---

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

              Friday, May 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 107


                            Headlines


9021PHO FASHION: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
936 CENTRAL: Faces "Antonio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ACTAVIS PLC: Updates on Several TCPA Cases
ACTAVIS PLC: Seeks Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action
ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in "Barrett" Case in Discovery

ACTAVIS PLC: Actonel(R) Case in Initial Stages of Discovery
ACTAVIS PLC: Defended by Daiichi Sankyo in Benicar(R) Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: No Exemption Sought in Alendronate Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Trials Set in Celexa/Lexapro Product Liability Case
ACTAVIS PLC: No Birth Defect Cases Set for Trial

ACTAVIS PLC: Fentanyl Transdermal System Litigation in Discovery
ACTAVIS PLC: Metoclopramide Case Discovery in Preliminary Stages
ACTAVIS PLC: To File Motions to Dismiss in Propoxyphene Case
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Zarah Litigation

AEROPOSTALE INC: Stockholder's Appeal Pending in Second Circuit
AL'S GRILL: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMEC FOSTER: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN REALTY: Given Until May 29 to File Motions to Dismiss
AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond to Md. Class Action

AMERICAN REALTY: Defending Against ARCT III Litigation Matters
AMERICAN REALTY: Tarver Action on Caplease Merger Remains Stayed
AMERICAN REALTY: Bid to Dismiss "Poling" Action Remains Pending
AMERICAN REALTY: "Wunsch" Case Dismissed Voluntarily
AMERICAN REALTY: To Defend Against Realistic Partners' Class Suit

AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Monitoring Whirlpool's Defense of Class Suit
ASB HAWAII: $2MM Settlement Amount Fully Reserved for By Company
ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Yet Set
AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Morales" Suit Says

BABYCOTTONS USA: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD: Court Rules on Bids for Summary Judgment
BOB CIASULLI: Arbitration Clause in Sales Contract Not Binding
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion in Direct Action Plaintiffs' Case Pending
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dispositive Motions Deadline Set for July 2

CALIFORNIA: Inmate Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CALIFORNIA: Amended "Thomas" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
CAMSENA MEAT: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CEDAR RAPIDS: 8th Cir. Vacates Judgment in "Griffioen" Suit
CHASE ISSUANCE: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Now Complete

CHASE ISSUANCE: Defending Class Actions on Credit Card Business
CHUCK'S CAFE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders Filed Complaint
CONTINENTAL WINDOW: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONVERGYS CUSTOMER: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Termination Policies

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: "Alequin" Action Administratively Closed
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Has Option to Seek to Decertify ChHab Class
DIVINE LIVING: Faces "Sardinas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DON-GLO AUTO: "Rocha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ELBIT IMAGING: May 31 Hearing for Evidence in 1999 Class Action

ELBIT IMAGING: June 11 Hearing in Appeal by Series B Noteholder
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Ill. Appeals Affirms Circuit Court Judgment
FLAGLER COUNTY, FL: Settlement in "Ruddell" Case Denied
FLORSHEIM INC: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
FRISOLINO INC: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FUHU INC: Calif. Judge Trims "Miller" False Advertising Suit
GEORGIA: Accord in Suit v. Human Services Dept. Has Initial Okay
GIDI INC: Faces "Secundino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GILEAD SCIENCES: SEPTA Lawsuit Over Hepa C Drugs Dismissed
GILSTER-MARY LEE: District Court's Remand Order Reversed

GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Martin" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
GOOGLE INC: July 30 Case Mgmt Conference in Masterobjects Suit
GUESS? INC: Trial Scheduled for October 26 in "Isaguirre" Case
HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Lawsuits
HCSB FINANCIAL: No Briefing Deadlines Yet in "Shelley" Action

HCSB FINANCIAL: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss "Snyder" Action
HENSAM ENTERPRISES: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Affirmed
INTERLINE BRANDS: Bid to Increase Attorney's Fee Award Denied
JEMANYA CORP: Faces "Matos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal Pending in "Ezersky" Case
JONES FINANCIAL: "Maxwell" Class Action Now Closed
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Wietschner" Over Illegal Company Merger
KURZ & CO: "Andrade" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LONE STAR: "Stevens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

LTF CLUB OPERATIONS: "Bartell" Suit to Remain in Ohio
MANSFIELD CITY, OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers OT
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Matthew B. Johnson Claims
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Lucas and Salerno Class Action
MIAMI INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
MINNESOTA: Olmstead Plan in Suit v. Human Services Dept Rejected
MMPB GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MONEY STORE: Award of Attorney's Fees in "Mazzei" Case Granted
MSG SPINCO: Defending Claims in 2 Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits

NAPA COUNTY, IL: Bid to Dismiss "Acosta" FDCPA Suit Denied
NAT'L COLLEGIATE STUDENT: Nevada & California Suits Consolidated
NEVADA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Inmate's Hepa-C Suit
NIKE RETAIL: Request for Discovery of Entire Class Granted
NION COMPANY: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 13

OMNICELL INC: To Defend Against "Nelson" Class Action
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP to Lead Class Suit
PARFUMS GIVENCHY: Rift Among Class Suit Lawyers Goes to N.D. Ill.
PELLA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Wegner" Suit
PHC-MINDEN LP: La. High Court Reinstates Class in "Baker" Suit

PHILLIPS COUNTY, AZ: New Settlement Notice in "Covington" Okayed
PJCF LLC: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
PROPHASE LABS: Settlement Reached in Weisblum and Gibbs Case
PROSENSA HOLDING: "Singh" Suit Over 2013 IPO Dismissed
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Motion to Strike Partially Granted

ROCKIES REGION: Class Action Settlement Given Final Court Okay
RODRIGO GUTIERREZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Mexican Labors, Suit Says
SENECA SAWMILL: Conditional Certification Granted in Part
SHALIZAR LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SILICONE RUBBER: Faces "Negrette" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU: Court Trims Allen & Golden FDCPA Suit
SOUTH FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in "Vasquez" Labor Suit
TOP RANK: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
TRANS UNION: Bid to Exclude Expert's Report Denied

TRANS UNION: Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal in "White" Case
TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Proceedings Progressing in Miller, Larson
TRIMACO LLC: Order Denying Class Certification Affirmed
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
TURTLE BEACH: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Completed

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fails to Shake Off Securities Case in E.D. Pa.
VENAXIS INC: Tenth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of "Wolfe" Case
VENAXIS INC: Faces "Boldt" Securities Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Reports $100K Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $36.5MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 5,200 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Inc. Has 3 Filter Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,500 PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $247.5-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $1.84B Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $7-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 21,849 Unresolved Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $342.7-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 1,700 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Facing 12,278 PI Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,900 Pending Claims at March 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Has 88 PI Cases at Feb. 15
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne-AMEC Trial Moved to Oct. 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions in "Yates" Suit Issued
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Compensation Benefits Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T, Bellsouth Win Dismissal of "Trauth" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Bids to Exclude Testimony in 2 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Judgment in "Stiles" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Speedy" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gates" Suit Remanded to Ala. State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Criswell" Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Underwriters' Post-Judgment Discovery Bid Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Widow's Benefits Claim Affirmed


                            *********


9021PHO FASHION: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Alvarez, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 9021Pho Fashion Square LLC, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-03657 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

9021Pho Fashion Square LLC owns and operates restaurant in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
      BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP
      222 North Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


936 CENTRAL: Faces "Antonio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrio Angeles Antonio, Javier Tlaltecatl Paez, and Johnny
Torres, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
936 Central Park Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03763 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

936 Central Park Corp. owns and operates an Italian restaurant
located at 936 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ACTAVIS PLC: Updates on Several TCPA Cases
------------------------------------------
Actavis plc, in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, provided
updates on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation.

Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit
Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No.
08SL-CC00257). In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD,
filed a putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc.
("Anda"), a subsidiary of the Company, alleging conversion and
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act. In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
substituting Anda as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges
that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda
misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee
time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that
the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the
plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of
minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be
trebled if the violations are found to be willful. The complaint
seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and
other similarly situated third parties.

In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint,
denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court granted
plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from
individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission
or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or
after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and
products by or on behalf of Defendant." In November 2010, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the
definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs. On
December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the
plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members
who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant,
or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC").

On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011,
the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking certification of a
class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent
Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008. The
motion has been briefed. However, the court granted Anda's motion
to vacate the class certification hearing until similar issues are
resolved in either or both the pending Nack litigation or with the
FCC Petition. No trial date has been set in the matter.

On May 1, 2012, an additional action under the TCPA was filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the "end
users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri
to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by
Anda were sent." (Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. S.D.
Fla., Civ. No. 12-60798). On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer
and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay
the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition and the
FCC's recently filed Public Notice, described below, which the
court granted, staying the action for sixty days. On April 17,
2014 following the expiration of the sixty day period, the court
lifted the stay but reentered it sua sponte on May 23, 2014.

Several issues raised in plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda
is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460. Nack concerned
whether there is a private right of action for failing to include
any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary
to a FCC regulation that requires such notice on fax
advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an
amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the
matter, which was held on September 19, 2012. In its ruling,
issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that Walburg's
arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC's regulation
and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such
challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise not
decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full
participation by the FCC. The defendant in Nack has filed a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

In October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named
as defendants, along with The Peer Group, Inc. ("TPG"), in a
putative class action brought by the St. Louis Heart Center
("SLHC") under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The action is now
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri. On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint,
alleging that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the TCPA, on behalf of a
proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years
prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile
messages of material advertising the commercial availability of
any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants,
which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain
regulation promulgated by the FCC. The Fourth Amended Complaint
seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages
if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or
intentional, interest, and injunctive and other relief. On July
17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the
action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the
pending FCC Petitions, including any appeal therefrom.


ACTAVIS PLC: Seeks Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company and other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss a
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company and other named pharmaceutical
defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer
protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of
certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products
("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product.
(Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Abbvie Inc., at el., Civ. No. 14-8857).
This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability multi-district
litigation ("MDL"), notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third
parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its
insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring
restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and
multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Responses to the
complaint are due March 16, 2015. The Company and other defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss on March 16, 2015.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in "Barrett" Case in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
case "Megan Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc." is still in its early stages and the
parties are beginning to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants in an action brought by Megan Barrett,
Lindsey Houser, Jennifer Jones, and Jennifer Seard, former Company
Sales Representatives, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption "Megan Barrett et al. v.
Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc."

In November 2012, Plaintiffs amended the complaint, adding six
additional plaintiffs: Kimberly Clinton, Erin Eckenrode, Julie
Smyth, Marie Avila, Andrea Harley, and Christy Lowder, all of whom
alleged that they were current or former Company Sales
Representatives or Specialty Sales Representatives. In March 2013,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding one additional
plaintiff: Tracy Le, a now-former Company Sales Representative.

The action is a putative class and collective action, and the
Second Amended Complaint alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female Sales
Representatives (defined to include Territory Sales
Representatives, Field Sales Representatives, Medical Sales
Representatives, Professional Sales Representatives, Specialty
Sales Representatives, Field Sales Trainers, and Regional Sales
Trainers) employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to
the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-
class includes all current and former female Sales Representatives
who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the
Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The
proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current,
former, and future female Sales Representatives who were not
compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during
the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also
includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named
Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII,
and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss certain claims on April 29,
2013, which was argued on January 16, 2014. On August 14, 2014,
the court issued a decision on the motion granting it in part and
denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed class
definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller
set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the
individual plaintiffs' claims. Forest filed an answer to the
complaint on October 27, 2014.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for equitable
tolling; seeking tolling back to April 29, 2013 - the date of the
Company's filing of the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The Company filed a response to this motion on January
26, 2015. Plaintiffs had until May 15, 2015 to file a motion for
conditional certification of the Equal Pay Act class.

The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are
beginning to work on discovery matters. The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time,
the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material
effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as
a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: Actonel(R) Case in Initial Stages of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in the
Actonel(R) Product Liability Litigation.

Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 204 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 415 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 627 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either
federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is
in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations.

The 415 unfiled claims involve potential plaintiffs that have
agreed, pursuant to a tolling agreement, to postpone the filing of
their claims against Warner Chilcott in exchange for Warner
Chilcott's agreement to suspend the statutes of limitations
relating to their potential claims. In addition, Warner Chilcott
is aware of four purported product liability class actions that
were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in
Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the
plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R)
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected
that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Of the
approximately 631 total Actonel(R)-related claims, approximately
75 include ONJ-related claims, approximately 538 include AFF-
related claims and approximately four include both ONJ and AFF-
related claims. In some of the cases, manufacturers of other
bisphosphonate products are also named as defendants. Plaintiffs
have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is reviewing
these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to defend these
claims vigorously.


ACTAVIS PLC: Defended by Daiichi Sankyo in Benicar(R) Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
approximately 62 actions involve allegations that Benicar(R), a
treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi
Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal
injuries. Under Forest Laboratories's Co-Promotion Agreement,
Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in these lawsuits.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Exemption Sought in Alendronate Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that to
date, no plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the
District of New Jersey against the Company has moved for such
exemption and all such cases have been dismissed related to
Alendronate Litigation.

Beginning in 2010, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate, for personal
injuries including femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw
("ONJ") allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate.
Approximately 132 cases are pending against Actavis and/or its
affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing
claims by approximately 176 plaintiffs. These cases are generally
at their preliminary stages. Fifty-one lawsuits also name as a
defendant Cobalt Laboratories, which Watson acquired in 2009 as
part of its acquisition of the Arrow Group, in connection with
Cobalt's manufacture and sale of alendronate. Twenty cases naming
the Company and/or its affiliates were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2243).

In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases
then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third
Circuit affirmed.

Any cases filed against the Company in the District of New Jersey
MDL after the Court's January 2012 dismissal are subject to a case
management order that calls for their dismissal unless plaintiffs
can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012
dismissal order.

To date, no plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the
District of New Jersey against the Company has moved for such
exemption and all such cases have been dismissed. Eleven other
cases were part of an MDL in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, where the Company filed a
similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in part, that motion
to dismiss, which has resulted in the dismissal of eight cases.

The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of
consolidated litigation in the California Superior Court (Orange
County). In 2012, the Orange County Court partially granted a
motion filed on behalf of all generic defendants seeking
dismissal. The cases in California were stayed while appeals were
taken. Those appeals were recently exhausted and the Company has
not yet been able to determine how that will affect the cases
filed against and served on it. All cases pending in state courts
in Kentucky and Missouri have been discontinued against the
Company. The remaining 120 active cases are part of a mass tort
coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County. In that state court proceeding, the Court
granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. As a result, the Company
has obtained the stipulated dismissal of 299 cases.

Due to a recent reorganization of the mass tort docket in the
State of New Jersey, the coordinated alendronate proceedings have
been transferred to Middlesex County. The Company has not yet
determined what affect, if any, the transfer of venue will have on
the New Jersey state court litigation. The Company believes that
it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and
maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or
if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Trials Set in Celexa/Lexapro Product Liability Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
five trials are scheduled in 2015 with the possibility that
additional cases could be set for trial in 2015 or 2016 related to
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) product liability litigation.

Forest and its affiliates are defendants in 12 actions involving
allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to
individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent
event. The MDL that was established for the federal suicidality-
related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri has concluded and the remaining cases have
been remanded to the federal district courts in which they were
filed originally. The Company was granted summary judgment in two
cases, both of which are being appealed. Two other matters have
been stayed pending a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. At present, five trials are scheduled in 2015 with the
possibility that additional cases could be set for trial in 2015
or 2016.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Birth Defect Cases Set for Trial
------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that no
birth defect cases are set for trial.

Approximately 195 of the actions against Forest and its affiliates
involve allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various
birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-
plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated
in Cole County Circuit Court in Missouri. One action is set for
trial in Cole County in November 2015. Multiple actions also were
filed in New Jersey and at present there are 10 actions pending in
Hudson County, New Jersey. None of the New Jersey cases are set
for trial. There are birth defect cases pending in other
jurisdictions but none currently are set for trial.

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


ACTAVIS PLC: Fentanyl Transdermal System Litigation in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
discovery is ongoing in the Fentanyl Transdermal System
Litigation.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Actavis and other Company affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl transdermal system
products, for personal injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of
the use of the fentanyl transdermal system products. Actavis
settled the majority of these cases in November 2012. Since that
time, additional cases have been resolved individually and/or are
in the process of being resolved. There are approximately three
cases that remain pending against the Company in state and federal
courts that have not been resolved. Discovery is ongoing.

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


ACTAVIS PLC: Metoclopramide Case Discovery in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
discovery in the Metoclopramide Litigation is in the preliminary
stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and
either initiating or defending appeals on such motions.

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

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008.

With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company
believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these
cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.

"These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification
arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows," Actavis said.


ACTAVIS PLC: To File Motions to Dismiss in Propoxyphene Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the
Company will file demurrers and motions to dismiss once procedural
matters are resolved in a Propoxyphene Litigation.

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,385
plaintiffs.

Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL)
matter pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2226). Four of the MDL
cases were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs with prejudice.

On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the
generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL
cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by
the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion affirming
the District Court's dismissal of the generic defendants in all
respects. Plaintiffs had 90 days from the issuance of the Sixth
Circuit's decision within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court but they did not
do so.

In addition to the 77 consolidated cases, the MDL court remanded
seven additional cases to California state court. Defendants
jointly filed a petition with the Sixth Circuit to appeal that
remand, which petition was denied, as was the subsequently filed
petition for rehearing on the petition to appeal. The Sixth
Circuit's Order denying Defendants' petition for rehearing was
recently vacated due to the Ninth Circuit's granting of a petition
for en banc rehearing on the same issue. The Ninth Circuit case
involves remand by a federal court in California to state court in
a propoxyphene case involving the same defendants. In that case,
approximately 35 of the cases naming Watson or its affiliates were
consolidated in a state court proceeding pending in the Superior
Court of California in Los Angeles. After the consolidation, the
defendants jointly removed all of the cases to various U.S.
District Courts in California after which counsel for the
plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state court. The
various U.S. District Court Judges granted the motions. The
defendants jointly appealed the remand of these cases to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the granting
of the motions to remand. The defendants then jointly petitioned
the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the defendants'
appeal, which was granted and oral argument was heard on June 26,
2014. The Ninth Circuit issued its en banc opinion on November 18,
2014 reversing the district court's remand to California state
court. Defendants notified the Sixth Circuit of the opinion issued
by the Ninth Circuit, and on December 1, 2014 filed a Motion to
Lift Stay of the 7 cases pending in the Sixth Circuit, requesting
that the Sixth Circuit accept Defendants' petition for permission
to appeal and summarily reverse the district court's remand order.

On February 23, 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued an order granting
Defendants' petitions to appeal, summarily reversing the district
court's remand order and directing the district court to
reconsider the plaintiffs' remand motions in light of the Ninth
Circuit's ruling. The defendants in the California cases have
served notice of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Judge handling
the cases in state court so that his court can return the cases to
the various District Courts from which they were remanded. Once
all the cases are returned to the District Courts, the defendants
will attempt to have the cases transferred to the MDL, which may
not be possible under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness
Act, or request that the cases be assigned to a single District
Court Judge in California. Once these procedural matters are
resolved the Company will file demurrers and motions to dismiss.

On November 18, 2014 a new propoxyphene action naming Watson among
the many defendants was filed in Oklahoma state court and it is
believed that others may have been filed in that court as well,
although Watson has not yet been served with the Complaints in the
Oklahoma case(s). The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance
does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that
cases related to Testosterone Litigation are in the initial stages
and discovery is in the early stages.

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

On June 6, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all federal actions claiming injury from testosterone
products be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (In re
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation,
MDL 2545). Accordingly, the aforementioned federal actions have
been consolidated into MDL 2545. The Company anticipates that
additional suits will be filed. These cases are in the initial
stages and discovery is in the early stages.

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


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Zarah Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a
number of product liability suits, eight (8) in total, are pending
against the Company and/or certain of its affiliates as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of oral contraceptive
products for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of
the generic oral contraceptive, Zarah(R). All of the actions are
consolidated in the Yaz/Yasmin Multidistrict Litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. The injuries alleged include, but are not limited to,
pulmonary emboli, deep vein thrombosis, and gallbladder disease.
These cases are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet
commenced.

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


AEROPOSTALE INC: Stockholder's Appeal Pending in Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that an appeal by an
individual stockholder is now pending in the second circuit.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and former and current senior
executive officers Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named
as defendants in an action amended in February 2012, City of
Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on behalf of
purchasers of Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011 and
August 18, 2011.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was
experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and
increasing inventory.  A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25,
2013.  Aeropostale and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement resolving the claims made in this action, without any
admission of liability, for the amount of $15.0 million, all of
which was funded with insurance proceeds. The settlement received
final court approval on May 9, 2014. An individual stockholder
filed an appeal of the court May 9, 2014 order approving the
settlement, which appeal is now pending in the second circuit.


AL'S GRILL: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Villalobos, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Al's Grill, Inc., and
Vasilios Loutos, Case No. 1:15-cv-04343 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1100
Madison St., Oak Park, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


AMEC FOSTER: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arturo Perez Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. AMEC Foster Wheeler North America
Corp. f/k/a Foster Wheeler North America Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01295 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

AMEC Foster Wheeler North America offers consultancy, engineering,
project management, operations and construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY, LLP
      1010 Lamar Street, Ste 425
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      Facsimile: (713) 554-8451
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Given Until May 29 to File Motions to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and
defendants have been given until May 29, 2015, for the Company and
defendants to file motions to dismiss class action complaints.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and its
current and former officers and directors (in addition to the
Company's underwriters for certain of the Company's securities
offerings) were named as defendants in ten putative securities
class action complaints in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"):  Ciraulu
v. American Realty Capital, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8659 (AKH);
Priever v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
14-cv-8668 (AKH); Rubinstein v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8669 (AKH); Patton v. American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8671 (AKH);
Edwards v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
14-cv-8721 (AKH); Harris v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8740 (AKH); Abadi v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-9006 (AKH); City of
Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-10134 (AKH); Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH); and New
York City Employees Retirement System v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0422 (AKH). At a February 10,
2015 status conference, the court, among other things,
consolidated the SDNY Actions under the caption In re American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH)
(the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"), appointed a
lead plaintiff, and designated the complaint filed in Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH) as the
operative complaint in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class
Action. The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the
Company's securities. The proposed class period runs from May 6,
2013 to October 29, 2014. On March 17, 2015, the court entered an
order setting deadlines of April 17, 2015 for the lead plaintiff
in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action to file an
amended complaint and May 29, 2015 for the Company and defendants
to file motions to dismiss.


AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond to Md. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is not
yet required to respond to the complaint in the Maryland
Securities Action.

On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-012816 (the
"Maryland Securities Action").  On December 23, 2014, the Company
removed the Maryland Securities Action to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern Division),
under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-4007 (ELH), and seeks to transfer the
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The Maryland Securities Action asserts
claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements
made in connection with the Company's securities issued in
connection with the Cole Merger.  The Company is not yet required
to respond to the complaint in the Maryland Securities Action.


AMERICAN REALTY: Defending Against ARCT III Litigation Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. are still defending against the ARCT
III Litigation Matters, the Companies said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

After the announcement of the ARCT III Merger Agreement on
December 17, 2012, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action
lawsuit on January 30, 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III,
ARCT III OP, the members of the board of directors of ARCT III and
certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the board of ARCT III breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the transactions contemplated under the ARCT III Merger
Agreement.

In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain additional
disclosures related to the ARCT III Merger, which were included in
a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with the SEC on
February 21, 2013. The memorandum of understanding also added that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which
will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory
discovery and court approval following notice to ARCT III's
stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.


AMERICAN REALTY: Tarver Action on Caplease Merger Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Tarver class
action relating to the CapLease merger remains stayed.

Since the announcement of the CapLease Merger Agreement on May 28,
2013, the following lawsuits have been filed:

On May 28, 2013, Jacquelyn Mizani filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against the
Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP,
CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease board
of directors (the "Mizani Action"). The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the merger agreement at issue was the product
of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because
the proposed merger transaction (the "CapLease Transaction")
purportedly does not provide for full and fair value for the
CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly was not
the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement
allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures and the
merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, the
Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition LLC aided and abetted the
CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 3, 2013, Fred Carach filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York
against the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the
CapLease board of directors (the "Carach Action"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the merger purportedly does not provide for full and fair
value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that with respect to
the Registration Statement and draft joint proxy statement issued
in connection with the proposed CapLease Transaction on July 2,
2013, that disclosures made therein were insufficient or otherwise
improper. The complaint also alleges that CapLease LP, CLF OP
General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition
LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On June 25, 2013, Dewey Tarver filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against
the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease
LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease
board of directors (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of
breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the
CapLease Transaction purportedly does not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and
Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Counsel who filed each of these three cases reached an agreement
with each other as to who will serve as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel in the cases and where they will be
prosecuted. Thus, on August 9, 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action
filed a motion for stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the
court that they had agreed to join and participate in the
prosecution of the Mizani and Carach Actions in the New York
Court. The Defendants consented to the stay of the Tarver Action
in the Baltimore Court, and on September 5, 2013, Judge Pamela J.
White issued an order granting that stay. Consequently, there has
been no subsequent activity in the Baltimore Court in the Tarver
Action. Also on August 9, 2013, all counsel involved in the Mizani
and Carach Actions filed a joint stipulation in the New York
Court, reflecting agreement among all parties that the Mizani and
Carach Actions should be consolidated (jointly, "the Consolidated
Actions") and setting out a schedule for early motion practice in
response to the complaints filed (the "Consolidation
Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Consolidation Stipulation, an
amended complaint was also filed in the New York court on August
9, 2013 and was designated as the operative complaint in the
Consolidated Actions ("Operative Complaint"). Pursuant to the
Consolidation Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on
September 23, 2013. Plaintiffs' response was due on or before
November 7, 2013. On November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, which the
Defendants opposed. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel in the
Consolidated Actions dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Consequently, only the Tarver Action currently remains pending
among these cases, although it remains stayed.


AMERICAN REALTY: Bid to Dismiss "Poling" Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff in the
John Poling class action has filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss, which remains pending.

On October 8, 2013, John Poling filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP,
CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease board
of directors (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleges that the
merger agreement breaches the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and is in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company,
the OP and Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and
the CapLease directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty.

On November 13, 2013, all counsel involved in the Poling Action
filed a joint stipulation, reflecting agreement among all parties
concerning a schedule for early motion practice in response to the
complaint filed (the "Scheduling Stipulation"). Pursuant to the
Scheduling Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on December 20,
2013. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to that motion, which
remains pending.


AMERICAN REALTY: "Wunsch" Case Dismissed Voluntarily
----------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that following court
approval of the settlement of the consolidated Baltimore Merger
Actions, the Wunsch case was dismissed voluntarily on January 21,
2015.

Three putative class action and/or derivative lawsuits, which were
filed in March and April 2013, assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and other
claims relating to the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became
a self-managed REIT. On October 22, 2013, the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City granted all defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice the action pending before the court, but the plaintiffs
appealed that dismissal. On July 31, 2014, plaintiffs dismissed
the pending appeal based on an agreement by defendants to
reimburse plaintiffs in the amount of $100,000. The other two
lawsuits, which also purport to assert shareholder class action
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), are pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
both complaints on January 10, 2014. Subsequently, both of those
lawsuits have been stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request
made by all parties pending final approval of the consolidated
Baltimore Cole Merger Actions.

To date, eleven lawsuits have been filed in connection with the
Cole Merger. Two of these suits - Wunsch v. Cole, et al.
("Wunsch"), No. 13-CV-2186, and Sobon v. Cole, et al. ("Sobon") -
were filed as putative class actions on October 25, 2013 and
November 18, 2013, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona. Between October 30, 2013 and November 14,
2013, eight other putative stockholder class action or derivative
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, captioned as: (i) Operman v. Cole, et al. ("Operman");
(ii) Branham v. Cole, et al. ("Branham"); (iii) Wilfong v. Cole,
et al. ("Wilfong"); (iv) Polage v. Cole, et al. ("Polage"); (v)
Corwin v. Cole, et al. ("Corwin"); (vi) Green v. Cole, et al.
("Green"); (vii) Flynn v. Cole, et al. ("Flynn") and (viii) Morgan
v. Cole, et al. ("Morgan"). All of these lawsuits name the
Company, Cole and Cole's board of directors as defendants; Wunsch,
Sobon, Branham, Wilfong, Flynn, Green, Morgan and Polage also name
CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Cole, as a defendant. All of the
named plaintiffs claim to be Cole stockholders and purport to
represent all holders of Cole's stock. Each complaint generally
alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
owed to plaintiff and the other public stockholders of Cole in
connection with the Cole Merger, and that certain entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The breach of
fiduciary duty claims asserted include claims that the Cole Merger
did not provide for full and fair value for the Cole shareholders,
that the Cole Merger was the product of an "inadequate sale
process," that the Cole Merger Agreement contained coercive deal
protection measures and that the Cole Merger Agreement and the
Cole Merger were approved as a result of or in a manner which
facilitates improper self-dealing by certain defendants. In
addition, the Flynn, Corwin, Green, Wilfong, Polage and Branham
lawsuits claim that the individual defendants breached their duty
of candor to shareholders and the Branham and Polage lawsuits
assert claims derivatively against the individual defendants for
their alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cole. The Polage
lawsuit also asserts derivative claims for waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment. The Wunsch and Sobon lawsuits also
assert claims against Cole and the individual defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), based on allegations that the proxy
materials omitted to disclose allegedly material information, and
a claim against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act bNumberased on the same allegations. Among other
remedies, the complaints seek unspecified money damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2014, the parties to the eight lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "consolidated
Baltimore Cole Merger Actions") entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of Cole stockholders. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
would be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required Cole to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole with the SEC on January
14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that
the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, subject
to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and
court approval following notice to Cole's stockholders. The Sobon
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on February 3, 2014.

On August 14, 2014, the parties in the consolidated Baltimore
Merger Actions executed a Stipulation and Release and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The
parties in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions submitted the
Settlement Stipulation, along with related filings, for approval
by the Maryland court on August 18, 2014. On August 25, 2014, the
Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on Preliminary Approval
of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and Class Action
Certification and scheduled a final settlement hearing in the
consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions.

The defendants in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions mailed
a Notice of Pendency of Derivative and Class Action (the "Class
Notice") to the Cole stockholders on October 7, 2014, following
the court's preliminary approval of the parties' Settlement
Stipulation. On December 3, 2014, the parties in the consolidated
Baltimore Merger Actions executed an Amended Stipulation and
Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended
Stipulation") modifying the Stipulation. A final settlement
hearing in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions was held on
December 12, 2014, and on January 13, 2015, the Baltimore Circuit
Court issued an order approving the settlement pursuant to the
terms of the Amended Stipulation. Two objectors have since filed a
notice of appeal of the settlement order. Following court approval
of the settlement of the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions,
the Wunsch case was dismissed voluntarily on January 21, 2015.


AMERICAN REALTY: To Defend Against Realistic Partners' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and Arc Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P. continue to defend the class action
filed by Realistic Partners, the Companies said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On December 27, 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York. Cole was
later added as a defendant also. The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the
Cole Merger Agreement and that Cole aided and abetted those
breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael Macaluso, Mark D.
McGregor, and Gregory A. Gould, Case No. 2:15-cv-03640 (C.D. Cal.,
May 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, which
focuses on developing therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              cdberger@gmail.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Monitoring Whirlpool's Defense of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. is monitoring
Whirlpool Corporation's defense of the class action claims,
Appliance Recycling said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2015.

The Company said, "In February 2012, various individuals commenced
a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool")
and various distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears,
The Home Depot, Lowe's and us, alleging certain appliances
Whirlpool sold through its distribution chain, which includes us,
were improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification
rating established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency.  The claims against us include
breach of warranty claims, as well as various state consumer
protection claims.  The amount of the claim is, as yet,
undetermined.  Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend
its distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged
legal counsel to defend itself and the distributors.  We are
monitoring Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the
possibility of a material loss is remote."


ASB HAWAII: $2MM Settlement Amount Fully Reserved for By Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASB Hawaii, Inc. said in its Form 10 Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, that at
December 2014, the $2.0 million tentative settlement amount in a
class action lawsuit was fully reserved for by the Company.

The Company said, "In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit
was filed in the First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a
customer who claimed that we had improperly charged overdraft fees
on debit card transactions. We filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the basis that our overdraft practices are governed by
federal regulations established for federal savings banks which
preempt the customer's state law claims. In July 2011, the Circuit
Court denied our motion without prejudice, and we appealed that
decision. Our appeal is pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.
However, in December 2014, through a voluntary mediation process,
we reached a tentative settlement of the claims. The tentative
settlement, which remains subject to final court approval,
provides for a payment of $2.0 million into a class settlement
fund, the proceeds of which will be used to refund class members
and pay attorneys' fees and administrative and other costs, in
exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted against us.
At December 2014, the $2.0 million tentative settlement amount was
fully reserved for by us."


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Yet Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing has not been
set in the appeal on the dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our
November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that
all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and
certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the
Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements
and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that
we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent
press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen
collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT
device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our
common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013,
inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount."

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition briefs on August 11, 2014. On
October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's
order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to
file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their opening appellate brief. Defendants' answering brief was due
April 13, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set.

The Company believes this complaint is without merit and plan to
defend ourselves vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations and financial condition.  Currently, the amount of such
material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no
provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of
December 31, 2014.

"The costs associated with defending and resolving the complaint
and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are
subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as
the distraction from the conduct of our business, will depend upon
many unknown factors and management's view of these may change in
the future," the Company said.


AVENTURA'S FINEST: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Morales" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Elena Franco Morales and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aventura's Finest Hand Carwash, L.L.C.,
Guillermo Freile, and Emilio Garcia Lourdes, Case No. 1:15-cv-
21821-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash business in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


BABYCOTTONS USA: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Babycottons USA, Case No. 1:15-cv-21825-JEM (S.D.
Fla., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices
(POS Devices) that are fully accessible to, and independently
usable by, blind people.

Babycottons USA is headquartered at 4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite
106B, Miami, Florida, 33137. Babycottons owns and operates stroes
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
      STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC.
      LAW GROUP, LLC
      437 Grant Street, Suite 600
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 765.3345
      Facsimile: (412) 765.3346
      E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com


BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD: Court Rules on Bids for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary A. Fenner ruled on the Motions for Summary
Judgment separately filed by the parties in the case captioned
ROBERT McKEAGE and JANET McKEAGE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD,
L.L.C., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-03157-CV-S-GAF (W.D. Mo.).

A class suit was filed against the defendants alleging, among
other things, that they violated Missouri law by engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law when they charged document fees for
the preparation of legal documents.  Both the plaintiffs and the
defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment.

Judge Fenner found that the plaintiffs only made purchases from
TMBC, LLC (TMBC) and were only charged document fees by TMBC.  The
plaintiffs, however, failed to show that there was an agency
relationship between TMBC and the other defendants nor that the
court should pierce the corporate veil.  Accordingly, the
defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of
Tracker Marine Retail, LLC, Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC and Travis
Boats and Motors Baton Rouge, LLC.

Judge Fenner also found that genuine disputes of material fact
existed regarding 2,293 class members identified by the
defendants, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to the extent it
applies to these class members.

Treble damages were awarded to those class members who paid
document fees within two years from the date the suit was brought.
Those that fall within the common law theory of money had and
received were granted actual damages and interest.

Judge Fenner granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
against punitive damages and against injunctive relief, but denied
the defendants' motion against rescission.

A copy of the May 5, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/Pb8jE1from Leagle.com.

Robert McKeage, and Janet McKeage, Plaintiffs, represented by
Chandler Gregg -- chandler@stronglaw.com -- Strong-Garner-Bauer,
PC, David L. Baylard -- dbaylard@bbd-law.com -- Baylard,
Billington, Dempsey & Jensen, PC & Steve Garner --
sgarner@stronglaw.com -- Strong- Garner-Bauer, PC.

Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., TMBC, LLC, and Tracker Marine
Retail, LLC, Defendants, represented by Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Craig M. Warner --
cwarner@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, Derek Adam Ankrom --
dankrom@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Jason
C. Smith -- jcsmith@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
LLP, Michael W. Youtt -- myoutt@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding &
William R. Burns -- bburns@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding.


BOB CIASULLI: Arbitration Clause in Sales Contract Not Binding
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a
ruling in the case, SARA BACON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOB
CIASULLI AUTO GROUP, INC., d/b/a TOYOTA UNIVERSE, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. A-0789-14T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)

A civil action was filed by plaintiff Sara Bacon against defendant
Bob Ciasulli Auto Group, Inc., d/b/a Toyota Universe, seeking
redress related to an extended service agreement she purchased
from the defendant on May 15, 2008.  Defendant moved to dismiss
the complaint and compel the plaintiff to submit the dispute to
binding arbitration under the automobile sales agreement allegedly
entered into by the parties at the time Bacon purchased an
automobile from the defendant.  The Presiding Judge of the Civil
Division denied the defendant's motions.

The appellate court affirmed.  It found that the extended service
agreement was a separate contract entered into by the parties
after the purchase of the car had concluded.  It does not contain
an arbitration provision nor does it refer in any way to the sales
contract's arbitration clause.  There is no evidence to suggest
that when plaintiff purchased the extended service agreement, she
knowingly agreed to be bound by the broad arbitration clause in
the sales contract.

A copy of the May 7, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/zCbchJfrom Leagle.com.

Resa T. Drasin argued the cause for appellant (Woehling Law Firm,
P.C., attorneys; Ms. Drasin, of counsel and on the brief).

Sander D. Friedman argued the cause for respondent (Law Office of
Sander D. Friedman, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Friedman and Wesley G.
Hanna, on the brief).


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion in Direct Action Plaintiffs' Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that in the Direct
Purchaser Putative Class Action, the Court has not ruled on the
motion of direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global, Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company
either to exclude themselves from the settlement between the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company or to enlarge their
time to opt out of the settlement by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and the Company.

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported, on November 25,
2014, the Court entered final judgment dismissing all claims
against the Company with prejudice and dismissing the Company from
the case.  On January 23, 2015, direct action plaintiffs Kraft
Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company filed a motion either to exclude themselves from
the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the
Company or to enlarge their time to opt out of the settlement by
the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company and modify the
final judgment entered on November 25, 2014.  On February 13,
2015, the Company filed its response in opposition. The Court has
not ruled on this motion.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dispositive Motions Deadline Set for July 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2015, that the deadline for
parties to file dispositive motions is July 2, 2015, in the
Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action.

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising
outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of
action.  Under the current schedule, the Court will hold a hearing
on April 20-21, 2015, on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The deadline for parties to file
dispositive motions is July 2, 2015.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.


CALIFORNIA: Inmate Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire dismissed the complaint without
prejudice in the case captioned LOUIS JENKINS, Plaintiff, v.
JEFFREY BEARD, Defendant, NO. 2:14-CV-2447 AC P (E.D. Cal.)

Louis Jenkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil
rights complaint together with a request for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Judge Claire found the complaint to be patently frivolous.  It
improperly named 20 plaintiffs, while the only named defendant is
Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.  The body of the complaint also
failed to identify any specifically challenged conduct by the
named defendant and failed to articulate any identifiable relief
sought by the plaintiff.

Judge Claire also dismissed the plaintiff's request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.

The plaintiff was given 30 days after the filing of the court's
order to file an amended complaint and a new and fully completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

A copy of the May 5, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/fRiNOkLeagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Amended "Thomas" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman dismissed the plaintiff's
amended complaint in the case captioned JASON LATRELL THOMAS,
Plaintiff, v. JEFF McCOMBER, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-2995
KJN P (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding
without counsel, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
On January 26, 2015, the court dismissed Thomas' complaint with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March
2, 2015.

Judge Newman dismissed Thomas' amended complaint based on his
failure to comply with the January 26, 2015 order. Judge Newman,
however, granted him leave to file a second amended complaint. In
his April 28, 2015 order which is available at http://is.gd/yqv1kF
from Leagle.com, Judge Newman:

     -- dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint;

     -- granted the plaintiff 30 days from the date of service
        of the order to file a second amended complaint that
        complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act,
        the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules
        of Practice;

     -- directed the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff the form
        for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner; and

     -- cautioned the plaintiff that failure to comply with the
        order may result in the imposition of sanctions,
        including dismissal of the action.


CAMSENA MEAT: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aristedes Alvarado, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Camsena Meat Corporation d/b/a Met Foodmarkets and
Abraham Gomez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03786-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Met Food supermarket in Bronx
County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George Theodore Peters, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS
      402 W. 145th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10031
      Telephone: (347) 751-0157
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0921
      E-mail: george.peters@myatty1.com


CEDAR RAPIDS: 8th Cir. Vacates Judgment in "Griffioen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit vacated the
district court's order and judgment and remanded the action to
state court in the case captioned Mark Griffioen, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; Joyce Ludvicek,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Mike
Ludvicek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Sandra Skelton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Brian Vanous, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Cedar
Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company; Alliant Energy Corporation;
Union Pacific Railroad Company; Union Pacific Corporation; Hawkeye
Land Co.; Hawkeye Land II Co.; Hawkeye Land NFG, Inc.; Stickle
Enterprises, Ltd.; Midwestern Trading, Inc.; Midwest Third Party
Logistics, Inc., also known as Midwest 3PL; Stickle Grain Co.;
Stickle Warehousing, Inc.; Rick Stickle; Marsha Stickle,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-3170 (8th Cir.)

A putative class action was brought by plaintiffs Mark Griffioen,
Joyce and Mike Ludvicek, Sandra Skelton, and Brian Vanous
(collectively, the Griffioen Group) seeking recovery for property
damage that occurred during the June 2008 flooding of the Cedar
River.

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that asserted federal-
question jurisdiction from the complete preemption created by the
Federal Railway Safety Act ("FRSA").  The FRSA argument was later
abandoned, contending instead that the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA") completely preempted the
Griffioen's Group's state-law claims, thereby giving the federal
court jurisdiction.  A motion to remand was filed by the Griffioen
Group.

The district court issued an order and judgment denying the
Griffioen's motion to remand the action to state court, granting
the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Union Pacific
Railway Company and Union Pacific Corporation, and dismissing the
claims against all defendant-appellees.

On appeal, the 8th Cir. vacated the order and judgment of the
district court and remanded the case with instructions to remand
the action to state court.  The appellate court held that while
the ICCTA may completely preempt certain claims, the defendants
have not established that the Griffioen Group's claims fall within
the scope of those preempted.

A copy of the May 7, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/ASJak7from Leagle.com.


CHASE ISSUANCE: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Now Complete
------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust and Chase Bank USA, National Association,
said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that briefing by appellees and appellants in a
class action lawsuit was completed in the fourth quarter of 2014.

On June 22, 2005, merchants filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard and
certain member banks including Bank of America, Chase USA, Capital
One, Citibank and others, conspired to set the price of
interchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
complaint further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.
Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
were filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the
setting of interchange, as well the associations' respective
rules. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
the cases in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial
proceedings. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on April
24, 2006 which added claims relating to off line debit
transactions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims that
pre-date January 1, 2004. The Court granted that motion and those
claims were dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a first supplemental complaint in May 2006
alleging that the MasterCard offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering
was a fraudulent conveyance. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
both of those claims. On November 25, 2008, the District Court
dismissed the supplemental complaint with leave to replead.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification which defendants opposed. The court has not ruled on
the class certification motion.

In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard initial
public offering ("IPO") making antitrust claims similar to those
that were dismissed previously. With respect to the Visa IPO, the
plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint challenging the Visa IPO
on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the
MasterCard IPO pleading.

On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Separate motions to
dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the
MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed. Plaintiffs and
defendants also have fully briefed and argued their motions for
summary judgment. None of these motions have been decided.

In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association, MasterCard
Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated and various
United States financial institution defendants, including Chase
USA and several of its affiliates and certain predecessor
institutions, entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the United States merchant and retail
industry association plaintiffs' (the "Class Plaintiffs") claims
in the multi-district litigation ("MDL 1720"). On November 27,
2012, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the
Settlement Agreement, which provides, among other things, for a
$6.05 billion cash payment to the Class Plaintiffs, an amount
equal to ten basis points of interchange for a period of eight
months to be measured from a date within sixty days of the end of
the opt-out period. The Settlement Agreement also provides for
modifications to each of the network's no-surcharge rules, which
are effective as of January 27, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of
the settlement. On September 12, 2013, the court held the final
approval hearing. On January 14, 2014, the court rendered its
final order and judgment approving the settlement. A number of
entities including retailers and objecting trade association
plaintiffs filed their appellate briefs on June 16, 2014. Briefing
by appellees and appellants was completed in the fourth quarter of
2014. Chase USA does not believe that the settlement will affect
the payment of principal or interest by the issuing entity on the
notes.


CHASE ISSUANCE: Defending Class Actions on Credit Card Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust and Chase Bank USA, National Association,
said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that a number of lawsuits seeking class action
certification have been filed in both state and federal courts
against Chase USA. These lawsuits challenge certain policies and
practices of Chase USA's credit card business. A few of these
lawsuits have been conditionally certified as class actions. Chase
USA has defended itself against claims in the past and intends to
continue to do so in the future. While it is impossible to predict
the outcome of any of these lawsuits, Chase USA believes that any
liability that might result from any of these lawsuits will not
have a material adverse effect on the credit card receivables.

On May 9, 2013, the Attorney General of California filed a civil
action against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Chase USA and Chase BankCard
Services, Inc. alleging violations of California law relating to
the use of sworn documents in various stages of the debt
collection process, including but not limited to sworn documents
submitted in connection with collection litigation and in support
of debt sales. This civil action is proceeding. Chase USA does not
currently expect that the litigation will adversely affect the
payment of principal or interest by the issuing entity on its
notes.

On December 17, 2013, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a
civil action in Mississippi state court against JPMorgan Chase &
Co., Chase USA and Chase BankCard Services, Inc. alleging
violations of Mississippi's consumer protection law relating to
general collections practices including litigation and debt sales.
This civil action is at an early stage, and Chase USA does not
currently expect that the litigation will adversely affect the
payment of principal or interest by the issuing entity on the
notes offered.


CHUCK'S CAFE: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Adela Rivas, Valter Ramos Brano, Gabriel Dejesus Tobon, and
Euprides Arango, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated  v. Chuck's Cafe, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-11851 (D. Mass., May 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Paramount Beacon Hill restaurant in
Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders Filed Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2015, that on November 5, 2014 the Company filed a Current Report
on Form 8-K (the "Original Report"), reporting that on November 3,
2014, the Board of Directors of the Company had amended and
restated the Bylaws of the Company to add Article 62, stipulating
the forum for certain types of litigation, and Article 63,
concerning litigation costs (the "Amendments").

On March 27, 2015, certain stockholders of the Company filed a
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware challenging the authority of the Company's Board of
Directors to adopt the Amendments.

On March 30, 2015, in response to the concerns raised by the
stockholders in the Complaint, the Board of Directors of the
Company voted to rescind its prior action of November 3, 2014 and
remove the Amendments from the Bylaws of the Company.  Therefore,
the Company is filing this amendment to the Original Report to
file the Bylaws of the Company, as amended and restated by the
Board of Directors on March 30, 2015.  These Bylaws, as amended
and restated, remove the Amendments and are therefore identical to
the bylaws of the Company in effect upon its formation on April
17, 2014 and prior to the adoption of the Amendments in November
2014.


CONTINENTAL WINDOW: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Continental Window and Glass Corporation and
Greg Sztejkowski, Case No. 1:15-cv-04295 (N.D. Ill., May 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a window installation services
company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CONVERGYS CUSTOMER: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Termination Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel M. Roland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., Convergys
Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00325-SJD (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2015),
is brought on behalf of the 700 or so full-time employees who were
terminated without 60 days' written notice by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate call centers with their principal
place of business located at the Cincinnati Facility, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad E. Willits, Esq.
      Felix J. Gora, Esq.
      RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP
      600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 381-9200
      E-mail: cwillits@rendigs.com
              fgora@rendigs.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: "Alequin" Action Administratively Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 22, 2015, that the Court has
administratively closed the case, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc.

In September 2012, a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc., in which named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or
allowed certain employees at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn
Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52  to work off the clock
and required them to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped
duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.  In July 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
conditionally certified a nationwide class of servers and
bartenders who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any
point from September 6, 2009 through September 6, 2012.  Unlike a
class action, a collective action requires potential class members
to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the issuance of a
notice.  Out of the approximately 217,000 opt-in notices
distributed, 20,225 were returned.

In June 2014, the Company filed a motion seeking to have the class
decertified. In September 2014, the Court granted the Company's
motion to decertify the class which resulted in the dismissal of
all opt-ins. In October 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint
motion to stay the proceedings pending completion of proceedings
culminating in arbitration through the Company's Dispute
Resolution Program.  In December 2014, the Court administratively
closed the case.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the remaining substantive
claims in this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any,
or the range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the
proceeding," the Company said.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Has Option to Seek to Decertify ChHab Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended February 22, 2015, that the Company will
have an opportunity to seek to have the class in the case, ChHab
v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., decertified and/or seek to have the
case dismissed on its merits.

In November, 2011, a lawsuit entitled ChHab v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the
applicable New York state wage and hour statutes. The named
plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain
employees at The Capital Grille to work off the clock, share tips
with individuals who polished silverware to assist the plaintiffs,
and required the plaintiffs to perform tasks unrelated to their
tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate
of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. In September 2013,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York conditionally certified a nationwide class for the Fair Labor
Standards Act claims only of tipped employees who worked in the
aforementioned restaurants at any point from November 17, 2008
through September 19, 2013. Potential class members are required
to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the issuance of a
notice. Out of the approximately 3,200 opt-in notices distributed,
541 were returned.

As with the Alequin matter, the Company will have an opportunity
to seek to have the class decertified and/or seek to have the case
dismissed on its merits.

"We believe that our wage and hour policies comply with the law
and that we have meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in
this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the
range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding," the
Company said.


DIVINE LIVING: Faces "Sardinas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Sardinas and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Divine Living in Hialeah LLC, Sweet Retirement Home
Inc., Yadelkis Cruz, Juan Cruz, and Dunia Hernandez, Case No.
1:15-cv-21849 (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate assisted living facilities in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. David Kelly, Esq.
      Rivkah Fay Jaff, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Ste. 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      E-mail: david.kelly38@rocketmail.com
              Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


DON-GLO AUTO: "Rocha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Rocha, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
v. Don-Glo Auto Service Center of Manhattan II, Inc. and Anthony
Gentile, Case No. 1:15-cv-03750 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto shop located at 409 W.
218th Street, New York, New York 10034.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


ELBIT IMAGING: May 31 Hearing for Evidence in 1999 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015,
that the court on May 31, 2015, will reconvene to decide how to
proceed with the evidence stage in a 1999 class action.

In November 1999, a number of institutional and other investors
(the "Plaintiffs"), holding shares in Elscint Ltd.( a subsidiary
of the Company which was merged into the Company ("Elscint")
instituted a claim against the Company, Elscint, the Company's
former controlling shareholders, past and present  officers in the
said companies and others. Together with the claim a motion was
filed to certify the claim as a class action on behalf of everyone
who was a shareholder in Elscint on September 6, 1999 and until
the submission of the claim, excluding the Company and certain
other shareholders. The plaintiffs argued that a continued and
systematic oppression of the minority shareholders of Elscint took
place, causing the minority monetary damage. According to the
plaintiffs, said oppression started with the oppressive agreements
made by Elscint for the realization of its main assets, continued
with the sale of of the control in the Company by Elron Ltd (and
therefore indirectly also in Elscint) to companies held by former
controlling shareholders("Harmful Sale"),continued further with
the breach of a tender offer made by Company to purchase the
minority shares in Elscint("Breach of Tender Offer")  and ended
with an agreement between Elscint  and companies held by the
former controlling shareholder  for the acquisition by Elscint of
the hotels portfolio and the Arena commercial center in Israel in
exchange to excessive payment from Elscint. ("Hotels and Marina
Transactions"). It should be mentioned that the Harmful Sale
allegation is directed first and foremost against Elron which was
the controlling shareholder of the Company at that time.

Due to these acts the Plaintiffs allege that the value of
Elscint's shares dropped during the period between February 24,
1999 and the date at which the claim was instituted from $13.25
per share to $7.25. The main relief sought in the original claim
was an order for the Company to consummate the purchase offer for
$14 per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's shares
held by the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court. Further
alternatively, the plaintiffs asked the court to grant injunction
prohibiting the execution of Hotels and Marina Transactions and
for the restitution of all money paid in connection with the
above-mentioned transactions.

In January 2009, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the claim as a class action, which was appealed
by them in March 2009.

In May 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff's
motion to certify the claim as a class action with regard to the
Hotels and Marina Transactions. In addition, the Supreme Court has
upheld the Harmful Sale allegation that related to Elron and
rejected certain other claims that were included in the original
proceedings.

The Supreme Court noted that even though the claim was based on
'countless' allegations and on 'dozens' of legal grounds, the
claim was certified as a class action based on only two causes of
action: oppression of minority on the one hand and breach of
fiduciary duties and recklessness on the other hand.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court with
instructions.

On March 18 the plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim in
which they argued for oppression of the minority of Elscint,
mainly by: (a) refraining from distributing dividends; (b)
directing Elscint's profits to its control-holders in unfair
transactions; (c) executing the Harmful Sale transaction; (d)
executing the Hotels and Marina Transactions.; (e) refraining from
executing a tender offer for the minority shares in Elscint.

On May 8, 2013, the Company filed the District Court a motion to
order that parts of the amended statement of claim be struck out
as they do not correspond with the Supreme Court's decision dated
May 28, 2012. More specifically, the Company argued that the
plaintiffs' allegation with regard to the alleged tender offer and
with regard to the alleged failure to distribute dividends can no
longer be trialed in this case. The Company consequently asked the
District Court to decide that the Company will remain a defendant
in this case only under its capacity as assignee of all rights and
obligations of Elscint (as Elscint had merged into the Company and
ceased to exist as a legal entity).

The District Court dismissed this motion on June 30, 2013,
stating, mainly, that the legal ground of "oppression of minority"
could possibly contain claims regarding the alleged tender offer
and the alleged failure to distribute dividends.

Mediation process which took place between the parties in the past
has practically ended. However, some of the parties (including the
Company) continue to negotiate towards a possible (but in no case
probable) settlement agreement.

A first hearing session of the case (evidence stage) was scheduled
to May 1, 2015. On May 31, 2015, the court will reconvene to
decide how to proceed with the evidence stage.

Taking into account the significant change in the course of this
proceeding after the Supreme Court's ruling (namely, the final
dismissal of some parts of the motion to certify the claim as a
class action, and the certification of other parts of the claim as
a class action), the fact that the certified causes of actions and
their scope with regard to each of the defendants are not yet
fully clear, and the impracticability of assessing the monetary
exposure in this case and the limited legal precedent with regard
to certified class actions which were trialed on their merits, the
Company, based on the legal advice received, cannot at this stage,
estimate the prospects of this litigation.


ELBIT IMAGING: June 11 Hearing in Appeal by Series B Noteholder
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015,
that a hearing is scheduled for June 11, 2015, in an appeal filed
by a holder of Series B note.

On January 26, 2014 a holder of the Company's Series B notes ("the
Plaintiff") filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, against the
ruling of the Tel-Aviv District Court, dated January 1, 2014
approving the amended plan of arrangement (the "Appeal").

In the Appeal the Plaintiff is seeking ,inter alia, to cancel the
section on the said court ruling which grants release from
potential liability and claims to the Company's officers and
directors, and also the section which determines the class action
that was filed by the Plaintiff  shall be strike; Alternatively,
the Plaintiff has requested to cancel the section on the said
court ruling which determines the class action shall be strike
against Mr. Mordechay Zisser, who is not included in the release
from potential liability and claims provided to the Company's
other officers, or that the whole Arrangement shall be canceled.
The appellant was schedule to hearing on June 11, 2015.

At this preliminary stage, in which the hearing of this matter has
not yet commenced and not all parties have submitted their
summaries, the Company's management believes based on its legal
advisors that it is more likely than not that the Appeal will be
denied.


EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Ill. Appeals Affirms Circuit Court Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District affirmed the
judgment of the circuit court of Madison County in the case
captioned FRANK C. BEMIS, D.C., d/b/a Frank Bemis & Associates,
and DR. FRANK C. BEMIS & ASSOCIATES, CHIROPRACTORS, S.C.,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and
EMC PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of
Employers Mutual Casualty Company, Defendants-Appellees,
(Employers Mutual Casualty Company and EMC Property & Casualty
Company, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty
Company, Third-Party Plaintiffs; and Fair Isaac Corporation,
Third-Party Defendant), NO. 5-13-040 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th
District).

On July 18, 2013, the circuit court of Madison County dismissed
the class action claims of plaintiffs Frank C. Bemis, D.C., doing
business as Frank Bemis & Associates, and Dr. Frank C. Bemis &
Associates, Chiropractors, S.C. ("Bemis") against the defendants
Employers Mutual Casualty Company and EMC Property & Casualty
Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty
Company ("Employers Mutual").  This followed the class
decertification by the circuit court on April 5, 2012, based on
the appellate court's decision in Coy Chiropractic Health Center,
Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

In its May 6, 2015 decision available at http://is.gd/EmEucOfrom
Leagle.com, the appellate court found that Bemis did not establish
an actionable claim against Employers Mutual and affirmed the
circuit court's judgment.

Attorneys for Appellants:

     Timothy F. Campbell, Esq.
     CAMPBELL & MCGRADY LAW OFFICE
     3017 Godfrey Road
     P.O. Box 505
     Godfrey, IL 62035

          - and -

     Robert W. Schmieder II, Esq.
     Mark L. Brown, Esq.
     SL CHAPMAN, LLC
     330 North Fourth Street, Suite 330
     St. Louis, MO 63102

Attorneys for Appellees:

     Thomas R. Pender, Esq.
     CREMER, SPINA, SHAUGHNESSY, JANSEN & SIEGERT, LLC
     One North Franklin Street, 10th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     E-mail: tpender@cremerspina.com


FLAGLER COUNTY, FL: Settlement in "Ruddell" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marcia Morales Howard denied without prejudice the
parties' Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of the
Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class
Counsel, Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and
Preliminary Approval of Collective Action Settlement and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law  in the case captioned DANIEL
RUDDELL, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMES L. MANFRE, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Flagler County Sheriff's Office, Defendant, CASE NO.
3:14-CV-873-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla.).

In a May 6, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/taNZk2from Leagle.com, Judge Howard held that the
parties failed to address the legal requirements for certification
of a collective action, and found that the Joint Motion is due to
be denied without prejudice to the parties' refiling an
appropriate motion.  The parties were given up to and including
June 5, 2015 to file an amended motion that complies with the
court's instructions.

Daniel Ruddell, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos V. Leach --
cleach@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Kimberly De
Arcangelis, Morgan & Morgan, PA.

James L. Manfre, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Flager
County Sheriff's Office, Defendant, represented by Marc Aaron
Sugerman -- msugerman@anblaw.com -- Allen, Norton & Blue, PA &
Mark E. Levitt -- mlevitt@anblaw.com -- Allen, Norton & Blue, PA.


FLORSHEIM INC: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Florsheim, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21846-UU (S.D. Fla.,
May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices (POS
Devices) that are fully accessible to, and independently usable
by, blind people.

Florsheim, Inc. is headquartered at 333 W. Estabrook Blvd.,
Glendale, Wisconsin, 53212. Florsheim owns and operates shoe
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
      STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC.
      LAW GROUP, LLC
      437 Grant Street, Suite 600
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 765.3345
      Facsimile: (412) 765.3346
      E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com


FRISOLINO INC: "Pineda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Pineda, Eddy F. Jaquez, Robinson Ortega Diaz, Angel Gua
Yllasac, and Isael Arizmendi on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs v. Frisolino, Inc., Mario Migliorini,
Peter Migliorini and Maria Migliorini Citron, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03774-GBD (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Piccolo restaurant located at 621
Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


FUHU INC: Calif. Judge Trims "Miller" False Advertising Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned SCOTT
MILLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, THE GENERAL PUBLIC
AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FUHU INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 2:14-
CV-06119-CAS(ASX) (C.D. Cal.).

On July 7, 2014, a putative class action was filed against
defendants Fuhu, Inc. and Fuhu Holdings, Inc.  The plaintiff
alleged claims for (1) violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law;
(3) common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (4) breach
of express warranty; (5) breach of implied covenant of
merchantibility; and (6) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants filed a motion under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended
complaint.

In his May 4, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/P26sVjfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Snyder granted without prejudice the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied
covenant of merchantability.  The defendant's motion was otherwise
denied.

Seth Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Attorneys Present for
Plaintiffs,

Ivo Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Attorneys Present for
Defendants


GEORGIA: Accord in Suit v. Human Services Dept. Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William S. Duffey Jr. granted the parties' Consent
Motion to Preliminarily Approve the Stipulation and Order of
Settlement in the case captioned MELANIE K., LARRY WESTON, TAMARA
J., and DANNY GENTRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KEITH HORTON, in his official
capacity as the Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Human
Services, Defendant, NO. 1:14-CV-710-WSD (N.D. Ga.).

A class action was brought by four named representatives,
plaintiffs Melanie K., Larry Weston, Tamara J. and Danny Gentry
alleging that defendant Keith Horton, Commissioner for the Georgia
Department of Human Services, failed to provide Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to eligible households who
filed initial, or renewal, applications within the time required
by federal law.

On April 1, 2015, the parties filed the Motion, asserting that the
settlement was the product of arm's-length negotiation over a
period of many months, and that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, providing significant immediate and
long-term benefit to the settlement class.

In his April 15, 2015 opinion and order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/HdUAZxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Duffrey
found that the settlement is a "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
compromise of the plaintiffs' claims.  He noted that there is no
evidence of fraud or collusion influencing the parties in reaching
the settlement.  He further noted that there is no apparent
opposition to the settlement.


GIDI INC: Faces "Secundino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Secundino and Eric Benitez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Gidi, Inc. d/b/a Michael's
Italian Restaurant, and Rexip Idrizi, Case No. 2:15-cv-00593-RTR
(E.D. Wis., May 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Michael's Italian Restaurant
located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com


GILEAD SCIENCES: SEPTA Lawsuit Over Hepa C Drugs Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stewart Dalzell granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-6978 (E.D. Pa.).

A complaint was filed against Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Gilead")
alleging that its pricing scheme for the sale of its patented
Hepatitis C drugs violates Section 1557(a) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, constitutes unjust enrichment,
breaches the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, and
violates California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

In his May 4, 2015 memorandum available at http://is.gd/2FFw6J
from Leagle.com, Judge Dalzell held that nothing in the Amended
Complaint permits redress of the plaintiffs' particular grievances
in federal court.  Neither does plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
facially plausible claim for relief under federal or state law.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff,
represented by JOSEPH B. KENNEY -- JosephKenney@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP, NICHOLAS E. CHIMICLES --
Nick@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP & BENJAMIN F. JOHNS
-- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP.

JANE DOE, and JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs, represented by NICHOLAS E.
CHIMICLES, CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP & JOSEPH B. KENNEY, CHIMICLES
& TIKELLIS LLP.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Defendant, represented by GEORGE S. CARY --
gcary@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, KATHLEEN W.
BRADISH -- kbradish@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON
LLP, LEAH O. BRANNON -- lbrannon@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN
& HAMILTON LLP, MICHAEL LAZERWITZ -- mlazerwitz@cgsh.com -- CLEARY
GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON & ROBERT E. WELSH, JR., WELSH & RECKER,
P.C..

RONALD A. WILLIAMS, Movant, Pro Se.


GILSTER-MARY LEE: District Court's Remand Order Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in its
Opinion filed May 1, 2015, in the case docketed as Patricia Hood;
Susan Meyer; Nora de la Rosa, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gilster-
Mary Lee Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 15-1458, reversed
the district court's order to remand the case to state court and
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.

Circuit Judge William Duane Benton held that the district court
committed an error when it resolved doubt in favor of the party
seeking the remand since the employees were not able to meet the
burden of proof that a Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) exception
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (d) (4) was applicable.

A copy of Judge Benton's Order is available at http://is.gd/9Dpqoo
from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Martin" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID W. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL
TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-00449-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the
defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Central District of
California.

Martin filed the suit on December 5, 2014, seeking to represent a
California class of individuals who allegedly received
unauthorized calls from the defendant purportedly in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On March 20, 2015, Global Tel*Link filed a motion to transfer the
case to the Central District of California, where three other
cases accusing the defendant of similar conduct and asserting
claims under the TCPA are pending.

Judge Rogers granted the motion, having found that the defendant
has made a sufficiently strong showing to warrant transfer
pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

A copy of the May 6, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/p9cyFXfrom Leagle.com.

David W. Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patric Lester, Patric
Alexander Lester, Patric Lester & Associates & Timothy James
Sostrin, Keogh Law, LTD.

Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
James Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP
& Matthew Ryan Gershman -- gershmanm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP.


GOOGLE INC: July 30 Case Mgmt Conference in Masterobjects Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order setting a Case
Management Conference in the case captioned MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-1775-PJH
(N.D. Cal.).

The Case Management Conference shall be held on July 30, 2015 at
2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, California.  Each party shall appear personally
or by lead counsel.

Lead counsel were ordered to meet and confer and file, not less
than seven days before the conference, a joint case management
statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing
Order For All Judges of the Northern District - Contents of Joint
Case Management Statement."

A copy of the May 6, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/euQnjJfrom Leagle.com.

Masterobjects, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Spencer Hosie --
shosie@hosielaw.com -- Hosie Rice LLP, Alden G Harris --
aharris@hpcllp.com -- Heim, Payne Chorush, Anthony Kenhong Lee --
alee@hosielaw.com -- Hosie Rice LLP, Darrell Rae Atkinson --
datkinson@hosielaw.com -- Hosie Rice LLP, Diane Sue Rice --
drice@hosielaw.com -- Hosie Rice LLP, Leslie V. Payne --
lpayne@hpcllp.com -- Heim, Payne & Chorush, L.L.P. & Nathan J.
Davis -- ndavis@hpcllp.com -- Heim, Payne and Chorush, LLP.


GUESS? INC: Trial Scheduled for October 26 in "Isaguirre" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guess?, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that trial is currently
scheduled for October 26, 2015, in the class action case filed by
Franchez Isaguirre.

On August 25, 2006, Franchez Isaguirre, a former employee of the
Company, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles alleging violations by the Company of
California wage and hour laws. The complaint was subsequently
amended, adding a second former employee as an additional named
party. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of similarly
situated employees in California who allegedly had been injured by
not being provided adequate meal and rest breaks. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties,
attorney's fees and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On June 9, 2009, the Court certified the class but immediately
stayed the case pending the resolution of a separate California
Supreme Court case on the standards of class treatment for meal
and rest break claims. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the
Superior Court denied the Company's motions to decertify the class
and to narrow the class in January 2013 and June 2013,
respectively. The Company subsequently petitioned to have the
Court's decision not to narrow the class definition reviewed. That
petition was ultimately denied by the California Supreme Court in
April 2014. Trial is currently scheduled for October 26, 2015.


HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. and the other named defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss related class action lawsuits, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J.
Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April
11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013).

The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into
the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated lawsuits.


HCSB FINANCIAL: No Briefing Deadlines Yet in "Shelley" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the briefing deadlines
have not yet been issued in a class action lawsuit filed by Robert
Shelley.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case
No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The Complaint named the Company and the Bank
as Defendants. However, the Complaint was never served on the
Company or Bank. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons were contacted by employees of the
Bank, who then solicited a sale of Bank stock. The Amended
Complaint further alleges that Bank employees did not disclose
material information about the Bank's financial condition to the
Plaintiff and others prior to their respective purchases of stock.
The Amended Complaint seeks the certification of a class action to
include all those purchasers of Bank stock who were solicited to
purchase such stock between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011.
Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for violation of the South
Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil conspiracy,
and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, and the court granted the motion for summary judgment
on April 8, 2014. Robert Shelley subsequently filed a motion to
reconsider, and when the motion to reconsider was denied, Mr.
Shelly filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of
Appeals. As of the date of this Annual Report, the briefing
deadlines have not yet been issued.


HCSB FINANCIAL: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss "Snyder" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing has not been
set at this time on the Defendants' motions to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs Jan W. Snyder, Acey Livingston,
and Mark Josephs.

Plaintiffs Jan W. Snyder, Acey Livingston, and Mark Josephs
purchased subordinated debt notes in or around March 2010. After
making three semi-annual interest payments, the Company was
precluded from making further payments by the Federal Reserve Bank
of Richmond. On January 14, 2014, Plaintiffs sued the Company, the
Bank, and several current and former officers, directors and
employees in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial
District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-
CP-26-0204. Plaintiffs have brought this case on their behalf and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated purchasers of
subordinated debt notes. Plaintiffs allege that they and a
similarly situated class of subordinated debt purchasers have
suffered an unspecified amount of damages resulting from the
Defendants' wrongful conduct leading up to their respective
purchases of subordinated debt notes. There are several causes of
action alleged, including fraud, violation of state securities
statutes, negligence and others.

All Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and a hearing on
same has not been set at this time. The Company, as well as all
Defendants, will deny liability and will oppose Plaintiffs'
request to certify the case as a class action. The Company and the
Bank have engaged legal counsel and intend to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit.


HENSAM ENTERPRISES: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Bravo-Sanchez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hensam Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a S.O.B.'s, Larry Gold, and Robbin
Gold, Case No. 1:15-cv-03780 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 204 Varick
Street, New York, NY 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (917) 774-4155
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TABATHA O'KELLY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. IN-N-OUT BURGERS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. D066682
(Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's order denying
the defendant's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims.

Plaintiff Tabatha O'Kelly, a former employee of Defendant In-N-Out
Burgers, Inc., sought to bring a representative action against the
latter under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004
(PAGA).  In-N-Out moved to compel arbitration of O'Kelly's claims
based on an arbitration agreement that she signed in conjunction
with her employment.  The trial court denied the motion.

In affirming the trial court's order, the appellate court followed
the high court's recent decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation
Los Angeles, LLC, holding that an arbitration agreement requiring
an employee to waive the right to bring a representative PAGA
action before any dispute arises is contrary to public policy and
the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt a state law that
prohibits waiver of representative PAGA actions.

A copy of the appellate court's April 30 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/jr3I8Wfrom Leagle.com.

Littler Mendelson, Fermin H. Llaguno -- fllaguno@littler.com --
James E. Hart and Muizz K. Rafique -- mrafique@littler.com -- for
Defendant and Appellant.

Gleason & Favarote, Torey J. Favarote --
tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com -- and Brandyn E. Stedfield --
bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Bid to Increase Attorney's Fee Award Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CRAFTWOOD LUMBER COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERLINE BRANDS, Inc., et al., CASE NO.
11-CV-4462 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Amy J. St. Eve denied the
plaintiff's motion requesting the court to reconsider and amend
its March 23, 2015 memorandum opinion and order to increase its
attorney's fee award.

On February 13, 2015, Craftwood moved for the award of $12 million
in attorney's fees for its counsel.  No defendants and no class
members filed objections.  On March 23, 2015, the court issued an
opinion awarding Craftswood's counsel a sliding scale contingency
fee corresponding to only $9.5 million of the $40 million common
settlement.

Craftwood argued three main grounds for amending the court's March
2015 opinion: (1) that the court should award a flat rate
attorney's fee, rather than a sliding-scale fee; (2) that the
court should award a higher overall fee percentage of 30 percent,
rather than the 23.75 percent that the court awarded; and (3) that
the court should increase the fee percentages to better reflect
the risks of plaintiff's case.

Judge St. Eve, however, was unconvinced by Craftwood's arguments
and denied the motion.

A copy of the May 6, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/V3D12Pfrom Leagle.com.

Craftwood Lumber Company, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Darryl
Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP, Scott Zygmunt
Zimmermann, Law Offices Of Scott Zimmermann, Charles Robert
Watkins -- charlesw@gseattorneys.com -- Guin Stokes & Evans, LLC,
Eric Michael Kennedy -- emk@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, Llc,
Frank F. Owen, Attorney at Law, John R. Wylie, Donaldaldson Guin
LLC & Matthew K. Brown -- mkb@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears Llp.

Interline Brands, Inc., a Delaware corp., and Interline Brands,
Inc., a New Jersey corp., Defendants, represented by Bart Thomas
Murphy -- bart.murphy@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Andrew B.
Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis Llp,
Isaac J. Colunga -- isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP,
Paul Daniel Bond -- daniel.bond@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP & Thomas J Hayes -- thomas.hayes@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller.


JEMANYA CORP: Faces "Matos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Matos, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Jemanya Corp. d/b/a Miss Favela, Angela M. Denneulin,
Alain Denneulin, Jeremie Carrier and Pedro Pablo Castro, Case No.
1:15-cv-02820 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Brazilian restaurant located at
57 S. 5th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11249.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal Pending in "Ezersky" Case
-------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an
appeal is currently pending in the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District, related to the case, Daniel Ezersky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On March 14, 2013, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri. The petition alleged that Edward Jones breached
its fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched through the use of
an online life insurance needs calculator that plaintiff claims
inflated the amount of insurance he needed. The plaintiff sought
damages on behalf of Missouri residents who purchased certain life
insurance products from Edward Jones between March of 2008 and the
present, including: actual damages, or alternatively, judgment in
an amount equal to profits gained from the sale of term, whole
life or universal life insurance to plaintiff/damages class;
punitive damages; injunctive relief; costs, including reasonable
fees and expert witness expenses; and reasonable attorneys' fees.

On August 18, 2014, Edward Jones filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was subsequently granted by the Court. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2014, and the appeal is
currently pending in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern
District.


JONES FINANCIAL: "Maxwell" Class Action Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
compliance hearing has been held in the case Nicholas Maxwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the case is now closed.

On December 18, 2012, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior Court. The
complaint asserted causes of action for unlawful wage deductions
(Labor Code sections 221, 223, 400-410, 2800, 2802, Cal. Code Reg.
title 8, section 11040(8)); California Unfair Competition Law
violations (Business and Professions Code sections 17200-04); and
waiting time penalties (Labor Code sections 201-203). Plaintiff
alleged that Edward Jones improperly charged its California
financial advisors fees, costs, and expenses related to trading
errors or "broken" trades and failed to timely pay wages at
termination. The parties reached a settlement, and the Court
granted final approval of the settlement on September 22, 2014. A
compliance hearing was held on January 8, 2015, and the case is
now closed. The settlement did not have a material adverse impact
on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition.


KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Wietschner" Over Illegal Company Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wietschner & Tova Wietschner Irs For Sam Wietschner Pension
Plan UA April 1, 1990, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00292-HEH (E.D. Va., May 14, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
planned acquisition of the Company by H.J. by means of an unfair
process and for inadequate consideration.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods company which
maintains its principal executive offices at Three Lakes Drive,
Northfield, Illinois, 60093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric George Reeves, Esq.
      MORAN REEVES & CONN PC
      100 Shockoe Slip, 4th Floor
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 421-6250
      Facsimile: (804) 421-6251
      E-mail: ereeves@mrcpclaw.com


KURZ & CO: "Andrade" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Andrade, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Kurz & Co., Case No. 4:15-cv-01314 (S.D. Tex., May 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Kurz & Co. is a Texas Corporation that specializes in delivering
fresh bread, buns, rolls, tortillas and other baked goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      JOSEF FRANZ BUENKER LAW OFFICE
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


LONE STAR: "Stevens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Kendrick Stevens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lone Star Disposal, L.P. and Lone Star Disposal
(Texas), L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-01302 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of collecting, transporting and
disposing of waste in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Austin W. Anderson,Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com


LTF CLUB OPERATIONS: "Bartell" Suit to Remain in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. overruled the defendant's
objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation in
the case captioned LAURENCE BARTELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LTF
CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00401
(S.D. Ohio, Eastern Div.)

A putative class action was initiated on March 25, 2014 against
LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. ("Life Time") by former and
current members of fitness clubs owned and operated by Life Time.

On December 11, 2014, Life Time filed a Motion to Transfer Venue
to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On January 20, 2015, Life Time filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, contending that the plaintiff's breach of
contract (Count I), Electronic Funds Transfer Act (Count II),
fraud (Count III), Ohio Prepaid Entertainment Contract Act (Count
IV), Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Count V) and unjust
enrichment claims all fail as a matter of law.

Life Time's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied by the Magistrate
Judge in his February 23, 2015 Report and Recommendation.  On
March 3, 2015, Life Time filed an Objection to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation.  Life Time then submitted on
March 27, 2015 a Surreply in support of its Objection.  Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Strike this Surreply on March 30, 2015.

As Life Time did not seek leave to file its Surreply, Judge Sargus
found its filing to be improper and granted the plaintiff's Motion
to Strike.

Judge Sargus also overruled Life Time's Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying Life Time's
Motion to Transfer Venue.  He agreed with the Magisrate Judge that
the factors to be considered under Section 1404(a) weighed in
favor of maintaing the case in Ohio.

Life Time's Motion to Dismiss was granted with respect to Counts
I, II, III and V, but denied with respect to Counts IV and V.

A copy of the April 14, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/TFwVzifrom Leagle.com.


MANSFIELD CITY, OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Edwards, et al., v. City of Mansfield, Ohio c/o Timothy
Theaker, Mayor and Lori A. Cope, in her official capacity as
Safety-Service Director, Case No. 1:15-cv-00959 (N.D. Ohio, May
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
their patrol officers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The City of Mansfield, Ohio is an Ohio municipal corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Piotrowski
      FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
      OHIO LABOR COUNCIL, INC.
      2721 Manchester Road
      Akron, OH 44319
      Telephone: (330) 753-7080
      Facsimile: (330) 753-8955
      E-mail: mpiotrowski@sbcglobal.net


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Matthew B. Johnson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the remaining claims in the class action
filed by Matthew B. Johnson, et al.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos.
A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Complaint
alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing
practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free"
and "regular price." The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including
attorneys' fees). Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the
Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in
the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same
allegations as in the original Complaint. On February 21, 2014,
Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014,
the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of
contract claims.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. The
range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.
We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Company said.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Lucas and Salerno Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the class action lawsuit filed by David Lucas
and Eric Salerno.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank
violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if
any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


MIAMI INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin J. Castillo, Gladimir A. Velazquez, Byron H. Ruiz, and other
similarly-situated individuals v. Miami International Transit,
Inc. and Scott Lowrey, Case No. 1:15-cv-21847 (S.D. Fla., May 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood, transportation,
logistics, cold storage and distribution company which operates in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Y. Sekula on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02822 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection
practices.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MINNESOTA: Olmstead Plan in Suit v. Human Services Dept Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank declined to adopt the Proposed
Olmstead Plan in the case captioned James and Lorie Jensen, as
parents, guardians, and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James
Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends
of Thomas M. Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and
next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency
of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
Douglas Bratvold, individually and as Director of the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott
TenNapel, individually and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the
State of Minnesota, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) (D.
Minn.)

A copy of the Court's May 6, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/fmu5RUfrom Leagle.com.

Mark R. Azman, Esq. -- MRAzman@olwklaw.com -- and Shamus P.
O'Meara, Esq. -- SPOMeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner &
Kohl, PA, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Nathan A. Brennaman, Scott H. Ikeda, Anthony R. Noss, and Aaron
Winter, Assistant Attorneys General, Minnesota Attorney General's
Office, counsel for State Defendants.

Samuel D. Orbovich, Esq. -- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- and
Christopher A. Stafford, Esq. -- cstafford@fredlaw.com --
Fredrikson & Byron, PA, counsel for Defendant Scott Tennapel.


MMPB GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Garcia, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. MMPB Group, LLC, d/b/a Villa Azur, Jean Phillipe
Bernard, Case No. 1:15-cv-21824 (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MONEY STORE: Award of Attorney's Fees in "Mazzei" Case Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis granted the plaintiff's
application for award of attorney's fees in the case captioned
JOSEPH MAZZEI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MONEY STORE, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:01-CV-05694-JGK-RLE (S.D.N.Y.).

On July 21, 2014, the court sanctioned the defendants for
violating the duty to preserve information relating to foreclosure
and bankruptcy services provided to the defendants by Fidelity
National Foreclosure Solutions through an electronic database
created by Fidelity, "the New Invoice System."

Plaintiff Joseph Mazzei sought an order granting fees of
$17,977.50 for class counsel Paul Grobman, a solo practitioner,
and fees of $20,733 for class counsel H. Rajan Sharma and Neil De
Young of the firm Sharma & DeYoung LLP.

While Judge Ellis found the attorneys' hourly rates as reasonable,
he found that the hours Mazzei's counsel expended in opposition to
the defendant's failure to preserve information were excessive.
Recalculated using the rates and reduction in hours, an award of
attorney's fees was granted in the amount of $30,681:

     Grohman was awarded $14,382,
     DeYoung was awarded $7,416, and
     Sharma was awarded $8,883.

A copy of the May 6, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/HLtUThfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Mazzei, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S. Kaufman, The Law
Offices of Mark S. Kaufman, Christopher Matthew Van de Kieft --
cvandekieft@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP,Kenneth Foard
McCallion, McCallion & Associates LLP, Moshe H. Horn --
mhorn@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Neal Arthur DeYoung,
Neal Deyoung & Paul Stewart Grobman, Paul Grobman, Esq..

The Money Store, TMS Mortgage, Inc., and Homeq Servicing Corp.,
Defendants, represented by Daniel A. Pollack --
dpollack@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Anthony Zaccaria
-- azaccaria@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Edward T.
McDermott -- emcdermott@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP,
Krista Ann Friedrich -- kfriedrich@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Minji Kim -- mikim@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP & Thomas J Kavaler -- tkavaler@cahill.com -- Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP.


MSG SPINCO: Defending Claims in 2 Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSG Spinco, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10 Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants,
including the Company, are vigorously defending claims in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints,
which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain
of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by
defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain
territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television
and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive
relief against the defendants' continued violation of the
antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the complaints in their entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court
denied the motions for summary judgment. The defendants, including
the Company, are vigorously defending the claims.


NAPA COUNTY, IL: Bid to Dismiss "Acosta" FDCPA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakey denied the defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned Diana Acosta, Plaintiff, v. Credit
Bureau of Napa County, Defendant, CASE NO. 14 C 8198 (N.D. Ill.,
Eastern Div.).

Diana Acosta filed a class action suit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), complaining that the
defendant, the Credit Bureau of Napa County, violated the FDCPA
when it sent her a debt collection letter that included a $14.95
processing fee for payments made by credit card.

In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Blakey held
that the record does not show that the $14.95 processing fee was
merely a pass-through fee initiated by the credit card provider.
He further held that the said processing fee was not authorized
either by prior agreement or Illinois state law.

A copy of the April 29, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/AafDIGfrom Leagle.com.

Diana Acosta, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jacob Wood, Wood
Finko & Thompson P.C., Bryan Paul Thompson, Wood Finko & Thompson,
P.C., Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
Francis Richard Greene, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC &
Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Rock, Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC, Brandon Allen Carnes,
Rock Fusco & Connelly, Llc, Cory D Anderson, Rock Fusco &
Connelly, LLC & Patrick William Chinnery, Rock Fusco & Connelly,
LLC.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE STUDENT: Nevada & California Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A joint motion was filed to transfer and consolidate the class
action case captioned TRICIA BENAVENTE, and ANDRESINA BENAVENTE,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3, A
DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S) and PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C,
Defendants. DAWN ZOERB, Individually and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN
TRUST 2006-3, A Delaware Statutory Trust(s); and, LAW OFFICES OF
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Defendants, CASE NOS. 14-CV-01992-GMN-
VCF, 14-CV-00468-BAS-KSC (D. Nev.).

The plaintiffs and the defendants stipulated and consented to the
transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, and to consolidate the action with the
pending action entitled Zoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2006-3, et al., Case No. 14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

In his order dated May 6, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/I7G8xwfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Cam
Ferenbach granted the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to
close the case.

James K. Schultz, Esq. -- jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- SESSIONS,
FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C., Chicago, IL, Attorneys for
Defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3.

Danny Horen, KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC, Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Tricia Benavente and Andresina Benavente.

Westley Villanueva, PATENAUDE & FELIX A.P.C., Attorney for
Defendant, Patenaude & Felix, APC.


NEVADA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Inmate's Hepa-C Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, in
its April 29, 2015 Order, in the case docketed as MATTHEW J. KING,
Plaintiff, v. JAMES G. COX, JENNIFER NASH, QUENTIN BYRNE, CCSIII
LEAVITT, CCSIII GRAHAM, CCSIII WUEST, ROLAND DANIELS, CCS SMITH,
AMY CALDERWOOD, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-02080-GMN-
PAL, granted in part, and denied in part, the Motion for Summary
Judgement filed by Defendants James G. Cox and Quentin Byrne
("NDOC Defendants"); and Jennifer Nash, CCSIII Leavitt, CCSIII
Graham, CCSIII Wuest, Roland Daniels, CCS Smith, and Amy
Calderwood ("HDSP Defendants").

The case arises out of alleged Eighth Amendment violations
resulting from a prison denying a prisoner's enrolment in
mandatory substance abuse treatment.  Plaintiff Matthew J. King is
an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections
("NDOC").  Plaintiff was originally housed in High Desert State
Prison ("HDSP") and is currently at Southern Desert Correctional
Center ("SDCC").

Plaintiff contracted the Hepatitis-C virus and sought treatment
within the prison.  Plaintiff requested to be placed in the TRUST
program at SDCC in May 2013.  Plaintiff was denied parole and was
later reclassified to a Level II.  Further, Plaintiff was referred
to the TRUST program due to being disciplinary free for 90 days,
his Level II status, and more than 18 months away from his
potential release date.  Plaintiff was then transferred to SDCC
and enrolled in the program.  Moreover, Plaintiff has been seen
eight times during his incarceration by medical providers for his
Hepatitis-C on: August 8, 2014; November 25, 2013; September 20,
2012; August 14, 2012; June 4, 2012; May 22, 2012; April 14, 2012;
and December 1, 2011.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 24, 2013, against
numerous employees at HDSP and NDOC, alleging violations of
"Plaintiff's 8th amend. right as a disabled American seeking
rehabilitation by acting deliberately indifferent to pleas for
meaningfull [sic] access to substance abuse treatment."  Further,
Plaintiff sued each Defendant in his or her official capacity.

Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that
nearly all of Plaintiff's claims were mooted by his admission to
the substance abuse treatment program and transfer to another
facility.  Plaintiff's Response states that "[b]y denying access
to substance abuse treatment this caused Plaintiff's Hepatitis-C
to go an additional 2+ years untreated which has allowed the
progressive effects to manifest."

Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro granted the Motion as to
the claims asserted against the HDSP Defendants. Judge Navarro
held that since Matthew King had already completed the TRUST
substance abuse treatment program located at the Southern Desert
Correctional Center ("SDCC"), his claims against HDSP Defendants
are moot.

Judge Navarro denied the Motion as to the NDOC Defendants as they
had failed to present sufficient evidence to support their
mootness argument.

A copy of Judge Navarro's April 29, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/WzL2dCfrom Leagle.com.


NIKE RETAIL: Request for Discovery of Entire Class Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San Jose, California, issued
an order compelling the defendant to provide the contact
information of all potential class members in the case captioned
ISAAC RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., an
Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-01508 BLF (HRL) (N.D. Cal.).

A wage-and-hour suit was filed by plaintiff Isaac Rodriguez for
himself and on behalf of a putative class of all current and
former non-exempt retail store employees of defendant Nike Retail
Services, Inc. (Nike) who worked in California during the period
from February 25, 2010 to the present.  Rodriguez alleged that
Nike forced its employees to submit to a security inspection after
they clock-out from work, leaving them uncompensated for the time
spent in these security checks.

At issue in the Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1 is the
scope of pre-certification discovery that should be allowed.
Rodriguez contended that Nike should be compelled to provide the
contact information of all putative class members.  Nike argued
that the requested discovery should be limited to employees at
Nike's Gilroy location where Rodriguez worked.  Nike also
maintained that disclosure of the requested contact information
violates the putative class members' privacy rights.

In his April 29, 2015 order which is available at
http://is.gd/yhu2K9from Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd held that the
requested discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the
class claims and declined to limit discovery to the Gilroy
location.  He also directed the parties to meet-and-confer to
agree on the best means of obtaining the requested information,
while protecting the privacy of potential class members.

Isaac Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Hyun Legal, Nicholas Rosenthal,
Diversity Law Group & William Lucas Marder --
bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Nike Retail Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Casey Jean
Teele McCoy -- cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, Jonathan
Douglas Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Maya
Harel -- mharel@seyfarth.com , Seyfarth Shaw & Sheryl Lyn Skibbe
-- sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


NION COMPANY: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 13
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order setting a Case
Management Conference in the case captioned GATAN, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. NION COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-01862-PJH
(N.D. Cal.).

The Case Management Conference will be held on August 13, 2015 at
2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, California.  Each party shall appear personally
or by lead counsel.

Lead counsel were ordered to meet and confer and file, not less
than seven days before the conference, a joint case management
statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing
Order For All Judges of the Northern District - Contents of Joint
Case Management Statement."

A copy of the May 6, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/ol4nf6from Leagle.com.

Gatan, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
William J. Goines -- goinesw@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP &
Cindy Hamilton -- hamiltonc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


OMNICELL INC: To Defend Against "Nelson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on March 19, 2015, against the Company and two
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Nelson v. Omnicell, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01280-HSG. The complaint purports to assert
claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2015. It alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements
regarding the existence of a "side letter" arrangement and the
adequacy of internal controls that allegedly resulted in false and
misleading financial statements. The Company and the individual
defendants have not yet been served with the Complaint. The
Company believes that the claims have no merit and will defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP to Lead Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
in its April 1, 2015 Opinion, in the case docketed as NICHOLAS R.
LOVALLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff(s), v. PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., DAVID
STACK, JAMES SCIBETTA, and LAUREN RIKER, Defendants, CIV. NO. 14-
CV-6172 (WHW)(CLW), appointed Plaintiff Nicholas R. Lovallo as
lead plaintiff in the federal securities class action that Lovallo
filed on behalf of those who purchased shares of Defendant Pacira
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

District Judge William H. Walls also appointed Lovallo's counsel,
Pomerantz LLP, as lead counsel in the action. Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC was named liaison counsel for the class.

A copy of Judge Walls' April 1, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/nW1gtTfrom Leagle.com.


PARFUMS GIVENCHY: Rift Among Class Suit Lawyers Goes to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
in its April 29, 2015 Opinion, in the case docketed as In re JAMS
NOS. 1340007979 AND 1340007982, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-524, ordered
the transfer of the case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The case arises out of two arbitration awards entered in favor of
respondent Suzanne Bogart following various arbitration and court
proceedings taking place in Illinois.  Suzanne Tongring,
petitioner, and Bogart are attorneys who served together as class
counsel in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Oplchenski v. Parfums
Givenchy, et al., No. 05-6105). Respondent performed legal
services from August 2007 until December 2008 pursuant to a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to which the parties had
agreed.  The MOU incorporated by reference the original attorney
engagement letter into which the class action plaintiffs had
entered with Petitioner, Respondent, and the other attorneys
involved in the case.  Respondent withdrew following the denial of
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Ultimately, the
case was settled and a fund was created to pay attorneys' fees and
costs.

In an effort to ensure that she was compensated for her work,
Respondent prepared an attorney's lien in Illinois and filed an
action for enforcement of the lien in Illinois state court.
Finding that the MOU mandated arbitration of the dispute, the
state court judge stayed the case and referred it to the Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Service ("JAMS") in Illinois.

Respondent thereafter initiated a second arbitration regarding
alleged breaches of the MOU. Awards in favor of Respondent were
entered in both arbitrations.  Eventually, Respondent moved to
confirm the awards in Illinois state court, and confirmation was
entered on March 7, 2014.

Virtually all of the operative facts and relevant events in this
case occurred in Illinois: (1) the MOU provided that arbitration
would occur before JAMS in its Illinois offices; (2) all
respondents in the underlying arbitrations reside and/or work in
Illinois; (3) the underlying class action litigation took place in
Illinois; (4) the parties entered into the MOU in Illinois; and
(5) the MOU provides that Illinois law shall govern the contract.
The sole connection to New Jersey in this case is that Petitioner
resides in the state.

Petitioner filed the action seeking to vacate the arbitration
awards on January 24, 2014.  Petitioner moved to vacate the
awards, and Respondent opposes the motion on various grounds,
including: (1) insufficient service of process; (2) lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; (3) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(4) failure to join indispensable parties; (5) res judicata; (6)
lack of standing; (7) failure to state a claim; and (8) improper
venue.

District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ordered the transfer of the
case, concluding that the transfer was appropriate as the
Petitioner's choice of forum was strongly outweighed by both the
private and public interest factors.

A copy of Judge Arleo's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/ZiNXnFfrom Leagle.com.


PELLA CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Wegner" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton granted in part and denied in part
Pella Corporation's motion to dismiss in the case captioned CRAIG
WEGNER, RONALD L. SIEMENS, and BRENT GEETINGS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-MN-01993-DCN
(D.S.C.).

A class action was filed against Pella alleging defects in the
windows purchased from the defendant.  The plaintiffs brought 11
causes of action: (1) violation of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act
("ICFA"); (2) negligence; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (6) breach
of express warranty; (7) fraudulent misrepresentation; (8)
fraudulent concealment; (9) unjust enrichment (10) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); and (11) declaratory
relief.  Pella filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.

Judge Norton held that the statutes of limitations applicable to
plaintiffs' claims are not tolled equitably nor by class action
tolling.  He then proceeded to consider Pella's arguments about
each claim individually.

In his order dated May 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/X8CYTS
from Leagle.com, Judge Norton granted in part and denied in part
Pella's motion to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice:

     -- Plaintiff Brent Greeting's ICFA claim;

     -- Plaintiffs Craig Wegner's and Ronald L. Siemen's claims
        to the extent they rely on affirmative misrepresentations
        and the extent that they seek treble damages;

     -- Plaintiffs' negligence claims;

     -- Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claims;

     -- Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claims;

     -- Wegner's breach of express warranty and MMWA claims;

     -- Siemens's and Geetings's breach of express warranty and
        MMWA claims to the extent they allege that Pella breached
        express warranties by shipping defective windows;

     -- Plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
        concealment claims to the extent they rely on affirmative
        misrepresentations; and

     -- Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims.

Craig Wegner, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Granfield Arato,
Law Office of Rob Tully, Jonathan Shub, Sr, Robert G Tully, Law
Offices of Rob Tully, P.C., Scott A George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Gary E Mason --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- Mason Law Firm & Matthew E Lee --
matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason.

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Minneapolis
Office, Kevin L Morrow kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner -- joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels, Ross W Johnson -- ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com
-- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP & Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.


PHC-MINDEN LP: La. High Court Reinstates Class in "Baker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the judgment of the Court
of Appeals, Second District and reinstated the District Court's
class certification in the case captioned PRENTISS BAKER AND
SHERYL WIGINTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PHC-MINDEN, L.P. D/B/A MINDEN MEDICAL
CENTER, NO. 2014-C-2243 (La.).

A class action was filed on July 13, 2011 against PHC-Minden, L.P.
d/b/a Minden Medical Center ("Minden"), alleging that Minden was
engaged in unlawful billing practices by collecting or attempting
to collect the undiscounted rate from the insured if a liability
insurer may be liable, implemented through the filing of medical
liens against the plaintiffs' lawsuits and settlements.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on September 28,
2011 which was granted by the trial court. The Second Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed, finding a class action is not the
superior procedural method for resolving the controversy.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana, however, found the class action is
the superior method for adjudicating the common issue regarding
the legality, under the Balance Billing Act, of a health care
provider's collection policy of filing medical liens to recover
its full rate for services from an insured's settlement or
judgment with a third-party tortfeasor.

A copy of the May 5, 2015 resolution is available at
http://is.gd/KAEhjrfrom Leagle.com.


PHILLIPS COUNTY, AZ: New Settlement Notice in "Covington" Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY COVINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated PLAINTIFF, v. ULESS WALLACE, HERMAN HALL, and
NEAL BYRD, all in their official capacities DEFENDANTS, NO. 2:12-
CV-123-DPM (E.D. Ark.), District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr.,
approved the parties agreed protective order as modified, and the
notice of the parties' proposed settlement should be mailed and
given in radio ads, in the Helena Daily World, and posted as
before. The ads should be spread across June and July. The posted
notice should go up as soon as documents are finalized and remain
up until August 1, 2015.

Gary Covington has brought this lawsuit against Phillips County
and the City of Helena-West Helena. He alleges that the County and
the City failed to provide a prompt first appearance in court
(within 72 hours of arrest) to pretrial detainees at the County
jail. Covington claims the City and the County violated the U.S.
Constitution. He seeks damages for himself and others who were
allegedly denied a prompt first appearance. The Court has held
Phillips County liable for its violation of the Constitution. The
City denies that it violated the Constitution and denies any
liability to Covington and other pretrial detainees. A trial was
scheduled to resolve the City's potential liability. However, all
the parties have negotiated a settlement, subject to the Court's
approval and any objections Class Members may have.

The parties have agreed to reimburse class counsel for the
previous notice costs.  The Court directs the City and the County
to pay Sutter & Gillham, P.L.L.C., $1,400.00 for the radio ad and
$972.00 for the newspaper ad.

A copy of the Court's April 21, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/zVvDjgfrom Leagle.com.


PJCF LLC: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell grants a motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action in the case
captioned PAUL PLUMMER and NICHOLAS WHITE, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. PJCF, LLC, Defendant,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-37-FTM-38CM (M.D. Fla., Fort Myers Div.).

On January 22, 2015, plaintiffs Paul Plummer and Nicholas White
filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
against their former employer, PJCF, LLC.  On April 6, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA
Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class
Members.

Judge Chappell found that conditional certification is warranted
and conditionally certified a class of current and former
bartenders who worked at PJCF, LLC d/b/a Salado Pedros for July 1,
2014 to January 22, 2015.

A copy of the April 30, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/JxxI0Sfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Plummer, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly De Arcangelis, Morgan
& Morgan, PA.

Nicholas White, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly De Arcangelis, Morgan
& Morgan, PA.

PJCF, LLC, doing business as Salado Pedros, Defendant, represented
by Don Mathews, Don Mathews & Associates, PA.


PROPHASE LABS: Settlement Reached in Weisblum and Gibbs Case
------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement agreement
has been reached after the parties had engaged in significant pre-
trial discovery in the case, Eli Weisblum and James Loren Gibbs v.
Prophase Labs, Inc. and Theodore Karkus and James Loren Gibbs v.
Prophase Labs, Inc.

The Company said, "On May 19, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed by a consumer (the "Complainant") against the
Company and our Chief Executive Officer, in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York. On February 25,
2015, a putative class action complaint was filed by another
consumer (the "Second Complainant") against the Company, in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California."

These lawsuits, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of certain products sold by the Company,
alleges that the Company engaged in false and misleading
marketing, advertising and sales with respect to such products.
The Complainant and the Second Complainant seek, among other
things, certification of the case as a class action, a judgment
against the defendants for damages in an amount to be determined
by the court and/or jury, and an award of fees and expenses to
plaintiffs and their attorneys.

Both of these cases were settled and are pending dismissal with
prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement reached
among and between the parties as of March 23, 2015. The settlement
agreement was reached after the parties had engaged in significant
pre-trial discovery.  The Company determined to enter into this
settlement agreement in order to allow the Company and its
management team to focus their attention and resources towards the
continued growth and operations of the Company.  The terms of the
settlement were not material to the Company.


PROSENSA HOLDING: "Singh" Suit Over 2013 IPO Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned AMAR SINGH,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. HANS G.C.P. SCHIKAN, BERNDT A.E. MODIG, GILES V.
CAMPION, COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, LUC M.A. DOCHEZ, REMI DROLLER, DAAN
ELLENS, PETER GOODFELLOW, MARTIJN KLEIJWEGT, DAVID MOTT, PATRICK
VAN BENEDEN, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., LEERINK SWANN LLC (N/K/A LEERINK PARTNERS LLC), WEDBUSH
SECURITIES INC., KBC SECURITIES USA INC., TROUT CAPITAL LLC, AND
PROSENSA HOLDING N.V., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV. 5450 (NRB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

An action was brought under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 against the defendants Prosensa Holding N.V.
("Prosensa"), its underwriters, and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of a purported class of investors who
acquired shares of Prosensa pursuant to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the company's June 2013 initial public
offering.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

In her May 5, 2015 memorandum and order available at
http://is.gd/DxzuCTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Buchwald held that the
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  Plaintiffs have failed to show that the
Registration Statement contained misstatements or omissions to
state a material fact.  Judge Buchwald also held that plaintiffs'
control person liability claim pursuant to Section 15 of the
Securities Act must also fail for want of a primary violation.

Patricia Voit, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Bradley
Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
Rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Kevin F.
Ruf -- kevinruf@yahoo.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Amar Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Frank J.
Johnson, Jr. -- FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver,
LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Howard G. Smith, Smith & Smith, Lionel
Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy & Binkow Goldberg
LLP, Michael Goldberg -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg, LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP & William Scott Holleman -- ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com --
Johnson & Weaver, LLP.

Hans G.C.P. Schikan, Berndt A.E. Modig, Giles V. Campion, Colleen
A. Devries, Luc M.A. Dochez, Remi Droller, Daan Ellens, Peter
Goodfellow, Martijn Kleijwegt, David Mott, and Patrick Van
Beneden, Defendants, represented by Edmund Polubinski, III --
edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. &
Lawrence Jay Portnoy -- lawrence.portnoy@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Leerink Swann LLC, Wedbush Securities
Inc., KBC Securities USA, Inc., and Trout Capital LLC, Defendants
represented by Camille Latoya Fletcher --
camille.fletcher@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter
Eric Kazanoff -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Camille Latoya Fletcher, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP & Joshua Mark Slocum -- jslocum@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP.

Prosensa Holding N.V., Defendant, represented by Edmund
Polubinski, III, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & Lawrence Jay
Portnoy, Davis Polk & Wardwell.


RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Motion to Strike Partially Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in
its April 28, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order:

     -- granted the unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement filed by proposed class representative
Darren Scott, Jon Hotzler, Gary Backlund, and Jose Valdez; and

     -- partially granted and partially denied, without prejudice,
Plaintiff Residential Funding Company, LLC (RFC) and ResCap
Liquidating Trust's Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to Ten of Defendants' Affirmative
Defenses.

District Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Plaintiffs' Motion to
the extent that it sought to strike Defendants' unclean hands
defense.  Judge Nelson states that "this action does not arise in
equity or invoke an equitable remedy, nor is there 'substantial
injury to innocent parties.' Accordingly, as a matter of law,
there is no legal basis for the assertion of an unclean hands
defense.'

Judge Nelson also granted Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants'
Laches defense, stating that the statute of limitations apply as
Plaintiffs assert legal claims for breach of contract and
indemnification. Consequently, the defense of laches is not
applicable.

Judge Nelson found that Defendants' in pari delicto defense was
not applicable as there was nothing about the illegal about nature
of the Parties' agreements. Neither have the Plaintiffs asserted
tort claims against the Defendants.

The case is, Residential Funding Company, LLC v. Ark-La-Tex
Financial Services, LLC, No. 13-cv-3448 (DWF/TNL) Residential
Funding Company, LLC v. Academy Mortgage Corporation, No. 13-cv-
3451 (SRN/BRT) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. First
California Mortgage Company, No. 13-cv-3453 (SRN/JJK) Residential
Funding Company, LLC v. Community West Bank, N.A., No. 13-cv-3468
(JRT/JJK) Residential Funding Company, LLC and ResCap Liquidating
Trust v. Provident Funding Associates, L.P., No. 13-cv-3485
(SRN/TNL) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. E*Trade Bank, No.
13-cv-3496 (JNE/HB) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. PNC Bank,
N.A., No. 13-cv-3498 (JRT/BRT) Residential Funding Company, LLC v.
Branch Banking & Trust Company, No. 13-cv-3513 (PJS/BRT)
Residential Funding Company, LLC v. T.J. Financial, Inc., No. 13-
cv-3515 (SRN/SER) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. Universal
American Mortgage Company, LLC, No. 13-cv-3519 (SRN/JSM)
Residential Funding Company, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. d/b/a
M&I Bank, FSB, No. 13-cv-3523 (JNE/FLN) Residential Funding
Company, LLC v. Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc., No. 13-
cv-3525 (SRN/JSM) Residential Funding Company, LLC and ResCap
Liquidating Trust v. Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc., No. 13-cv-
3526 (JRT/JJK) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. iServe
Residential Lending, LLC, No. 13-cv-3531 (PJS/TNL) Residential
Funding Company, LLC v. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC, No. 14-cv-1710
(DSD/TNL) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. American Mortgage
Network, LLC., No. 14-cv-1760 (PJS/TNL) ResCap Liquidating Trust
v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, No. 14-cv-5101 (MJD/HB)
Residential Funding Company, LLC v. Homestead Funding Corp., No.
13-cv-3520 (JRT/HB), CIV. NO. 13-3451 (SRN/JJK/HB).

A copy of the Judge Nelson's April 28, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and
Order, is available at http://is.gd/nrZZTyfrom Leagle.com.

Residential Funding Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony Alden -- anthonyalden@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, David Elsberg --
davidelsberg@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, David L Hashmall, Felhaber Larson, Donald G Heeman, Felhaber
Larson, Edward P Sheu -- esheu@bestlaw.com -- Best & Flanagan LLP,
Erica P Taggart, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Gabriel F
Soledad -- gabrielsoledad@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Isaac Nesser -- isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Jeffrey A Lipps, Carpenter
Lipps & Leland LLP, Jennifer A L Battle, Carpenter Lipps & Leland
LLP, Johanna Ong -- johannaong@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Marnie E Fearon, Felhaber Larson,
Matthew R Scheck -- matthewscheck@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Peter E. Calamari --
petercalamari@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Richard R Voelbel, Felhaber Larson, Ryan A Olson,
Felhaber Larson, Thomas G Garry -- tgarry@bestlaw.com -- Best &
Flanagan LLP, Bradley T Smith, Felhaber Larson, Jessica J Nelson,
Felhaber Larson & Daniel R Kelly, Felhaber Larson.

ResCap Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Alden,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Bradley T Smith, Felhaber
Larson, David Elsberg, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP,
David L Hashmall, Felhaber Larson, Donald G Heeman, Felhaber
Larson, Erica P Taggart, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
Gabriel F Soledad, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Isaac
Nesser, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Jeffrey A Lipps,
Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP, Jennifer A L Battle, Carpenter Lipps
& Leland LLP, Johanna Ong, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Marnie E Fearon, Felhaber Larson, Matthew R Scheck, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, Peter E. Calamari, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Richard R Voelbel, Felhaber Larson, Ryan A Olson,
Felhaber Larson, Jessica J Nelson, Felhaber Larson & Daniel R
Kelly, Felhaber Larson.

Academy Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by David M
Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC,
Tessa K Somers -- somers@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC, Anthony Gabor, Oberman Thompson & Segal LLC & James L Forman
-- jforman@obermanthompson.com -- Oberman Thompson, LLC.

The Mortgage Outlet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eldon J
Spencer, Jr -- espencer@losgs.com -- Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer,
Gale & Sayre, Ltd & Stacey L Drentlaw -- sdrentlaw@losgs.com --
Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, Ltd.

Ark-La-Tex Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark
J Carpenter -- mark@carpenter-law-firm.com -- Carpenter Law Firm
PLLC.

Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Eldon J
Spencer, Jr, Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, Ltd, James M
Jorissen -- jjorissen@losgs.com -- Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale
& Sayre, Ltd & Stacey L Drentlaw, Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale
& Sayre, Ltd.

Guaranty Bank, Defendant, represented by Gregory A Bromen --
gbromen@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Matthew S.
Vignali -- mvignali@bcblaw.net -- Beck Chaet Bamberger & Polksy SC
& Steven W Jelenchick -- sjelenchick@bcblaw.net -- Beck Chaet
Bamberger & Polsky SC.

First California Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss
-- cmoss@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page
Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J Robert Keena --
jkeena@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Americash, Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld, American
Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC,
Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., Evans D
Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J Robert Keena,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti, American Mortgage Law
Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American Mortgage Law Group.

Broadview Mortgage Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble -- jkimble@greeneespel.com -- Greene
Espel PLLP, Jenny Gassman Pines -- jgassman-pines@greeneespel.com
-- Greene Espel PLLP, Philip R. Stein -- pstein@bilzin.com --
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona --
ssakona@bilzin.com -- Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Community West Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christina
Rieck Loukas -- cloukas@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA,
Christopher A Camardello -- ccamardello@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Jeffrey R Ansel -- jansel@winthrop.com -- Winthrop
& Weinstine, PA & Michael A Rosow -- mrosow@winthrop.com --
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA.

Fremont Bank, Defendant, represented by Eldon J Spencer, Jr,
Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, Ltd, James M Jorissen,
Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, Ltd & Stacey L Drentlaw,
Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre, Ltd.

First Equity Mortgage Bankers, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amelia R Selvig -- aselvig@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony Ostlund
Baer & Louwagie PA, Brooke D Anthony --
banthony@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA,
Joseph W Anthony -- janthony@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony Ostlund
Baer & Louwagie PA, Philip R. Stein, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP.

Colonial Savings, F.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel N Moak --
dmoak@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA, Daniel J Supalla --
dsupalla@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA & Mark G Schroeder --
mschroeder@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA.

First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kevin J Dunlevy, Beisel & Dunlevy, PA & Michael E Kreun, Beisel &
Dunlevy, PA.

Central Pacific Homeloans, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Central Pacific Bank, Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld,
American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J
Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti, American
Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American Mortgage Law
Group.

Central Pacific Financial Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Provident Funding Associates, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Daniel N Moak, Briggs & Morgan, PA, Daniel J Supalla, Briggs &
Morgan, PA, Mark G Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Neil R
O'Hanlon, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

First Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gene A Hoff,
Minenko & Hoff & Michael J Minenko, Minenko & Hoff, P.A..

Mortgage Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Mortgage Capital Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amelia R Selvig, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Brooke D
Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Joseph W Anthony,
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Philip R. Stein, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp., Defendant, represented by Gina L
Albertson, Albertson Law & Michael D O'Neill, Martin & Squires,
P.A..

E Trade Bank, Defendant, represented by Amelia R Selvig, Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Brooke D Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer
& Louwagie PA, Joseph W Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie
PA, Philip R. Stein, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP &
Shalia M Sakona, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Lake Forest Bank & Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Amelia
R Selvig, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Amy Y Cho, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Brooke D Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer &
Louwagie PA & Michael P Conway, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Adam M Gogolak,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Amanda Raines Lawrence,
BuckleySandler LLP, Brett J Natarelli, BuckleySandler LLP, Daniel
J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA, David A Schooler, Briggs & Morgan,
PA, Elaine P Golin, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Fredrick S
Levin, BuckleySandler LLP, Jonathan M Moses, Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, Justin V Rodriguez, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
Mark G Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Richard E Gottlieb,
BuckleySandler LLP.

Mortgage Access Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld,
American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J
Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti, American
Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American Mortgage Law
Group.

Cornerstone Home Lending, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan H
Maclin, Briggs & Morgan, PA, Daniel J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA
& Mark G Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA.

Impac Funding Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin Sindberg
Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Jenny Gassman-Pines, Greene Espel PLLP,
Katherine M. Swenson, Greene Espel PLLP & Janine Wetzel Kimble,
Greene Espel PLLP.

Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amelia R
Selvig, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Brooke D Anthony,
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA & Joseph W Anthony, Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA.

Hometown Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group & Brooke D Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer &
Louwagie PA.

Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Amy L Schwartz, Lapp Libra Thomson Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered,
Jonathan M Jenkins, JENKINS KAYAYAN LLP, Lara Kayayan, Jenkins
LLP, Navdeep Singh, Jenkins Kayayan LLP & Richard T Thomson, Lapp
Libra Thomson Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered.

Wallick & Volk, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld,
American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J
Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti, American
Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American Mortgage Law
Group.

Branch Banking & Trust Co., Defendant, represented by Jason D
Evans, McGuire Woods LLP, Kelly G Laudon, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP,
Mark A Jacobson, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, T Richmond McPherson,
III, McGuire Woods LLP & William C Mayberry, Mcguire Woods LLP.

T.J. Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin Sindberg
Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Greene Espel
PLLP, Jenny Gassman-Pines, Greene Espel PLLP, Philip R. Stein,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Stearns Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan H Maclin,
Briggs & Morgan, PA, Daniel J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Mark
G Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA.

Terrace Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by Aaron P M
Tady, Coles Barton LLP, C J Schoenwetter, Bowman & Brooke LLP,
John D Sear, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Thomas M Barton, Coles Barton
LLP & Rachelle A Velgersdyk, Bowman & Brooke LLP.

Gateway Bank, F.S.B., Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld,
American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., Evans D Prieston, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., J
Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti, American
Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American Mortgage Law
Group.

Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Enza G Boderone, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Greene
Espel PLLP, Jenny Gassman-Pines, Greene Espel PLLP, Philip R.
Stein, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amy L Schwartz,
Lapp Libra Thomson Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered, Eric P Tuttle,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Gregory D Phillips, Munger, Tolles &
Olson, LLP, Marc T G Dworsky, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Michael
E Soloff, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Richard C St John, Munger
Tolles & Olson, Richard T Thomson, Lapp Libra Thomson Stoebner &
Pusch, Chartered, Thomas Jacob, Wells Fargo Law Department & Todd
J Rosen, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda Raines
Lawrence, BuckleySandler LLP, Brett J Natarelli, BuckleySandler
LLP, Daniel J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA, David A Schooler,
Briggs & Morgan, PA, Fredrick S Levin, BuckleySandler LLP,
Kristopher Knabe, BuckleySandler LLP & Richard E Gottlieb,
BuckleySandler LLP.

Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Eric P Tuttle, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Gregory D Phillips,
Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Kristopher Knabe, BuckleySandler LLP,
Marc T G Dworsky, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Michael E Soloff,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Richard C St John, Munger Tolles &
Olson, Richard T Thomson, Lapp Libra Thomson Stoebner & Pusch,
Chartered, Thomas Jacob, Wells Fargo Law Department, Todd J Rosen,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Amy L Schwartz, Lapp Libra Thomson
Stoebner & Pusch, Chartered.

Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Enza G
Boderone, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Erin Sindberg
Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Greene Espel
PLLP, Jenny Gassman-Pines, Greene Espel PLLP, Philip R. Stein,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & Shalia M Sakona, Bilzin
Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

National Bank of Kansas City, Defendant, represented by Nancy A
Temple, Katten & Temple LLP, Scott N Gilbert, Katten & Temple LLP
& Seth J S Leventhal, LEVENTHAL pllc.

iServe Residential Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erin
Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Greene
Espel PLLP, Jeanette M. Bazis, Greene Espel PLLP, Peter L Loh,
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP & Randy D Gordon, Gardere Wynne Sewell
LLP.

Circle Mortgage Corp., Defendant, represented by Sharon Robin
Markowitz, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Todd A Noteboom, Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, W Anders Folk, Stinson Leonard Street LLP &
Brooke D Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA.

United Fidelity Funding Corp, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Steinlage, Larson King, LLP.

DB Structured Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Danielle
Kantor, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, David J Woll, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Isaac M Rethy, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, Jonathan Nussbaum, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, William A
McNab, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA & William T Russell, Jr, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

MortgageIT, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J Woll, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Isaac M Rethy, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP & William A McNab, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA.

CTX Mortgage Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin E
Gurstelle, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Paul J Hemming, Briggs & Morgan,
PA. Pulte Homes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin E
Gurstelle, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Paul J Hemming, Briggs & Morgan,
PA. PulteGroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin E
Gurstelle, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Paul J Hemming, Briggs & Morgan,
PA.

Home Loan Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Steinfeld, American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss,
Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage
Law Group, P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V
Valinoti, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody,
American Mortgage Law Group.

Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Beth
A Stewart, Williams & Connolly LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Elizabeth V Kniffen, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Jesse T Smallwood, Williams & Connolly LLP, Matthew V
Johnson, Williams & Connolly LLP, Noorudin Mahmood Ahmad, Williams
& Connolly LLP & R. Hackney Wiegmann, Williams & Connolly LLP.

HSBC Finance Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J
Stagman, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Gregory S Korman, Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, Nicole M Moen, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Stuart
M Richter, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Todd A Wind, Fredrikson &
Byron, PA.

E-Loan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sharda R Kneen, Lindquist
& Vennum PLLP, Terrence J Fleming, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP &
Brooke D Anthony, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA.

Rescue Mortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher R
Morris, Bassford Remele, PA, Daniel R Olson, Bassford Remele, PA,
Jeffrey D. Klobucar, Bassford Remele, PA & Mark D Covin, Bassford
Remele, PA.

RBC Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda Raines
Lawrence, BuckleySandler LLP, Brian Wegrzyn, BuckleySandler LLP,
Daniel J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA, David A Schooler, Briggs &
Morgan, PA & Matthew P Previn, BuckleySandler LLP.

CMG Mortgage, Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew Steinfeld,
American Morgage Law Group, P.C., Carol R M Moss, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC, Edward Page Allinson, American Mortgage Law Group,
P.C., J Robert Keena, Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, Jack V Valinoti,
American Mortgage Law Group, P.C. & James W. Brody, American
Mortgage Law Group.

Synovus Mortgage Corp., Defendant, represented by Brent D Hitson,
Burr & Forman LLP, Daniel J Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA, Mark G
Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Victor L Hayslip, Burr & Forman
LLP.

Honor Bank, Defendant, represented by Garth G Gavenda, Anastasi
Jellum, PA, Lindsay W Cremona, Anastasi Jellum, P.A., Susan Jill
Rice, Alward Fisher Rice Rowe & Graf, PLC & T Christopher Stewart,
Anastasi Jellum, PA.

Primary Capital Advisors LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J
Supalla, Briggs & Morgan, PA, John O'Shea Sullivan, Burr & Forman
LLP, Mark G Schroeder, Briggs & Morgan, PA & Tala Amirfazli, Burr
& Forman LLP.
PHH Mortgage Corp., Defendant, represented by David T Schultz,
Maslon LLP, David M Souders, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Nicole E
Narotzky, Maslon LLP & Tessa K Somers, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

Global Advisory Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lance T
Bonner, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Enza G
Boderone, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Erin Sindberg
Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Greene Espel
PLLP, Jenny Gassman-Pines, Greene Espel PLLP & Philip R. Stein,
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP.

Monarch Bank, Defendant, represented by Beth A Jenson Prouty,
Bassford Remele, PA.

First Mariner Bank, Defendant, represented by Joel L Perrell, Jr.,
Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Michael E Blumenfeld, Miles &Stockbridge
P.C., Nicole M Moen, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Timothy M Hurley,
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. & Todd A Wind, Fredrikson & Byron, PA.

Equifirst Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L Olson,
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Joshua J Fritsch, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP & Todd A Noteboom, Stinson Leonard Street LLP.

EFC Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L
Olson, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Joshua J Fritsch, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP & Todd A Noteboom, Stinson Leonard Street LLP.

Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., Counter Claimant,
represented by Navdeep Singh, Jenkins Kayayan LLP.


ROCKIES REGION: Class Action Settlement Given Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockies Region 2006 Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
settlement agreement in a class action against PDC Energy, Inc.
("PDC") has been given final court approval.

In December 2011, PDC Energy, Inc. ("PDC") and its wholly-owned
merger subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on
behalf of certain former partnership unit holders related to the
partnership repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011. The
action was filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum
Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the
disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the
mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty.
In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the
court.

In October 2014, PDC and plaintiffs' counsel reached a settlement
agreement. That agreement was signed in December 2014 and was
given final court approval in March 2015. Under this settlement
agreement the plaintiffs will receive a cash payment of $37.5
million, of which PDC will pay $31.5 million and insurers will pay
$6 million, the class action will be dismissed with prejudice and
all claims will be released.


RODRIGO GUTIERREZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Mexican Labors, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirella Barriga-Bermudez, et al. v. Rodrigo Gutierrez- Tapia, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01171 (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages to its Mexican
labors as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rodrigo Gutierrez-Tapia is a farm labor contractor residing in
Bowling Green, Hardee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Scott Schell, Esq.
      Mesa & Coe Law, PA
      508 Lucerne Ave
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Telephone: (561) 582-3921
      Facsimile: (561) 582-4884
      E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org

         - and -

      Karla Martinez, Esq.
      Florida Legal Services, Inc.
      508 Lucerne Ave
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      E-mail: karla@floridalegal.org


SENECA SAWMILL: Conditional Certification Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. McShane granted in part and denied in
part the plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification in the case captioned DAVID ALLEN SCOTT, et
al, Plaintiffs, v. SENECA SAWMILL, Defendant, CIV. NO. 6:14-CV-
01337-MC (D. Ore.)

Judge McShane found that the potential putative collective action
members are "similarly situated" enough for conditional class
certification because plaintiffs have provided substantial
allegations that these members were together the victims of a
single decision, policy, or plan of Seneca Sawmill Company that
allegedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

A copy of the May 4, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/ad13Uffrom Leagle.com.

David Allen Scott, Weston Mord, Jesus A Moreno, Branden Heflin,
Marty Simpson, and Kristan Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan
J. Leiman, Leiman & Johnson, LLC & Drew G. Johnson, Leiman &
Johnson, LLC.

Seneca Sawmill Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel Webb
Howard -- howard@gleaveslaw.com -- Gleaves Swearingen Potter &
Scott, LLP & Frederick A. Batson -- batson@gleaveslaw.com --
Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott, LLP.


SHALIZAR LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Martinez on behalf of himself and FLSA collective
plaintiffs v. Shalizar LLC, Kazem Bayati, Marc Mohammad Mirbod,
and Parvez A. Eliaas, Case No. 1:15-cv-03751 (S.D.N.Y., May 14,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1407 2nd
Ave., New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SILICONE RUBBER: Faces "Negrette" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Negrete, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Silicone Rubber Right
Products, LLC, and Jorge Lopez, Case No. 1:15-cv-04342 (N.D. Ill.,
May 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants operate a business called Silicone Rubber Right
Products, located at 112 West Lake Street, Northlake, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU: Court Trims Allen & Golden FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled on a motion to dismiss all
but one of plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned BIRCHARD B.
ALLEN, III AND CANDYCE GOLDEN v. SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP, CIVIL
NO. JFM-14-3257 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Birchard B. Allen III and Candyce Golden brought a
putative class action lawsuit against defendant Silverman
Theologuo LLP ("Silverman"), alleging that its debt-collection
practice violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act
("MCDCA").

Before addressing the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims, Judge Motz determined that Silverman is a "collection
agency" under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act
("MCALA") and does not qualify for the lawyer exception.  As such,
Maryland may constitutionally impose licensing regulations on it.

Judge Motz denied Silverman's motion to dismiss Count I, holding
that the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded their claims under the
FDCPA.  However, Judge Motz granted Silverman's motion to dismiss
Count II, for while the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a prima
facie case, they have not adequately alleged compensable damages
under the MCDCA.

A copy of his May 6, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/7t4O0nfrom Leagle.com.

Birchard B. Allen, III, Plaintiff, represented by E David Hoskins,
The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC & Max F Brauer, Law Offices
of E David Hoskins.

Candyce E Golden, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by E David Hoskins, The Law
Offices of E David Hoskins LLC & Max F Brauer, Law Offices of E
David Hoskins.

Silverman Theologou LLP, Defendant, represented by Ronald S
Canter, The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter LLC, Bradley Todd
Canter, The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter LLC, Nicholas R Johnson
-- NJohnson@BerenzweigLaw.com -- Berenzweig Leonard LLP & Seth
Charles Berenzweig -- Sberenzweig@BerenzweigLaw.com -- Berenzweig
Leonard LLP.


SOUTH FLORIDA ELECTRIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Dileo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. South Florida Electric, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80627-KAM (S.D.
Fla., May 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in "Vasquez" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in its entirety in the case captioned DAISY
VAZQUEZ, ET AL. v. TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, ET AL., CASE NO. 2:14-
CV-07621-CAS(FFMX) (C.D. Cal.).

A putative class action was filed against defendants TWC
Administration, LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., and Time Warner Cable
NY LLC (collectively, "Time Warner"), asserting claims for (1)
failure to pay wages in violation of California Labor Code; (2)
failure to pay wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized statements
in violation of California Labor Code; (4) waiting time penalties
under California Labor Code; (5) unfair competition in violation
of California Business & Professions Code; and (6) penalties
pursuant to California Labor Code.

Time Warner filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, partial summary judgment, attacking the legal
sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims and plaintiffs' standing to
bring them.

In her order dated May 4, 2015 and available at
http://is.gd/XeOTGkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Snyder concluded that
none of the liability theories posited by the plaintiffs, i.e. (1)
"hours worked" overtime theory; (2) "misallocation" overtime
theory; and (3) "piece-rate" theory, is viable.  Thus, each of
plaintiffs' claims for relief must be dismissed and defendants are
entitled to summary judgment.

Paul Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com -- Attorneys Present for
Plaintiffs.

Jeffrey Williams -- Jwilliams@BucksFamilyLawyers.com -- Joseph
Ozmer -- jozmer@wargofrench.com -- Michael Kabat --
mkabat@mcginnislaw.com -- Attorneys Present for Defendants.


TOP RANK: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Jimenez and David Smith, f/k/a Oa Vid Odle, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03740 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), is an
action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries
suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and
Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
      Kush Shukla, Esq
      Philip Tortoreti, Esq.
      WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
      90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 ú
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732)636-8000
      E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
              kshukla@wilentz.com
              ptortoreti@wilentz.com


TRANS UNION: Bid to Exclude Expert's Report Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson denied the plaintiff's motion
to exclude an expert's report in the case captioned RONALD MILLER,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff,
v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 3:12-CV-1715 (M.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Ronald Miller commenced a putative class action by
filing a complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
against Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union").  Miller filed a motion
for class certification, which Trans Union has opposed.

In connection with its opposition, Trans Union filed a declaration
of Victor Stango, an associate professor of management at the
University of California, in Davis, who proffers himself to the
court as an expert on consumer behavior in financial service
markets.  Miller moved to exclude consideration of Dr. Stango's
declaration, arguing that Trans Union failed to disclose Dr.
Stango's report when the general class certification discovery
deadline passed.

In denying Miller's motion, Judge Carlson held that it has not
been clearly shown that there was a culpable breach of a court
order or legal authority with respect to the timing of the
disclosure of Dr. Stango's report.  The case management order
governing class certification discovery did not prescribe a
specific deadline for disclosure of expert reports.  Also, while
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 26(a)(2)(D) calls for the disclosure of
experts at least 90 days prior to trial, no trial date has yet
been set.

A copy of the May 6, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/GlrIp4from Leagle.com.

Ronald J. Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie --
andy@aoblawyers.com -- Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP, David A.
Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman,
James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis &
Mailman, PC & John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com --
Francis & Mailman PC.

Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arsen Kourinian --
akourinian@stroock.com -- Stroock& Stroock & Lavan LLP, Brian C.
Frontino -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP, Bruce S. Luckman -- bluckman@shermansilverstein.com --
Sherman Silverstein, Donna A. Walsh -- dwalsh@mbklaw.com -- Myers
Brier & Kelly, LLP, Stephen J. Newman -- snewman@stroock.com --
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Jason S. Yoo, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP.


TRANS UNION: Counsel Seeks Interlocutory Appeal in "White" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that in the case White, et al, v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the Objecting counsel is
currently seeking an interlocutory appeal of a ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in
2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and us in connection with the reporting of
delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer
report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer
reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file
after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a
failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file
accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA."

"Without admitting any wrongdoing, we have agreed to a settlement
of this matter. On August 19, 2008, the Court approved an
agreement whereby we and the other industry defendants voluntarily
changed certain operational practices. These changes require us to
update certain delinquent records when we learn, through the
collection of public records, that the consumer has received an
order of discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business
practice changes did not have a material adverse impact on our
operations or those of our customers.

"In 2009, we also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle
the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million
each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed
from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees,
all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported
class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class
based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. Our
share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final
approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July
2011. Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final
approval of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final
approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The
rationale provided by the United States Court of Appeals was not
that the proposed settlement was unfair or defective, but that
named class counsel and certain named plaintiffs did not
adequately represent the interests of the class because of certain
identified conflicts. Objecting counsel to the settlement has
sought to become new class counsel and the District Court has
denied this request. Objecting counsel is currently seeking an
interlocutory appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"If the monetary settlement is not ultimately upheld, we expect to
vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what we believe are
valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Regardless of
what occurs next, we believe we have not violated any law, have
valid defenses and are willing to aggressively litigate this
matter. We do not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition."


TRANS UNION: Class Cert. Proceedings Progressing in Miller, Larson
------------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that class action certification
proceedings are progressing with respect to the Miller and Larson
actions related to the OFAC Alert Service.

The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union
LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our
business customers that was designed to alert our customer that
the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship
with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked
Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is
meant to assist our customers with their compliance obligations in
connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

"In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California)
that was filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC
Alert service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have
willfully violated the FCRA and the corresponding California
state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by continuing to offer the
OFAC Alert service; and there are one or more classes of
individuals who should be entitled to statutory damages (i.e.,
$100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly willful
violations. In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers
representing Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in
Cortez) filed two additional alleged class actions in 2012 (Miller
v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans
Union, LLC, No. 12-5726-JSC, United States District Court for the
Northern District of California) and one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et
al. v. TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc.
and TransUnion Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California) claiming that our process for disclosing OFAC
information to consumers, or how we match OFAC information to a
consumer's name or other identifying information, violates the
FCRA and, in some instances, the corresponding California state-
FCRA. In addition to the OFAC allegations, the plaintiff in the
Patel action seeks to collapse all TransUnion FCRA regulated
entities into a single entity. In July 2014, the Court in Ramirez
certified a class of approximately 8,000 individuals solely for
purposes of statutory damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to
have willfully violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California
residents solely for purposes of injunctive relief under the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. While the Court
noted that the plaintiff is not seeking any actual monetary
damage, the class certification order was predicated on a disputed
question of Ninth Circuit law (currently there is a conflict
between the federal circuits) that is awaiting action by the
United States Supreme Court. Class action certification
proceedings are progressing with respect to the Miller and Larson
actions. We intend to vigorously defend these matters as we
believe we have acted in a lawful manner."


TRIMACO LLC: Order Denying Class Certification Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
in its Decision filed on April 30, 2015, in the case docketed as
ROQUE A. VELASCO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRIMACO, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139288, affirmed the trial court's
Order denying the Motion for Class Certification filed by Roque A.
Velasco.

Judge Rivera held that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Velasco's Motion for Class Certification.
Velasco was not able to show that a substantial number of rolls
sold in California were short of their advertised length. Judge
Rivera concluded that the trial court's ruling, that the proposed
class was not ascertainable, was supported by substantial
evidence.

A copy of the Judge Rivera's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/a9dekpfrom Leagle.com.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Nemky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. 2:15-cv-00732-JRG (E.D. Tex., May 15,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Trinity Industries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates
an industrial company that owns a variety of businesses which
provide products and services to the energy, transportation,
chemical, and construction sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George L. McWilliams, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE L. McWILLIAMS, P.C.
      P.O. Box 58
      Texarkana, TX 75504
      Telephone: (870) 772-2055
      Facsimile: (870) 772-0513
      E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      Darren J. Check, Esq.
      Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
      Andrew N. Dodemaide, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
              dcheck@ktmc.com
              rdegnan@ktmc.com
              adodemaide@ktmc.com

          - and -

      Matt Keil, Esq.
      John C. Goodson, Esq.
      KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
      406 Walnut Street
      Texarkana, AR 71854
      Telephone: (870) 772-4113
      Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
      Email: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
             jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com


TURTLE BEACH: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Completed
-------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing in an appeal
related to a class action lawsuit has been completed.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") and the Company
(f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the Company. Following the
announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in
California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs
in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH
and the Company were named as a defendant in these lawsuits under
the theory that they had aided and abetted Company's Board of
Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking
to enjoin closing of the Merger, which by agreement was heard by
the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases
denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and seeks monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their
action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada
action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially
the same allegations as prior complaints and seeks monetary
damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court and a
briefing was completed on February 23, 2015. The Company believes
that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

As of December 31, 2014 and the date of this Report, the Company
is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in
regards to this matter; therefore, no litigation reserve has been
recorded in the consolidated financial statements.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fails to Shake Off Securities Case in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo denied the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned
In re URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-5978 (E.D. Pa.).

A class action was brought against the defendants Urban
Outfitters, Inc. ("Urban"), Richard A. Hayne, Frank J. Conforti,
and Tedford G. Marlow.  The complaint was brought on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or acquired shares in Urban
between March 12, 2013 and September 9, 2013, and alleged that
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme during that period.
David A. Schwartz was appointed to serve as the Lead Plaintiff.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the
plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim must be dismissed because it is
derivative of the Section 10(b) claim.

In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Restrepo found that the
plaintiff had properly identified the defendants' material
misstatements and omissions, that the pleading is sufficiently
particularized, and that plaintiff's Amended Complaint raises a
strong inference of defendants' scienter.  He also held that,
contrary to the defendants' claim, the statements they made are
not protected by Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995's safe harbor provision.

A copy of the May 4, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/hu7Ddxfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. ROSENFELD --
Drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
DEBORAH R. GROSS -- debbie@bernardmgross.com -- LAW OFFICES
BERNARD M. GROSS, PC, JACK REISE -- Jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & STEPHEN R. ASTLEY --
Sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP.

URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., RICHARD A. HAYNE, FRANK J. CONFORTI,
TEDFORD G. MARLOW, DAVID W. MCCREIGHT, and DAVID HAYNES,
Defendants, represented by MARC J. SONNENFELD --
msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & KAREN
PIESLAK POHLMANN -- kpohlmann@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP.


VENAXIS INC: Tenth Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of "Wolfe" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals has affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case
filed by John Wolfe.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.)  et al.,
Case No. CV10 7365 ("Wolfe Suit").  This federal securities
purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of
the Company during the period between February 22, 2007 and July
19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint named as defendants certain
officers and directors of the Company during such period and
included allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act") and
SEC Rule 10b-5, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, all
related to the Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in
development.  On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead counsel.  On August 23, 2011, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint,
alleging the same class period.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the United States
District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants
without prejudice and the court entered final judgment without
prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against all plaintiffs
in the Wolfe Suit. The order to dismiss the action found in favor
of the Company and all of the individual defendants. On October
12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order
granting the motion to dismiss and of the final judgment in the
Wolfe Suit.   Following oral argument, the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals took the fully-briefed appeal under submission on
September 26, 2013.

On October 17, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the case.


VENAXIS INC: Faces "Boldt" Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Venaxis and two
of its current officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The action is captioned Boldt v.
Venaxis, Inc., et al., District of Colorado Case No.: 1:15-cv-00-
222 ("Boldt Action").  The plaintiff in the Boldt Action alleges
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Boldt Action plaintiff
purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between March 13, 2014, and
January 28, 2015.  The Boldt Action plaintiff alleges that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding APPY1.
The foregoing is a summary of the allegations in the complaint and
is subject to the text of the complaint, which is on file with the
Court.  Based on a review of the complaint, the Company believes
that the allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend against the claims.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Reports $100K Litigation Expense
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc.'s expense for asbestos-related
litigation was $0.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As
a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the three months ended March 31,
2015, and 2014, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $0.1
million, and $0.2 million, net of insurance recoveries,
respectively."

Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company operates in three reportable business
segments of the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) industry. Its reportable segments are
Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, and
Refrigeration. Residential Heating & Cooling consists of Furnaces,
air conditioners, heat pumps, packaged heating and cooling
systems, indoor air quality equipment, comfort control products,
replacement parts. Commercial Heating & Cooling consists of
Unitary heating and air conditioning equipment, applied systems,
controls, installation and service of commercial heating and
cooling equipment. Refrigeration segment consists of Condensing
units, unit coolers, fluid coolers, air cooled condensers, air
handlers, process chillers, controls, compressorized racks,
supermarket display cases and systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had $36.5MM Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability was $36.5 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We are the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our
predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating
to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos,
environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property
matters.

"As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the aggregate self-
insured and insured contingent liability was $45.9 million for
both periods and the related insurance recovery receivable for the
liability as well as claims for past payments was $19.7 million at
both March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. The asbestos liability
included in the amounts was $36.5 million at both March 31, 2015
and December 31, 2014 and the insurance receivable related to the
liability as well as claims for past payments was $19.4 million
and $19.3 million at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively.  We anticipate receiving a net tax benefit for
payment of those claims for which full insurance recovery is not
realized."

Cytec Industries Inc., is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 5,200 Fibro Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., is facing 5,200 asbestos-related claimants,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

"For the three months ended March 31, 2015, there were 5,200
claimants involved in asbestos claims with the Company.

"Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or
severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is
brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed
from another case. In 2014, by virtue of a new Texas law, which
amended the Texas Civil Code, the Texas courts commenced
dismissing dormant asbestos cases without prejudice to re-filing
by plaintiffs. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Texas courts
dismissed almost 3,000 claimants with claims against us. We expect
additional dismissals in 2015.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. Overall, we
expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs.
We have completed Coverage-In-Place-Agreements with most of our
larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc., is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Inc. Has 3 Filter Cases
--------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., was named defendant in three filter cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of April 16, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 56 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$45.2 million in settlements to finally resolve 167 claims.

One of the resolved claims was in the case Quirin v. Lorillard
Tobacco Company, et al., where a trial began on February 9, 2015,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. On February 26, 2015, before the trial was concluded,
the parties agreed to resolve the matter. On March 30, 2015,
Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose were dismissed
with prejudice. Since January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned
in the following three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco
Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit
Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v.
Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton
Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms
of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V
Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material),
Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose
for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and
claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard
Company that contained the filter material. In McGuire, tried in
the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky in
2012, the jury returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May
2012. On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed
the final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth
& Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff's petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff
moved for discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court, and
on February 12, 2015, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's motion. This matter is now closed. On October 4, 2012,
the jury in the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final
judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California
Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District entered an order
dismissing the appeal of the final judgment pursuant to
plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment
remained pending. However, plaintiffs abandoned their appeal on
June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the appeal was dismissed. This
matter is now closed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the
DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims
for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million.
Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million.
Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed
its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed
its initial brief on January 6, 2015. Plaintiff's brief is due on
June 5, 2015. As of April 16, 2015, 27 Filter Cases were scheduled
for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial
dates are subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. The Company has two
segments: Cigarettes, which consists principally of the operations
of Lorillard Tobacco Company and related entities; and Electronic
Cigarettes, which consists of the operations of LOEC, Inc. (doing
business as blu eCigs), Cygnet UK Trading Limited (trading as
SKYCIG) and related entities. Lorillard Tobacco Company's
principal cigarette products are marketed under the brand names of
Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold with all of its sales
in the United States. Newport, the Company's flagship premium
cigarette brand, includes both menthol and non-menthol products.
Lorillard's five brands include 43 different products. It markets
electronic cigarettes under the blu eCigs and SKYCIG brands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,500 PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------
There were 3,500 asbestos-related personal injury claims
outstanding against Pentair plc's subsidiaries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of March 28, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $247.5-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc disclosed that its estimated liability for asbestos-
related claims was $247.5 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015.

The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $247.5
million and $249.1 million as of March 28, 2015 and December 31,
2014, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $112.9 million and $115.8
million as of March 28, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $1.84B Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves was
$1.84 billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company had
been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied. On
July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct Action
Settlements had been satisfied. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
$579 million to the plaintiffs, comprised of the $502 million
settlement amounts, plus pre- and post-judgment interest of $77
million, and the Company has made that payment. It is possible
that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future. It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first quarter of
2015 were $520 million, compared with $45 million in the same
period of 2014. Net payments in the first quarter of 2015 included
the payment of the $502 million settlement amounts related to the
Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action Litigation. Net asbestos
reserves were $1.84 billion at March 31, 2015, compared with $2.31
billion at March 31, 2014.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company engaged,
through its subsidiaries, in providing commercial and personal
property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals. The
Company's product line includes: Workers' Compensation, provides
coverage for employers for specified benefits for workplace
injuries to employees; Commercial Automobile, provides coverage
for businesses against losses incurred from personal bodily
injury, injury to third parties, property damage to an insured's
vehicle and property damage to other vehicles and other property
resulting from the ownership; Commercial Property, provides
coverage for loss of and damage to buildings, inventory and
equipment resulting from covered property damage; General
Liability, Insures businesses against third-party claims arising
from accidents occurring on their premises; Commercial Multi-
Peril, provides a combination of the property and liability
coverage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $7-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was $7
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
     consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each
     year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
     claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
     equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 22% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 78% related to
unasserted claims at March 31, 2015.

"For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2015, the Company's
asbestos-related liability was $7 million.

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at March 31, 2015, and December
31, 2014.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) operates through its principal
operating subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad. Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) links 23 states in the western two-thirds of the
country by rail, providing a critical link in the global supply
chain. UPRR's business mix includes Agricultural Products,
Automotive, Chemicals, Coal, Industrial Products and Intermodal.
UPRR, along with its subsidiaries and rail affiliates, operates
through one reportable operating segment. UPRR is a Class I
railroad operates in the United States. UPRR have 31,838 route
miles, linking Pacific Coast and Gulf Coast ports with the Midwest
and eastern United States gateways and providing several corridors
to key Mexican gateways.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 21,849 Unresolved Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has 21,849 unresolved asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 27, 2015.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $342.7-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability related to
asbestos-related litigation was $342,776,000, 2015, the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) continue
to defend themselves against asbestos-related lawsuits, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of
those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane
U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure
to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-
New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake
shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or
manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured
products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets
and packings purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma
and lung cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
disease claimed and by year filed;

   * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
claims, by type of disease claimed;

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, over 80 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or unspecified
disease claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or
deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no
settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of
recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company's Total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries $325.0 million.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $167.5 million and $157.5 million at March
31, 2015, respectively, and $176.8 million and $158.9 million at
December 31, 2014, respectively.

Income and expense associated with IR-New Jersey's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of March 31, 2015. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that have been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves certain of IR-New
Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos
claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013,
IR-New Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an
insurer that was not a party to the 2012 action.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * IR-New Jersey has reached favorable settlements regarding
asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its recorded
asbestos-related insurance receivable;

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
IR-New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies
in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's
favorable settlement discussed;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been
the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations described above, are expected to result in the
projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the
probable insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables. IR-Ireland operates in two business segments:
Climate and Industrial. It generates revenue and cash primarily
through the design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse
portfolio of industrial and commercial products that include brand
names such as Trane, Ingersoll-Rand, Thermo King, American
Standard and Club Car. Its Climate solutions include Trane and
American Standard Heating & Air Conditioning, which provide
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and
commercial and residential building services, parts, support and
controls, and Thermo King transport temperature control solutions.
The Company's Industrial segment delivers products and services
that enhance energy efficiency, productivity and operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's former company, Dana Companies, LLC,
had 25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both March
31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. DCLLC had accrued $79 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims
at March 31, 2015, compared to $81 million at December 31, 2014. A
fifteen-year time horizon was used to estimate the value of this
liability.

"At March 31, 2015, DCLLC had recorded $51 million as an asset for
probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $52 million
recorded at December 31, 2014. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place
with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage
and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC
would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs
were paid in full.

"DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding Corporation
has no obligation to increase its investment in or otherwise
support DCLLC."

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 1,700 Fibro Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. has 1,700 asbestos-related
claims pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through March 31, 2015, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,700 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,700 claims were pending and 4,000 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through March 31, 2015, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. While we have seen an
increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one
specific venue, we do not believe that the increase or any
unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on
our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow,
and at March 31, 2015, we had approximately $5,200 accrued for
liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted
asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential
claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability
of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.
While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) is an energy
infrastructure focused company and a provider of government
services. The Company operates in four segments: Engineering,
Construction and Maintenance; Fabrication Services; Technology,
and Government Solutions. The Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance segment offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities, as well as
integrated maintenance services. The Fabrication Services segment
provides fabrication of piping systems, process and nuclear
modules, and fabrication and erection of storage tanks and
pressure vessels. The Technology segment offers licensed process
technologies, catalysts, specialized equipment, and engineered
products. The Government Solutions segment undertakes programs and
projects, including design-build infrastructure projects for
federal, state, and local governments, as well as offers
environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Facing 12,278 PI Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., is co-defendant in asbestos-
related cases involving 12,278 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company is subject, from time to time, to a variety of civil
and administrative proceedings arising out of its normal
operations, including, without limitation, product liability
claims, regulatory claims and health, safety and environmental
claims. Among such proceedings are the cases described below.

At March 31, 2015, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 12,278 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 2,356
claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the
Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 45,767 of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of
which is being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an
immaterial amount and 670 were decided in favor of the Company
following summary judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. The Company's welding products
include arc welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic
welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes
and fluxes. The Company operates in five segments: The operating
segments consist of North America Welding, Europe Welding, Asia
Pacific Welding, South America Welding and The Harris Products
Group. The North America Welding segment includes welding
operations in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The Europe
Welding segment includes welding operations in Europe, Russia,
Africa and the Middle East. The other two welding segments include
welding operations in Asia Pacific and South America,
respectively. The Harris Products Group includes the Company's
cutting, soldering and brazing businesses, as well as the retail
business in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 13 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2015.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently
has 77 pending silica cases and 13 pending asbestos cases. These
totals include 5 silica cases against AMCOL International
Corporation and/or its subsidiary, American Colloid Company, that
were pending on the date we acquired AMCOL. To date, 1,419 silica
cases and 42 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any
lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior
to our acquisition of AMCOL. Three new asbestos cases and no new
silica cases were filed in the first quarter of 2015.  Three
asbestos cases, including the only one against AMCOL International
Corporation, and twenty-five silica cases against AMCOL
International Corporation were dismissed during the first quarter
of 2015.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess
their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount
of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of
the 13 pending asbestos cases all allege liability based on
products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public
offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to
indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has
been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these
lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or
jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

Minerals Technologies Inc., is a resource and technology-based
company. The Company develops, produces and markets mineral,
mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting
systems and services. The Company operates in five segments,
including Specialty Minerals, Refractories, Performance Materials,
Construction Technologies and Energy Services. The Specialty
Minerals segment is engaged in producing and selling of the
synthetic mineral product precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC).
The Refractories segment produces and markets monolithic and
shaped refractory materials and specialty products. The
Performance Materials segment is engaged in supplying bentonite
and bentonite-related products. The Construction Technologies
segment provides products for non-residential construction,
environmental and infrastructure projects. The Energy Services
segment offers technologies, products and services for all phases
of oil and gas production.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,900 Pending Claims at March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC has 5,900 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 27, 2015.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway
Corporation ("Yarway") and Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with
numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal
injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the
Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos
containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from
Yarway's purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing
in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its
alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint
packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of
asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased
substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales
operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege
that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping
and sprinkler systems containing asbestos.

As of March 27, 2015, the Company has determined that there were
approximately 5,900 claims pending against it, which includes
approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants,
are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is
indemnified by third parties. Additionally, as a result of the
Yarway bankruptcy filing described below, claims against Yarway
have been stayed since April 2013.

As of March 27, 2015, the Company's estimated net liability,
including Yarway, recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet is $319 million. The net liability is comprised of a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $846 million, of which $349 million is recorded in Accrued and
other current liabilities, and $497 million is recorded in Other
liabilities. The Company also maintains separate cash, investment
and other assets of $527 million, of which $43 million is recorded
in Prepaid expenses and other current assets, and $484 million is
recorded in Other assets. Assets include $22 million of cash and
$282 million of investments which, have all been designated as
restricted. The Company believes that the asbestos related
liabilities and insurance related assets as of March 27, 2015 are
appropriate. As of September 26, 2014, the Company's estimated net
liability, including Yarway, of $608 million was recorded within
the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for
pending and future claims and related defense costs of $853
million, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of
$245 million.

On April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 11") in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
("Bankruptcy Court"). As a result of this filing, the continuation
or commencement of asbestos-related litigation against Yarway has
been enjoined by the automatic stay imposed by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code. Yarway's goal has been to negotiate, obtain approval of, and
consummate a plan of reorganization that establishes a trust to
fairly and equitably value and pay current and future Yarway
asbestos claims, and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by
the Company and/or its subsidiaries, provides permanent injunctive
relief protecting the Company, each of its current and former
affiliates and various other parties (the "Company Protected
Parties") from any further asbestos claims based on products
manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. On October 9,
2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle with Yarway,
the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants ("ACC") appointed in
the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the representative of current Yarway
asbestos claimants, and the Future Claimants Representative
("FCR") appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11 case as the
representative of future Yarway asbestos claimants, to fund a
section 524(g) trust for the resolution and payment of current and
future Yarway asbestos claims. The agreement in principle will be
implemented through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization for
Yarway, and is intended to resolve the potential liability of the
Company Protected Parties for pending and future derivative
personal injury claims related to exposure to asbestos-containing
products that were allegedly manufactured, distributed, and/or
sold by Yarway ("Yarway Asbestos Claims"). Under the Chapter 11
plan, an asbestos settlement trust (the "Yarway Trust") that
conforms to the provisions of Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the effective date of
the Chapter 11 plan, the Company and Yarway will contribute to the
Yarway Trust a total of approximately $325 million in cash
("Settlement Consideration"), which includes approximately $100
million relating to the settlement of intercompany amounts
allegedly due to Yarway. In exchange for the Settlement
Consideration, each of the Company Protected Parties will receive
the benefit of a release from Yarway and an injunction under
section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code permanently enjoining the
assertion of Yarway Asbestos Claims against those Parties. On
April 8, 2015, following the approval of the Plan by the required
number of Yarway's current asbestos claimants, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an order confirming the Plan. As a result, the Plan
has been filed with the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware ("District Court") and is awaiting
affirmation by the District Court. There have been no objections
filed with respect to the Plan. Upon the District Court's
affirmation of the Plan, Yarway and the Plan proponents will
schedule an effective date for the Plan, which is anticipated to
occur during the Company's third fiscal quarter.

On the effective date of the Plan, the Company and Yarway will pay
the Settlement Consideration and Yarway Asbestos Claims against
the Company Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. Yarway
is anticipated to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Yarway
Trust and, accordingly, would no longer be owned by or be part of
a consolidated group with the Company. As a result of the
agreement in principle to settle, the Company recorded a charge of
$225 million in Selling, general and administrative expenses in
the Consolidated Statement of Operations during the fourth fiscal
quarter of 2014.

As a result of filing the voluntary bankruptcy petition during the
third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected
loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway
Chapter 11 filing, which continues to represent the Company's best
estimate of its loss.

Tyco International PLC (Tyco), formerly Tyco International Ltd.,
is engaged in providing security products and services, fire
detection and suppression products and services, as well as life
safety products. The Company operates through three segments. The
North America Installation & Services and Rest of World
Installation & Services segments design, sell, install, service
and monitor electronic security systems and fire detection and
suppression systems. The Global Products segment designs,
manufactures and sells fire protection, security and life safety
products. The Company offers its products and services under
various brands, including Tyco, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul,
Simplex, Scott, and ADT (in jurisdictions outside of North
America). It serves the commercial, industrial, retail,
institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-United
States residential and small business markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Has 88 PI Cases at Feb. 15
--------------------------------------------------------
There were 88 asbestos-related personal injury cases against
GenCorp Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2015.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Illinois. There were 88 asbestos cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending as of February 28, 2015.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne-AMEC Trial Moved to Oct. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial date of the lawsuit between Gencorp Inc.'s Aerojet
Rocketdyne and AMEC, plc, is moved to October 19, 2015, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28,
2015.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the
business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the
defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs,
pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in
past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet
Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefore. Under
the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only
certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of
Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all
unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed
to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are
asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet
Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested
additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior
Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General
Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed
its answer to the complaint denying AMEC's allegations and
discovery is ongoing. AMEC contends it has incurred approximately
$3.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. The parties attended
a mediation session on December 9, 2014, and negotiations are
ongoing. The court continued the trial date to October 19, 2015,
to accommodate additional settlement negotiations and allow
Aerojet Rocketdyne to file a cross-complaint against AMEC. As of
February 28, 2015, the Company has accrued $0.2 million related to
this matter. None of the expenditures related to this matter are
recoverable from the U.S. government.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions in "Yates" Suit Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in an order
dated May 11, 2015, ruled on eight interrelated motions in limine
variously filed by defendants Ford Motor Company and Honeywell
International, Inc., regarding the admissibility of evidence that
post-dates plaintiff Graham Yates's last alleged exposure to
defendants' products.

Among other rulings, Judge Flanagan granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motions to exclude evidence post-dating Mr.
Yates's exposures.  The motions are granted as they pertain to the
plaintiffs' proposed use of the evidence to support a "continuing
duty to warn," and as the evidence consists of post-exposure
warnings and design changes. The motions are denied so far as they
seek to generally exclude all evidence which post-dates the
plaintiff's exposures.

The case is GRAHAM YATES and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, NO.
5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/3JunvRfrom Leagle.com.

Graham Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Becky Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Charles E. Soechting, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Esq. -- ckiger@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount
Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica Floyd Middlebrooks, Esq.,
Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G.
Warner, Esq. -- kwarner@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount
Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb, Esq. -- Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP, Addie K.S. Ries, Esq. --
aries@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP & Shepherd D. Wainger, Esq. --
swainger@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick,
LLP, Bruce T. Bishop, Willcox & Savage, PC, Holly A. Hempel,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Jason Larry Walters, Esq.
-- jwalters@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P.
Greene, Esq. -- kgreene@wilsav.com -- Willcox & Savage, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Compensation Benefits Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia, in a memorandum
decision dated May 7, 2015, affirmed the decision of the West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed a
Feb. 4, 2014, Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges
affirming the claims administrator's decision rejecting George A.
Vaughan's claim for workers' compensation benefits.

In this case, Mr. Vaughan was diagnosed with moderately
differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the left lung.  After
his diagnosis, he filed an application for workers' compensation
benefits alleging that he developed squamous cell carcinoma of the
lung following exposure to asbestos during the course of his
employment.

In affirming the decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals found that
the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of
any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the
result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a
material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record.

The case is GEORGE A. VAUGHAN, Claimant Below, Petitioner v. ALCAN
ROLLED PRODUCTS -- RAVENSWOOD, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent,
NO. 14-0817 (W. Va. Sup. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/hWJ5Npfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T, Bellsouth Win Dismissal of "Trauth" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pro se plaintiff Louis F. Trauth, Jr., filed a Complaint for
Damages against Avondale Shipyard, Inc., AT&T Corp., and BellSouth
Telecommunications, LLC, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos
while employed at Avondale and BellSouth.  Trauth alleges that he
was employed with Avondale from 1965-1969, and with BellSouth from
1969-1988.  On June 6, 2014, Trauth was diagnosed with asbestosis.
Trauth seeks recovery for physical injuries as well as mental
anguish.

AT&T and BellSouth filed motions to dismiss, which Judge Jay C.
Zainey of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted in an order and reasons dated May 7,
2015.

The case is LOUIS F. TRAUTH, JR. v. AVONDALE SHIPYARD, INC.
Section: "A" (3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1680 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Zainey's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vKLK13from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Wins Bids to Exclude Testimony in 2 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as defendant, filed three motions related to
the admissibility of expert testimony in two asbestos cases.  In
the first motion, the defendant seeks to exclude an opinion by the
plaintiffs' experts that "any exposure to asbestos, no matter how
slight, remote or insignificant, is a cause or substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs' diseases."  The
Defendant argues that the opinion is not "scientifically reliable"
and is therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702.  In
addition, the defendant says that the evidence is irrelevant and
unfairly prejudicial.  In the second motion, the defendant seeks
to exclude evidence related to asbestos experiments conducted by
William Longo.  In addition to arguing that the evidence is not
admissible under Rule 702, the defendant says that the plaintiffs
did not disclose the evidence properly and that the evidence is
both irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.  In the third motion,
the defendant seeks to exclude the opinions of Barry Castleman,
again on the ground that they are inadmissible under Rule 702.

Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, in a May 14, 2015, opinion and
order granted the Defendant's motion to exclude evidence that "any
exposure to asbestos, no matter how slight, remote or
insignificant, is a cause or substantial contributing factor in
causing plaintiffs' diseases."  Judge Crabb also granted the
Defendant's motion to exclude evidence related to asbestos
experiments conducted by William Longo.

Judge Crabb granted the Defendant's motion to exclude the
testimony of Barry Castleman, with respect to testimony related to
medical literature, but denied the motion with respect to
testimony related to other historical documents discussed in
Castleman's expert report.

The cases are GARY SUOJA, individually and as special
administrator for the estate of Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, v.
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, and BARBARA CONNELL, individually
and as special administrator for the estate of Daniel Connell,
Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, NOS. 99-CV-475-BBC,
05-CV-219-BBC (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/dNofP7from Leagle.com.

Barbara Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Erik Swanson, Cascino Vaughn Law
Offices.

Daniel Connell, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Erik Swanson, Cascino Vaughn Law
Offices.

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
Edward M. Casmere, Esq. -- ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin, LLP, Matthew John Fischer, Esq. --
mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Rachel Allison
Remke, Esq. -- rremke@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP &
Michael William Drumke, Esq., Hepler Broom LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Judgment in "Stiles" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated May 4, 2015, denied with leave to renew Cleaver-
Brooks, Inc.'s motion for a default judgment against SBC Holdings,
Inc., based on a third-party complaint seeking indemnity and/or
contribution in connection with claims for damages arising out of
injuries she allegedly suffered from asbestos exposure.

Judge Moulton ordered that upon renewal Cleaver-Brooks must
demonstrate facts sufficient to support a judgment that it would
be entitled to contribution if it is held liable for Louis Stiles'
asbestos injuries.  Cleaver-Brooks must further explain the
relationship and liabilities of the third-party and second third-
party defendants, Judge Moulton further ordered.

The case is LOUIS STILES and CORNELIA STILES Plaintiffs, v. AERCO
INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. CLEAVER-BROOKS INC., Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. PABST BREWING COMPANY as successor in interest
to JOS SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. CLEAVER-
BROOKS INC., Second Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SBC HOLDINGS, INC.
formerly known as STROH BREWING COMPANY, Second Third-Party
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190326/13 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/OW67Ocfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Speedy" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a May 12, 2015, memorandum and
order remanded to the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, the asbestos-related lawsuit styled SHANDI L. SPEEDY and
BILLY SPEEDY, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 15-CV-391-SMY-PMF (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Yandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/aeqpQLfrom
Leagle.com.

Shandi L. Speedy, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly L. Battley, Esq.
-- kbattley@mrhfmlaw.com -- Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd.

Billy Speedy, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly L. Battley, Maune
Raichle Hartley French & Mudd.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson,
Esq. -- dlj@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Melanie
E. Riley, Esq. -- mriley@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix
et al..

Eaton Aeroquip, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer
Snodgrass PC.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alex
Belotserkovsky, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Lisa A. LaConte, Heyl, Royster et al..
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
William D. Shultz, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Harco Laboratories, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Derek
Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Jerome C. Simon, Pitzer
Snodgrass, PC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole C.
Behnen, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra
N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Drew M Schilling,
Heyl Royster-Rockford, IL & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward M. Burns,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, LLC.

Kohler Co, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster
et al. & Kent L. Plotner, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary D. Rychnovsky,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC & Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Solar Turbines Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L.
Dickerson, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Steven P. Sanders,
Williams, Venker et al. & Michael B. Hunter, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Justin
Wallen, Kurowski Shultz LLC & William D. Shultz, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gates" Suit Remanded to Ala. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Steele of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in an order
dated May 14, 2015, granted a motion to remand to the Circuit
Court of Clarke County the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled THOMAS GATES, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0076-WS-N (S.D. Ala.), after
finding that the action now consists only of one FELA claim
against Norfolk Southern Railway Company.  A full-text copy of
Judge Steele's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Tf3Agpfrom
Leagle.com.

Thomas Gates, Plaintiff, represented by Grover Patterson Keahey,
Jr.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Defendant, represented by Steve
Alan Tucker, Esq. -- met@cabaniss.com -- Cabaniss, Johnston,
Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal & Matthew McDonnell Couch, Esq. --
mmc@cabaniss.com -- Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Criswell" Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Criswell, as the executor of the estate of Earl J.
Criswell, decedent, appeals from the orders of court granting
summary judgment in favor of Atlantic Richfield Company and
Sunoco, Inc.

This case involves negligence claims brought by Criswell under the
Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. Section 30104, against multiple defendants,
claiming that exposure to asbestos during his time as a member of
the Merchant Marine caused him to develop lung cancer.

Specifically, Criswell alleges negligence on the part of Atlantic
and Sunoco because they required the Decedent to work with
asbestos aboard their vessels when they knew it was hazardous to
his health and they did not warn him of this danger.  Following
the close of discovery, all defendants moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted Atlantic's and Sunoco's motions for
summary judgment only.  The claims against the remaining
defendants were settled prior to trial.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated May 18,
2015, reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial
court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to
Criswell and applied the wrong standard for causation for a
negligence claim under the Jones Act.

The case is TIMOTHY CRISWELL, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF EARL J.
CRISWELL, DEC'D, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY AND
SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), Appellees, NO. 2175 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/iiIAqg
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Underwriters' Post-Judgment Discovery Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents Equitas Insurance Limited and Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's of London ("Underwriters") sought relief from a final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), as
well as post-judgment discovery, alleging misconduct by Arrowood
Indemnity Company in procuring an arbitration award confirmed by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District in New York in
January 2014.  Arrowood opposed the motions.

In the 1980s, Arrowood began incurring liabilities as a result of
asbestos injury claims submitted by its policyholders.  At
Underwriters' insistence, it billed its claims to Underwriters on
an individual and per-year basis, which imposed a $1 million
retention for its total recovery per year.  In 2008, after almost
25 years of this billing practice, and after its review of the
contractual language at issue, Arrowood presented a number of its
asbestos claims to Underwriters under the Common Cause Coverage
provision.  The Underwriters contended that the First Advised
Clause required any Common Cause claims to be noticed during the
original contract period, namely the years 1967 and 1968.  They
denied Arrowood's claim.  The parties commenced arbitration in
October 2010, presided over by a three-arbitrator panel.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, in an opinion and order dated May
14, 2015, denied the Underwriters' motions, holding that the
Federal Arbitration Act prescribes a specific period during which
challenges to an arbitration award may be made based on misconduct
or fraud during the arbitration proceedings.  Permitting Rule
60(b)(3) challenges to confirmation judgments on the theory that
alleged misconduct in an arbitration proceeding "continued" into
the judgment proceeding upends the FAA's strong deference to the
process and substance of arbitration as a form of dispute
resolution, Judge Cote further held.

The case is ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, formerly known as ROYAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EQUITAS INSURANCE LIMITED,
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, (and Syndicates set
forth on Schedule A), Respondents, NO. 13CV7680 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.).
A full-text copy of Judge Cote's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/fOqCAmfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Lewin, Esq. -- rlewin@stroock.com -- Michele L. Jacobson,
Esq. -- mjacobson@stroock.com -- Beth K. Clark, Esq. --
bclark@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, New York, NY,
for petitioner Arrowood Indemnity Company, formerly known as Royal
Indemnity Company.

Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- Amy J. Kallal,
Esq. -- akallal@moundcotton.com -- Andrea Fort, Esq. --
Afort@moundcotton.com -- MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, New
York, NY, for respondents Equitas Insurance Limited, Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Widow's Benefits Claim Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in a memorandum
decision dated May 7, 2015, affirmed the decision of the West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed a
Jan. 31, 2014, order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges
denying a claim for dependent's benefits filed by a widow of a
former worker who died due to mesothelioma.

The case is JUDY MOORE, WIDOW OF CURTIS R. MOORE, Claimant Below,
Petitioner v. AKER OIL AND GAS US, LLC, Employer Below,
Respondent, NO. 14-0773 (W. Va. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/cjltO6from Leagle.com.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *