AMH has not refuted) has a reasonable
likelihood of providing for all claims, the Third Circuit said.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the conclusion that the
Plan is feasible.

The cases are:

   * In Re: W.R. Grace & Co., et al., Debtors, in Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Appellant in 12-1521 and
The State of Montana, Appellant in 12-2904 (3rd. Circ.).  A full-
text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/sdTexffrom Leagle.com.

   * In Re: WR Grace & Co., et al., Debtors, Anderson
Memorial Hospital, Appellant, NOS. 12-2923 AND 12-3143 (3rd.
Circ.).  A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/r76X7Ifrom Leagle.com.

Jacqueline Dais-Visca, Esq., Senior Counsel at Ontario Regional
Office, in Toronto, Ontario; Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. --
kmangan@wcsr.com -- Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esq. --
fmonaco@wcsr.com -- and Matthew P. Ward, Esq. -- maward@wcsr.com
-- at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Counsel for Appellant
her Majesty the Queen, In Right of Canada by the Attorney General
of Canada.

Kevin J. Mangan, Esq., Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esq., and Matthew
P. Ward, Esq., at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, is also
Counsel for Appellant State of Montana.

John Donley, Esq. -- john.donley@kirkland.com -- Lisa G. Esayian,
Esq. -- lisa.esayian@kirkland.com -- Adam C. Paul, Esq. --
adam.paul@kirkland.com -- and Christopher Landau, Esq. --
christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis; Roger J.
Higgins, Esq. -- rhiggin@rogerhigginslaw.com -- at The Law
Offices of Roger Higgins LLC; and Laura D. Jones, Esq. --
ljones@pszjlaw.com -- and James E. O'Neill, III, Esq. --
joneill@pszjlaw.com -- at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, Counsel
for Appellee W.R. Grace & Co.

Mark T. Hurford, Esq. -- mhurford@camlev.com -- at Campbell &
Levine; and Peter V. Lockwood, Esq. -- plockwood@capdale.com --
at Caplin & Drysdale, Counsel for Appellee Official Committee of
Asbestos, Personal Injury.

Elisa Alcabes, Esq. -- elcabes@stblaw.com -- Mary Beth Forshaw,
Esq. -- mforshaw@stblaw.com -- and Andrew T. Frankel, Esq. --
afrankel@stblaw.com -- at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; Robert J.
Dehney, Esq. -- rdehney@mnat.com -- at  Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell; and Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. --
mlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth A. Niederman, Esq. --
sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild; Counsel for
Appellee Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

Roger L. Frankel, Esq. -- rfrankel@orrick.com -- at Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, Counsel for Appellee David T. Austern,
Asbestos PI Future, Claimants Representative.

Mark M. Maloney, Esq. -- mmaloney@kslaw.com -- Thaddeus D.
Wilson, Esq. -- thadwilson@kslaw.com -- Ashley C. Parrish, Esq. -
- aparrish@kslaw.com -- Matthew S. Owen, Esq. -- mowen@kslaw.com
-- and Carolyn M. Sweeney, Esq. -- csweeney@kslaw.com -- King
Spalding LLP, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Imperial Tobacco Canada,
Limited.

Christopher D. Loizides, Esq., at Loizides & Associates; David L.
Rosendorf, Esq. -- dlr@kttlaw.com -- at Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton; and Daniel A. Speights, Esq., Speights & Runyan,
Counsel for Appellant, Anderson, Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Loizides may be reached at:

         Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
         LOIZIDES & ASSOCIATES
         1225 King Street, Suite 800
         Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Mr. Speights may be reached at:

         Daniel A. Speights, Esq.
         SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN
         200 Jackson Avenue East
         P.O. Box 685
         Hampton, South Carolina 29924-0000
         Local: (803) 943-4444
         Fax: (803) 943-4599

John Donley, Esq., Lisa G. Esayian, Esq., Adam C. Paul, Esq., at
Kirkland & Ellis; Laura D. Jones, Esq., and James E. O'Neill,
III, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones; Christopher Landau,
Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, Counsel for W.R. Grace, Official,
Committee of Equity Security Holders, David T. Austern and
Garlock, Sealing Technologies, LLC.

Roger J. Higgins, Esq., Counsel for W.R. Grace, Official,
Committee of Equity Security Holders, David T. Austern, Garlock
Sealing, Technologies, LLC and John M. Thomas.

Andrew N. Rosenberg, Esq. -- arosenberg@paulweiss.com -- at Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Counsel for David T. Austern,
Her Majesty Queen of Canada.

Kevin J. Mangan, Esq., Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esq., Matthew P.
Ward, Esq., at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Counsel for Her
Majesty Queen, of Canada, Official Committee, of Equity Security
Holders, David T. Austern, CNA Financial, Corp. Loews and State
of Montana.

Philip Bentley, Esq. -- pbentley@kramerlevin.com -- at Kramer,
Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, Counsel for Official Committee, of
Equity Security Holders, David T. Austern and John M. Thomas.

Garland S. Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Susan M. Huber,
Esq. -- shuber@rbh.com -- and Richard C. Worf, Jr., Esq. --
rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson.

Brett D. Fallon, Esq. -- bfallon@morrisjames.com -- at Morris
James, Counsel for Official Committee, Equity Security Holders,
David T. Austern and Garlock, Sealing Technologies, LLC.

Teresa K.D. Currier, Esq. -- tcurrier@saul.com -- at Saul Ewing,
Counsel for Official Committee, of Equity Security Holders and
David T. Austern.

Alan B. Rich, Esq., Counsel for Property Damage, Future Claims
Representative.  Mr. Rich may be reached at:

         Alan B. Rich, Esq.
         Suite 4244
         1201 Elm Street
         Dallas, TX 75270

Elizabeth M. DeCristofaro, Esq. -- emdecristofaro@fmew.com -- at
Ford, Marrin, Esposito, Witmeyer & Gleser.

Michael S. Giannotto, Esq. -- mgiannotto@goodwinprocter.com --
and Frederick C. Schafrick, Esq. -- fschafrick@goodwinprocter.com
-- at Goodwin Procter, Counsel for Continental Casualty Co.

Elisa Alcabes, Esq., Mary Beth Forshaw, Esq., and Andrew T.
Frankel, Esq., Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; and Neal J. Levitsky,
Esq., and Seth A. Niederman, Esq., at Fox Rothschild, Counsel for
Travelers Casualty, & Surety Co.

Mark T. Hurford, Esq., Campbell & Levine; and Peter V. Lockwood,
Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Counsel for Official Committee of,
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.

Edward C. Toole, Jr., Esq. -- toolee@pepperlaw.com -- at Pepper
Hamilton, Counsel for BNSF Railway Co.

Matthew S. Owen, Esq., Ashley C. Parrish, Esq., Carolyn M.
Sweeney, Esq., at King & Spalding, and Thaddeus D. Wilson, Esq.,
at King & Spalding, Counsel for Proposed Amicus, Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself against proceedings
with respect to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2013.

The company is party to litigation in the ordinary course of
business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive as
well as compensatory damages arising out of use of the company's
products. Although the company is self-insured to some extent, the
company maintains insurance against certain product liability
losses. The company is also subject to litigation and
administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims
involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into
the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability
for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean up and other
costs and damages. The company is also typically involved in
commercial disputes, employment disputes, and patent litigation
cases in which it is asserting or defending against patent
infringement claims. To prevent possible infringement of the
company's patents by others, the company periodically reviews
competitors' products. To avoid potential liability with respect
to others' patents, the company regularly reviews certain patents
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
and foreign patent offices. Management believes these activities
help minimize its risk of being a defendant in patent infringement
litigation.

The Toro Company (Toro) designs, manufactures, and markets
professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf
irrigation systems, agricultural micro-irrigation systems,
landscaping equipment and lighting, and residential yard and snow
removal products. The Company operates in three business segments:
Professional, Residential, and Distribution. Its products are
advertised and sold at the retail level under the names of Toro,
Exmark, Irritrol, Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. On June
24, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of certain assets
of Lawn Solutions Commercial Products, Inc. On January 17, 2011,
Toro completed the acquisition of certain assets of Unique
Lighting Systems, Inc. In February 2012, the Company acquired
certain utility and underground product assets of Astec
Underground, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Astec Industries,
Inc. In April 2012, it acquired light construction and hardscape
product assets of Stone Construction Equipment, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against an increasing number of asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 32, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named a potentially responsible
party ("PRP"), in conjunction with other parties, in a number of
cases arising under an environmental protection law, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, popularly known as the "Superfund" law. These cases involve
sites that allegedly received wastes from current or former
Company locations. Based on information available to us which, in
most cases, consists of data related to quantities and
characteristics of material generated at current or former Company
locations, material allegedly shipped by us to these disposal
sites, as well as cost estimates from PRPs and/or federal or state
regulatory agencies for the cleanup of these sites, a reasonable
estimate is calculated of our share of the probable costs, if any,
and accruals are recorded in our consolidated financial
statements. These accruals are generally recognized no later than
upon completion of the remedial feasibility study and are not
discounted to their present value. We review all accruals on a
regular basis and believe that, based on these calculations, our
share of the potential additional costs for the cleanup of each
site will not have a material effect on our financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Three sites formerly owned by us: (i) Solar Turbines in San Diego,
California, (ii) the Canton Plant in Canton, Illinois, and (iii)
Wisconsin Steel in Chicago, Illinois, were identified as having
soil and groundwater contamination. Two sites in Sao Paulo,
Brazil, where we are currently operating, were identified as
having soil and groundwater contamination. While investigations
and cleanup activities continue at these and other sites, we
believe that we have adequate accruals to cover costs to complete
the cleanup of all sites.

We have accrued $23 million for these and other environmental
matters, which are included within Other current liabilities and
Other noncurrent liabilities, as of July 31, 2013. The majority of
these accrued liabilities are expected to be paid subsequent to
2013.

Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an
increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In
general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted
from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older
vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of
asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not
the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products
allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these
claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them
vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants
have not been material in any year to our financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the
number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs
for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in
the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as
well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and
trailers. In addition, it is a private-label designer and
manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and sport
utility vehicle (SUV) markets. It also provides retail, wholesale,
and lease financing of trucks and parts. NIC operates in four
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts and Financial Services. In February
2013, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd purchased the Navistar Group's
stake in Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd (MNAL) and Mahindra
Navistar Engines Pvt Ltd (MNEPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bermuda Ministry Allays Fibro Fear in School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bermuda Sun reported that the Ministry of Education on Sept. 3
sought to allay public fear that there is some danger of asbestos
contamination within the Prospect Primary School.

According to the report, a Ministry Spokesperson on Sept. 3 noted
that approximately two weeks before, asbestos was found in the
mastic that binds the tile to the floor. This was removed under an
approved permit from the Department of Health and the all clear
was given the prior week.

It is important to note that there is no danger to any persons in
or around the building as the asbestos was not airborne and has
been abated, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Dismisses Labor Law Claims
----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has
dismissed asbestos claims against a property manager, finding that
the plaintiffs had not established that the defendant controlled
the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work.

According to the report, in the Aug. 28 decision, the New York
Supreme Court for New York County held that the plaintiffs could
not pursue Labor Law claims against Cushman & Wakefield Inc.

The plaintiffs assert that William E. Krauss was exposed to
asbestos while working as a union sheet metal worker installing
HVAC systems and other ductwork throughout New York City, the
report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Station Worker Wins Disease Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a court has ordered a former power station
worker dying of mesothelioma be paid $327,000 in compensation for
asbestos exposure.

According to the report, Allan Geyer worked for the Electricity
Trust of South Australia (now Resi Corporation) at Port Augusta
power station for 31 years as a welder and boilermaker and later
developed mesothelioma.

The District Court found ETSA was aware of the danger and ordered
it pay exemplary damages under the state's Dust Diseases Act, the
report related.

Mr Geyer's solicitor Annie Hoffman said the former worker was
relieved to have a result from the case, the report said.

"Mr Geyer was actually starting chemotherapy treatment the day
that we received the judgment, so he was quite emotional when I
gave him the call to tell him that he'd won the case against
ETSA," she said.

The award of $327,000 included $20,000 in exemplary damages, a
provision allowed under the Act when a plaintiff can prove there
was a known risk of exposure to asbestos.

Terry Miller of the Asbestos Victims Association welcomed the
judgment.

"Many thousands of ETSA employees up until the 1990s were exposed
to asbestos dust in power stations around the state," he said.

"This decision shows that ETSA knew of the dangers of exposure to
asbestos and did not tell or protect its workers.

"People like Mr Geyer are dying as a result."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Public Inquiry Into Fibro Dumping at Quarry
------------------------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that a public inquiry began Sept. 3 into plans to
dump asbestos at Stowey Quarry.

According to the report, there's been opposition against the idea
to put hazardous waste into the quarry near Bristol as it's close
to Chew Valley Lake reservoir.

Bath and North East Somerset Council rejected the application but
the company behind the plans pushed for the public inquiry which
is now expected to last three days, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Koziol School Fibro Discovery Adds $56K to Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Russell, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the discovery
of asbestos during remodeling at Koziol Elementary School last
month added $56,000 to the bill, but did did not delay the Aug. 28
start of school.

According to the report, there was some criticism at a recent Ware
school committee meeting, however, of how news of the problem was
shared.

Because asbestos is a hazardous material, strict regulations
dictate procedures for its removal from public buildings, which
makes the abatement costly, the report related.

The asbestos problem was discovered in August while workers were
re-tiling 8 rooms, 2 lavatories and a hallway at the elementary
school, according to Superintendent Mary-Elizabeth Beach, the
report said.  The cost for that work was $29,000.  But when the
contractors discovered asbestos underneath the tiles, the school
hired Abide Inc. of East Longmeadow for removal.

Beach said the company fully abated the asbestos by Aug. 23 -- in
time for school to open without worry the following week.

"My goal was to open the school on time," Beach told the school
committee.

Committeeman Brian Winslow said he was not adequately informed
about the matter, saying: "I consider asbestos pretty serious."
He told the committee "for me it was like pulling teeth" getting
information.

Beach told the committee that 320 letters were sent to elementary
school parents, and school board Chairman Christopher T.
Desjardins was informed right away.

Desjardins said he forwarded communications from Beach to the
entire board and that he was satisfied with the process and
Beach's efforts.

There was also some question about how the $56,000 would be paid.

According to Town Manager Stuart Beckley, the school is looking at
paying the bill via the $59,000 currently in the Reserve Fund that
is overseen by the Finance Committee.

Another option is to seek money at a special Town Meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement on Tap for Older Clayton Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Jackson, writing for Clayton News Daily, reported that
school officials are planning asbestos abatement as part of its
renovation plans at some area schools in Clayton County.

According to the report, they presented the school board with
plans to do renovations and asbestos removal at Fountain, Lake
City and West Clayton elementary schools.

Chief Operations Officer Cephus Jackson said the schools are older
and were constructed using once accepted asbestos-laden materials,
the report related.

Asbestos are naturally occurring fibrous mineral used in the past
to insulate and fireproof building materials, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jackson said asbestos is routinely removed from older buildings.
He said it is often found in various spots within school buildings
-- beneath tile, in pipe insulation and between sheets of metal.

"Asbestos is not a threat when you leave it alone, it's when you
mess with it," said school board Chairwoman Pam Adamson.

The CDC website states that, when handled, asbestos can separate
into microscopic-size particles that remain in the air and are
easily inhaled. And the direct exposure to asbestos fibers can
cause cancer and asbestosis in humans. The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health recommends that exposures be
reduced to the lowest feasible concentration.

SPLOST coordinator John Holloway said contractors minimize
exposure by sealing the affected areas. He said the removal
process "is all very well controlled" and includes negative
pressurizing to keep contents from contaminating occupied spaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Snowy Hydro Removes Fibro Found at Tumut Station
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Sun reported that Snowy Hydro has successfully cleaned up a
small deposit of asbestos found at Tumut 1 power station.

According to the report, some employees claimed to have been
exposed to asbestos while performing some cleaning with damp rags
in August.

The Electrical trades Union imposed a workplace ban in some areas
of the power station prior to test results being known, the report
related.  Air monitoring and dust sampling was undertaken at Tumut
1 and Tumut 2 power stations.

Snowy Hydro said that despite claims by some staff, all air
samples showed that no asbestos was airborne, even during the
cleanup, the report added.

Eighty-nine air samples were taken confirming there were no
airborne asbestos fibres, and no employees had been exposed, the
report further related.

The results of the dust sampling was communicated to employees at
Cabramurra and access to the relevant small area of the power
station was restricted.

The dust was vacuumed up by a specialist contractor.

Snowy Hydro said some employees still felt concerned and voluntary
free health checks were offered.

"This gave employees the opportunity to talk to a doctor and have
a lung function check should they felt the need to," the company
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Solons Propose Medical Criteria Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that legislators in Oklahoma have
introduced the Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act, which
would require plaintiffs to submit proof of physical impairment
before proceeding with their claims.

According to the report, Senate Bill 14 was introduced on Aug. 30
by Senators Brian Bingman (R-Dist. 12) and Anthony Sykes (R-Dist.
24). Representative T.W. Shannon (R-Dist. 62) of the House co-
authored the legislation.

On the same day, the legislators also introduced Senate Bill 15,
the "Innocent Successor Asbestos-Related Liability Fairness Act,"
which would limit liability incurred by a successor corporation,
the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minister Came Close to Losing Jersey's Fibro Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Jersey reported that the Planning Minister has been
heavily criticised for announcing a policy initiative on the hoof.

According to the report, the senior civil servant at Transport and
Technical Services told a scrutiny panel that a plan by Deputy Rob
Duhamel to use a Japanese company to turn the Island's toxic
asbestos waste into a glass-like substance -- unveiled by the
minister in JEP -- almost scuppered a deal already being
negotiated.

TTS chief officer John Rogers told the Environment Scrutiny panel
that he had spent most of his weekend placating a firm in America,
after one of its staff read about Deputy Duhamel's plan online,
the report related.

TTS and the firm in Washington State had been in 'discreet'
discussions about how the latter could help Jersey deal with its
asbestos legacy, which is currently stored in rusting containers
at La Collette, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement at St. Lawrence Central Continues
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that
though construction will continue at St. Lawrence Central Schools
for its on-going capital project, Superintendent Stephan J.
Vigliotti, Sr., assured parents that the new school year will
start, as planned.  Remnants of the construction and renovation
will be present at the middle and high school as students return
to class.

According to the report, the comprehensive capital project at St.
Lawrence Central School includes converting the district to
natural gas from heating oil, and hot water from steam. Updating
the heating and cooling system will save the school district
significant money in the future. For the first day of school, the
new natural gas system will not be operational.

Ceiling tiles throughout the school district have been
systematically removed in order for construction crews to have
access to the heating and cooling systems in the ceiling, the
report said.  Some of the ceiling tiles in the school hallways
will remain open.  According to Vigliotti, all of the classrooms
have been updated and most of the ceiling tiles have been
replaced.

Work in the elementary school also continues with asbestos
abatement in the basement, the report further related.  Asbestos
is a highly toxic, naturally-occurring mineral widely used as a
base for many building products. Most commonly used as an
insulating agent, often produced into insulation for pipes,
heating and cooling systems, and boilers. Asbestos exposure is the
leading cause of mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that can
affect the protective tissue surrounding the lungs, stomach or
heart.

Due to its toxicity, it is recommended that handling asbestos --
especially for abatement purposes -- is left to licensed
contractors, the report said.  Even a small amount of asbestos
particles accidentally released into the air can cause widespread
pollution and air quality issues.

As the first day of school approaches, Vigliotti is pleased with
the overall progress of the capital projects. Despite the large
scope of the work -- including expenses associated with safely
removing lead and asbestos -- there remains $20,000 left in the
budget to complete the work. Vigliotti is confident that the
project will be completed without having to "cut anything."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Exposure Not a Factor in Cumbria Man's Death
------------------------------------------------------------------
North-West Evening Mail reported that asbestos exposure was not a
factor in an elderly man's death, a coroner has ruled.

According to the report, South and East Cumbria coroner, Mr Ian
Smith, recorded a verdict of natural causes in relation to Henry
Austin McGeown.

The 89-year-old Swarthmoor resident died of a pulmonary embolism
caused by bowel cancer on April 22, the report related.

Mr Smith said the pathologist carrying out the post mortem had
looked for evidence of asbestos dust in Mr McGeown's lungs and
found none, according to the report.  There was no sign of
mesothelioma.

The coroner decided that, while Mr McGeown's work as a mechanic
meant he would have been exposed to asbestos in vehicles' brake
linings, he did not die as a consequence, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont AG Reaches Deal with Fibro Mine Owner
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the Vermont attorney general's
office says the state has filed a settlement agreement with the
former owner of a defunct asbestos mine over cleanup of the site
in Eden and Lowell.

According to the report, the attorney general's office said that
the state will recover some past expenses from mitigation work
done at the site.

The state says Vermont Asbestos Group, Inc. will maintain the
corrective structures for the next ten years, the report related.

The company also has agreed to work with the state and
Environmental Protection Agency to get money from its insurance
policies, which will help the state and EPA cover past and future
cleanup costs, the report said.

The asbestos mine, located on 1,500 acres, operated in the two
towns for nearly a century, closing in 1993.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge May Rule on Reserve Fibro Suit This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Tuinstra, writing for Post-Gazette.com, reported that a
lawsuit that Reserve filed against a Hopewell contractor over the
demolition of property on Mount Troy Road is expected to go before
a judge this month, solicitor Harlan Stone told township
commissioners.

According to the report, the lawsuit dates to July 2011 when the
township claimed the contractor, Belick General Contracting, did
not remove asbestos properly during demolition of a building at
2010 Mount Troy Road.

The suit charges that the contractor failed to secure permits and
notify regulatory agencies that the building contained significant
levels of asbestos, the report related.

A subsequent Allegheny County Health Department inspection found
asbestos in the demolition debris, which forced the township to
hire another contractor to clean up the site, according to Reserve
officials, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Concerned Over Dump Plans at Chew Valley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Gardner, writing for The Bristol Post, reported that
experts in geology and hydrology do not believe a Chew Valley
quarry is an appropriate location for an asbestos dump.

According to the report, the witnesses for an action group were
giving evidence on the second day of an inquiry into proposals to
dump thousands of tonnes of asbestos in Stowey Quarry.

The Stowey Sutton Action Group oppose the application made by
quarry owner Larry Edmunds, the report said.

Bath and North East Somerset Council refused permission for the
dump, prompting the inquiry at Fry's Conference Centre in
Keynsham, the report related.

Geologist Gareth Thomas told Government planning inspector Brian
Cook that analysis of land next to the quarry showed added weight
from landfill could pose the potential for a landslip.  He said if
the quarry was used for landfill there would be "significant
potential for slope instability" on adjacent land.

"If you add material to the top of the slopes you could trigger a
landslip," he said.  He also said changes in the ground water
makeup of the quarry -- for example if material blocked drainage
from rocks at the site --  could also trigger instability.

Meanwhile, hydrologist Dr Kay Borelandcorr told the inquiry she
had concerns about the risk of contamination of ground water at
the site.  She explained that although asbestos fibres are not
soluble, they could still be "transported in suspension" and find
their way into ground water stores.  She explained that the
limestone rock surrounding the quarry was saturated with water and
that the dump would be "completely reliant" on an engineered liner
to stop any leakage running into ground water. stores.

Ms Boreland explained that it was "generally accepted" that no
landfill or any liner could be 100 per cent secure.

"This is not a suitable site for hazardous waste," she said.

"Typically in this country, asbestos waste is disposed of at sites
where ground and ground water conditions make them suitable.

"In my opinion there is too great a risk to put hazardous
materials into this site."

The inquiry earlier heard from the Environment Agency which
dropped its objections to the proposal after Mr Edmunds
successfully made a change to his application.  He originally
wanted to dump "stable non-reactive hazardous waste", as well as
inert waste and asbestos, but has now taken this out of his plans.

Barbara Keenan, from the Environment Agency, only had concerns
regarding the "stable non-reactive hazardous waste" -- which can
include leachable substances and organic content -- but not
asbestos polluting ground water at the site.

The inquiry will next sit on October 3 and 4 when Mr Cook will
hear from expert witnesses supporting the plan put forward by the
quarry owner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich D-95 Considers 2nd Fibro Inspector
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Zurich Courier reported that the Community Unit School
District 95 School Board is considering a "second set of eyes" to
work with the district's longtime asbestos inspector, Deborah
Ewanio.

According to the report, the board didn't take any official action
Aug. 15 at its Committee of the Whole meeting. The discussion was
more of a place where four of the members found common ground
regarding abatement efforts at May Whitney Elementary School, 100
Church St., Lake Zurich.

Lyle Erstad, director of facilities and grounds at the district,
said that the second set of eyes could cost the district between
$5,000 to $10,000, the report related.  He said he planned to
return with a more solid answer at the next meeting.

The discussion rose from a larger, ongoing conversation about air
quality management that the board has been having for years with
board member Eileen Maloney and several other district parents,
the report said.

In response to an inquiry from Erstad about the inspector's
practices, Kent Cook, asbestos program manager with the Illinois
Department of Public Health, issued a statement, which
Superintendent Mike Egan recently presented to the board.

"Lyle contacted Kent Cook at the IDPH and also spoke with Mark
Brumwell, who is the asbestos consultant that went over our
records and a compliance check, and asked if the proper procedures
were followed," Egan said. "They concurred that the procedures
were in alignment with what IDPH would say."

Egan introduced the statement in response to Maloney's objection
to the manner in which several cabinets were removed from areas of
the school. She argued that the work, completed over the summer,
should have been contained.

While no asbestos was disturbed, Maloney argued that she was
bothered by the inspector's failure to institute controls that
would reduce the odds of airborne dispersal.

"Once you remove the first (cabinet) and determine that there are
unknown insulation materials, the third and fourth are supposed to
be contained," Maloney said.

Board member Kathy Brown objected to Maloney's assumption that a
significant threat existed.

"My difficulty there is that you just used the word significant
threat to the occupants, and I think that's a little . . . I think
that's pretty alarmist right now," Brown said.

Board member Lisa Warren noted that she understood it to be more
harmful to tamper with asbestos than it is to leave it alone.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, disturbing
or damaging asbestos-containing material may release fibers into
the air that, when inhaled, heighten an occupant's chance of
developing harmful health effects over time; conditions associated
with exposure to asbestos include lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis -- a progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the
lungs.

The EPA generally discourages doing anything physical to asbestos-
containing material when it's determined to be in "good
condition." Damaged asbestos, however, requires a different
protocol because it poses a more significant health threat.

Maloney suggested that they couldn't know into which category the
pipe insulation fit because Ewanio had not identified it.

Maloney also expressed distrust in the reports that make no
mention of water-stained asbestos-containing pipe insulation,
despite the known presence of water-stained ceiling tiles near the
pipe insulation.

"I don't have faith in the inspections . . . despite the amount of
water we've had in that particular building, none of the 3,000
feet of linear pipe insulation that we know about has been
identified as water-stained -- none of it. That gives me cause for
concern," she said.

In June of 2012, the IDPH issued an $18,000 fine alleging the
asbestos abatement plan at May Whitney contained 18 violations.
Those included failure to ensure that asbestos warning signs were
posted and a lack of documentation in the management plan
indicating that the outside contractors were provided information
about the locations of the supposed or definite asbestos-
containing materials.

The district challenged the allegations. Officials assured parents
that no mold was present in the former May Whitney Elementary
School location after parents expressed concern that the
conditions at the abandoned building were affecting those of the
new school.

The district closed the building in August, 2007 due to damages
caused by a partial flood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Man Gets Prison Time in Illegal Dumping Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the fifth
man prosecuted in a scheme that saw tons of asbestos debris
illegally dumped on a property along the Mohawk River in Central
New York has been sent to prison for his role in the plot to skirt
environmental laws involving the disposal of the toxic material.

An article by the Associated Press reports that Jonathan Deck of
Norwood, New Jersey has been sentenced by a federal judge to 15
months in prison. The 59-year-old is the last of the five to be
sentenced. Indeed, all the individuals involved in this asbestos
dumping scheme have received prison terms and been ordered to pay
fines to assist in the clean-up of the contaminated area. Deck's
fine has been set at $492,000.

The two major players in the scheme, Donald Torriero and Julius
DeSimone, had conspired to cover the entire lot, located in
Frankfort, New York, with construction and demolition debris that
had been processed at various solid waste management facilities,
the report related.

Though their plan was discovered just a few months after it began,
the men and their co-conspirators had already dumped 400
truckloads of the waste on the property, which borders the Mohawk
River, the report said.  The men also created a phony New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation permit, on which
they forged the name of a DEC official.

"Torriero and DeSimone endangered the health of both their fellow
citizens and sensitive wetlands by violating numerous laws meant
to ensure the proper disposal of toxic materials," Acting
Assistant Attorney General Robert Dreher of the Justice
Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division stated at
the time of their arraignment, acknowledging that exposure to the
hazardous materials could cause diseases like mesothelioma, lung
cancer, and asbestosis, the report cited.

"All the defendants in this case conspired to illegally dispose
asbestos containing material. This case demonstrates that the
American people will not tolerate those who make money by breaking
the law and damaging the environment," said Vanessa Jones-Allen,
Acting Special Agent in Charge of EPA's Criminal Investigation
Division in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Names 37 Defendants in Fibro-related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a
woman is using 37 companies she claims are responsible for her
father's death.

According to the report, Clinton Pitzer was diagnosed with lung
cancer on Feb. 25, from which he died on March 5, according to a
complaint filed Aug. 19 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Tammy Timmons, Pitzer's daughter, claims her father was exposed to
asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products during his employment
as a coal miner, a manager/operator of a coal mine and a laborer
from 1954 until 1995, the report related.

Pitzer smoked one-half pack of cigarettes per day from 1954 until
1967, but then quit, according to the suit, the report said.

Timmons claims the defendants are being sued based on theories of
negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied
warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy,
misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn.

Certain defendants are also being sued as premises owners and as
Pitzer's employers for deliberate intent/intentional tort,
according to the suit.

Timmons is seeking a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
She is being represented by Thomas P. Maroney of Thomas P. Maroney
LC and Victoria Antion of Motley Rice LLC.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 37 defendants in the suit include Caterpillar Inc.; Crane Co.;
Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical Inc.; Fairmont Supply Company;
FMC Corporation; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Genuine Parts
Company; Goulds Pumps Inc.; and Grinnell Corporation.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-1568


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Turns Botswana Library Into White Elephant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baboki Kayawe, writing for Mmegi Online, reported that officials
say the old Botswana National Library Services headquarters at the
Gaborone Main Mall, which served as a reference centre, is non-
habitable.

According to the report, the facility turned into a white elephant
in 2003 after the Department of Buildings and Engineering Services
found that the roofing had asbestos, which posed a health hazard
to employees and users."The building has been non-operational
because it is worn out, and the asbestos roof poses a health
hazard. The building is awaiting renovation so that it can be used
as the Gaborone Public Library," BNLS deputy director Gaorere
Kgotla said.

Responding to a questionnaire sent a month ago, BNLS said the
Ministry of Youth, Sport and Culture, under which public libraries
fall, and relevant stakeholders are working on documentation for a
tender for Expression of Interest, through which the most
qualifying specialist will be engaged for the removal and disposal
of the fibrous material, the report related.  The concerned
departments are Waste Management and Pollution Control, the
Environmental Health Division and the Environmental Health
Division of the Gaborone City Council.

Kgotla emphasized the need for due care when removing and
disposing of the material because it may cause serious health
complications to the occupants in the surrounding areas, the
report added.  The library was opened in the 1970s. At the time,
it served as a public library, head-office and national reference
library. In 1978, the Gaborone public library relocated to the
Gaborone City Council premises.

The BNLS could not disclose the cost of building this library
opting to state that it was built through a donor agency, neither
could they estimate the cost of renovating it, the report said.
"We are however not in a position to disclose the estimated costs
as the technical unit is still preparing the tender documentation
which includes project estimates," Kgotla said. The BNLS says the
facility was used for the provision of reading material for the
National Reference Library and as an administration block for
corporate services and the bibliographic support services
division.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Fibro Burden Still Growing
--------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that despite
growing awareness, steady advances in medical treatment and
increased regulation, the life years lost to asbestos-related
diseases around the world continue to reach staggering
proportions.  And it could get worse.

According to the report, between 1994 and 2010, more than 2.1
million years of human life were lost to malignant mesothelioma,
according to an extensive study finished recently by the Institute
of Industrial Ecological Sciences, University of Occupational and
Environmental Health, Japan.

It is published in the September issue of the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine and previewed online.

"The world as a whole will continue to see high numbers, which may
even increase," lead author Ken Takahashi, M.D., Ph.D., told
Asbestos.com. "Available data represents only a tip of the
iceberg."

                     Vigilance Needed

Based on the study, future prospects are not encouraging. It
accentuates the need for more vigilance globally in curbing the
use of asbestos, the toxic, naturally occurring mineral that
causes a variety of serious health issues, including mesothelioma
cancer.

"The current burden of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs) is
substantial," the study concluded. "But the future burden of ARDs
can be eliminated by stopping the use of asbestos."

Use of asbestos has declined dramatically in recent decades in
North America, Europe and Australia, but it has increased in many
still-developing countries throughout Southeast Asia, Africa and
Western Europe.

"In the case of the USA, where asbestos was once heavily used but
now has declined, there are indications that rates of ARD have
started to flatten, and may eventually turn downward," Takahashi
said. "But from a global perspective, the problem will shift to
where they continue to use asbestos at very high levels."

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that
107,000 people worldwide die each year from an asbestos-related
disease, this study reported just 128,015 deaths from malignant
mesothelioma and only 13,885 from asbestosis during the 17-year
period. There were 82 countries included, but not China, India or
Russia -- where asbestos use still is widespread -- because no
reliable national figures were available.

                    Life Years Lost

The average number of life years lost per death was 17 for
mesothelioma and 13 for asbestosis, based upon a measure of
premature mortality.

"It was surprising to see the high numbers for APYLL (average
potential years of lost life)," Takahashi said. "The conventional
knowledge is that only people of very old age are affected by ARD,
especially mesothelioma. Although people die at a fairly high age,
they still lose many potential years. Life expectancy now is high,
and some people are affected at a relatively young age."

The average age of death from mesothelioma was 69.2 years and 73.4
years with asbestosis. The average PYLL was 3.1 years more for
women than men, and the difference was largely attributed to a
woman's longer expected lifespan.

"The most important source of bias introduced was probably under-
reporting and misdiagnosis," the report stated. "Recognition of
these rare diseases may initially have been confined to
unambiguous examples of younger patients with typical signs of the
disease, whereas older patients may not have been adequately
diagnosed."

                  Agreement Around the Globe

The grim statistics are not surprising to those who have lobbied
for a worldwide ban on asbestos. The report concluded with an
annual average of 200,785 potential years of lost life (PYLL) from
mesothelioma and 17,124 from asbestosis.

"The conclusions of this paper do not surprise me," Laurie Kazan-
Allen, coordinator of International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, told
Asbestos.com. She lives in the United Kingdom, where there were a
reported 2,347 mesothelioma deaths in 2010.

Lord David Freud, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Works and Pensions, told the House of Lords in the
UK earlier this year that he expects an estimated 28,000 deaths
from mesothelioma between July 2012 and March 2024.

"I whole-heartedly endorse the sentiments of this paper's authors,
who said. 'The future burden of ARDs can be eliminated by stopping
the use of asbestos,'" Kazan-Allen stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont Town Removing Fibro From Old School
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that officials say about two-thirds
of asbestos and other hazardous materials have been removed from
an old school complex in Vermont.

According to the report, multiple wings in the old Weathersfield
Elementary School in Perkinsville on Route 106 have been cleared
of asbestos.

The original school was constructed in 1879, the report said.
Additions from the 1950s and 1960s will eventually be torn down.

The Eagle Times reported on Town Meeting Day in March,
Weathersfield voters approved an article to borrow up to $225,000
to remove any hazardous materials in the building and demolish the
undesired additions while saving the 1879-built schoolhouse.
Voters rejected a similar proposal in November 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lewisboro School to Open After Fibro Testing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Auchterlonie, writing for Bedford-Katonah Patch, reported that
Lewisboro Elementary School is safe for occupancy, the Katonah-
Lewisboro school district announced, following a lightning strike
on Sept. 2 that damaged a chimney.

According to the report, in a message called "Lewisboro Elementary
All Clear," the district detailed what happened. After the damage
was checked, asbestos tiles were discovered, which prompted the
district to ask staff getting ready for the new school year to
leave the building. Environmental specialists from outside the
district did more than 20 tests, the district stated.

The district added that there was no asbestos found from the
tests, which included samples from vacuumed material from walls,
carpets and floors, along with sampling from the air, the report
related.

There will be some abatement work, however, the report said.

"A minor amount of abatement will take place in the nurse's
office, and we are pressing to complete the work this weekend."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No More Than $4MM Proposed for Woodreef Mine Road
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerrin Thomas and Catherine Clifford, writing for ABC News,
reported that four options for the future of Crow Mountain Road
through Barraba's derelict Woodsreef Asbestos Mine have been
presented to the community.

According to the report, a public meeting was held in the town to
present the options, which include three alternate routes.

The fourth option is to do nothing, the report said.

An Ombudsman's report in 2010 recommended the closure of the road.

Nationals' Member for Tamworth, Kevin Anderson, says each of the
three route options would cost $3-million to $4-million to
construct.  He says this figure doesn't account for any further
asbestos found during construction.

"There would be the normal cost of building a road and then
obviously maintaining that road," he said.

"That's not taking into consideration finding further asbestos on
the projected route of the road that would go around the mine, an
area as we know is full of asbestos.  But community adviser to the
Woodsreef Taskforce, Paula McIvor, says there's plenty of evidence
showing flooding in the area proposed for alternate routes around
the derelict asbestos mine.  She says the report that identified
three possible routes for a new road around the mine must have
cost several hundred thousand dollars and, as far as she's
concerned, it's money wasted.

Ms McIvor says if the townsfolk had been consulted before the
report was prepared they could have offered evidence of the
impacts of flooding from Ironbark Creek.

"We have history, we have photographs, we even have old videos,
which show how high the creek has risen," she said.

"They could see on topographical maps that they go across creeks
and rivers but they've never looked at the history to see how high
that water rises in times of flood."

David Witten is one of the other community members acting as an
adviser to the Woodsreef Taskforce.  He says the consultants that
have prepared the scoping study to identify the three new routes
have neglected to consider the susceptibility of Ironbark Creek to
flooding.

"The Mine road gives an alternate access for people on the eastern
side, but there are landholders on the western side of Ironback
Creek who have leased country at Split Rock and they use that road
more or less daily," he said.

"If they're conducting stock mustering and stock operations over a
couple of weeks then they'd use it every day."

The alternate road route scoping study is calling for public
comment over the next four weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aging Catholic High School in Ohio May Move
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that there's been another switch in
future plans for an aging Catholic high school facing safety
issues in its urban location in northeast Ohio.

According to the report, Bishop George Murry of the Youngstown
Diocese, who earlier wanted to keep Cardinal Mooney High School in
the city, says he's open to moving it to the southern Mahoning
County suburbs.

One issue is the rising cost estimate of asbestos removal and
renovation for the school, the report related.

The bishop says any move is contingent on sufficient financial
backing for a new school and for scholarships for needy students,
the report added.

Some alumni asked the diocese to move the school to reflect
population shifts, the report said.  City officials want it to
stay put to help stabilize the neighborhood.

The school has been at its current site in Youngstown since 1956.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Hits Melbourne Fire Trucks
-------------------------------------------------------
9News reported that almost 100 fire trucks across Melbourne will
be cleaned following an asbestos scare.

According to the report, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade has hired
experts to clean every truck at its 47 fire stations across the
city after asbestos was found at its Thornbury mechanics workshop.

The workshop, which is used for servicing fire trucks, has been
closed until further notice and the engine bays of every station
will be cleaned as a precaution, the report related.

MFB chief executive Nick Easy says the risk to safety is low and
unlikely, the report said.

"We are not aware of any health and safety consequences at this
stage, but we are taking every precaution," Mr Easy said.
But United Firefighters Union secretary Peter Marshall says
firefighters are concerned.

"The risk may be low, but we know that even the slightest exposure
can lead to terminal illness, such as mesothelioma," Mr Marshall
said.

The MFB says the clean-up operation will not impact on
firefighting capabilities.

All trucks will be cleaned but the clean-up will be co-ordinated
and staggered so the brigade's capability is not diminished, a MFB
spokesman said.

Firefighters have been told to wear masks in fire trucks until the
clean-up is completed.

Further testing at the site is expected to take place.  The
incident follows the asbestos exposure at a fire in West
Melbourne, where 30 fire trucks required cleaning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Shingles Halt Town Hall Clock Tower Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Steiner, writing for Bluffton Icon, reported that the
replacement of the shingles on the Bluffton town hall clock tower
roof came to a sudden halt, according to Jamie Mehaffie, village
administrator.

"Frost Roofing was able to get the layer of shingles off, but
discovered that a layer of asbestos shingles was under that
layer," said Mehaffie, the report related.

"These shingles were not able to be detected prior to the removal
of the top layer. As environmental regulations have changed since
the roof was last re-shingled, we have no choice but to have the
asbestos shingles properly removed and disposed of," he added, the
report further related.

Mehaffie is awaiting an estimate from Allied Environmental to
perform the removal work, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter's Death Due to Deadly Dust Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that an elderly Hampshire man who
started his working life in the shipping industry died from
asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

According to the report, John Taylor, from Bitterne, Southampton,
died in Southampton General Hospital, on August 13, after
suffering from the industrial disease, asbestosis.

Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the 78-year-old of Exeter
Road, who was a carpenter and joiner, first starting his working
life as an apprentice in the shipping industry, involved in the
refurbishment of ships, the report related.

Deputy Coroner Gordon Denson said: "It is abundantly clear that
the cause of death was due to Mr Taylor's asbestos exposure during
his working life."

He ruled that Mr Taylor's death was due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sparks Patient Switch at Ilkeston Hospital
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilkeston Advertiser reported that Ilkeston Community Hospital is
coming to the rescue by finding beds for patients who are being
moved from Heanor Memorial Hospital after the discovery of
asbestos.

According to the report, Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS
Trust, which runs the Heanor site on Ilkeston Road, has confirmed
that as part of its routine inspections a 'small amount' of brown
asbestos was found in the boiler room.  The room is located in the
basement of the site.

The trust's director of operations William Jones said: "Experts
have confirmed that these findings present no risk to the health
and safety of our patients or visitors.

"The asbestos is safely contained within the boiler room area and
is not airborne.

"The safety of our patients and staff is paramount and we have
taken immediate steps to arrange the safe disposal of the asbestos
by qualified specialists."

The work is due to start on September 24, with patients moved on
September 23.  The operation could take up to two weeks and will
include a full survey of the building.

Mr Jones added: "For the comfort of our patients we have arranged
for them to be temporarily cared for at Ilkeston Community
Hospital, just two miles away.

"We expect them to be able to return to Heanor hospital on
October 7."

Brown asbestos, widely used for insulation, flooring and roofing
in older buildings, can cause damage to lungs and lung cancers,
such as mesothelioma.  It is now banned in the UK, but only
becomes harmful when the fibres are airborne.

A spokesperson for the trust says patients are being moved because
the asbestos disposal team will be working in the boiler room as
electrical power and hot water will be disrupted.  There are
currently 13 inpatients being cared for on the 16-bed ward.
However, the spokesperson said: "By the time of the move we
anticipate there will be 10 patients to transfer to Ilkeston.

"The patients are predominantly elderly palliative care or
rehabilitation patients."

Physiotherapy services will remain on site, as this takes place in
a separate part of the building.

The spokesperson said all patients have been informed about the
move.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears at Bulli Public School
---------------------------------------------------
Dominic Geiger, writing for Illawarra Mercury, reported that the
NSW Department of Education and Communities says it is unclear how
many people came in contact with "potentially hazardous material"
after it was donated to Bulli Public School to be used as fill for
a vegetable garden bed.

According to the report, a department spokesman said a member of
the school community had donated the excavated fill, obtained from
a builder.  He said this was believed to have contained small
fragments of fibro, and the department had engaged a licensed
asbestos removalist, who "fully encapsulated and fenced the area,
and covered the fill to contain it," the report related.

The fill is believed to have remained on school grounds from the
week of August 11 until the department removed it.

"The material is currently being tested," the spokesman said.

"As a precaution, the Department of Education and Communities
treated the material as potentially being hazardous and managed it
as such, according to the department's procedures."

However, the fill was not believed to have posed a major risk to
anyone at the school, the spokesman said.

"There was very low risk to anyone on site because the fill
material only contained a small amount of non-friable, bonded
fibro pieces.

"It is unclear who or how many people came into contact with the
fill during this time."

Bulli Public School parent Kim Adams said the pile of debris had
sat on the grounds covered for some time, and other parents had
feared the pile contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Seeks Revisions to Eligibility Criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the union representing people who worked at
a notorious asbestos mine on Newfoundland's Baie Verte Peninsula
is demanding changes to eligibility criteria that prevented most
of them from receiving compensation.

According to the report, the United Steelworkers union says health
information gathered by the Baie Verte miners' registry shows
people who were unfairly denied for compensation to exposure to
asbestos.

"Nobody should have had to be exposed to what they were exposed
to, and it's now well recognized," said Andy King, the former
director of the Steelworkers' health, safety and environment
department.

"Let's try to do some justice."

Registry recently completed

The registry is an electronic database of more than 1,000 people
who worked at the mine between 1955 when a huge asbestos deposit
was discovered, and 1995 when the mine closed permanently.

Among other things, the registry found that 109 former miners had
asbestos-related diseases such as lung cancer and asbestosis.
Another 56 had gastrointestinal cancers, possibly related to
asbestos exposure.

Over the weekend, residents of the Baie Verte area had the
opportunity to speak with creators of the registry and ask
questions about what it found.

The Steelworkers will be meeting this week with officials of the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

King said many people in the registry were unfairly treated. While
145 miners made claims to the commission, 100 -- or more than two
thirds of them -- were denied compensation.

King said compensation was denied in some cases because of how the
rules were structured. For instance, he said compensation was
denied to workers who might have received the maximum exposure
over just a few months.

"If you can't provide some level of justice for those, how can
people whose experience is perhaps less clear have confidence that
the system will address their needs today?" King said in an
interview.

In 1977, workers at the mine waged a 14-week strike that was
unusual in that it focused largely on occupational safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Man Dies of Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------
Frank Parker, 73, of Oxendon Way, Ernesford Grange, died in June
2011, only 18 months after he was diagnosed with the asbestos-
related illness, Mesothelioma.

According to the Coventry Observer, Mr Parker was advised by his
nurses to speak to a solicitor, and make a Mesothelioma claim for
compensation. Unfortunately, Mr Parker succumbed to his illness
before he was able to take the suggested legal action against his
former employers.

However, shortly after his death, Mr Parker's son, Graham, and
daughter-in-law, Adrienne, continued his fight for justice,
attempting to hold those allegedly responsible for the asbestos
exposure accountable.

With the help of the Coventry Observer, in September last year,
Graham and his wife were able to acquire the evidence required,
allowing them to settle the claim for compensation in Mr Parker's
name.

Commenting on the settlement, Mrs Parker of Binley, who looked
after her father-in-law during his battle with Mesothelioma, said
that:

"We're obviously delighted. No amount of money will ever bring
Frank back to us, or make up for the pain and suffering he endured
for the final months of his life.

"But the fact that we've been able to take a stand against his
employers, who needlessly exposed Frank and workers like him to
asbestos, brings us a sense of justice and might also inspire
others in a similar situation to not let employers get away with
it."

Mr Parker had trained to become an electrician after he left
school in the early 1950s, before joining a local firm as an
apprentice.

In 1974 he joined Massey Ferguson, where he continued his
employment until he later retired in 1990, a decision he made so
that he could care for his wife Shirley-Ann, who died from a
lengthy illness in 1993.

Thomas Fairclough, Asons Executive, added: "An Asbestos related
illness can lead to a slow, painful death, and it can take up to
40 years for the symptoms to present themselves. If asbestos was
present something should have been done immediately to prevent the
exposure."

According to the HSE, Men who worked in the building industry when
asbestos was used extensively are now among those most at risk of
Mesothelioma.  Predictions have been made, that in the worst case,
annual deaths for men with asbestos related illnesses will
increase to a peak of about 2100, around the year 2016. (2)

Asons Solicitors suggest, that if someone would like to learn more
about the Mesothelioma claims process, or if they would like to
better understand asbestos related illness, that information is
available at http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an expert helpline on
01204 521 133

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.

For further information contact:
Email: info(at)asons(dot)co(dot)uk
Website: http://www.asons.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tice Elem. School Needs $350,000 to Clean Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Keegan, writing for ABC7.com, reported that it will take
more than a quarter million dollars to clear out a school building
filled with asbestos.  For now students are learning in portable
classrooms until the historic building at Tice Elementary is
cleaned up.

The landmark building has always caught the attention of mom Ada
Aguero, the report related.

"You hear people talk about, oh I used to go to school there I
remember that, and it's nice to hear that and it's nice to see my
kids be able to go to that school," said Aguero.

Ageuro has a daughter in third grade at Tice Elementary.  Ageuro's
daughter goes to class in a portable unit on campus while crews
finish renovating the historic building.

First, the asbestos needs to go.

The school district said a miscommunication with the contractor
meant some asbestos would be left inside.

Officials noticed the mistake and are asking the school board for
$350,000 to remove all the asbestos.

"The kids don't need to be exposed to all that," said Aguero.

"That safety-first piece helps us to focus on the education and
helps us to reach further heights in our student achievement,"
said Principal Dwayne Courtney.

While second through fifth grade students are waiting to move out
of portable classrooms and into the old historical building, the
younger children have already moved into brand new classrooms
built just before the school year began.

"Parents' eyes were wide open when they came in for open house,"
said Courtney.

The new building has new everything: desks, smart boards and
computers.

"It's very exciting," Principal Dwayne Courtney said, "Everything
is going a lot faster than we ever thought."

The new classrooms are a preview of what to expect once the
renovations to the historic building are finished in December.

"I was happy before but, of course, everything being nice and new
and redone will be amazing," said third grade teacher Anna
Polakiewicz.

The school district is expected to move $350,000 from the capital
fund to this project.

Officials say it won't have any impact on other school
construction projects.

They say the move will save money in the long run.

The district has to pay professionals to inspect schools with
asbestos every three years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Fibro Plaintiffs File Supplemental Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that plaintiffs appealing a lower
court's decision to throw out a $13.5 million asbestos verdict
have filed one final brief in anticipation of oral arguments in
the matter, maintaining their position that the substantial factor
test is appropriate for asbestos cases.

According to the report, in a supplemental reply brief filed Sept.
3 in the Texas Supreme Court, the asbestos plaintiffs argue that
they are not asking the high court to apply a theory of collective
liability and say that, under Borg Warner's "substantial factor
test," they presented enough evidence to support the claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Summary Judgment Bids in "Morgan" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Steele, Chief District Judge of the United
States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division, entered 11
separate decisions on Aug. 30, 2013, in the asbestos action
captioned RONALD MELVIN MORGAN, as Personal Representative for the
Estate of Rueben Morgan, Plaintiff, v. BILL VANN COMPANY, INC., et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0535-WS-B (S.D. Ala.).

The lawsuit alleges various state-law tort claims and a wrongful
death cause of action based on the alleged exposure of the
Plaintiff's decedent, Rueben Morgan, to asbestos-containing
products at various times and locations.  Morgan was diagnosed
with and died from mesothelioma.

Judge Steele granted each of the following defendants' motions for
summary judgment and terminated them from the case:

   * Albany International Corporation, a full-text copy of the
     Decision is available at http://is.gd/2jCRxjfrom Leagle.com.

   * General Electric Company, a full-text copy of the
     Decision is available at http://is.gd/D8Slxifrom Leagle.com.

   * The Gorman-Rupp Company, a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/uNstXRfrom Leagle.com.

   * CBS Corporation, a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/bmdHPhfrom Leagle.com.

   * Mount Vernon Mills, a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/VYJfgifrom Leagle.com.

   * Crane Co., a full-text copy of the Decision is available at
     http://is.gd/YdhQMtfrom Leagle.com.

   * Warren Pumps, LLC, a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/jzhM3Tfrom Leagle.com.

   * Flowserve Corporation, a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/z7TWybfrom Leagle.com.

   * Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., and Crown Holdings, Inc., a
     full-text copy of the Decision is available at
     http://is.gd/cW2FbQfrom Leagle.com.

   * Honeywell International Inc., a full-text copy of the
     Decision is available at http://is.gd/sp70iSfrom Leagle.com.

   * John Crane, Inc., a full-text copy of the Decision is
     available at http://is.gd/GOVwavfrom Leagle.com.

Ronald Melvin Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Ben DuBose, Esq.,
Charles Edward Valles, Esq., George M. Keahey, Esq., and Grover
Patterson Keahey, Jr., Esq.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank E. Lankford,
Jr., Esq. -- flankford@huielaw.com -- and Stewart D. McCloud, Esq.
-- smccloud@huielaw.com -- at Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP.

Michael E. Upchurch, represented by Michael E. Upchurch, Esq. --
meu@frazergreene.com -- at Frazer, Greene, Upchurch & Baker LLC.

Mobile Infirmary Association, represented by Wade B. Perry, Jr.,
Esq. -- wbp@johnstoneadams.com -- at Johnstone, Adams, Bailey,
Gordon & Harris.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion for Sanctions in "Cabasug" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry M. Kurren of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii denied a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs in
a lawsuit asserting claims against 25 defendants that allegedly
manufactured, sold, and supplied various products containing
asbestos to the United States Navy.

Plaintiffs Robert Cabasug and Joyce Cabasug filed the Motion for
Sanctions against Defendant Crane Company.  In denying the Motion,
Judge Kurren concluded that Crane Co. is not required to search
all of the records located in its repositories in answering
Plaintiffs interrogatories, because the expense of performing the
search outweighs its likely benefit.  Judge Kurren also declined
to reconsider its prior ruling that Crane Co.'s answers to the
Plaintiffs' interrogatories are satisfactory.

The case is ROBERT A. CABASUG, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
COMPANY, et al. Defendants, CV. NO. 12-00313 JMS-BMK (D. Hawaii).
A full-text copy of Judge Kurren's Decision, dated Aug. 30, 2013,
is available at http://is.gd/sHletKfrom Leagle.com.

Robert A. Cabasug and Joyce C. Cabasug, Plaintiffs, represented by
Amanda J. Weston, Esq., John H. Price, Esq., Allison M. Fujita,
Esq., Alyssa R Segawa, Esq., Diane T. Ono, Esq., Gary O. Galiher,
Esq., Ilana Kananipiliokala Waxman, Esq., L. Richard DeRobertis,
Esq., Scott K. Saiki, Esq., and Clarisse M. Kobashigawa, at
Galiher DeRobertis Ono; and Michael A. Ragsdale, Esq., at Cronin
Fried Sekiya Kekina & Fairbanks.

Galiher DeRobertis Ono may be reached at:

         GALIHER DEROBERTIS ONO
         610 Ward Ave.
         Honolulu, HI 96814
         Toll Free: +1 888-441-0059
         Fax: (808) 591-2608

Mr. Ragsdale may be reached at:

         Michael A. Ragsdale, Esq.
         CRONIN FRIED SEKIYA KEKINA & FAIRBANKS
         600 Davies Pacific Center
         841 Bishop Street
         Honolulu, HI 96813-3962
         Phone: 808.524.1433
         Toll-Free: 1.800.227.8601

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Davis, Esq.,
-- deoff.davis@klgates.com -- Brendan J. Tuohy, Esq. --
brendan.tuohy@klgates.com -- Daniel S. Hurwitz, Esq. --
daniel.hurtwitz@klgates.com -- Gregory R. Youman, Esq. --
gregory.youman@klgates.com -- Michael J. Sechler, Esq. --
Michael.Sechler@klgates.com -- and James B. Insco, Esq. --
james.insco@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP; and Joseph F.
Kotowski, III, Esq. -- jkotowski@tpm-hawaii.com -- and Lee T.
Nakamura, Esq. -- lnakamura@tpm-hawaii.com -- at Tom Petrus &
Miller LLLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven
K. Hisaka, Esq., at Hisaka Stone Goto Yoshida Cosgrove & Ching;
and Brady L Green, Esq., Wilbraham Lawler & Buba P.C.

Mr. Hisaka may be reached at:

         Steven K. Hisaka, Esq.
         HISAKA STONE GOTO YOSHIDA COSGROVE & CHING
         Pacific Guardian Center Mauka Tower, Ste 3000
         Honolulu, HI 96813
         Phone: +1.808.523.0451

Mr. Green may be reached at:

         Brady L. Green, Esq.
         WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3100
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103
         Tel: (215) 9722860

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Ewing M. Martin,
III, Esq., at Mason Martin LLLC, in Hawaii; and Craig R. Waksler,
Esq. -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- and David M. Katzenstein,
Esq. -- dkatzenstein@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans Cherin
& Mellott, LLC.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael F
O'Connor, Esq., at Ogawa, Lau, Nakamura & Jew.

Mr. O'Connor may be reached at:

         Michael F. O'Connor, Esq.
         OGAWA, LAU, NAKAMURA & JEW
         707 Richards Street, Suite 600
         Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
         Phone: (808) 533-3999
         Fax: (808) 533-0144

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ewing M. Martin, III,
Esq., at Mason Martin LLLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald C. Machado,
Jr., Esq., and Leah M. Reyes, Esq., at Henderson Gallagher & Kane.

The Henderson Gallgher lawyers may be reached at:

         Donald C. Machado, Jr., Esq.
         Leah M. Reyes, Esq.
         HENDERSON GALLAGHER & KANE
         Topa Financial Center
         745 Fort Street, Suite 1550
         Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
         Phone: (808) 531-2023
         Fax: (808) 531-2408
         E-mail: HGK@insurlawhawaii.com

General Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
R. Sylvester, Esq. -- sylvester@bsds.com -- at Bickerton, Lee,
Dang & Sullivan; Stephanie L. Marn, Esq. -- smarn@unioncounsel.net
-- at Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld; Christopher S. Marks, Esq. --
chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Timothy Edward
Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin, LLP.

Griscom Russell Company, Defendant, represented by Michael F
O'Connor, Esq., at Ogawa, Lau, Nakamura & Jew; Brent M. Karren,
Esq. -- bkarren@cmjlaw.com -- and Carrie S. Lin, Esq. --
clin@cmjlaw.com -- at Cooley Manion Jones LLP; Robert O.
Meriwether, Esq. -- robert.meriwether@nelsonmullins.com -- at
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Co., Defendant, represented by Corlis J. Chang,
Esq. -- cchang@goodsill.com -- John R. Lacy, Esq. --
jlacy@goodsill.com -- and Marissa Lei Lin Owens, Esq. --
mowens@goodsill.com -- at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Michael F
O'Connor, Esq., Ogawa, Lau, Nakamura & Jew; Douglas G. Wah, Esq. -
- dwah@foleymansfield.com -- and Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Esq. --
ktaqi@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Maxim Evaporators, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Massenburg, Esq. -- cmassenburg@sbm-legal.com -- at Swetman Baxter
Massenburg, LLC; Judy A. Tanaka, Esq. -- Judy.Tanaka@ahfi.com --
Miriah Eve Holden, Esq. -- MHolden@ahfi.com -- and Richard J.
Kowen, Esq. -- rkowen@ahfi.com -- at Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

AMETEK INC., Defendant, represented by Ewing M. Martin, III, Esq.,
at Mason Martin LLLC; Kyle E. Bjornlund, Esq. --
kbjornlund@cetllp.com -- and Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq. --
lcetrulo@cetllp.com -- at Cetrulo LLP.

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Vincent
Scaglione, Jr., Esq. -- vscaglione@dmclaw.com -- at Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcote, P.C..

Tate Andale, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by Wayne S. Sakamoto, Esq., at Wayne
S. Sakamoto, AAL, ALC.

Atwood & Morrill, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicolas P.
Martin, Esq., at Hake Law, A Professional Corp..

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Michael F
O'Connor, Esq., at Ogawa, Lau, Nakamura & Jew.

Flowserve Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Stefan M.
Reinke, Esq., at Lyons Brandt Cook & Hiramatsu.

Lyons Brandt may be reached at:

         LYONS, BRANDT, COOK & HIRAMATSU
         1800 Davies Pacific Center
         841 Bishop Street
         Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
         Tel: (808)524-7030
         Fax: (808)533-3011

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas D. Sands,
Esq., at Christopher Shea Goodwin, AAL, LLLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Elton John
Bain, Esq., at Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga.

Kessner Duca may be reached at:

         KESSNER DUCA UMEBAYASHI BAIN & MATSUNAGA
         220 South King Street, Suite 1900
         Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
         Telephone: 808-536-1900

Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ewing M.
Martin, III, Esq., at Mason Martin LLLC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Elton John
Bain, Esq., and Bradford Chun, Esq., at Kessner Umebayashi Bain &
Matsunaga.

Maxim Evaporators, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company,
Cross Defendant, represented by Miriah Eve Holden, Esq., at Alston
Hunt Floyd & Ing.

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Lindalee K. Farm, Esq.
-- lfarm@goodsill.com -- at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed With Exposure Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois allowed an inmate currently
incarcerated at the Vienna Correctional Center to pursue one of
his claims, alleging among other things, that there are overhead
pipes containing asbestos in the inmates' restrooms and living
quarters, after finding that the inmate's claim articulates a
colorable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Randy Davis,
warden at Vienna, for housing the inmate in unsanitary conditions
which place his health at risk.

The case is KYLE SUMMY, # R-47788, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-816-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Gilbert's memorandum and order dated Aug. 30, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/PyaPVVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rulings Issued in WTC Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
An insurance coverage action was filed by Plaintiff-insurer
American Home Assurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment to
determine the scope and nature of rights and obligations under an
American Home policy for asbestos claims arising out of the
construction of the original World Trade Center.  American Home
issued the Policy to Defendant Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey in 1966.

Presently there are four motions pending in the case.  Port
Authority first seeks partial summary judgment regarding American
Home's duty to defend it in personal injury actions stemming from
the construction of the original World Trade Center.  Next,
Plaintiff American Home seeks dismissal of certain counterclaims
asserted against it by the Port Authority.  Finally, Defendants
Tishman Speyer Properties L.P. and Tishman Speyer Properties,
Inc., move for dismissal of all counts asserted against them,
while non-party Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company seeks
leave to intervene as plaintiff.

Justice Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted Port Authority's motion for partial summary judgment,
holding that to the extent that American Home defines "reasonable"
defense costs to exclude claims related to non-World Trade Center
sites, that position is inconsistent under New York law.
Therefore, Judge Bransten concluded that American Home's duty to
defend extends to the entirety of those WTC Asbestos Claims
asserting claims covered by the Policy.  American Home
nevertheless maintained that its duty to defend has been
terminated by Port Authority's exhaustion of the limits of the
Policy.  Judge Bransten ruled that American Home's argument fails
to defeat Port Authority's motion for summary judgment as American
Home pointed to no provision of the Policy terminating defense
costs upon exhaustion of the liability limit.

Judge Bransten also granted American Home's motion to dismiss
Counterclaim Three asserting that American Home engaged in
deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 349 of the
General Business Law.  Judge Bransten also granted the Tishman
Defendants' motion to dismiss, after finding that the complaint
does not allege that either of the moving Tishman Defendants have
sought coverage under the subject Policy.

Judge Bransten refused to allow non-party Hartford to intervene in
the case, holding that Hartford's complaint proposes to interject
new claims not presented in the American Home action that will
raise complex and time consuming legal and factual issues entirely
collateral to the issues raised by American Home.

The case is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK and NEW JERSEY, ALCOA, INC., MARIO &
DIBONO PLASTERING CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, TEECO PROPERTIES L.P., TMLC
CORP., F/K/A TISHMAN MANAGEMENT & LEASING CORP., TISHMAN SPEYER
PROPERTIES L.P., TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., TISHMAN
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, EQUITY HOLDINGS I CORP.,
F/K/A TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, F/K/A TISHMAN
REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., F/K/A TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION &
RESEARCH CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., TTV
REALTY HOLDINGS, INC., F/K/A TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., F/K/A TIONA REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., TISHMAN
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF MANHATTAN, F/K/A TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION
& RESEARCH CORPORATION, AND TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
Defendants, 651096/2012 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Bransten's Decision dated Aug. 15, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/azi3Tqfrom Leagle.com.

Mary Beth Forshaw, Esq. -- mforshaw@stblaw.com -- Bryce L.
Friedman, Esq. -- bfriedman@stblaw.com -- and Elisa Alcabes, Esq.
-- ealcabes@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, for
American Home Assurance Company.

Robert M. Horkovich, Esq. -- rhorkovich@andersonkill.com -- and
Raymond A. Mascia, Jr., Esq. -- rmascia@andersonkill.com -- at
Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., for The Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey.

Michael S. Komar, Esq. -- mkomar@mbkklaw.com -- and Melissa K.
Driscoll, Esq., -- mdriscoll@mbkklaw.com -- of Menz Bonner Komar &
Koenigsberg LLP; and James P. Ruggeri, Esq. --
jruggeri@goodwin.com -- and Joshua D. Weinberg, Esq. --
jweinberg@goodwin.com -- of Shipman & Goodwin LLP for Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company.

Peter N. Flocos, Esq. -- peter.flocos@klgates.com -- of K&L Gates
LLP for Alcoa Inc.

Frank S. Occhipinti, Esq. -- focchipinti@somlaw.com -- of Stewart
Occhipinti LLP for Tishman Speyer Properties L.P. and Tishman
Speyer Properties, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Summary Judgment in Meso Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dorothy Phillips worked at the Crewe Garment Factory in
Crewe, Virginia, first as a secretary and then as a garment
presser.  She died from mesothelioma in October 2012.  Defendant
Hoffman/New Yorker Inc. manufactured machines for steaming and
pressing fabric.  The presses used pads for smoothing fabric.
Phillips alleges asbestos exposure from these pads, which the
garment pressers had to change often, and asserts that Hoffman is
responsible for any exposure which resulted from replacement pads
containing asbestos.  The Plaintiff further alleges Hoffman is
liable for failure to warn of the dangers posed by using
replacement pads containing asbestos.

Hoffman argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because
Virginia law does not impose a duty on the original manufacturer
to protect users from exposure to asbestos from replacement parts
sold by a third part.  Alternatively Hoffman argues there is no
evidence that Mrs. Phillips was exposed to asbestos from
replacement pads.

Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, agreed with the Plaintiff that Virginia law imposes
liability for exposure to asbestos from replacement parts. The
record is unclear as to whether Mrs. Phillips was exposed to
asbestos from replacement parts.  In the exercise of its
discretion the Superior Court therefore denied Hoffman's motion.

The case is IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dorothy Phillips. Limited
to: Hoffman/New Yorker Inc., C.A. NO. N12C-03-057 ASB (Del.
Super.).  A full-text copy of Judge Parkins' Memorandum Opinion,
dated Aug. 30, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/V5wPdffrom
Leagle.com.

Kara Hager, Esq., at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnick LLP, in
Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Plaintiff Dorothy Phillips.

Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq., Murphy & Landon, Wilmington, Delaware,
Counsel for Defendant Hoffman/New Yorker.

Mr. Parshall may be reached at:

         Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq.
         MURPHY & LANDON
         1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
         Wilmington, DE 19805-1267
         Tel: (302) 482-4381
         Fax: (302) 472-8135


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Inmate's Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum and order dated Sept. 3, 2013, Judge J. Phil
Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois dismissed without prejudice the complaint filed by an
inmate incarcerated at the Vienna Correctional Center for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, exposure to asbestos at Vienna.

The case is TYRONE D. SMITH, #B-54487, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00803-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Gilbert's Decision is available at http://is.gd/f1GXnf
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Verdict in "Barile" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-panel judge composed of Judges Graves, Ashrafi and
Espinosa in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
affirmed in part and reversed in part a jury verdict in a
mesothelioma case.

Following trial in the case, Defendant Foster Wheeler, L.L.C.,
appealed from the jury's verdict awarding $1,776,892 in damages to
plaintiff.  The jury found Foster Wheeler strictly liable for
failing to warn workers about the dangers of asbestos when they
were repairing a large customized boiler Foster Wheeler had
manufactured specifically for defendant Exxon Mobil and installed
at Exxon's Bayway refinery.  The Plaintiff Mary O. Barile,
individually and as executrix of the estate of her husband Walter
J. Barile, filed a protective cross-appeal from rulings of the
trial court dismissing or otherwise limiting her negligence claims
against both Foster Wheeler and Exxon and denying her post-trial
motion for a judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict in favor
of Exxon.

The Court concluded that the statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-
1.1(a), was applicable to all of of the Plaintiff's claims against
Foster Wheeler and barred the jury's verdict awarding damages, and
found find no reversible error in the trial court's rulings with
respect to Exxon.

The Court explained that the claims against Foster Wheeler should
have been dismissed because Foster Wheeler designed and
constructed an improvement to real property, and the statute of
repose bars any claim that was not filed within 10 years of
completion of its work in 1963.  Foster Wheeler, according to the
Court, was neither a manufacturer nor a distributor of asbestos
building materials that were used to design and construct its
boiler.

The case is MARY O. BARILE, individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of her Husband WALTER J. BARILE, Plaintiff-
Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY, INC., a/k/a MINNESOTA
MINING 7 MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ALFA LAVAL, INC., individually and
as successor to, and previously known as Alfa-Laval AB, Alfa-Laval
Thermal Co., and DeLaval Separator Company, ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, individually and as successor to Johnson's Company,
AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, formerly CertainTeed
Products Corp., individually and as successor to Keasbey &
Mattison Company, CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, CLEAVER BROOKS,
INC., CRANE PUMPS AND SYSTEMS, INC., individually, and as
successor to and d/b/a Crane Valves, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, FLUOR DANIEL SERVICES CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GRINNELL CORPORATION, IMO INDUSTRIES
INC., as successor to and formerly known as DeLaval Turbine,
Transamerica DeLaval, and IMO DeLaval, ITT INDUSTRIES INC.,
individually and as successor to Bell & Gossett and Grinnell
Corporation, JOHN W. WALLACE & CO., THE M.W. KELLOGG COMPANY,
RAPID AMERICAN CORP., individually and as successor to the Celotex
Corp., Philip Carey Manufacturing Co., Philip Carey Company, Inc.,
XPRU Corp., Briggs Manufacturing Company, Panacon Corporation,
Smith & Kenzle, Inc., and Quebec Asbestos Corp., Ltd., RESCO
HOLDINGS, INC., ROBERT A. KEASBEY COMPANY, SANTA FE BRAUN, INC.,
SCHIAVONE-BONOMO CORPORATION, SEQUOIA VENTURES, individually and
as successor to Bechtel Corp., STATE INSULATION CORP., UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, Division of the Dow Chemical Company,
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendants, and
FOSTER WHEELER, L.L.C., f/k/a Foster Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and
EXXON MOBIL, individually and as successor-in-interest to Mobil
Oil Co., and as successor-in-interest to Exxon Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent, NO. A-0092-11T2, A-0141-11T2 (N.J. Super.
App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Sept. 4, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/14QyI2from Leagle.com.

Christopher J. Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com --
argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent Foster Wheeler,
L.L.C. (Sedgwick L.L.P., attorneys; Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq., of
counsel and on the brief; Mr. Keale, on the brief).

Gonen Haklay, Esq. -- ghaklay@cprlaw.com -- argued the cause for
respondent/cross-appellant Mary O. Barile (Cohen, Placitella &
Roth, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Haklay, William L. Kuzmin, Esq. --
wkuzmin@cprlaw.com -- on the brief).

Joseph P. LaSala, Esq. -- jlasala@mdmc-law.com -- argued the cause
for respondent Exxon Mobil (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. LaSala, of counsel; Nancy
McDonald, Esq. -- nmcdonald@mdmc-law.com -- Michelle Hydrusko,
Esq. -- mhydrusko@mdmc-law.com -- and Gabriel Ferstendig, Esq. --
gferstendig@mdmc-law.com -- on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hobart's Appeal From "Campbell" Ruling Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant, Hobart Brothers Company, appeals from the judgment
entered in favor of Appellee, Helen Campbell, in her own right and
as executrix of the estate of her late husband, Thessely Campbell
(Decedent), following a jury trial in an asbestos litigation
matter.

In a memorandum dated Sept. 5, 2013, a three-judge panel composed
of Judges Gantman, Allen, and Platt of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that (1)
because the Appellant has mischaracterized the testimony of Dr.
Daniel DuPont as grounded on a broad "any exposure" theory of
causation, its first claim lacks merit; and (2) the record
supports the jury's determination that the Decedent inhaled
asbestos fibers from the Appellant's welding rods.

The case is HELEN CAMPBELL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THESSELY
CAMPBELL, AND HELEN CAMPBELL, IN HER OWN RIGHT, v. A.W. CHESTERON,
INC., HOBART BROTHERS CO. APPEAL OF: HOBART BROTHERS CO., NO. 2005
EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Court's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/ShUXE7from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Exposure Suit Remanded for New Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appellants/Cross Appellees, Crane Co., Hobart Brothers Company,
and The Lincoln Electric Company and Appellee/Cross Appellant,
Darlene Nelson, appeal from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee in
the amount of $14.5 million.  The Appellants contend, inter alia,
that the trial court erred in the admission of the Appellee's
expert witness testimony that every asbestos exposure must be
considered a cause of mesothelioma.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania composed
of Judges Shogan, Wecht, and Fitzgerald, agreed, reversed the
lower court's ruling pursuant to Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d
27 (Pa. 2012), and remanded the case for a new trial on liability.

The Appellants further contend that improper remarks by the
Appellee Nelson's counsel during closing arguments in the damages
phase of the trial were prejudicial and that the trial court
should have granted a mistrial.  The Superior Court also agreed,
vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial on damages.

Finally, the Superior Court granted Appellants Hobart and
Lincoln's motion to take judicial notice of Philadelphia General
Court Regulation No. 2012-12.

The case is DARLENE NELSON, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES
NELSON v. AIRCO WELDERS SUPPLY, ALLIED SIGNAL (A/K/A ALLIED
CORP.), AMERICAN STANDARD, A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., BASIC, INC.,
BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., (F/K/A AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE, USA, INC.)
ACHEM PRODUCTS, INC., RHONE POULENC, AG CO. AND BENJAMIN FOSTER
COMPANY, BEAZER EAST (A/K/A KOOPERS CO., INC. AND KOOPER), BIRD
INC., BOC GROUP, BORG-WARNER CORP., BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., CBS
CORPORATION (F/K/A VIACOM, INC. AND WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION), CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CHRYSLER CORP. (A/K/A AMC,
NORTHWEST AUTO RENTAL CO. AND CHRYSLER SERVICE CONTRACT CO.) CRANE
CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CRANE PACKING, ESAB WELDING AND CUTTING
EQUIPMENT, EJ LAVINO & CO., EUTECTIC CORP., FERRO ENGINEERING,
FORD MOTOR CO., FOSECO, INC., FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GARLOCK,
INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., GEORGE V.
HAMILTON, INC., GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOULD PUMPS, INC.,
GREEN, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., HAJOCA PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY,
HARNISCHFEGER CORP., HEDMAN RESOURCES LIMITED (F/K/A HEDMAN MINES
LTD.), HOBART BROTHERS CO., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
INGERSOLL RAND CO., JOY GLOBAL, INC., LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., LUKENS
STEEL CO., MALLINCKRODT GROUP, INC. (F/K/A INTERNATIONAL MINERALS
& CHEMICALS CORP.), MELRATH GASKET, INC., MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE
(MSA), METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOSROCK CORPORATION,
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PEP BOYS (A/K/A MANNY, MOE AND JACK), UNTION
CARBIDE CORP., UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES DIVISION OF THIEM
CORPORATION, NOS. 865 EDA 2011, 866 EDA 2011, 867 EDA 2011, 889
EDA 2011 (Pa. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision dated Sept. 5,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/bgjsqgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing 2 Inmates' Lawsuits Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
issued two separate orders affirming the dismissal of lawsuits
filed by inmates against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction.  The lawsuits allege that the inmates were suffering
from compensable emotional distress because they were forced to
live in buildings which contain asbestos.

The Court of Appeals held that the complaints do not allege what
is required for a viable claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress or intentional infliction of emotional
distress.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the
Court of Claims was correct to sustain the Ohio Attorney General's
motion to dismiss the complaints.

The cases are:

   * William Coffman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of
     Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee,
     NO. 12AP-816 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
     pertaining to this case is available at http://is.gd/YbiKPd
     from Leagle.com.

   * Alfonsia Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of
     Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee,
     NO. 12AP-814 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
     pertaining to this case is available at http://is.gd/ZvU7tB
     from Leagle.com.

William Coffman, pro se.  Alfonsia Perry, pro se.  Michael DeWine,
Attorney General, and Kristin S. Boggs, for appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Pipefitters' Claims Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel composed of Judge Rendell, Greenway, Jr., and
Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
in part and vacated and remanded in part a lower court's ruling in
Multidistrict Litigation case number 875, which involves several
thousand asbestos cases from around the country.

The Appellants -- 44 plaintiffs designated as the "North Dakota
Pipefitter II Group Plaintiffs" -- appeal the District Court's sua
sponte dismissal of their claims for failure to prosecute, as well
as the District Court's denial of their motion for
reconsideration.  The Appellants also appeal the District Court's
denial of their motion to remand the actions to North Dakota state
court.

With respect to subject matter jurisdiction, the Third Circuit
held that at the time the single-plaintiff actions were removed
from state court to federal court, minimal diversity existed among
the adverse parties.  The plaintiffs were North Dakota or
Minnesota residents and each complaint named several corporations
as defendants, including corporations from Ohio, New York,
Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and
Alabama.  Therefore, the Third Circuit said, there is no
constitutional impediment to the District Court's exercise of
jurisdiction over the non-foreign defendants in this case.  Given
the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(d) and the
legislative history, the Third Circuit concluded that, when a
foreign-state defendant removes an action under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, the district court is empowered to
exercise jurisdiction over the entire action, including claims
against other non-foreign defendants.  Therefore, the District
Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the single-plaintiff
actions, and it properly denied the Appellants' motion to remand
the actions to state court, the Third Circuit ruled.

With respect to the sua sponte dismissal, the Third Circuit
vacated the District Court's dismissal, finding that the District
Court did not consider the factors laid out in Poulis v. State
Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), nor
did it provide the Appellants with an opportunity to explain their
failure to comply with its February 21 Order before dismissing
their cases sua sponte.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's March 27, 2012 and April 27, 2012 Orders.

The case is In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation.  North
Dakota Pipefitter II Group Plaintiffs, Appellants, NO. 12-2527 (3d
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Sept. 6, 2013, Opinion of the
Third Circuit penned by Judge Greenaway, is available at
http://is.gd/vljlgFfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *