---

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

               Friday, May 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 102

                             Headlines


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: "Barnwell" Sues Over False Fin'l Statements
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Resolves Claims in ChoiceDek Litigation
ALLSTATE CORP: No Claim Value Discovery Yet in Montana Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Cal. Off-the-Clock Wage, Hour Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Romero I Lawsuit

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Says Release in Romero I to Bar Claims in II
AMERICAN CABLE: Sued for Failing to Pay OT and Minimum Wage
APPLE INC: Class Representative Wants No Poach Settlement Rejected
ARTIZAN FLATBREAD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
AST SPORTS: Judge Tosses Anabolic Rush False Ad Class Action

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Manipulation of Gold Prices
BLOOMBERG LP: Refuses to Pay for OT Work, "Michael" Suit Says
CAPITAL ONE: Faces New Suit Over Interchange Fees "Conspiracy"
CAPITAL ONE: To Appeal Merchant Discount Fees Suit Certification
CAPITAL ONE: Cardholders Ask for Writ in Late Fees Suit v. COBNA

CAPITAL ONE: No More UCL, TILA Claims in Card Interest Rate Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Expects Remand in Checking Account Overdraft Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Bares Updates in State AG Payment Protection Suits
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Master Complaint in TCPA Violation Lawsuit
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Lively" Suit Over TCPA Violations

CARLSON RESTAURANTS: T.G.I.F. Staff Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
CARMAX AUTO: Wants Wages Class Action to Stay in Federal Court
CATERPILLAR INC: Faces "Scenic" Suit Over Defective Diesel Engine
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Aboud" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Wrongful Marketing of Vitamin E Products

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Court Rejects Claims in Cavitron Suit
DENTSPLY INC: Requests for Summary Judgment in Dentists' Lawsuit
DORAL FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
ESA MANAGEMENT: Illegally Obtained Consumer Report, Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Escapes Civil Wiretapping Class Actions

FIRST INT'L BANK: Sued Over Alleged Collection of Unlawful Debts
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Agnew" Suit Claims
GENERAL CABLE: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Kentucky Court
GENERAL MOTORS: "Detton" Sues Over Defective Ignition Switches
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect

GIANT INTERACTIVE: Spreading Misleading Statement, Suit Says
HALSTEAD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Report Act
HCA HOLDINGS: Discovery in Remaining Securities Claims Proceeds
HERBALIFE LTD: Sued Over Alleged Violation of Securities Laws
INVENTURE FOODS: Cal. Court Dismisses Suit Over Smoothie Kits

INVENTURE FOODS: "Lilly" Response Date Moved to Allow Depositions
INVENTURE FOODS: June Hearing Set on Motion to Junk "Montantes"
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Class Action
KIRBY INLAND: Sued Over Losses and Damages Caused by Oil Spill
LA RAZA PIZZA: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, "Cockrill" Suit Says

LEBANON GOLD: Faces "Miller" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
LUNA PARK: Parents Mull Discrimination Class Action
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Aug. 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Kroenig" Suit Says
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeal v. Certification of "Ge Dandong" Denied

OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Accord in OfficeMax Merger Lawsuit
OFFICE DEPOT: OfficeMax North America Still Faces Labor Lawsuit
OFFICE DEPOT: Suit Over Fluctuating Workweek Pay Method Continues
OLD POLAND: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
ONTARIO: Toronto Lawyer Files Class Action Against WSIB

PAPA JOHN'S: 15,000 Plaintiffs Have Joined Drivers' Labor Suit
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Faces Overtime Class Action in Philadelphia
PEPPER TREE: "Devillaz" Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
PROPHET MANASSEH: Has Made Illegal Phone Calls, Class Claims
RADIAN GROUP: "Samp" Plaintiffs Not Contesting Suit Dismissal

RADIAN GROUP: Radian Guaranty Seeks to Dismiss "White" Complaint
RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in "Riddle"
RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Lawsuit Stayed Pending Appeal in "Riddle"
RADIAN GROUP: Radian Guaranty Dismissed from "Cunningham" Lawsuit
REACHLOCAL INC: Sued Over Deceptive Online Advertising Purchases

SPEEDWAY, IN: Settles Indianapolis Taxi Drivers' Class Action
STERLING INFOSYSTEM: Sued Over Background Check Reports
TRICARE: Judge Dismisses Majority of Data Breach Class Action
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
UNIV OF EDUCATION WINNEBA: Graduate Students File Class Action

VIVUS INC: Briefing on Appeal v. Dismissal of "Kovtun" Complete
WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Environmental Lawsuit in Alabama Stayed
WALTER ENERGY: Ala. Stock Suit Stayed Pending "Halliburton" Order
WORKFIT MEDICAL: Seeks Monetary Damages Pursuant to FLSA & NY Law

* Derivative Suit Slowly Replaces Class Action v. Cos. in Israel


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace to Make Deferred Payments to PI Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace May Make More Payments to PD Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Records $2.1-Bil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-GM Workers' Claims v. Remy Diverted to Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face Fibro PD Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims v. Leslie Channeled to Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's US Unit Had $278MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Unit Had $33MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 879 Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Had $77-Mil. A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola's Dispute with Chartis Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Had $2.6-Bil. Reserves for E&A Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends 44 Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Had $203-Mil. Liability for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,280 Fibro Cases


                            *********


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: "Barnwell" Sues Over False Fin'l Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Barnwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., et al, Case No.
1:14-cv-01243 (D. Colo., May 1, 2014) is a class action that seeks
to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
Defendant made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.

Advance Emission Solutions, Inc., is a Highlands Ranch, Colorado-
based company that provides environmental technologies and
specialty chemicals to the coal-burning electric power generations
industry in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
      DYER & BERENS, LLP
      303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 861-1764
      Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
      E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Resolves Claims in ChoiceDek Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The claims resolution process in the settlement of a suit seeking
to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek composite
decking is now complete, according to Advanced Environmental
Recycling Technologies, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the
manufacturing process.

In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due
to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now
passed. The claim resolution process had an annual net cost
limitation to the Company of $2.0 million. The claims resolution
process is now completed.


ALLSTATE CORP: No Claim Value Discovery Yet in Montana Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No discovery has occurred related to the potential value of the
class members' claims in a suit filed against The Allstate
Corporation over its claim handling practices in Montana,
according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990's.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  The Company appealed the order certifying the class.
In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.  In January 2014, the
Company timely filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's
decision.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari.  The case will continue in
Montana state court and all of the Company's various defenses
remain available to it.  To date no discovery has occurred related
to the potential value of the class members' claims.  The Company
has asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's
claims, which have not been finally resolved.  In the Company's
judgment a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Cal. Off-the-Clock Wage, Hour Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation continues to vigorously litigate two
class action cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege
off-the-clock wage and hour claims, according to the company's May
6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007.  In this case, one
class includes auto physical damage adjusters employed in the
state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.  The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.  The other case was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2010 and is now on appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  In addition to off-the-clock claims,
the plaintiffs in this case allege other California Labor Code
violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime.  There is a
class certified in this case which includes all adjusters in the
state of California from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.
Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In
the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Romero I Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court handling the Romero I suit over alleged Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violation by Allstate Corporation
denied plaintiffs' and Allstate's motions for summary judgment and
indicated that the question of whether releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised
factual issues to be resolved at trial, according to the company's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.   Although these
cases have been pending for many years, they currently are in the
early stages of litigation because of appellate court proceedings
and threshold procedural issues.

These matters include a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws ("EEOC I") and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), breach of contract and ERISA violations ("Romero I").
In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable at the
option of the release signer.  The court also ordered that an
agent who voided the release must return to Allstate "any and all
benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the
release."  The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of
record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge
denied their request.  In June 2007, the court reversed its prior
ruling that the release was voidable and granted the Company's
motions for summary judgment, ruling that the asserted claims were
barred by the release signed by most plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ("Third Circuit").  In July 2009, the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor and remanded the cases to the trial court for
additional discovery, including additional discovery related to
the validity of the release and waiver.  In its opinion, the Third
Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to be valid,
then all of the claims in Romero I and EEOC I are barred.  Thus,
if the waiver and release is upheld, then only the claims in
Romero I asserted by the small group of employee agents who did
not sign the release and waiver would remain for adjudication.

In January 2010, following the remand, the cases were assigned to
a new judge for further proceedings in the trial court.
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2010.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits for up to approximately 6,500 former
employee agents.  Despite the length of time that these matters
have been pending, to date only limited discovery has occurred
related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs, and no
damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged back pay or the alleged liquidated,
compensatory or punitive damages, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
approximately 6,500 putative class members also are subject to
individual variation and determination dependent upon retirement
dates, participation in employee benefit programs, and years of
service.  Discovery limited to the validity of the waiver and
release is closed.  The parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment with respect to the validity of the waiver and release.

On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and
Allstate's motions for summary judgment in Romero I and indicated
that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised
factual issues to be resolved at trial.  Among other things, the
trial court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all
claims in Romero I.  On March 13, 2014, the trial court denied
EEOC's motion for summary judgment and granted Allstate's motion
for summary judgment in EEOC I and entered final judgment in favor
of Allstate.  At present, no class is certified.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Says Release in Romero I to Bar Claims in II
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court handling the Romero II suit over alleged Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violation by Allstate Corporation
has held that a release in Romero I, if valid, would bar all
claims asserted in Romero II, according to the company's May 6,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a
worker classification issue ("Romero II").  These plaintiffs are
challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are
seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as
employees for benefit purposes.  Romero II was dismissed with
prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further
proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial
court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In its opinion,
the Third Circuit held that if the release and waiver is held to
be valid, then one of plaintiffs' three claims asserted in Romero
II is barred.  The Third Circuit directed the district court to
consider on remand whether the other two claims asserted in Romero
II are barred by the release and waiver.

In January 2010, following the remand, the case was assigned to a
new judge (the same judge for the Romero I and EEOC I cases) for
further proceedings in the trial court.  On April 23, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek
broad but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief,
including losses of income and benefits as a result of their
decision to retire from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000.  They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorney's fees and costs.  Despite the length of time that
this matter has been pending, to date only limited discovery has
occurred related to the damages claimed by individual plaintiffs,
and no damages discovery has occurred related to the claims of the
putative class.  Nor have plaintiffs provided any calculations of
the putative class's alleged losses, instead asserting that such
calculations will be provided at a later stage during expert
discovery.  Damage claims are subject to reduction by amounts and
benefits received by plaintiffs and putative class members
subsequent to their employment termination.  Little to no
discovery has occurred with respect to amounts earned or received
by plaintiffs and putative class members in mitigation of their
alleged losses.  Alleged damage amounts and lost benefits of the
putative class members also are subject to individual variation
and determination dependent upon retirement dates, participation
in employee benefit programs, and years of service.  As in Romero
I and EEOC I, discovery limited to issues relating to the validity
of the waiver and release is closed.  The parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the
waiver and release.

On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and
Allstate's motions for summary judgment in Romero I and indicated
that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised
factual issues to be resolved at trial.  Among other things, the
trial court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all
claims asserted in Romero II.  On March 13, 2014, the trial court
denied EEOC's motion for summary judgment and granted Allstate's
motion for summary judgment in EEOC I and entered final judgment
in favor of Allstate.  At present, no class is certified.

In these agency program reorganization matters, the threshold
issue of the validity and scope of the waiver and release is yet
to be fully decided.  Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014
ruling, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company, that would preclude any damages being awarded in Romero I
and Romero II.  In the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.
Allstate has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other
matters related to its agency program reorganization.


AMERICAN CABLE: Sued for Failing to Pay OT and Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zenina Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Cable and Telephone, Inc., et al Case No.
1:14-cv-03199 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, record
the hours actually worked, and account for the costs incurred by
the Plaintiff in carrying out their work which brings their wages
below federal and state minimum standards.

American Cable and Telephone, Inc., provides various services to
large cable companies such as Comcast throughout Midwest. It
collects past due payments and the recovery of cable boxes from
individuals who do not pay their bills both in Illinois and in
Northern Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley S. Manewith, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD
      Two Prudential Plaza
      180 North Stetson, #3150
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 540-1230
      E-mail: bmanewith@cslaw.com


APPLE INC: Class Representative Wants No Poach Settlement Rejected
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Streitfeld, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Apple has more than $150 billion in the bank, eclipsing the
combined cash reserves of Israel and Britain.  Google, Intel and
Adobe have a total of about $80 billion stored up for a rainy day.

Against such tremendous cash hoards, $324 million is chump change.
But that is what the four technology companies have agreed to pay
to settle a class action brought by their own employees.

The suit, which was on track to go to trial in San Jose, Calif.,
at the end of May, promised weeks if not months of damaging
revelations about how Silicon Valley executives conspired to
suppress wages and limit competition.  Details of the settlement
are still under wraps.

Michael Devine, a 46-year-old freelance programmer who is one of
the four plaintiffs named in the suit, thinks the companies are
getting off far too lightly.  In a very rare form of protest, he
sent a letter to the judge in the case, Lucy H. Koh of United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
asking her to reject the deal that his own lawyers negotiated.

"The class wants a chance at real justice," he wrote.  "We want
our day in court."

He noted that the settlement amount was about one-tenth of the
estimated $3 billion lost in compensation by the 64,000 class
members.  In a successful trial, antitrust laws would triple that
sum.

"As an analogy," Mr. Devine wrote, "if a shoplifter is caught on
video stealing a $400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and
just resolution be for the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the
iPad, and walk away with no record or admission of wrongdoing? Of
course not."

The settlement would greatly benefit the companies, by making an
embarrassing case disappear.  And it would benefit the plaintiffs'
lawyers, the firms Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, with as much as $75 million in fees.  But it
would give the class members a few thousand dollars each, if that.

In a typical court case, a plaintiff who disagrees with his
lawyers can fire them.  But a plaintiff in a class action, even
one whose name is on the suit, has fewer options. Legal experts
said many of the members of the class would need to rise up in
support of Mr. Devine to give him even a hope of succeeding.

While that might be unlikely, this case has been confounding
expectations from the beginning.  The original suits took on some
of the most admired companies and executives in the country,
including Apple and Steven P. Jobs, on behalf of workers who did
not appear oppressed.  The cases seemed destined to go nowhere,
much less be combined into a powerful class action.

"If the other class members join me in opposition, I believe we
will be successful in convincing the court to give us our due
process," Mr. Devine said in an interview on May 11.  He has set
up a website, Tech Worker Justice, and is looking for legal
representation.  Any challenge will take many months. The other
three class representatives could not be reached for comment over
the weekend.

Daniel Crane, an expert on antitrust law at the University of
Michigan who has been following the case closely, said "it is a
strange situation" for a class representative to reject a deal
worked out by his own lawyers.

"However," Mr. Crane added, "judges will not necessarily give
greater weight to the objection of a class representative than to
an objection by any other member of the class."

The ability to opt out or object to a class-action settlement is
seen by the courts as a crucial "market check" in a proceeding
where the majority of plaintiffs will never meet the lawyers
representing them.

"Courts frequently look to the number of opt-outs or objections as
bearing on both the fairness of the settlement and the appropriate
fee to be awarded to counsel," Theodore Eisenberg and Geoffrey P.
Miller wrote in a 2004 survey of class-action disgruntlement.

In practice, however, dissents are rare. After examining several
thousand cases, Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Miller found that formal
protests were made about 1 percent of the time.

The big battle in the hiring case was over class certification,
which was granted last October.  After that, a settlement was
probably inevitable.

"There was such embarrassing evidence about the pacts being
orchestrated from the very top, and there was such hubris from
Jobs and the other chief executives," including Eric E. Schmidt of
Google and Paul S. Otellini of Intel, said Orly Lobel, a professor
of employment law at the University of San Diego. "It would have
been very unpleasant for the companies to reopen all those emails
in court."

So why settle for comparatively little?

"The lawyers wanted a quick and certain result," Ms. Lobel said.
"But the companies won't feel it at all."

Mr. Devine said he told his lawyers that he found the settlement
inadequate as it was being negotiated, but they ignored him.

Mr. Devine, who is based in Seattle, worked at Adobe as a senior
computer scientist from 2006 to 2008.  He read an article about
one of the initial cases filed against the companies, and quickly
filed his own.  "I was outraged," he said.

When the cases were combined into the class action, he became a
class representative.

As a class representative, he is eligible for an incentive award
for the time and effort he put into the case.  His lawyers have
asked the court to approve a $20,000 payment for each
representative from settlements reached last year against three
other defendants in the suit -- Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit.  A
similar payment might be forthcoming from the settlement with
Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe. Even if the case went to trial and
the plaintiffs got the full $9 billion, he would not get much
more.

Against that modest sum, put a lifetime of raised eyebrows by
potential employers, who might worry that they somehow could be
sued by Mr. Devine.

In one way, Mr. Devine's timing is good.  The tech companies are
coming under increasing scrutiny these days by activists and
communities.  That might make it easier for his protest to pick up
support.

"The tech industry is ethically challenged," Mr. Devine said.
"Customers and the government don't fully understand technology
and therefore don't know when the law is broken.  I'm attracted to
the industry for the opportunities for innovation but repulsed by
the ease with which folks can cheat and get away with it."


ARTIZAN FLATBREAD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Bray v. Artizan Flatbread Company LLC, et al, Case No. 9:14-
cv-80582 (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages conferred by
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and 28
U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd William Shulby, Esq.
      2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


AST SPORTS: Judge Tosses Anabolic Rush False Ad Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge tossed a proposed class action on May 8 alleging AST
Sports Science Inc. left an advertised ingredient out of a muscle-
building supplement, saying the amount of money at stake is too
puny for federal court.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said plaintiff Corey Jones
didn't provide evidence that the suit over AST's Anabolic Rush
sports supplement met the monetary threshold to establish
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, with
the company reporting revenues falling millions short of the
jurisdictional threshold.

"Plaintiff has failed to show that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, as required for this court to have
jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA," the judge said.

Mr. Jones filed a complaint against AST in October 2013, alleging
the Colorado-based company's Anabolic Rush supplement did not
include a key ingredient, citrulline malate, that was featured in
the company's marketing as promoting physical attributes including
energy, size, strength and power.  Mr. Jones analyzed a sample of
the product he bought in 2012 and found no trace of citrulline
malate, meaning the product could not perform as promised, the
order said.

The judge found that Mr. Jones' allegations about the size of the
case were conclusory and lacked factual support, such as possible
evidence to show that tens of thousands of consumers had been
deceived by AST, what market share was held by AST in Anabolic
Rush or another dietary supplement, or sales figures for the
product.

On the other hand, AST provided evidence showing the amount in
controversy to be well below $5 million for the proposed four-year
class period running from October 2009 to October 2013, the judge
said.  AST Vice President Denise Pedersen testified that total
nationwide revenues for Anabolic Rush during the period were about
$161,792.66, with revenues in California about $15,513.58, the
order said.

The judge rejected Mr. Jones' argument that the amount in
controversy requirement is presumptively satisfied by his
allegation that it was more than $5 million unless it appears to a
legal certainty that his claim is for less than that amount,
saying the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the legal certainty test
in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles in 2013.

Mr. Jones also failed to provide facts to support his allegation
that Anabolic Rush did not contain citrulline malate during the
entire class period, having apparently only conducted one test on
one sample of Anabolic Rush, the judge said.

Mr. Jones claimed the company in selling Anabolic Rush without
citrulline malate violated California's False Advertising Law and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and engaged in unlawful, fraudulent
and unfair business practices in violation of state law.

The plaintiff is represented by Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@trialnewport.com -- and Victoria C. Knowles --
vknowles@trialnewport.com -- of Newport Trial Group.

AST Sports Science Inc. is represented by R. Garth Ferrell of
Mallgren & Ferrell PC and Daniel Scott Silverman --
dssilverman@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP.

The case is Corey Jones v. AST Sports Science Inc. et al., case
number 3:13-cv-02434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Manipulation of Gold Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Benedetti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-03111
(S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unlawful
contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade to
collusively fix, maintain or otherwise manipulate the prices of
physical gold and gold derivatives in violation of the federal
antitrust laws, and to further intentionally distort the prices of
physical gold and gold derivatives in violation of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. section 1, et seq.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a Canadian public company headquartered in
Toronto under the name "Scotiabank".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Keith Arenson, Esq.
      Lauren Ilene Dubick, Esq.
      Matthew Powers McCahill, Esq.
      Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP (NYC)
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: garenson@kaplanfox.com
              ldubick@kaplanfox.com
              mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
              rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
              rkaplan@kaplanfox.com


BLOOMBERG LP: Refuses to Pay for OT Work, "Michael" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Michael, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-02657-TPG (S.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2014), asserts claims over the Defendant's unlawful
refusal to pay overtime at the rate of time and one half to all
representatives in the Analytics department.

Bloomberg L.P., is a Delaware company registered in New York
located at 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Charles Getman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAN GETMAN
      9 Paradies Lane
      New Paltz, NY 12561
      Telephone: (845) 255-9370
      Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
      E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces New Suit Over Interchange Fees "Conspiracy"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Individual consumer plaintiffs filed a proposed national class
action against a number of banks, including Capital One Financial
Corporation, alleging that because the banks conspired to fix
interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the fees
than appropriate, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the
"Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several
member banks, including the company's subsidiaries and the
company, alleging among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be
trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted
similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005,
the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for certain purposes, including discovery. In July 2012, the
parties executed and filed with the court a Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on certain terms
set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the Memorandum.
The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the
class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain
interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii)
modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point
of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court
approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the court
granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In December
2013, the court granted final approval of the proposed class
settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in January 2014. Several merchant plaintiffs have also
opted out of the class settlement, some of which have sued
MasterCard, Visa and various member banks, including Capital One
(collectively "the Opt-Out Plaintiffs"). Relatedly, in December
2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also filed a proposed
national class action against a number of banks, including Capital
One, alleging that because the banks conspired to fix interchange
fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the fees than
appropriate. These cases are in their preliminary stages.


CAPITAL ONE: To Appeal Merchant Discount Fees Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit by furniture store owner named Mary Watson
against Capital One Financial Corporation filed a notice to appeal
the partial certification of the suit to the Court of Appeal for
British Columbia, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a
partial motion for class certification, and in April 2014 both
plaintiffs and defendants filed a notice to appeal the decision to
the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.


CAPITAL ONE: Cardholders Ask for Writ in Late Fees Suit v. COBNA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit over late fees and over-limit fees for
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association cardholders filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
after the dismissal of the case was re-affirmed by the Ninth
Circuit Court, according to Capital One Financial Corporation's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including COBNA. These lawsuits
allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix
the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to cardholders,
and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the cases were
consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed alleging violations of federal statutes and
state law. The amended complaint requests civil monetary damages,
which could be trebled, and injunctive relief. In November 2007,
the court dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed
that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs'
appeal challenges the dismissal of their claims under the National
Bank Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and
the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), but not their
antitrust conspiracy claims. In January, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case. In April 2014,
plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court.


CAPITAL ONE: No More UCL, TILA Claims in Card Interest Rate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California-based Unfair Competition Law and Truth in Lending
Act claims in the Multi-district Litigation against Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association over interest rates on certain
credit card accounts are now extinguished, according to Capital
One Financial Corporation's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL,
the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an
injunction against future rate increases. Fact discovery is now
closed. In August 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary
judgment, which remains pending with the court. In July 2013, the
MDL plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition to Capital One's
motion for summary judgment. In April 2014, the MDL was reassigned
to a new Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. As a result of a settlement in another
matter, the California-based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are
extinguished.


CAPITAL ONE: Expects Remand in Checking Account Overdraft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The modified scheduling order entered by the US District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in In re Checking Account
Overdraft Litigation, of which Capital One Financial Corporation
is a defendant, contemplates the conclusion of discovery in the
second quarter of 2014 and the company anticipates a remand to the
Eastern District of Louisiana in the third quarter of 2014,
according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were
named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff
challenges practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-
sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff
alleges that the company's methodology for posting transactions to
customer accounts was designed to maximize the generation of
overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade
practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the
Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous
defendant banks, captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March
2011, the MDL court granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims of
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas
law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. In
June 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The modified scheduling order entered by the MDL
court contemplates the conclusion of discovery in the second
quarter of 2014 and the company anticipates a remand to the
Eastern District of Louisiana in the third quarter of 2014.


CAPITAL ONE: Bares Updates in State AG Payment Protection Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, Capital
One Financial Corporation provided updates on the so-called
Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri and New Mexico State Attorney
General Payment Protection Matters.

In April 2012, the Attorney General of Hawaii filed a lawsuit in
First Circuit Court in Hawaii against Capital One Bank (USA) N.A.,
and Capital One Services, LLC. The case is one of several similar
lawsuits filed by the Attorney General of Hawaii against various
banks challenging the marketing and sale of payment protection and
credit monitoring products. In June 2012, the Attorney General of
Mississippi filed substantially similar suits against Capital One
and several other banks. In April 2013, the Attorney General of
New Mexico also filed substantially similar suits against Capital
One and several other banks. All three state attorney general
complaints allege that Capital One enrolls customers in such
programs without their consent and that Capital One enrolls
customers in such programs in circumstances in which the customer
is not eligible to receive benefits for the product in question.
All suits allege unjust enrichment and violation of Unfair and
Deceptive Practices Act statutes. The remedies sought in the
lawsuits include an injunction prohibiting the Company from
engaging in the alleged violations, restitution for all persons
allegedly injured by the complained of practices, civil penalties
and costs.

In May 2012, Capital One removed the Hawaii AG case to U.S.
District Court, District of Hawaii. In November 2012, the court
denied the Hawaii AG's motion to remand. The Hawaii AG petitioned
to appeal the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, which was granted by the Ninth Circuit in April 2013.
The Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for June 2014.
The District Court case is now stayed pending the appeal.
In August 2012, Capital One removed the Mississippi AG case to the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi. In July
2013, the court denied the Mississippi AG's motion to remand. The
Fifth Circuit overturned the District Court's denial of the AG's
motion to remand in December 2013, and the case will proceed in
state court.

In June 2013, Capital One removed the New Mexico AG case to the
U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico. In response, the New
Mexico AG filed an Amended Complaint in federal court, adding a
claim for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act. In
November 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
Capital One's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the state
deceptive practices act claim but allowed the New Mexico AG to
proceed on its claims under the Truth In Lending Act. In a
separate order, the court also granted Capital One's motion
precluding the New Mexico AG from recovery of alleged damages for
New Mexico residents who were class members in a prior class
action against Capital One.

Relatedly, Capital One has provided information to the Attorney
General of Missouri as part of an industry-wide informal inquiry
initiated in August 2011, relating to the marketing of payment
protection products.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Master Complaint in TCPA Violation Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation faces a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint for the Capital One Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") Litigation, according to the company's May
6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"),
which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative
class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois)-and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the
putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that
COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Lively" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Hooly Lively, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00953-JAM-CKD (E.D.Cal., April 17, 2014), alleges
that the Defendant negligently knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.,
thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc., is a Florida Corporation located at
5100 North State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33319.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Wood, Esq.
      DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD, LLP
      20 Bicentennial Circle
      Sacramento, CA 95826
      Telephone: (916) 379-3500
      Facsimile: (916) 379-3599
      E-mail: cwood@dbbwlaw.com

            - and -

      John Peter Kristensen, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 221
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


CARLSON RESTAURANTS: T.G.I.F. Staff Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamel Flood on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Carlson Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02740-AT
(S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2014) seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriate tips,
uniform-related expenses, unlawful deductions, and other wages for
the Plaintiffs and other employees who worked or have worked at
T.G.I. Friday's restaurants owned and/or operated by Carlson
Restaurants Inc., Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc., and T.G.I.
Friday's Inc. nationwide.

Carlson Restaurant, Inc., is located at 4201 Marsh Lane,
Carrollton, Texas 75007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com

           - and -

      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP (NYC)
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
              sabrahamson@outtengolden.com


CARMAX AUTO: Wants Wages Class Action to Stay in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that CarMax Auto
Superstores California LLC insisted on May 12 that a putative
class action seeking allegedly unpaid wages for mechanics,
detailers and other employees belongs in federal court because the
amount in issue is nearly $8 million -- much more than required
for removal from state court.

Opposing the plaintiffs' motion to remand, the nation's biggest
used-car retailer claimed the suit -- in which employees allege
they weren't paid for work between repair orders and for attending
mandatory meetings -- was properly removed under the Class Action
Fairness Act, which has a threshold of $5 million for removal.

The controversy involves slightly more than $2 million in minimum
wage claims, about $935,000 in inaccurate wage statement claims,
nearly $1.4 million in overtime claims, at least $1.86 million in
meal and rest period claims and approximately $515,000 in waiting
time penalties claims, according to CarMax's calculations.

The plaintiffs, whose complaint didn't specify the amount of
damages sought, contended earlier this month that they were trying
to recover payment only for the nonproductive hours for which they
weren't compensated despite being clocked in to work -- not the
hours for which CarMax did, in fact, pay them.

CarMax replied on May 12 that "plaintiffs' unreasonable rationale
-- that CarMax cannot rely on all nonproduction hours unless it
showed that those hours were actually unpaid -- would require a
defendant to confirm actual damages before any federal court could
establish CAFA jurisdiction, regardless of what a complaint
alleges and puts in controversy.  This is not the law."

The suit was brought in March by Trinidad Herrera, Taroob Simani
and Luis Berregan, who used to work for CarMax as nonexempt piece-
rate employees, according to court filings.  They want to
represent a class consisting of all current and former painters,
detailers, mechanics and other piece-rate employees who worked for
the company in California from four years before the initiation of
the suit until the date the class is certified.

The proposed class action claims that, while workers were paid a
piece rate, there were times when they had to be at work but
weren't working on piece-rate projects and thus couldn't earn
piece-rate pay, court papers said.  The lead plaintiffs claim they
should have been paid at least twice the minimum wage for the
nonproduction hours.

CarMax, arguing that it keeps track of -- and pays --
nonproduction hours, contended that the putative class members
allegedly worked roughly 81,000 nonproduction hours during the
class period, according to company records.

After the suit was removed to federal court in April, plaintiffs
argued in a motion to remand it to state court that CarMax's
figures were speculative because the defendant didn't include
information from its records in calculating estimates of the
unproductive hours in controversy.

CarMax countered on May 12 that, whether it actually paid
plaintiffs the hourly base rate -- the pay rate that piece-rate
employees were paid for time they were clocked in to work but
weren't paid for completing repair orders -- or a portion of it
was irrelevant to what they put into controversy in the
complaint's allegations.

Additionally, the defendant argued that its figure of more than $2
million in minimum wage claims was actually a conservative
estimate because plaintiffs also alleged they weren't paid for
hours they worked while not clocked in.  Those hours, by
definition, wouldn't have been recorded.

The plaintiffs are represented by Neal J. Fialkow of the Law
Office of Neal J. Fialkow, and Aaron C. Gundzik --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- and Rebecca G. Gundzik --
rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- of Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP.

CarMax is represented by Jack S. Sholkoff --
jack.sholkoff@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Patricia M. Jeng --
patricia.jeng@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.

The case is Trinidad Herrera et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California LLC et al., case number 5:14-cv-00776, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.


CATERPILLAR INC: Faces "Scenic" Suit Over Defective Diesel Engine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scenic Boundaries Trans. Inc., a Wisconsin corporation v.
Caterpillar, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-01352
(D. Minn., April 30, 2014), is a class action on behalf of itself
and a putative class of similarly situated entity who purchased a
or leased a vehicle with 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Caterpillar,
Inc. C-13 or C-15 heavy duty on-highway diesel engine in
Minnesota.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' CRS is defective in
material and or workmanship causing the vehicle to not function as
required under all operating conditions, on a consistent and
reliable basis, even after repeated emissions warranty repairs and
replacements.

Caterpillar, Inc., is a Delaware corporation located at 100 NE
Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois 61629. Caterpillar designed,
manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected,
marketed, leased and/or sold for profit, and warranted the MY2007
CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the
CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberta A Yard, Esq.
      Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      332 Minnesota St Ste E1250
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
              g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Aboud" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Aboud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. Case No. 1:14-cv-02712-PAC
(S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
the alleged failure to pay Covered Positions overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deirdre Anne Aaron, Esq.
      Jennifer Lin Liu, Esq.
      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP (NYC)
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2064
      E-mail: daaron@outtengolden.com
              jliu@outtengolden.com
              jms@outtengolden.com

          - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Shavitz Law Group, P.A
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Wrongful Marketing of Vitamin E Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronda Kaufman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00216 (D.R.I. May 2, 2014), seeks to put an end on the alleged
false and deceptive advertising of Vitamin E products and to
recover monetary redress for violation of state of consumer
protection statutes and restitution.

CVS Caremark Corporation is a Delaware Corporation headquartered
at 1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Joseph Shekarchi, Esq.
      33 College Hill Road, Suite 15-E
      Warwick, RI 02886
      Telephone: 827-0100
      Facsimile: 823-1400
      E-mail: Joe@shekarchilaw.com


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Court Rejects Claims in Cavitron Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court rejected all of the plaintiffs'
claims in a suit alleging that DENTSPLY International Inc.
misrepresented that its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers are suitable
for use in oral surgical procedures, according to the company's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the
performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which
Cavitrons were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated"
Cavitron use for "periodontal debridement for all types of
periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013,
and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued
its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company
intends to defend against this appeal.


DENTSPLY INC: Requests for Summary Judgment in Dentists' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the remaining breach of express warranty claim in a suit filed by
dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania over the Cavitron
ultrasonic scaler, according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the
plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr.
Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists,
asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under
the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to
have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company
has objected and filed its brief. The Court subsequently granted a
Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey
Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach
of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 13 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of Doral
Financial Corp. common stock during the period between April 2,
2012 and May 1, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 13, 2014.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/doralfinancial/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Doral and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Doral is headquartered in New San Juan, Puerto Rico, and operates
as the bank holding company for Doral Bank, which provides retail
banking services to the general public and institutions, primarily
in Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to
disclose adverse facts, including that: (a) the Company had a
material weakness in its internal controls over financial
reporting and disclosure controls, and that such controls were
ineffective; (b) the Company had under-reserved for loan losses;
(c) as a result of having under-reserved for loan losses, the
Company's assets were overstated, its expenses were understated,
its net income was overstated, and Doral Bank did not meet its
Tier I regulatory capital requirements as stated throughout the
Class Period and as required by bank regulators to operate the
bank; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants knew Doral
Bank was undercapitalized and the Company was not on track to
achieve the financial results they had led the market to expect
during the Class Period.

On March 21, 2013, Doral issued a press release and filed its
annual financial report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2013, disclosing that the Company had been forced to
take an increased provision for loan and lease losses in the
fourth quarter of 2013, and as a result, the Company was reporting
a net loss for its 2013 fourth quarter.  In addition, the Company
stated that it would be forced to restate its previously reported
financial statements.  On this news, the price of Doral common
stock declined.  Then on May 1, 2014, after the close of trading,
the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC
disclosing that the Puerto Rican government was disputing whether
a purported tax receivable due Doral, which accounted for $289
million of the bank's $679 million of so-called Tier 1 capital as
of the end of fiscal 2013, was indeed payable, and that the U.S.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") had advised Doral
that it could not include the tax receivable in its Tier 1 capital
ratio, rendering the bank significantly undercapitalized.  Doral
further disclosed that the FDIC had ordered Doral to revise its
capital plan, which it stated could force the Company to sell
assets.  On this news, the price of Doral common stock, which had
traded as high as $25 per share in intraday trading during the
Class Period, fell to a level approximately 85% from its Class
Period high to close at $3.73 per share on May 2, 2014.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Doral common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


ESA MANAGEMENT: Illegally Obtained Consumer Report, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahaira Camacho, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. ESA Management, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01089 (S.D. Cal., April 30, 2014) alleges
that consumer report was obtain without appropriate disclosure and
without obtaining a valid, signed authorization form.

ESA Management, LLC, is a Delaware corporation and operates
Extended Stay America hotels within California and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      E-mail: kneilson@ckslaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Escapes Civil Wiretapping Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Annie Baker, writing for Pulse2.0, reports that Facebook Inc. and
Zynga Inc. have defeated class-action lawsuits that accuse the
companies of civil wiretapping allegations connected to
advertising practices.  In a joint opinion filed on the two
lawsuits, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the
advertising practices at issue did not involve wiretapping.  The
appeals court reinstated allegations that Facebook violated its
terms of service for its users though.

The allegations accused Facebook and Zynga of using advertisements
in games like Farmville were disclosed to advertisers without
permission.  However, this did not amount to wiretapping under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which makes it
illegal to disclose "contents" of a communication, according to
the appeals court.

The federal appeals court's decision is aligned with the US
District Judge James Ware of California.  In 2011, Judge Ware
tossed the wiretapping allegations because the "referer" headers
linked users and advertisers, but did not store or process any
date.

Judge Sandra Ikuta said "the referer header information" that is
at issue here includes only basic identification and address
information rather than search terms or similar communication made
by the user.  Facebook said that the advertising practice at issue
was stopped.

In 2011, Facebook made a settlement over privacy allegations with
the FTC.  The FTC will audit Facebook's privacy practices for 20
years as part of the settlement.


FIRST INT'L BANK: Sued Over Alleged Collection of Unlawful Debts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Labajo et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. First International Bank & Trust et al, Case
No. 5:14-cv-00627-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2014), alleges
that the Defendant participates in a scheme to allow illegal
online payday lenders access to the nation's secure electronic
payment transfer network known as the "ACH Network" or "Automated
Clearing House" to collect unlawful debts in violation of the law
of California.

First International Bank & Trust is a North Dakota state-chartered
bank regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
located at 100 North Main St., Watford, ND.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

           - and -

      Stephen N Six, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: six@stuevesiegel.com


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Agnew" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Agnew, individually and for others similarly situated v.
FTS International Services, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00393 (W.D.
Tex., April 30, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime as requires by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

FTS International Services, LLC, is an oil field service company.
Its employees routinely use, handle, sell and/or work on vehicles,
pumps, filters, walkie-talkies, telephones and hand tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


GENERAL CABLE: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Kentucky Court
----------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation faces securities complaints before the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky,
according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 28, 2014.

Two civil complaints have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by named plaintiffs on
behalf of purported classes of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities, in
one case which was filed on October 21, 2013 between May 3, 2011
and October 14, 2013, inclusive, and in the other case, which was
filed on December 4, 2013, between May 2, 2011 and November 4,
2013, inclusive, against the Company, Gregory Kenny, the company's
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, the
company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
The complaints, which were transferred to the United States
District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, allege claims
under the anti-fraud and controlling person liability provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging generally, among
other assertions, that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding revenue recognition and other
Company financial matters and failed to state material facts,
including, among other things, that there was a lack of adequate
internal controls, thereby artificially inflating the prices at
which the company's securities traded. The complaints seek damages
in undefined amounts, as well as attorney's fees, experts' fees
and other costs. In addition, a derivative complaint was filed on
January 7, 2014 in the Campbell County, Kentucky Circuit Court
against all but one member of the company's Board of Directors,
including Mr. Kenny, a former director and against Mr. Robinson
and two former ROW officials, one of whom is a former executive
officer of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly failing to ensure
that the Company implemented and maintained adequate internal
controls over its accounting and financial reporting functions and
by knowingly disseminating to stockholders materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results
and internal controls. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, appropriate equitable relief to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, attorney's fees, experts' fees
and other costs.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Detton" Sues Over Defective Ignition Switches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Detton, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00500 (S.D.
Ill., April 30, 2014), alleges that the automaker chose to conceal
a dangerous defect in the design of the ignition switches
installed in millions of GM vehicles, all in an attempt to drive
home profits.

General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware incorporation located at 300
Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
      GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
      156 N. Main Street
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 659-9833
      Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
      E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Bender" Suit Over Ignition Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Bender v. General Motors, LLC., Case No. 1:14-cv-00134 (N.D.
Ind., May 1, 2014), arises from the Defendant's failure to
disclose that, as a result of defective ignition switches, at
least 2.59 million GM vehicles may have the propensity to shut
down during normal driving conditions and create an extreme and
unreasonable risk of accident, serious bodily harm, and death.

General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan, 48265.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jasper D Ward , IV, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      312 S 4th St 6th Floor
      Louisville, KY 46202
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Spreading Misleading Statement, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Wai Tak Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Giant Interactive Group, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:14-
cv-03069 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) is a shareholder class action
arising out of the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
13(e), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78m(e), 78t(a) and US Securities and Exchange
Commission, Rules 13e-3 and 14 in connection with the
dissemination of a false and materially misleading proxy statement
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

Giant Interactive Group, Inc., is a Cayman Islands located at 11/F
No.3 Building, 700 Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, People's Republic
of China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     488 Madison Avenue, Eight Floor
     New York, NY
     Telephone: (212) 501-9000
     Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
     E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


HALSTEAD MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Report Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Halstead Management Company, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03125 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014), contends that the Defendants
systematically violate section 1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by using a consumer report to make an "adverse"
employment decision without, beforehand, providing the person who
is the subject of the report a copy of the report and a summary of
rights under the FCRA, leaving the person who is the subject of
the report without any time, much less sufficient time, to dispute
the report.

Halstead Management Company is a New York business located at 770
Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10065. It markets itself
as an expert in managing New York luxury cooperatives and
condominiums. It is a subsidiary of Terra Holdings, LLC, one of
America's largest privately held real estate services companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Welby, Esq.
      Sally B. Friedman, Esq.
      LEGAL ACTION CENTER
      225 VarickStreet, 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10014
      Telephone: (212) 243-1313
      Facsimile: (212) 675-0286
      E-mail: mwelby@lac.org
              sfriedman@lac.org


HCA HOLDINGS: Discovery in Remaining Securities Claims Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities action against HCA Holdings, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee is proceeding to discovery on remaining claims,
according to the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.
Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated. On May 3, 2012, the
court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action. On July 13,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the
time of the initial public offering. The consolidated complaint
alleges deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the
accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates. The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on September 11, 2012. The Court granted the
motion in part on May 28, 2013. The action is proceeding to
discovery on the remaining claims.

In addition to the described shareholder class actions, on
December 8, 2011, a federal shareholder derivative action, Sutton
v. Bracken, et al., putatively initiated in the name of the
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against certain officers and present
and former directors of the Company seeking monetary relief. The
action alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the named officers
and directors in connection with the accounting and earnings
claims set forth in the shareholder class actions. Setting forth
substantially similar claims against substantially the same
defendants, an additional federal derivative action, Schroeder v.
Bracken, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee on December 16, 2011, and a state
derivative action, Bagot v. Bracken, et al., was filed in
Tennessee state court in the Davidson County Circuit Court on
December 20, 2011. The federal derivative actions were
consolidated in the Middle District of Tennessee and stayed
pending developments in the shareholder class actions. The state
derivative action had also been stayed pending developments in the
shareholder class actions, but that stay has expired. The
plaintiff in the state derivative action subsequently filed an
amended complaint on September 9, 2013 that added additional
allegations made in the shareholder class actions. On September
24, 2013, an additional state derivative action, Steinberg v.
Bracken, et al., was filed in Tennessee state court in the
Davidson County Circuit Court. This action against the company's
board of directors has been consolidated with the earlier filed
state derivative action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a consolidated complaint on December 4, 2013. The Company
has filed a motion to again stay the state derivative action
pending developments in the class action, but the Court has not
yet acted on that motion.


HERBALIFE LTD: Sued Over Alleged Violation of Securities Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Awad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Herbalife Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-02850-DSF-JCG (C.D.
Cal., April 14, 2014), is an action to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

Herbalife Ltd., is a Cayman Islands Corporation located in Central
District of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael M Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com

           - and -

      Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

                           *     *     *

Mark Huffman, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that the latest
chapter in the long-running controversy over Herbalife is a class
action lawsuit that charges the firm made misleading statements to
its investors.  The suit was filed by the Pomerantz Law Firm on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Herbalife stock between May
4, 2010 and April 11.   The complaint claims the company failed to
disclose that it is based on a pyramid scheme -- a charge leveled
by hedge fund manager Bill Ackman in December 2012 but vigorously
denied by Herbalife.

Herbalife is a marketing company that sells weight management,
nutritional supplement and personal care products through a
network of independent distributors.  The suit maintains they are
usually people with "little marketing expertise who were recruited
to buy Herbalife products in the hope that they would be able to
resell the product to other consumers or distributors."

Multilevel marketing

Herbalife, like many multilevel marketing enterprises, has been
the subject of complaints for years.  It has been accused to being
all about recruiting people to sell the product and less about the
product itself.

In spite of that, Herbalife has continued to grow.  Its stock is
publicly traded on Wall Street with a total value in excess of $6
billion.

Mr. Ackman, who operates Persian Square Capital Management, a
large hedge fund, has been a fierce critic of Herbalife and in
late 2012 took a huge "short" position in the company's stock.
That means Mr. Ackman stands to gain if the value of Herbalife
stock goes down.  However, he stands to lose money if Herbalife
stock stays the same or goes up in value.

Company value has increased

When Mr. Ackman first leveled the pyramid scheme charge against
the company in December 2012 Herbalife was trading between $45 and
$46 a share.  For Mr. Ackman's short play to be profitable, he
needs Herbalife stock to fall below that level.  Instead, the
stock has sharply risen.  Herbalife currently trades at around $61
a share with a 12-month price target of $85.

Some have questioned the appropriateness of Mr. Ackman's very
public campaign against Herbalife.  After all, he has a financial
stake in the demise of this publicly traded company.

However, Yale law professor Jonathon Macey, writing in Forbes,
argues that Mr. Ackman has every right to lobby government
regulators to take action against Herbalife.

"Investors should use every legal means at their disposal --
especially lobbying -- to further their positions," Mr. Macey
wrote. "If it is legitimate for a company whose shares are being
shorted to use shareholders' money to fight investigations
investors must be free to deploy their own resources to push
back."

Herbalife, meanwhile, claims Mr. Ackman has spent more than $20
million on a campaign against the company.  In a recent press
release it accused Mr. Ackman of "a calculated, coordinated and
well-funded effort to destroy a 34-year old company and support
his $1 billion bet against Herbalife."

Mr. Ackman isn't the only one taking on Herbalife.  In January
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called on the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
investigate Herbalife's business practices.

Neither agency publicly discloses which companies are under
investigation.


INVENTURE FOODS: Cal. Court Dismisses Suit Over Smoothie Kits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation in the matter Anderson v.
Jamba Juice Company, the Federal Court for the North District of
California dismissed the suit filed by purchasers of Jamba Juice
make-at-home smoothie kits, according to Inventure Foods, Inc.'s
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

In March 2012, the company learned that Jamba Juice was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court
for the North District of California and captioned Anderson v.
Jamba Juice Company (the "Anderson Matter").  The plaintiff
purports to represent a class of individuals who purchased make-
at-home smoothie kits from Jamba Juice, and alleges that such
smoothie kits contain unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-
natural ingredients and that use of the words "All Natural" on the
labels of these smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and
violates various false advertising and unfair competition laws.
The Anderson Matter is one of several "all natural" lawsuits
recently brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California.  In an amended complaint, the
plaintiff also alleged violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, but the court dismissed those claims in August 2012.
In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, the company
was added as a defendant.  Pursuant to the parties' stipulation,
on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the Anderson Matter.


INVENTURE FOODS: "Lilly" Response Date Moved to Allow Depositions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al. have submitted
a stipulation seeking to move the date to respond to class
certification motion to June 30, 2014, and the oral argument to
August 21, 2014, so as to permit depositions of the plaintiffs,
according to Inventure Foods, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2014.

On June 28, 2013 a class action complaint against Jamba Juice and
the Company, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the
"Lilly Matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern
District of California and makes nearly identical allegations as
those made in the Anderson Matter, except that the complaint also
alleges that the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly
non-natural ingredients.  The plaintiffs in this new action are
represented by the same counsel that represented the plaintiff in
the Anderson Matter. While the currently believes the "all
natural" statement on the smoothie kits are not misleading and in
full compliance with FDA guidelines, the company is investigating
the claims asserted in the Lilly Matter, and intend to vigorously
defend against them.  On September 17, 2013, the company filed a
motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to
gelatin and the Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit.  the company's
motion was denied in November 2013.  On February 3, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all persons in
California who bought certain Jamba Juice smoothie kits.  The
Company's response to the motion for class certification is due by
May 16, 2014 and oral argument on the motion is scheduled for June
26, 2014.  The parties have submitted a stipulation seeking to
move the response date to June 30, 2014, and the oral argument to
August 21, 2014, so as to permit depositions of the plaintiffs.
The court will hold a case management conference in the case after
it has issued a class certification order.  The parties held a
mediation on March 31, 2014, but did not reach an agreement.


INVENTURE FOODS: June Hearing Set on Motion to Junk "Montantes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Inventure Foods, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Vanessa
Montantes v. Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods,
is set June 9, 2014, according to Inventure Foods, Inc.'s May 6,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On February 13, 2014, the Company was sued in two putative class
actions filed by Vanessa Montantes alleging that it recorded
telephone calls made to its consumer affairs telephone number
without obtaining consent to recording as allegedly required by
California law.  One of the actions was filed in California State
Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v. Inventure Foods, Inc.
doing business as Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC536218.  This state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff
within a few days of its original filing date.  The other action
was filed in Federal Court and captioned Vanessa Montantes v.
Inventure Foods d/b/a Boulder Canyon Natural Foods, United States
District Court for the Central District of California Case No.
CV14-1128 MWF (RZx).  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 21, 2014.  It is set for hearing on June 9, 2014.


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Douglas John Bowen, writing for RailwayAge, reports that Kansas
City Southern appears to have become the target of shareholder
class action, including from a law firm claiming the Class I
railroad "and certain of its executive officers made a series of
false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934," pertaining to the company's Mexican
operations.

Law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announced the suit on
May 10, 2014.  The firm had not posted a copy of the complaint on
its website as of Tuesday, May 13, 2014.

Railway Age on May 13 initially reported the prospect of several
suits being filed.  In response, KCS on Wednesday, May 14, 2014,
said in a statement, "Only one putative securities class action
lawsuit has been filed and it was not filed by Kessler Topaz.  As
is often the case after a putative securities class action is
filed, multiple plaintiffs' firms will issue notices of the
lawsuit in an attempt to find a plaintiff on whose behalf it can
then participate in the litigation.  Although it has issued its
notice to the media, notably Kessler Topaz has not filed a
complaint or appeared in the litigation."

"Instead, the Kessler Topaz press release simply attempted to
describe the allegations made in what remains the only filed
complaint against KCS.  That lawsuit has no merit and KCS will
vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuit,"
KCS said.  It did not identify the law firm responsible for the
class action lawsuit.

Other law firms have threatened action against KCS during the past
month, including a May 6 filing by New York-based Levi & Korsinsky
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, "on behalf of investors who purchased Kansas City
Southern ("KCS" or the "Company") common stock between October 18,
2013 and February 18, 2014."  Another, filed by New York-based
Gainey McKenna & Egleston, also was filed in the U.S. States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, on April 15.

KCS filed its fourth-quarter 2013 financial results on Jan. 24,
2014, which the Kessler Topaz suit notes "missed analyst
expectations, and provided an earnings growth outlook for fiscal
2014 that was also below expectations.  On this news, shares of
the company's stock declined $17.79 per share, or over 15%, to
close on January 24, 2014 at $99.49 per share."

On Feb. 18, the complaint continues, "the market discovered that
the lower house of the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill
to increase rail competition in Mexico by giving third-party
companies access to KCS's exclusive freight and passenger rail
networks" -- or, in other words, open access.  "On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $4.29 per
share, or almost 4.5%, to close on February 18, 2014 at $91.67 per
share."

According to Radnor, Pa.-based Kessler Topaz, that means "KCS and
its executive officers lacked a reasonable basis for making
statements during the Class Period regarding the company's
business, operations, and earnings."  The law firm goes on to list
six examples of flawed rationale executed by the company.


KIRBY INLAND: Sued Over Losses and Damages Caused by Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
3G Fishing Charters LLC, et al v. Kirby Inland Marine, LP et al,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00627-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for losses and damages arising out
of the oil spill in Galveston Bay caused by the collision on March
22, 2013 and the discharge of marine fuel oil into the surrounding
water.

Kirby Inland Marine, LP, is a Delaware limited partnership that
does business in the State of Texas and throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Edward O'Rourke, Esq.
      11550 Fuqua, Suite 360
      Houston, TX 77034
      Telephone: (409) 750-3654
      E-mail: sorourke@solawpc.com


LA RAZA PIZZA: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, "Cockrill" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cockrill, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. La Raza Pizza, Inc. 1:14-cv-00670 (S.D. Ind., April 30,
2014) alleges that the Defendant uses flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

La Raza Pizza, Inc., is a Texas corporation located at Wichita,
Kansas, which has operated several Pizza Hut franchise stores
within the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of
Indiana during times relevant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kathleen M. Sweeney, Esq.
     SWEENEY HAYES LLC
     141 East Washington Street, Suite 225
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 491-1050
     Facsimile: (317) 491-1043
     E-mail: ksween@gmail.com


LEBANON GOLD: Faces "Miller" Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Miller, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Lebanon Golf & Country Club, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01099 (M.D. Tenn. May 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for regularly and repeatedly failure to pay proper
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Lebanon Golf & Country Club is a business engaged in commercial
enterprise, it is located at 1300 Coles Ferry Park, Lebanon,
Tennessee 37087.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan G. Crone, Esq.
      CRONE & MCEVOY, PLC
      5583 Murray Road, Suite 120
      Memphis, TN 38119
      Telephone: (901) 737-7740
      Facsimile: (901) 737-7558
      E-mail: acrone@thecmfirm.com

           - and -

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      5409 Maryland Way, Suite 150
      Brentwood, TN 37027
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


LUNA PARK: Parents Mull Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post, citing Army Radio, reports that a number of
parents intend on filing a class-action discrimination lawsuit
against a Tel Aviv amusement park after the mother of a child
afflicted with physical and mental disabilities was denied
permission to board a roller coaster over the Passover holiday.

The case has attracted the attention of Meretz MK Ilan Gilon, who
said that he would refer the matter to the state agency
responsible for ensuring equal rights to those with disabilities.

A spokesperson for the Luna Park amusement complex, which is
located in north Tel Aviv, told Army Radio that management had
little choice but to refuse the child since the roller coaster is
classified as "extreme."  The mother of the child in question told
Army Radio that the child had gotten on the roller coaster in the
past.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Aug. 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is directed to all persons and entities, wherever they
may reside or be domiciled, who acquired MFC common shares over
the TSX, or under a prospectus filed with a Canadian securities
regulator, at any time during the period from and including the
opening of trading on the TSX on April 1, 2004 to and including
the close of trading on the TSX on February 12, 2009, and
continued to hold the common shares until February 12, 2009 but
excluding certain excluded persons, described below.

CERTIFICATION ORDER

On July 25, 2013, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice certified the action in Court File No. CV-09-383998-
00CP titled:

Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund, et al.
v
Manulife Financial Corporation, et al.

(the "Action") as a class proceeding, and appointed Ironworkers
Ontario Pension Fund and Leonard Schwartz as its Representative
Plaintiffs.

The Defendants in the class proceeding are Manulife Financial
Corporation, Dominic D'Alessandro and Peter Rubenovitch (the
"Defendants").

The Action has been certified on behalf of a class (the "Class")
composed of the Class Members (described above), but excluding:

(1) the Defendants, members of the immediate families of the
individual defendants, any officers or directors of MFC or any
direct or indirect subsidiary of MFC, any entity in respect of
which any such persons or entity has controlling interest, and any
legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns on any such
person or entity; and

(2) all persons and entities resident or domiciled in the Province
of Quebec who are not precluded from participating in a class
action by virtue of Article 999 of the Quebec Code of Civil
Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, and who do not opt out of the proposed
class action pending in the Quebec Superior Court and styled
Comite Syndical National de Retraite Batirente Inc. v. Societe
Financiere Manuvie (court file no.:200-06-000117-096).

CERTIFICATION
-- WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Certification means that the courts have permitted the Action to
proceed to trial as a class action.  Certification is a procedural
matter that defines the form of the litigation, allowing it to be
pursued on behalf of a defined group of people.  The substance of
the litigation (the allegations made against the Defendants) has
not been finally adjudicated by the court.  The Defendants deny
that the allegations will be proven at trial.

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS PURSUED

The claims being pursued in this class action are claims for
damages or restitution for losses suffered as a result of Manulife
misrepresenting the adequacy of its risk management practices and
failing to disclose the extent of the company's exposure to equity
market and interest rate risks.  The Defendants dispute all of the
claims asserted, and no Court has yet ruled on the merits of the
claims.

The claims of all Class Members are being pursued through common
law negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and the
secondary market liability provisions of the Ontario Securities
Act.  The Securities Act provisions permit a person who acquires a
security after the making of a misrepresentation to recover
damages without proof of reliance, subject to certain defences
which may be asserted in this case.

The claims are subject to liability limits that limit the amount
of compensation that can be recovered from defendants in all
actions asserting similar claims.  Although the total amount of
damages suffered by Class Members is not known at this stage, it
is possible that total potential damages in this case may exceed
the statutory liability limits.

If you wish to pursue other claims against the Defendants relating
to the matters at issue in this class action, you should
immediately seek independent legal advice.  If you do not exclude
yourself from participating in this class action, all of your
claims relating to the subject matter of this litigation will be
determined by the result obtained in the class action, whether by
settlement or judgment.

To bring your own claims against the Defendants you must "opt-out"
of this proceeding.  Please see "Additional Information" for
directions to obtain further detail on the scope of the class
action and the claims that will be advanced against the
Defendants.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS

Class Members who wish to participate in the Action are
automatically included in the Class.  You do not need to take
further action at this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY THE OUTCOME OF
THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who wish to pursue their own action or do not want
to be bound by the outcome of the class actions must take action
by opting-out of the proceedings.  Persons who opt out of the
class actions will not be entitled to assert individual claims in
the class actions or to participate in the distribution of any
settlement or judgment obtained in the class action.

If you wish to opt out, you must complete a signed letter stating
that you elect to opt out of the class in the Manulife Financial
Class Action. You are also required to provide the additional
information, described below.

A valid opt out request must include all of the following
information:

(i) the number of MFC securities you held as of April 1, 2004, if
any;

(ii) the number of MFC securities that you purchased and sold
during the Class Period;

(iii) the date(s) on which you purchased and sold these
securities; AND

(iv) your name, address, telephone number and signature.  If you
are submitting an opt out request on behalf of a corporation or
other entity, you must state your position and authority to bind
the corporation or entity.

Your opt out request must be sent mail to:

NPT RicePoint Class Action Services Inc.
Re: Manulife Financial Corporation Litigation
P.O. Box 3355
London, ON N6A 4K3 Canada

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must be
postmarked no later than August 8, 2014 and it must contain ALL
the requested information.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the class action, will
be bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favorable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action against any of the Defendants regarding any of
the factual matters raised in the class action.  Persons who do
not opt out may be entitled to share in the amount of any award or
settlement recovered.  In order to determine if you are entitled
to share in the award or settlement and the amount, if any, of
your share, it may be necessary to conduct an individual
determination.  You will be informed of the implications of, and
will have the opportunity to decide if you wish to proceed with,
your individual determination in advance.

A minor or a mentally incapable Class Member cannot be opted out
of the Class without permission of the court.  The Children's
Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as applicable, must
receive notice of this request.

A request to opt out of one of the class actions that complies
with the conditions set out in this notice will be an effective
request to opt out of both actions.

A class member other than the representative plaintiff or an
intervener cannot be ordered to pay the opposing party's costs of
the class action.  In addition, a class member other than a
representative plaintiff bears no responsibility for paying the
expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action.

The Courts may permit or require a Class Member to participate in
the class action if such participation is useful to the class or
if there are issues which require individual resolution.  A
participating Class Member may be bound to submit to examination
for discovery at the request of the Defendants.  A Class Member
who does not intervene in the class action can only be required to
submit to an examination on discovery if the Court considers it
useful.

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES

The class in the Ontario Action is represented by Siskinds LLP and
Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP (collectively, "Class
Counsel").

Class Counsel is acting on a contingency basis, meaning that Class
Counsel is not being paid its fees or disbursements as the matter
proceeds and will only be paid their legal fees, disbursements and
applicable taxes in the event that a recovery is obtained in the
actions.  In the event a recovery is obtained, Class Counsel's
fees and expenses will be paid out of any settlement or judgment
obtained.

If a recovery is obtained, Class Counsel will make a motion to the
courts to have their fees and disbursements approved.

Other than as set out above, Class Members will not be asked to
pay Class Counsel's fees, disbursements or related taxes.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The court office cannot answer any questions about the matters in
this notice.  The Statement of Claim, Orders of the court and
other information are available on Class Counsel's websites:
www.classaction.ca and http://is.gd/2zHONZ

Questions relating to the Ontario Action should be directed by
email or telephone to Siskinds LLP or Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre
Cornish LLP

NOTICE TO BROKERAGE FIRMS

Please deliver this notice, no later than July 15, 2014 by email
to your clients who purchased MFC common shares during the Class
Period and for whom you have valid email addresses.

If you have clients who purchased MFC common shares during the
Class Period for whom you do not have valid email addresses,
please:

contact NPT RicePoint Class Action Services Inc. to obtain hard
copies of this notice for the purpose of mailing the notice to
those clients; OR

provide NPT RicePoint Class Action Services Inc. with the mailing
addresses of those clients and NPT RicePoint will mail the notices
directly to those clients.

Brokerage firms may cumulatively request up to $15,000
reimbursement for expenses incurred relating to the distribution
of this notice to client Class Members.  If the cumulative amount
requested exceeds $15,000, each individual brokerage firm's
request shall be reduced on a pro rata basis.  Brokerage firms
must submit an invoice to NPT RicePoint Class Action Services Inc.
by August 15, 2014 to be eligible for reimbursement.

Publication of this notice was authorized by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

SOURCE: Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP
Nicole Young, 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380
nicole.young@siskinds.com

or

Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP
Melissa Downer, 416-964-1115 ext. 5536
contactus@cavalluzzo.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Kroenig" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Kroenig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situates v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., a Maryland
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-03345 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2014),
alleges that the Defendant fails to pay minimum wages. The
Plaintiff also complained that the Defendant employed hourly
employees for extended periods of time -- up to 24 hours per day
for live-in employees yet failed to pay minimum wages.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which
owns and operates a variety of health care facilities and provides
medical, homecare, non-medical and staffing services in health
care through the State of California and maintains hundreds of
healthcare facilities nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Hannah Belknap, Esq.
      Caleb L. H. Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON AND OTTOSON LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
      E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
              h.belknap@rlollp.com
              c.marker@rlollp.com

           - and -

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
      249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              npoper@mahoney-law.net
              sblakely@mahoney-law.net


MORGAN STANLEY: Appeal v. Certification of "Ge Dandong" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the residential mortgage and credit crisis related matter faced
by Morgan Stanley, the court handling the case Ge Dandong, et al.
v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. denied, on March 25, 2014,
the defendants' petition seeking permission to appeal the court's
decision granting class certification, according to Morgan
Stanley's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.


OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Accord in OfficeMax Merger Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage
County, Illinois granted final approval to a settlement reached in
the consolidated suit Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax
Incorporated et. al., according to Office Depot, Inc.'s May 6,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax announced a
definitive agreement under which the companies would combine in an
all-stock merger-of-equals transaction. Between February 25, 2013
and March 29, 2013, six putative class action lawsuits were filed
by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County, Illinois ("Court")
challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant
companies and individual members of OfficeMax's Board of Directors
violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties
and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as
fees and costs. The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata S.
Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et. al. Subsequently, two
similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. Like the state court
lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate. On June 25, 2013,
the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
regarding settlement of the litigation. In consideration for the
settlement and release, Office Depot and OfficeMax made certain
supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus.
The MOU contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith
to agree to a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the
court for approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was entered into
on November 6, 2013, and filed with the Court on November 7, 2013.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 11, 2013, and final settlement approval was entered by
the Court on January 21, 2014. The amount paid in this settlement
was not material to the Company's financial statements.


OFFICE DEPOT: OfficeMax North America Still Faces Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax North America, Inc. continues to face a labor suit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2014.

The case Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant
store managers as exempt employees, willfully failed to pay
overtime compensation, and seeks unpaid wages, punitive damages,
and penalties for record keeping violations.


OFFICE DEPOT: Suit Over Fluctuating Workweek Pay Method Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey over its use
of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay, according to
Office Depot, Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29,
2014.

The case Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the fluctuating
workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot
failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its
assistant managers with a clear and mutual understanding that they
would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The
plaintiffs similarly seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.


OLD POLAND: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages Pursuant to FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Guzman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Old Poland Foods, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-02750
(E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the New York
Labor Law Section 190, et seq., and the Defendants' failure to pay
spread-of-hours pay as required by the NYL.

Old Poland Foods, LLC is New York Corporation located at 149 North
8th Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 208-8582
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com


ONTARIO: Toronto Lawyer Files Class Action Against WSIB
-------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a
Toronto lawyer has launched a multimillion-dollar class action
lawsuit on behalf of injured workers against Ontario's Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board.

The lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court last month, alleges
the board acted in bad faith and "with public malfeasance" when it
reduced benefits for pain and suffering for thousands of injured
workers with medical conditions that weren't causing impairment
before their workplace accidents.

"For 22 years, the board has calculated non-economic loss awards
based on a point system that recognized the impact of injuries on
degenerative disease," said lawyer Richard Fink.

"But several years ago, the board instructed case managers to
deduct for pre-existing conditions without any formal changes in
policy, regulations or law," he said in an interview on May 9.
"What they are doing is illegal."

As reported by the Star, injured workers' advocates are alarmed by
a proposed board policy on pre-existing conditions they say would
legitimize this practice.

Before the election call, they wrote an open letter to Premier
Kathleen Wynne, saying the change would contravene the "historic
compromise" behind Ontario's 100-year-old no-fault insurance plan,
which saw injured workers give up their right to sue in exchange
for fair and just compensation for as long as a workplace
disability lasts.

A WSIB spokeswoman said the board considers Mr. Fink's lawsuit to
be "completely devoid of merit and will vigorously defend all
allegations."

"We are committed to ensuring that every injured worker receives
the appropriate level of benefits," Christine Arnott said in an
email.  "The WSIB is proud of its record in providing service to
injured workers in Ontario."

Non-economic loss awards are granted by the Workplace Safety and
Insurance Board (WSIB) to cover pain and suffering for injured
workers who suffer permanent physical and psychological
impairments from a work-related injury or illness.

Mr. Fink's lawsuit, which still has to be certified by the court,
seeks damages from the board for its alleged behavior, including
expenses incurred by workers challenging decisions on their
claims.

"The Board moved aggressively to reduce its costs by clawing back
legitimate awards to injured workers, forcing them into lengthy
and costly legal battles to win back what they should never have
lost," said Mr. Fink.  "The lawsuit seeks to right this wrong and
hold the board to account for its actions."

Pietro Castrillo of Brampton is just one of the many injured
workers whose non-economic loss award was wrongfully reduced by
the WSIB due to a "secret policy" the board adopted to cut costs
in 2011-2012, Mr. Fink alleges in the statement of claim.

The 61-year-old man tore his rotator cuff and permanently injured
his shoulder while working for a sewer construction company in
2011.

He was eligible for a non-economic loss award of about $2,500.
But since medical tests found evidence of osteoarthritis in his
shoulder, the WSIB reduced his award by half to $1,230, according
to the lawsuit.  Mr. Castrillo appealed and won because this
pre-existing condition had never impaired his ability to work in
the past.  However, Mr. Castrillo is still out more than $600 he
had to spend in legal fees to fight the case, the lawsuit says.

"Personal-injury awards have increased dramatically over the
years, but WSIB awards have stayed the same or gone down," said
Mr. Fink, whose firm, Fink & Bornstein, has represented injured
workers for more than 30 years.

"I don't think it's constitutional to rob people of reasonable
damages within the WSIB system," he added.

Mr. Fink's firm is holding public meetings in Mississauga and
Toronto later this month to find other injured workers to join the
class action.


PAPA JOHN'S: 15,000 Plaintiffs Have Joined Drivers' Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is now approximately 15,000 plaintiffs in cases alleging
that Papa John's International, Inc. delivery drivers were not
reimbursed for mileage and expenses, according to the company's
May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014.

Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in
August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were not reimbursed
for mileage and expenses in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential
class size of 28,800 have opted into the action. Additionally, in
late December 2013, the District Court granted a motion for class
certification in five additional states, which will add
approximately 15,000 plaintiffs to the case.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Faces Overtime Class Action in Philadelphia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft and Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360,
report that a Payless ShoeSource Inc. manager seeking to represent
a class of employees she claims were illegally denied proper
overtime compensation has asked a Pennsylvania state judge to sign
off on a $300,00 settlement to put her suit to rest.

Barbara Warcholak, who filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas in September claiming that Payless violated state
wage laws by failing to pay workers time-and-a-half for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, said in an April 30 filing
that the settlement would ensure that similarly situated managers
would recoup more than two-thirds of the money she claims they're
owed.

"The settlement achieves an excellent result [for] class members.
Even after deductions for attorneys' fees and legal/administrative
expenses, every class member will recover over 68 percent of his
or her alleged unpaid overtime," a brief in support of approval
said.  "The settlement enables class members to obtain payment
without the significant delays and risks associated with a
contested certification process and dispositive motion practice."

Ms. Warcholak claimed that Payless paid its manages for overtime
by using the so-called fluctuating workweek model, which she said
violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act's requirement that
workers receive straight time-and-a-half for time worked over 40
hours per week.

Under the policy, employees receive for each credited overtime
hour an extra payment equal to one-half of the rate arrived at by
dividing the employee's weekly salary by the total number of hours
worked during the week.

According to the complaint, approximately 100 Pennsylvania-based
salaried, overtime-eligible employees had their overtime premium
compensation calculated using the fluctuating workweek method,
which was in place from September 2010 to December 2012.

While the complaint cited a recent decision by a federal judge in
Foster v. Kraft Foods Global Inc. as precedent for its claim that
the fluctuating workweek policy violated state wage laws, Payless
argued in preliminary objections in November that the ruling went
against the well-established, consistent multistate and federal
authority that finds the policy lawful.  Payless also noted that
the federal court decision was not binding on judges in
Philadelphia County.

The objections were withdrawn by the defendant in December, paving
the way for the pending settlement agreement.

The family footwear retailer operates about 140 stores in
Pennsylvania and employs hundreds of individuals in the state,
according to the complaint.

Under the settlement deal, $210,000 would be set aside to recoup
more than a hundred Payless workers for wages the suit claims they
lost out on as a result of the fluctuating workweek policy.  Class
counsel, meanwhile, would receive $78,000 in fees and costs.

The brief noted that a settlement in the case left questions over
the legality of the fluctuating workweek model unanswered, but
said that it was in the plaintiff's best interest not to continue
litigating the matter.

"No state court has addressed the issue and, throughout the
commonwealth, many employers and defense counsel continue to
assert that the [fluctuating workweek model] is permissible under
the PMWA," the brief said.  "While plaintiff and her undersigned
counsel strongly disagree with such arguments, the general lack of
contrary binding authority creates a risk that, absent settlement,
this court might find merit in such arguments."

Ms. Warcholak is represented by Peter Winebrake, R. Andrew
Santillo and Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo LLC; and
Paul Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- and Timothy Selander --
selander@nka.com -- of Nichols Kaster PLLP.

Payless is represented by Samuel Feigin of Crowell & Moring LLP
and Lee Applebaum -- lapplebaum@finemanlawfirm.com -- of Fineman
Krekstein & Harris PC.

The case is Barbara Warcholak v. Payless ShoeSource Inc., case
number 130901010, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas.


PEPPER TREE: "Devillaz" Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Devillaz, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Pepper Tree of Colorado Springs, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-01236 (D.
Colo., April 30, 2014), seeks to recover damages and back pay to
compensate all current and former employees of the Defendant for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq., specifically by diverting employees tips and failing to pay
minimum wage.

Pepper Tree of Colorado Springs, LLC, owns and operates the Pepper
Tree restaurant located at 888 West Moreno, Colorado Springs,
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales
      BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF
      123 North College Avenue #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com


PROPHET MANASSEH: Has Made Illegal Phone Calls, Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03129 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions,
in negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227 et seq., thereby invading
the Plaintiff's privacy.

The Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries is a self-proclaimed
"prophet" and "faith-healer" which conducted business in the State
of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
      101 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


RADIAN GROUP: "Samp" Plaintiffs Not Contesting Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. voluntarily
abandoned their appeal against the dismissal of the case,
according to Radian Group Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 30, 2014.

We have been named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the company's
captive reinsurance agreements violate the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974 ("RESPA"). On December 9, 2011, an action
titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the "Samp case"), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its
affiliates (collectively, "JPMorgan"), and several mortgage
insurers, including Radian Guaranty. The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of borrowers whose loans allegedly were referred
to mortgage insurers by JPMorgan in exchange for reinsurance
agreements between the mortgage insurers and JPMorgan's captive
reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of RESPA. On October 4,
2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss on a number of
grounds, and on May 7, 2013, the court granted the motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The court ruled
that the plaintiffs could not state a claim against Radian
Guaranty because it did not insure their loans, and, in addition,
ruled that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
On June 5, 2013, plaintiffs appealed these rulings to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 9, 2013,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal.


RADIAN GROUP: Radian Guaranty Seeks to Dismiss "White" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Guaranty is seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint in the suit White v. PNC Financial Services Group,
according to Radian Group Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 30, 2014.

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, titled White v. PNC
Financial Services Group was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 26, 2012,
Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the
court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July
5, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially
the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013.


RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in "Riddle"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
stayed the case Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al.,
pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v.
Bank of America Corporation, et. al., according to Radian Group
Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014.

On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, titled Menichino, et al. v.
Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not
named as a defendant in the original complaint. On December 4,
2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as
an additional defendant. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty
filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the
statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied
Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to
Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar
on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court
stayed the Menichino case, pending the outcome of an appeal filed
by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et. al.
(another putative class action under RESPA in which Radian
Guaranty is not a party) after the Riddle case was dismissed on
summary judgment on November 18, 2013.


RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Lawsuit Stayed Pending Appeal in "Riddle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
stayed the case Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.,
pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v.
Bank of America Corporation, et. al., according to Radian Group
Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014.

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth
Third Bank, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. On November 28, 2012, Radian
Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by the
statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied
Radian Guaranty's motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to
Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar
on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court
stayed the Manners case, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by
plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et. al.
(another putative class action under RESPA in which Radian
Guaranty is not a party) after the Riddle case was dismissed on
summary judgment on November 18, 2013.


RADIAN GROUP: Radian Guaranty Dismissed from "Cunningham" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al.
voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from this lawsuit, according
to Radian Group Inc.'s May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30,
2014.

On June 28, 2012, a putative class action under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, titled Cunningham, et al. v.
M&T Bank Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On December 10, 2012,
Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by
the statute of limitations, and on February 11, 2013, plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On October 30, 2013,
the court denied that motion and ordered a brief period of
discovery limited to the statute of limitations issue. On January
31, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from
this lawsuit.


REACHLOCAL INC: Sued Over Deceptive Online Advertising Purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaked & Posner, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. Reachlocal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03400 (C.D. Cal.
May 2, 2014), arises from the Defendants' deceptive business
practices in connection with its agreements to purchase online
advertising for its consumers.

Reachlocal, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation located at 21700
Oxnard St., Suite 1600, Woodland Hills, CA 91367.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey K Berns, Esq.
     BERNS WEISS LLP
     20700 Ventura Boulevard Suite 140
     Woodland Hills, CA 91364
     Telephone: (818) 961-2000
     Facsimile: (818) 999-1500
     E-mail: jberns@law111.com


SPEEDWAY, IN: Settles Indianapolis Taxi Drivers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Swiatek, writing for IndyStar, reports that the town of
Speedway has agreed to pay $59,250 to settle a class-action
lawsuit with dozens of Indianapolis taxi drivers whose licenses
were seized after they worked in a no-taxi zone at the end of last
year's Indianapolis 500.

The proposed settlement, filed on May 12 in federal court in
Indianapolis, will pay each of the 68 drivers in the suit $400 in
cash.  The town also agreed to refund any paid parking tickets and
void any outstanding tickets that were handed out to taxi drivers.
Several cabs that were towed also will get a refund on those fees.

Taxi drivers sued the town after Speedway police began a wholesale
ticketing of cabs and seizure of their taxi licenses as they tried
to pick up customers on Main Street at the end of the 500 last
year.

Speedway police said they were enforcing a new policy that
declared Main Street a no-taxi zone after the race.  But drivers
said the policy wasn't communicated to them, and they lost
hundreds of dollars in business during the rest of Memorial Day
weekend after their operating licenses, issued by the city of
Indianapolis, were seized.

A lawyer for the drivers, Lynn Toops of Cohen & Malad, said the
settlement won't be final until it's approved by U.S. District
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.

The settlement would pay $29,500 in attorney fees to Cohen & Malad
and ACLU of Indiana.

The settlement also aims to make sure the license seizure won't
happen again.  The town must issue a directive to Speedway police
officers not to confiscate taxi drivers' licenses as a way to
clear Main Street on race days.


STERLING INFOSYSTEM: Sued Over Background Check Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03076 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for systematically
failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure that the public
record information reports to employers or prospective employers
is complete and up to date.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc., is the world's largest company focused
entirely on background check, it is located at State Street Plaza,
24th Floor, New York 10004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monica Welby, Esq.
     Sally B. Friedman, Esq.
     LEGAL ACTION CENTER
     225 Varick Street, 4th Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Telephone: (212) 243-1313
     Facsimile: (212) 675-0286
     E-mail: mwelby@lac.org
             sfriedman@lac.org


TRICARE: Judge Dismisses Majority of Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for GovInfoSecurity.com, reports
that a federal district judge has dismissed the majority of a
consolidated class action lawsuit that was filed against TRICARE,
the military health program, and Science Applications
International Corp. in the wake of a 2011 data breach that
affected nearly 5 million individuals.  The incident is the
largest data breach reported to federal regulators under the HIPAA
breach notification rule.

Of the 33 plaintiffs in the eight class action suits that were
consolidated, only two "do plausibly assert that their data was
accessed or abused, and those victims may move forward with their
claims," writes U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in his May 9
ruling from the U.S. District Court in D.C.

However, the majority of the plaintiffs have not shown evidence
that their data has been either viewed or misused, the judge says.

The court will hold a status hearing to assess those dismissed
parties' intentions about appealing the judge's decision "before
taking up the question of whether the two remaining plaintiffs
have stated a legal claim," he writes.

                         Breach Details

The lawsuits stemmed from the September 2011 theft of unencrypted
backup computer tapes containing information on about 4.9 million
individuals.  The tapes were stolen from the car of an SAIC
employee who was to transport them between federal facilities on
behalf of TRICARE.

The consolidated cases include five filed in the District of
Columbia, two in California and one in Texas.  The cases alleged
harm from an increased likelihood of identity theft and from an
invasion of privacy, among other things.  The ruling notes that
recently, SAIC and the three government defendants -- TRICARE, the
Department of Defense, and its Secretary, Chuck Hagel, moved to
dismiss the now-consolidated complaint.

In his ruling, the judge wrote: "This case presents thorny
standing issues regarding when, exactly, the loss or theft of
something as abstract as data becomes a concrete injury.  That is,
when is a consumer actually harmed by a data breach -- the moment
data is lost or stolen, or only after the data has been accessed
or used by a third party?"

The ruling continues: "As the issue has percolated through various
courts, most have agreed that the mere loss of data -- without
evidence that it has been either viewed or misused -- does not
constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing.  This court
agrees. Mere loss of the data is all that most plaintiffs allege
here, so the majority must be dismissed from this case.  Two
plaintiffs, however, do plausibly assert that their data was
accessed or abused, and those victims may move forward with their
claims."

                        Analysis of Ruling

Privacy attorney Adam Greene, a partner at the law firm Davis
Wright Tremaine, says the ruling "adds to the majority of court
cases that have held that plaintiffs must demonstrate actual harm,
not merely a heightened risk of identity theft, to prevail on a
claim related to a data breach.

"This ruling likely won't bring an end to these cases, as it is in
a U.S. district court and is not binding on other courts," he
notes.  "The recent settlements in the AvMed and Stanford cases
likely provide plenty of incentive for class action plaintiffs to
continue bring claims.  Nevertheless, it adds to the weight of
authority finding that a data breach itself is insufficient to
demonstrate damages."

A class action lawsuit against AvMed, a health plan company,
stemming from a 2009 data breach, was recently settled for $3
million.  The settlement is significant because it awards payments
to those who were not victims of identity theft.

A class action suit against Stanford Hospital & Clinics and two
business associates related to a 2011 breach affecting 20,000
patients was recently settled for $4 million.

Also, Mr. Greene notes: "There are still some statutes, like the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which award
"nominal damages" in the absence of demonstrating actual damages.
Cases under such laws are potentially distinguishable from the
TRICARE/SAIC case."


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Netherland, et al, v. TWC Administration, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00377 (W.D. Tex. May 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
compensation and other appropriate relief from the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201
et seq., and Texas state law.

TWC Administration, LLC, is a foreign corporation, the registered
agent for service of process is CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan
Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.


UNIV OF EDUCATION WINNEBA: Graduate Students File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
GhanaWeb reports that the University of Education Winneba is
steeling itself for a class action suit by about 100 graduate
students after it fined them for submitting their thesis late.

The students who have already been graduated in the 2013/2014
academic year, are being asked to pay between 1000 and 7000 Ghana
cedis before their certificates are released.  The amount is a
penalty commensurate with the new academic year's fees for failing
to submit their thesis on time.  The students say the charges are
unfair, and would go to court to challenge it.

"How can we owe you when you have graduated us? You have put out
our names as students who are graduating, how come all of a sudden
we are owing you? It doesn't make sense," an affected student told
Joy News.

Another student who accused the university of exploitation
suspected the university wants to "cheat students to generate some
funds internally".

"We have our clearance forms which have been stamped by the
university.  We have proof that you told us that we do not owe
you".

The students want the court to restrain the university from
enforcing this exploitative charge.

"I have lost two Ph.D. opportunities because of this," a female
graduate lamented.

But defending the decision, Deputy Registrar in charge of Public
Relations, Steve Kammassah, explained that students submitted
their thesis after the academic year had ended.  He said this
policy has been in place and is found in the University Handbook
although it has not been enforced over the years.

"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse," he pointed out.

He said students who have been cleared should bring their evidence
to the Graduate school to prove their case.


VIVUS INC: Briefing on Appeal v. Dismissal of "Kovtun" Complete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of the suit
Kovtun v. VIVUS, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH is
complete, and the parties are awaiting word on whether the Court
of Appeals wishes to entertain oral argument, according to the
company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2014.

The Company, a current officer and a former officer were
defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in
November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
false or misleading statements made by the defendants in
connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug
Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The
Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action
Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal
was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants
the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting
word on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral
argument.


WALTER ENERGY: "Moore" Environmental Lawsuit in Alabama Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke,
Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391 before the federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama is currently stayed, according to
the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30,
2014.

In 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke,
Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class
action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged
presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and
other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current
and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants
and/or their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and
amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to
Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after
March 2, 1995. Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss
the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court
held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not
valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with
leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined class. In
partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the
pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on
rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012. On
November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for
partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The
Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal
of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013. On September
30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying
the motion. On November 1, 2013, a joint motion to stay the
proceeding was filed with the Court, which the Court granted on
November 21, 2013. As a result of the Court's action, the case is
currently stayed.


WALTER ENERGY: Ala. Stock Suit Stayed Pending "Halliburton" Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities suit against Walter Energy, Inc. is
stayed pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in
Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., according to
the company's May 6, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30,
2014.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into
In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The
consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant
Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of
Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion
without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February
15, 2013 and on March 5, 2013. The parties are now in the process
of discovery. On March 18, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation
pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in
Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.


WORKFIT MEDICAL: Seeks Monetary Damages Pursuant to FLSA & NY Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zenaida Acevedo, et al. on behalf of themselves and all other
employees similarly situated v. Workfit Medical, LLC et al., Case
No. 6:14-cv-06221 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2014), seeks to recover
monetary damages and equitable relief to redress the deprivation
of rights secured to the Plaintiffs, as well as other employees
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Law.

Workfit Medical, LLC, is a New York Limited Liability Company
located at 1160 Chili Avenue, Suite 200, Rochester, NY 14624. It
provides occupational health services in the Western New York
area, including drug and alcohol screening, pre-employment medical
testing, worker's compensation services, and various other
workplace health services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      Facsimile: (585) 272-0574
      E-mail: jferris@theemploymentattorneys.com


* Derivative Suit Slowly Replaces Class Action v. Cos. in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globes reports that derivative suits provide shareholders with the
possibility of filing a suit against company's executive officers.
It is filed against the company following a misdemeanor carried
out by the executive and the company is the one that will receive
the money that will be ruled upon in the derivative suit.  The
shareholder who is suing must first approach the company and
demand that it file the suit against the executive (except in
exceptional cases).  Filing the derivatives suit is conditional on
the company having abstained from filing the suit.

In recent years the use of the instrument of the derivatives suit
has increased mainly among public companies in Israel.  In the
1980s only a few derivative suits were filed while in the 1990s
dozens were filed.  By 2000 alone dozens of derivative suits were
filed and in the current decade over 100 derivative suits have
already been filed.  There has also been a consistent rise in the
tendency of courts to approve the filing of derivative suits.

There are many similarities between derivative suits and class
action suits.  The plaintiff in the derivative suit is also
entitled to special recompense, which will be paid by the company
(in addition to the compensations that will be awarded in favor of
the company).  The lawyer representing the plaintiff is also
entitled to a fee that will be set (among other things) taking
into account the sum that will be awarded in favor of the company.
Nevertheless, the amounts of the recompense and the fee paid in
derivative suits, whether by the court's decision or in a
compromise, are similar in substance to the amounts paid in class
action suits.  The conduct of the derivative suit also requires
filing for approval to conduct the case.  The derivative suit also
does not require payment of a fee ahead of time.  The derivative
suit can also receive funding from the Israel Securities Authority
and is permitted to request disclosure of documents before
approval to conduct the suit is given, and sometimes even before
filing the request to give approval.

However, there is an important advantage that a derivatives suit
has over a class action suit against company executives.
Generally, it can be said that the chances of success in a
derivatives suit are higher than the chances in a class action
suit.  Class action suits with public companies fail in no small
number of cases on the grounds that the prosecuting shareholder
does not have a personal cause of action against the executive.
This is due to the rule that executives owe obligations of trust
and caution solely to the company and not to shareholders (except
in exceptional cases).  This obstacle does not stand in the way of
plaintiffs in derivative suits.  Shareholders file suits in the
name of the company, and not in the name of shareholders.
Therefore, derivative suits are no less dangerous (perhaps more)
to executive officers at public companies compared with class
action suits.

In addition, courts have been more lenient in recent years with
derivative suits and removed obstacles that previously barred the
way.  For example, courts are inclined to be more lenient with a
plaintiff who purchased his shares in order to file the derivative
suit.  In the past, courts dismissed derivative suits just for
this reason.  Today the courts make do with the statement that
this matter is taken into account as part of the examination in
good faith of the derivative claim that has been filed. Courts
tend to place an emphasis on examining the existence of grounds
for the suit by the company against the executives and less on the
question of the fitness of the shareholder to conduct the suit.

Therefore, the derivative suit is slowly replacing the class
action suit against directors and managers of public companies.
It is acceptable to see class actions suits as a threat that might
be strategic for the company. The derivate suit too may also be a
strategic threat, especially for executive officers of the
company.  It is important to recognize the instrument of the
derivative suit and the ways that exist to defend against it.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace to Make Deferred Payments to PI Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. is obligated to make deferred payments to a trust
created under its Plan of Reorganization for asbestos-related
personal injury claimants for five years beginning 2019, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and 61 of its United States subsidiaries
and affiliates filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The cases were consolidated
under case number 01-01139.  Grace's non-U.S. subsidiaries and
certain of its U.S. subsidiaries were not included in the filing.

In September 2008, Grace and other parties filed the Joint Plan
with the Bankruptcy Court to address all pending and future
asbestos-related claims and all other pre-petition claims as
outlined therein. On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued
an order confirming the Joint Plan. On January 31, 2012, the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued
an order affirming the Confirmation Order and confirming the Joint
Plan in its entirety. On February 3, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the sole remaining appeal
challenging the Confirmation Order and the Joint Plan became
effective.

Under the Joint Plan, two asbestos trusts have been established
and funded under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Confirmation Order contains a channeling injunction which provides
that all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury
claims and demands are to be channeled for resolution to an
asbestos personal injury trust and all pending and future
asbestos-related property damage claims and demands, including PD
Claims related to Grace's former attic insulation product, are to
be channeled to a separate asbestos property damage trust.
Canadian ZAI PD Claims are channeled to a separate Canadian claims
fund. The trusts are the sole recourse for holders of asbestos-
related claims; the channeling injunctions prohibit holders of
asbestos-related claims from asserting such claims directly
against Grace.

Under the terms of the Joint Plan, claims under the Chapter 11
Cases are satisfied as follows:

Asbestos-Related Personal Injury Claims.  Asbestos personal injury
claimants allege adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos-
containing products formerly manufactured by Grace. Historically,
Grace's cost to resolve such claims was influenced by numerous
variables, including the nature of the disease alleged, product
identification, proof of exposure to a Grace product, negotiation
factors, the solvency of other former producers of asbestos-
containing products, cross-claims by co-defendants, the rate at
which new claims were filed, the jurisdiction in which the claims
were filed, and the defense and disposition costs associated with
these claims.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against
Grace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI
Claims would have been received between the Filing Date and
December 31, 2013, had such PI Claims not been stayed by the
Bankruptcy Court.

Under the Joint Plan, all PI Claims are channeled to the PI Trust
for resolution. The PI Trust will use specified trust distribution
procedures to satisfy allowed PI Claims.
On the Effective Date, the PI Trust was funded with:

* $557.7 million in cash from Grace (includes $464.1 million of
cash from Grace and $93.6 million of cash from insurance proceeds
that were held in escrow);

* A warrant to acquire 10 million shares of Company common stock
at an exercise price of $17.00 per share, expiring one year after
the Effective Date (the "PI Warrant") (this obligation is expected
to be settled in cash with the PI Trust):

* Rights to all proceeds under all of Grace's insurance policies
that are available for payment of PI Claims;

* $42.1 million in cash from a subsidiary of Fresenius AG,
pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving
asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer
claims against Fresenius; and

* $856.8 million in cash and 18 million shares of Sealed Air
Corporation common stock paid by Cryovac, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sealed Air, pursuant to the terms of a settlement
agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and
fraudulent transfer claims against Cryovac and Sealed Air.

Grace is obligated to make deferred payments to the PI Trust of
$110 million per year for 5 years beginning in 2019, and $100
million per year for 10 years beginning in 2024, which obligation
is secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares
of Company common stock to the asbestos trusts in the event of
default.

The amounts that Grace will be obligated to pay to the PI Trust
under the Joint Plan are fixed amounts. Grace is not obligated to
make additional payments to the PI Trust beyond the described
payments.

W.R. Grace & Co. is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace May Make More Payments to PD Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
The aggregate amount W.R. Grace & Co. is obligated to a trust
created under its Plan of Reorganization for asbestos-related
property damage claimants is not capped and the Company may be
obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in commercial and
public buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value
of PD Claims, including legal defenses, product identification,
the amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and
use of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of
homeowners alleging damage from ZAI. Based on Grace's
investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and
testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace
believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended
purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The
plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the
safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued an
opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with
asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is
no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

At Grace's request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established
a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a related
notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI PD Claim
to submit an individual proof of claim no later than October 31,
2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to
the October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of December 31,
2013, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.

In 2008 and 2009, Grace entered into settlement agreements with
representatives of the U.S. ZAI PD claimants and Canadian ZAI PD
claimants, respectively. The terms of these settlements have been
incorporated into the terms of the Joint Plan and related
documents.

All PD Claims have been channeled to the PD Trust for resolution.
The PD Trust contains two accounts, the PD Account and the ZAI PD
Account. U.S. ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the ZAI PD Account
and non-ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from the PD Account. Canadian
ZAI PD Claims are to be paid by a separate fund established in
Canada. Each account has a separate trustee and the assets of the
accounts may not be commingled.

PD Account

On the Effective Date, the PD Account of the PD Trust was funded
with $39.9 million in cash from Grace and $111.4 million in cash
from Cryovac and Fresenius to pay allowed non-ZAI PD Claims
settled as of the Effective Date, and CDN$8.6 million in cash from
Grace to fund the Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund.

Following the Effective Date, unresolved non-ZAI PD Claims are to
be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court and any future non-ZAI PD
Claims are to be litigated in a federal district court, in each
case pursuant to procedures to be approved by the Bankruptcy
Court. To the extent any such PD Claims are determined to be
allowed claims, they are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace
is obligated to make a payment to the PD Trust every six months in
the amount of any non-ZAI PD Claims allowed during the preceding
six months plus interest (if applicable) and, except for the first
six months, the amount of PD Trust expenses for the preceding six
months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate amount to be paid
under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace may be obligated
to make additional payments to the PD Account of the PD Trust in
respect of the PD Obligation. Grace has accrued for those
unresolved non-ZAI PD Claims that it believes are probable and
estimable. Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or
unasserted non-ZAI PD Claims as it does not believe that payment
on any such claims is probable.

On the Effective Date, the PD Trust contributed CDN$8.6 million to
a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund through which Canadian ZAI
PD Claims are to be resolved. Grace has no continuing or
contingent obligations to make additional payments into this fund.

ZAI PD Account

On the Effective Date, the ZAI PD Account of the PD Trust was
funded with approximately $34.4 million in cash from Cryovac and
Fresenius.

Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30 million in cash to the
ZAI PD Account on the third anniversary of the Effective Date, and
Grace is obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments
of $8 million per year to the ZAI PD Account during the 20-year
period beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date,
with each such payment due only if the assets of the ZAI PD
Account fall below $10 million during the preceding year. The
amounts that Grace will be obligated to pay to the ZAI PD Account
under the Joint Plan are capped amounts. Grace is not obligated to
make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of the ZAI PD
Account beyond the described payments. Grace has accrued for the
$30 million payment due on the third anniversary of the Effective
Date, but has not accrued for the 10 additional payments since
Grace does not currently believe they are probable.

The PD Trust is to resolve U.S. ZAI PD Claims that qualify for
payment under specified trust distribution procedures by paying
55% of the claimed amount, but in no event is the PD Trust to pay
more per claim than 55% of $7,500 (as adjusted for inflation each
year after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date).
All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are
secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of
Company common stock to the asbestos trusts in the event of
default. Grace has the right to conduct annual audits of the
books, records and claim processing procedures of the PD Trust.

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Records $2.1-Bil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s recorded asbestos-related liability was $2.092
billion, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2013
and 2012, was $2,092.4 million and $2,065.0 million respectively,
and is included in "liabilities subject to compromise" in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace increased its
asbestos-related liability by $27.4 million in the fourth quarter
of 2013 to reflect the updated estimated value of the
consideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust (the
"Trusts") under the Joint Plan, considering the effective date of
February 3, 2014. The asbestos-related liability was settled at
the recorded amount on the Effective Date, including payment of
cash due at the Effective Date, issuance of the warrant and
deferred payment obligations, and transfer of all cash and rights
with respect to Grace's insurance policies that provide coverage
for asbestos-related claims.

The PI Trust deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year
for 5 years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per
year for 10 years beginning January 2, 2024, was recorded at fair
value of $567 million on December 31, 2013, to reflect the
estimated value on the Effective Date. The value of the deferred
payment obligation has been estimated based on (i) interest rates;
(ii) the Company's credit standing and the payment period of the
deferred payments; (iii) restrictive covenants and terms of the
Company's other credit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk of
a default, which if default were to occur would require Grace to
issue shares of Company common stock; and (v) the subordination
provisions of the deferred payment agreement.

Grace also recorded a deferred payment obligation of $27.5 million
representing the present value of the $30 million payment due to
the ZAI PD Account on February 3, 2017.

The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common
stock for $17.00 per share is recorded at estimated value of $490
million on the Effective Date based on the current trading range
of Company common stock and other valuation factors.

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-GM Workers' Claims v. Remy Diverted to Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of former General Motors employees against Remy
International, Inc., are directed to an asbestos trust, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have historically been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products by former GM employees. We were
successful in getting these matters dismissed on the grounds that
the plaintiffs were employees of GM, not our company, following
the 1994 asset purchase of the Delco Remy Division of GM. We also
received an indemnification from GM concerning costs associated
with asbestos exposure claims involving former GM employees.

GM and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed on
June 1, 2009 for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. On July 10, 2009, a substantial portion of GM
began operations under a new corporate legal structure, called new
GM, which acquired substantially all of the assets of the pre-
bankruptcy GM. Following GM's June 2009 filing for protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the indemnification
and certain other arrangements were disputed. However, we
negotiated a settlement of these issues with new GM whereby,
through an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, we were accorded protected party
status, which requires that any future asbestos exposure claims by
former GM employees be directed to an asbestos trust, rather than
brought against us directly."

Remy International, Inc. (Remy) is a global vehicular parts
designer, manufacturer, remanufacturer, marketer and distributor
of aftermarket and original equipment electrical components for
automobiles, light trucks, heavy-duty trucks and other vehicles.
Remy sells its products worldwide primarily under the Delco Remy,
Remy, and World Wide Automotive brand names. The Company's
products include light-duty and heavy-duty starters and
alternators for both the original equipment and the remanufactured
markets, and hybrid power technology. These products are
principally sold or distributed to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) for both original equipment manufacturers and
aftermarket operations, as well as to warehouse distributors and
retail automotive parts chains. The Company sells its products
principally in North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia-
Pacific. In January 2014, Remy International, Inc. acquired all
assets of USA Industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face Fibro PD Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., asserts that asbestos-related claims
against its subsidiaries will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries -- Spence
Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke
Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets
they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or our financial
condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets.
The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary
manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's
Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012,
the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors and
the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100
countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups
The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio
of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims v. Leslie Channeled to Trust
----------------------------------------------------------
All current and future asbestos-related claims against CIRCOR
International, Inc.'s Leslie Controls, Inc., are channeled to a
trust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Asbestos and bankruptcy related charges are
primarily associated with our subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc., in
the energy segment. There were no ongoing costs associated with
Leslie's asbestos litigation for the year ended December 31, 2012.
The $0.7 million bankruptcy related charges for the year ended
December 31, 2011 was comprised of bankruptcy related professional
fees.

On April 28, 2011, Leslie emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. Under the terms of the bankruptcy plan, all current
and future asbestos related claims against Leslie, as well as all
current and future derivative claims against CIRCOR, are now
permanently channeled to a trust for which Leslie bears no further
financial liability."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets.
The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary
manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's
Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012,
the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors and
the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100
countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups
The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio
of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's US Unit Had $278MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States recorded
total asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court
informal claims pending in the United States and the United
Kingdom. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to
have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by our subsidiaries during the 1970s and
earlier.

We believe the most critical assumptions within our asbestos
liability estimate are the number of future mesothelioma claims to
be filed against us, the number of mesothelioma claims that
ultimately will require payment from us or our insurers, and the
indemnity payments required to resolve those mesothelioma claims.

United States

As of December 31, 2013, we had recorded total liabilities of
$278,200,000 comprised of an estimated liability of $46,800,000
relating to open (outstanding) claims and an estimated liability
of $231,400,000 relating to future unasserted claims through
December 31, 2028.

Since 2004, we have worked with Analysis Research Planning
Corporation, or ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the
United States with respect to projecting asbestos liabilities, to
estimate the amount of asbestos-related indemnity and defense
costs at year-end for the next 15 years. Since that time, we have
recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent
with ARPC's reasonable best estimate.

Based on its review of the 2013 activity, ARPC recommended that
certain assumptions used to estimate our future asbestos liability
be updated as of December 31, 2013. Accordingly, we developed a
revised estimate of our aggregate indemnity and defense costs
through December 31, 2028 considering the advice of ARPC. In 2013,
we revalued our liability for asbestos indemnity and defense costs
through December 31, 2028 to $278,200,000, which brought our
liability to a level consistent with ARPC's reasonable best
estimate. In connection with updating our estimated asbestos
liability and related asset, we recorded a net charge of
$46,000,000 in 2013.

Our net asbestos-related provision was the net result of our
revaluation of our asbestos liability and related asset resulting
from:

* a charge related to the impact of an increase in our estimate of
new claim filings,

* a decrease in our estimate of claim filings which result in no
monetary payments, which we refer to as our zero-pay rate, over
our 15-year estimate, and partially offset by

* the favorable impact of the inclusion of a gain recognized in
2013 upon collection of an insurance receivable of approximately
$15,800,000 related to an insolvent insurance carrier, which had
been previously written-off.

Our net asbestos-related provision was also impacted, to a lesser
extent, by:

* an adjustment for actual claim settlement experience during the
year, and

* an accrual of another year of estimated claims under our rolling
15-year asbestos-related liability estimate.

We believe the increase in our estimate of new claim filings and
decrease in the zero-pay rate are short-term in nature and that
the longer-term trend will revert to our previous forecast. We
will continue to monitor these parameters and adjust our forecasts
if actual results differ from our assumptions.

The total asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our
estimates for our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims
being valued and our liability for future unasserted claims
through December 31, 2028. Our liability estimate is based upon
the following information and/or assumptions: number of open
claims, forecasted number of future claims broken down by disease
type -- mesothelioma, lung cancer, and non-malignancies, and
estimated average cost per claim by disease type -- mesothelioma,
lung cancer and non-malignancies, zero pay rate, as well as other
factors. The total estimated liability, which has not been
discounted for the time value of money, includes both the estimate
of forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense costs.
Total defense costs and indemnity liability payments are estimated
to be incurred through December 31, 2028, during which period the
incidence of new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We
believe that it is likely that there will be new claims filed
after December 31, 2028, but in light of uncertainties inherent in
long-term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably
estimate the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred
after December 31, 2028. Through December 31, 2013, total
cumulative indemnity costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries,
were approximately $825,900,000 and total cumulative defense costs
paid were approximately $409,700,000, or approximately 33% of
total defense and indemnity costs.

As of December 31, 2013, we had recorded assets of $111,500,000
which represents our best estimate of settled and probable
insurance recoveries relating to our liability for pending and
estimated future asbestos claims through December 31, 2028.
Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with
insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts
and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are
recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable.
Our asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes
our best estimate of settled and probable insurance recoveries
relating to our liability for pending and estimated future
asbestos claims through December 31, 2028. Our asbestos-related
assets have not been discounted for the time value of money.

Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies
among our insurers. Other than receivables related to bankruptcy
court-approved settlements during liquidation proceedings, we have
not assumed recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related
insurance asset from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We
have considered the financial viability and legal obligations of
our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and believe that the insurers
or their guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant
portion of claims and defense costs relating to asbestos
litigation. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, we have not recorded
an allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos-
related insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers
that have become insolvent; there have been no such write-offs
during 2013, 2012 or 2011. During 2013, we recognized a gain of
approximately $15,800,000 upon collection of an insurance
receivable related to an insolvent insurance carrier, which we had
previously written-off. During 2011, we reached an agreement with
an insurer that was under bankruptcy liquidation and for which we
had written off our receivable prior to 2010. The asset awarded
under the bankruptcy liquidation for this insurer was $4,500,000
and was included in our asbestos-related assets as of December 31,
2011. This receivable was subsequently collected during 2012.
Other insurers may become insolvent in the future and our insurers
may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a timely basis. If we
fail to realize the expected insurance recoveries, or experience
delays in receiving material amounts from our insurers, our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows could be materially adversely affected.
We plan to update our forecasts periodically to take into
consideration our experience and to update our estimate of future
costs and expected insurance recoveries. The estimate of the
liabilities and assets related to asbestos claims and recoveries
is subject to a number of uncertainties that may result in
significant changes in the current estimates. Among these are
uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of claims filed,
the amount of claim costs, the impact of bankruptcies of other
companies with asbestos claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, as well as potential legislative changes. Increases in
the number of claims filed or costs to resolve those claims could
cause us to increase further the estimates of the costs associated
with asbestos claims and could have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Based on the December 31, 2013 liability estimate, an increase of
25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would
increase the liability by $40,300,000 and the impact on expense
would be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries.
Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate
our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge in the
statement of operations of approximately 85% of the increase in
the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately change by the
same amount. Should there be an increase in the estimated
liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that increase that
would be expected to be funded by additional insurance recoveries
would decline.

Our subsidiaries have been effective in managing the asbestos
litigation, in part, because our subsidiaries: (1) have access to
historical project documents and other business records going back
more than 50 years, allowing them to defend themselves by
determining if the claimants were present at the location of the
alleged asbestos exposure and, if so, the timing and extent of
their presence; (2) maintain good records on insurance policies
and have identified and validated policies issued since 1952; and
(3) have consistently and vigorously defended these claims which
has resulted in dismissal of claims that are without merit or
settlement of meritorious claims at amounts that are considered
reasonable."

Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering,
construction and project management contractor and power
equipment. The Company operates through two business groups:
Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and
Global Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates
worldwide, designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore
upstream oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas
liquefaction facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids
facilities, oil refining, chemical and petrochemical,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities and related
infrastructure. Its Global Power Group designs, manufactures and
erects steam generators and auxiliary equipment for electric power
generating stations, district heating and power plants and
industrial facilities worldwide. In June 2013, Foster Wheeler AG
announced that it has acquired NorthAm Engineering S.A. DE CV
(NorthAm). In June 2013, it announced that it has acquired Ingen
Ideas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Unit Had $33MM Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom recorded
total asbestos liabilities of $33,100,000, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "As of December 31, 2013, we had recorded
total liabilities of $33,100,000 comprised of an estimated
liability relating to open (outstanding) claims of $8,500,000  and
an estimated liability relating to future unasserted claims
through December 31, 2028, of $24,600,000. An asset in
substantially an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries. The liability estimates are
based on a U.K. House of Lords judgment that pleural plaque claims
do not amount to a compensable injury and accordingly, we have
reduced our liability assessment. If this ruling is reversed by
legislation, the total asbestos liability recorded in the U.K.
would increase to approximately $52,400,000, with a corresponding
increase in the asbestos-related asset."

Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering,
construction and project management contractor and power
equipment. The Company operates through two business groups:
Global Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and
Global Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates
worldwide, designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore
upstream oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas
liquefaction facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids
facilities, oil refining, chemical and petrochemical,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities and related
infrastructure. Its Global Power Group designs, manufactures and
erects steam generators and auxiliary equipment for electric power
generating stations, district heating and power plants and
industrial facilities worldwide. In June 2013, Foster Wheeler AG
announced that it has acquired NorthAm Engineering S.A. DE CV
(NorthAm). In June 2013, it announced that it has acquired Ingen
Ideas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986. The Circuit Courts subsequently dismissed the original
21 multi-plaintiff complaints and required each plaintiff to file
a separate lawsuit. After certain individual claims were
dismissed, 593 separate lawsuits remained, each with a single
plaintiff. We have or may have direct or indirect interest in a
total of 20 cases in Mississippi. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing
drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling
operations and have included allegations of negligence, products
liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act
and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these
cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant
companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the
drilling-related products that contained asbestos. With the
exception of cases pending in Jones and Jefferson counties, these
cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a
single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed
by the court to preside over the cases. Of the 20 cases in which
we have or may have an interest, two have been scheduled for
trial. During the year ended December 31, 2013, one of these two
cases was resolved through a negotiated settlement for a nominal
sum. In the other case, we were not named as a direct defendant,
but the Special Master granted a Motion for Summary Judgment based
on the absence of medical evidence in favor of all defendants. The
resolution of these two cases leaves 18 remaining lawsuits in
Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest.

In 2011, the Special Master issued a ruling that a Jones Act
employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive
damages, and this ruling has now been obtained in three of our
cases. To date, seven of the 593 cases have gone to trial against
defendants who allegedly manufactured or distributed drilling mud
additives. None of these cases has involved an individual Jones
Act employer, and we have not been a defendant in any of these
cases. During the year ended December 31, 2013, a group of
lawsuits premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi
were filed in Louisiana, 11 of which named one of our subsidiaries
as a defendant. Four of these cases were dismissed through early
motions, and seven claims remain pending in Louisiana. We intend
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 879 Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was named defendant in 879
asbestos exposure lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in
lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and
its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named
as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos. As of December 31, 2013, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 879 lawsuits, some of which include
multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately
1,819 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we
have not been provided with sufficient information from the
plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have
claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or
the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through
December 31, 2013, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including
both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been
material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are
inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the
subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to
resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess
of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully
available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe
that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or
indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we
cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these
matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any,
arising from these claims will have a material impact on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Had $77-Mil. A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried $77 million of net loss
and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We carried $77 million of net loss and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and $51
million of reserves for mold claims at year-end 2013, compared
with $67 million and $54 million, respectively, for such claims at
year-end 2012. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for
each respective year constituted 1.9 percent and 1.8 percent of
total net loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates.

We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or
below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines
company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution
exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos
and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we
endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and
environmental exclusion.

Additionally, since 2002, we have revised policy terms where
permitted by state regulation to limit our exposure to mold claims
prospectively and further reduce our exposure to other
environmental claims generally. Finally, we have not engaged in
any mergers or acquisitions through which such a liability could
have been assumed. We continue to monitor our claims for evidence
of material exposure to other mass tort classes such as silicosis,
but we have found no such credible evidence to date.

Reserving data for asbestos and environmental claims has
characteristics that limit the usefulness of the methods and
models used to analyze loss and loss expense reserves for other
claims. Specifically, asbestos and environmental loss and loss
expenses for different accident years do not emerge independently
of one another as loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson
methods assume. In addition, asbestos and environmental loss and
loss expense data available to date does not reflect a well-
defined tail, greatly complicating the identification of an
appropriate probabilistic trend family model.

Due to these considerations, our actuarial staff reviewed
additional reserving methods and elected to use a weighted average
of a paid survival ratio method and report year method to estimate
reserves for IBNR asbestos and environmental claims. The result is
a decrease of approximately 2.6 percent in the indicated net
reserve as derived from the 2003 survival ratio analysis alone.
Our exposure to such claims is limited; we believe moving to
weighted average of both methods produces a sufficient level of
reserves."

Cincinnati Financial Corporation is engaged in property casualty
insurance marketed through independent insurance agents in 39
states. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company owned
100% of three subsidiaries: The Cincinnati Insurance Company, CSU
Producer Resources Inc., and CFC Investment Company. The Company
operates in five segments: Commercial lines property casualty
insurance, Personal lines property casualty insurance, Excess and
surplus lines property casualty insurance, Life insurance and
Investments. Its standard market property casualty insurance group
includes two subsidiaries: The Cincinnati Casualty Company and The
Cincinnati Indemnity Company. This group writes a range of
business, homeowner and auto policies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola's Dispute with Chartis Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company's asbestos coverage dispute with Chartis
insurers remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a lawsuit (The Coca-Cola
Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action No. 2002CV631-50) in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (the "Georgia Case"),
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no obligation
to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-
Brooks, Inc., for any past, present or future liabilities or
expenses in connection with any claims or lawsuits against Aqua-
Chem.  Subsequent to the Company's filing but on the same day,
Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit (Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Civil Action No. 02CV012179) in the Circuit Court, Civil
Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin Case"). In
the Wisconsin Case, Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory judgment that
the Company is responsible for all liabilities and expenses not
covered by insurance in connection with certain of Aqua-Chem's
general and product liability claims arising from occurrences
prior to the Company's sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and a judgment
for breach of contract in an amount exceeding $9 million for costs
incurred by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with such claims. The
Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending final resolution of
the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by Aqua-Chem.

The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981. During that time,
the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage,
which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future
costs for certain product liability and other claims. The Company
sold Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under
the terms of a stock sale agreement. The 1981 agreement, and a
subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined the parties' rights
and obligations concerning past and future claims and lawsuits
involving Aqua-Chem. Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem,
manufactured boilers, some of which contained asbestos gaskets.
Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in
or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active
claims pending against it.

The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-
Chem insurers on March 26, 2004.  In the coverage action, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity
Company, et al. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,
Case No. 04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16
insurance companies. Several of the policies that were the subject
of the coverage action had been issued to the Company during the
period (1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem. The
complaint sought a determination of the respective rights and
obligations under the insurance policies issued with regard to
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The action also sought
a monetary judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the plaintiffs
in excess of their obligations. Two of the insurers, one with a
$15 million policy limit and one with a $25 million policy limit,
asserted cross-claims against the Company, alleging that the
Company and/or its insurers are responsible for Aqua-Chem's
asbestos liabilities before any obligation is triggered on the
part of the cross-claimant insurers to pay for such costs under
their policies.

Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers
for Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable
for coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses
that might apply. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements
with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have paid
or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs
arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24,
2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory
judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under
the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other
things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to
policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation.

The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage
agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with
those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Company anticipated that a
final settlement with three of those insurers (the "Chartis
insurers") would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis
insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result,
Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin
state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the
alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem
and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of cross-
motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the
enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of
policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers. The court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011
Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding
contracts, but denied their similar motions related to plaintiffs'
claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel. On or about May
15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable
settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of
underlying coverage and control of defense. On or about January
10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims
and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of
one disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers'
defense obligations in two policy years. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one
open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect
following the parties' settlement. On January 23, 2013, the
Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's
summary judgment ruling. On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court
of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Company and Aqua-Chem. On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers
filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and
on December 11, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to that
petition. Whatever the outcome of the Chartis insurers' appeal to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Chartis insurers will remain
subject to the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation.

The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004.

The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or
licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands,
primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still
beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice
drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports
drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite. The Company's segments include Eurasia and Africa, Europe,
Latin America, North America, Pacific, Bottling Investments and
Corporate. In January 2013, Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Company
announced that it had been acquired by the Company. Effective
February 22, 2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in Fresh Trading
Ltd. In November 2013, Coca-Cola Company and ZICO Beverages LLC
announced that Coca-Cola has acquired the ownership interest in
ZICO.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Had $2.6-Bil. Reserves for E&A Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company had $2.612 billion total reserves related
to environmental remediation and asbestos claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are involved in numerous remediation
actions to clean up hazardous wastes as required by federal and
state laws. Liabilities for remediation costs exclude possible
insurance recoveries and, when dates and amounts of such costs are
not known, are not discounted. When there appears to be a range of
possible costs with equal likelihood, liabilities are based on the
low end of such range. It is reasonably possible that our
environmental remediation exposure will exceed amounts accrued.
However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws,
regulations, technology and information related to individual
sites, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves
related to environmental remediation and asbestos claims, were
$2,612 million at December 31, 2013."

General Electric Company (GE) is a diversified technology and
financial services company. The products and services of the
Company range from aircraft engines, power generation, water
processing, and household appliances to medical imaging, business
and consumer financing and industrial products. It serves
customers in more than 100 countries. In August 2013, General
Electric Company completed the acquisition of the aviation
business of Ario S.p.A. In February 2014, General Electric Co's GE
Oil & Gas launched its new Downstream Technology Solutions
business to supply equipment and services to the $10 bln refining,
petrochemical, industrial and distributed gas segments. In
February 2014, General Electric Company completed the acquisition
of API Healthcare.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends 44 Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., continues to defend themselves
against 44 asbestos exposure lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We are defending approximately 44 lawsuits in
different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically name
a large number of defendants and do not identify any particular
Watts Water products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, we
have obtained a dismissal in every case before it has reached
trial because discovery has failed to yield evidence of
substantial exposure to any Watts Water products."

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts)is a supplier of products
for use in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and
water conservation markets in both North America and Europe with a
presence in Asia. It operates in three geographic segments: North
America, Europe and Asia. Watts has manufacturing facilities, such
as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and Tunisia. Its products are sold to
wholesale distributors and dealers, do-it-yourself (DIY) chains
and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). During the year ended
December 31, 2012, it began classifying its many products into
four universal product lines. These product lines are residential
and commercial flow control products, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) and gas products, drains and water re-use
products and water quality products. On January 31, 2012, it
completed the acquisition of tekmar Control Systems (tekmar). In
December 2012, it sold its subsidiary Flomatic Corporation, to
Boshart Industries Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Had $203-Mil. Liability for A&E Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd.'s gross liability for asbestos and environmental
claims was $203 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company's net reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses at
December 31, 2013 and 2012 included $193 million and $199 million,
respectively, that represent estimates of its net ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental claims. The gross
liability for such claims at December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $203
million and $205 million, respectively, which primarily relate to
Paris Re's gross liability for asbestos and environmental claims
for accident years 2005 and prior of $123 million and $125
million, respectively, with any favorable or adverse development
being subject to the Reserve Agreement. Of the remaining $80
million in gross reserves at December 31, 2013 and 2012, the
majority relates to casualty exposures in the United States
arising from business written by the French branch of PartnerRe
Europe and PartnerRe U.S.

Ultimate loss estimates for such claims cannot be estimated using
traditional reserving techniques and there are significant
uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential
losses for these claims. In view of the legal and tort environment
that affect the development of such claims, the uncertainties
inherent in estimating asbestos and environmental claims are not
likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no
assurance that the reserves established by the Company will not be
adversely affected by development of other latent exposures, and
further, there can be no assurance that the reserves established
by the Company will be adequate. The Company does, however,
actively evaluate potential exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims and establishes additional reserves as appropriate. The
Company believes that it has made a reasonable provision for these
exposures and is unaware of any specific issues that would
materially affect its unpaid losses and loss expense reserves
related to this exposure.

PartnerRe Ltd. (PartnerRe) is the ultimate holding company for its
international reinsurance group. The Company provides reinsurance
on a global basis through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including
Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd. (PartnerRe Bermuda), Partner
Reinsurance Europe plc (PartnerRe Europe) and Partner Reinsurance
Company of the U.S. (PartnerRe U.S.). Its risks reinsured include
property, casualty, motor, agriculture, aviation/space,
catastrophe, credit/surety, engineering, energy, marine, specialty
property, specialty casualty, multiline and other lines and
mortality, longevity and health. The Company also offers
alternative risk products, which include weather and credit
protection to financial, industrial and service companies on a
global basis. In January 2013, the Company acquired Presidio
Reinsurance Group. In March 2013, the Company announced the
formation of Lorenz Re Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,280 Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., is liable for approximately 2.280
cases relating to exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the brake business it acquired in 1986, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At December 31, 2013, approximately 2,280 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through December
31, 2013, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
$14.9 million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a
fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with
certain asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance
coverage."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


                             *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *