CAR_Public/130802.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 151

                             Headlines


A-1 FIRST CLASS: Court Junks Sher-Del Counterclaims in Wage Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Bernanke's Deposition in Greenberg Suit on Aug. 16
APPLE INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit By iPhone 4S Buyers
APPLE INC: Former Retail Employees File Wage Class Action
BERCHICCI IMPORTING: Recalls Igor Brand Gorgonzola Cheese

BP PLC: CEO Says Class Actions Only Benefit Attorneys
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settles Egg Products Antitrust Claims for $28MM
CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of Injured Soldiers' Class Action
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Gov't Ordered to Come Clean on Drug Risks
CHINA-BIOTICS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suit in New York

CITIBANK CREDIT: Merchants Appeal Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal
COMPASS ANIMAL: Recalls "Larry The Cable Guy" Brand Chips
COSMETIC WHOLESALE: Recalls 250 Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer
CRESTWOOD GAS: "Ginardi" Pollution Lawsuit Now Settled, Dismissed
CRESTWOOD GAS: "Bartlett" Pollution Lawsuit Settled, Dismissed

CRESTWOOD GAS: Plaintiffs Want Merger-Related Suits Combined
EI DU PONT: Hearing to Approve Imprelis Suit Accord on Sept. 27
FEDEX CORP: Defends Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues vs. Unit
FEDEX CORP: Still Defends Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Labor Lawsuit

FREEMANTLE NA: Ex-Contestants Accuse American Idol of Racial Bias
GOLD STAR: Recalls Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets in Oil
GROUPE DANONE: August 27 Deadline Set for Yogurt Product Claims
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery Has Commenced in Sinus Buster Suits
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has Reached Deal to Settle "Hoover" Suit

INA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 465 Firefly Inline Skates
INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Defends NYSE Euronext Merger Suits
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
KANEBO COSMETICS: Confirms Defects on Recalled Product

KMART CORP: To Settle Seating Class Action for $280,000
LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Wholey Peeled Cooked Tail 31/40 Count Shrimp
MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold to Spartan for Too Little, Suit Says

PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 19 Hearing in Securities Suit Set
R2J2 STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over Yaz-Related Robocalls
ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Suit
SEMILEDS CORP: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in New York
SOUTH COAST BREWING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime

SRO ENTERTAINMENT: Lawyer Won't Proceed With Salmon Festival Suit
ST. VINCENT: Dismissal of "Harris" and "Holbert" Suits Upheld
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Stays Chrome 6 Emission Lawsuits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Trial in Uno Sudden-Acceleration Suit Begins
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising

UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Larson" Suit
VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Western Family Brand Marinated Steak
ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Herring Fillet in Oil Due to Listeria

* Iowa Railroads Face Class Action Over Cedar Rapids Flooding
* Prepackaged Salad Mix Likely Source of Cyclospora Outbreak


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Wants Action Removal Date Moved to Nov. 18
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Nixes Garlock's Appeal in WR Grace Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Strikes $21MM Deal Over Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $100,000 Net of Insurance Recoveries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $227.9-Mil Liability as of June 29

ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Had $2.28B Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $847.5-Mil Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had 2,716 PI Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,633 Claims as of June 28

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Has 57 Pending "Filter" Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Corp. Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,045 Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Liability Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Has 52,000 PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,400 Pending Claims at June 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 12 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $298-Mil. Casualty Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Corp. Had $134-Mil Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Charges $50MM to Resolve Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reduction of Award for Victim's Family Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Flips Decision in PGE Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi-Cola's Suit v. Cooper Remains in Texas

ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane's Liability in "Keeney" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Crane in "Bone" Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic's PI Suit v. Courter Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's 8th Amendment Violation Claim Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Pipefitter's Claim Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Jensen" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz's NY Suit v. Blackmer Pump Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Old Thunder Bay Hotel Prompts Caution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Could Delay Marion County Jail Razing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Payout Halved Due to "Reduced Lifespan"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trailer Homes Need $11,500 for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Hospital, Contractor Over Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Former Chicopee Library Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearing Work Begins in Estes Park School Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Called to Garlock Estimation Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans at Risk of Fibro-Related Diseases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Awarded $1.5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $190MM to 5 Men Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 10,000 Sqm. of Queensland Bldgs.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Union Calls for Commercial Fibro Audit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Call for Fibro Removal in Kimberley Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seeks Transfer of Mass Tort Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Plymouth Courthouse Shuts After Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Closes Portion of Garlock Estimation Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Seek Inquest in Barnstable

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Release Info on Fibro & Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacksonville Lawsuit Claims Companies Knew Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potentially Lethal Dust Found in Carlisle Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Near Birmingham Youth Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roof Adjacent to Mizzi House to be Removed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neighbors Fear Fibro as A.C. Tears Down Eye Sore
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts Loss on Review of A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mines Name JMX to Lead Removal Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in November in Fibro Dumping Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Ex-Installation Engr's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haverhill Company Fined $3,000 Over Handling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Ministry Finds No Health Risks in Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Newsline Wants to Keep Garlock Trial Open


                             *********


A-1 FIRST CLASS: Court Junks Sher-Del Counterclaims in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BONILLA v. A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STOR., INC. was
commenced on February 5, 2013, to recover unpaid wages and
benefits that Plaintiffs allege they were statutorily and
contractually entitled to for the labor they furnished to
Defendants, including defendant Sher-Del Transfer and Relocation
Services, Inc., pursuant to contracts that Defendants entered into
with government entities. A First Amended Complaint was filed on
March 29, 2013. Defendant Sher-Del interposed an answer to the
First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims on April 9, 2013.

Plaintiffs moved to (1) dismiss Sher-Del's counterclaims pursuant
to CPLR Section 3211(a)(7) and to (2) extend the date to file
their motion for class certification until such time that a
preliminary conference has been convened, and the Court has set
dates to: (i) complete pre-class certification discovery; (ii) for
Plaintiffs to move for class certification, and; (iii) such other
actions that the Court may direct.

Sher-Del cross moved for an Order pursuant to CPLR Section
3211(a)(1) and (7) dismissing the complaint filed in the action as
against Sher-Del or in the alternative, converting the motion to
one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR Section 3211( c) and
granting dismissal in favor of Sher-Del.

Judge Eileen A. Rakower of the Supreme Court of New York County
granted the Plaintiffs' request and dismissed Shre-Del's
counterclaims. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their
motion for class certification is extended for 60 days from
July 17, 2013.

Judge Rakower also denied the Defendant's cross motion.

The Supreme Court ordered all parties to appear for their
scheduled conference at 80 Centre Street, Room 327, on
September 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

The case is SCOTT BONILLA and ROBERT AVELA, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1 FIRST CLASS
MOVING & STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL LABY and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND
RELOCATION SERVICES, INC., and/or other entities affiliated or
controlled by A-1 FIRST CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1
FIRST CLASS MOVING & STORAGE, INC., and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND
RELOCATION SERVICES, INC., MICHAEL LABY, Plaintiff, v. A-1 FIRST
CLASS VIKING MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A-1 FIRST CLASS MOVING &
STORAGE, INC., MICHAEL LABY, and SHER-DEL TRANSFER AND RELOCATION
SERVICES, INC. Defendants, 2013 NY Slip Op 31645(U).

A copy of the Supreme Court's July 17, 2013 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/KXhoE1 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN INT'L: Bernanke's Deposition in Greenberg Suit on Aug. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg may very well still lose his
constitutional challenge to the 2008 government bailout of
American International Group Inc., as many initially predicted.
But the former AIG chairman will be able to say he put one of the
bailout's architects, Ben Bernanke, on the hot seat.

Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled on
July 29 that Mr. Greenberg's lawyers at Boies, Schiller & Flexner
can depose the Federal Reserve chairman.  The judge ruled that
Mr. Bernanke's testimony is "highly relevant" to the central issue
in the case -- namely, whether the terms attached to AIG's $182
billion rescue package were so onerous that they trampled on the
due process rights of AIG shareholders like Greenberg.

"Because of Mr. Bernanke's personal involvement in the decision-
making process to bail out A.I.G., it is improbable that plaintiff
would be able to obtain the same testimony or evidence from other
persons or sources," Judge Wheeler wrote in his 4-page order.
"Indeed, the court cannot fathom having to decide this
multibillion-dollar claim without the testimony of such a key
government decision-maker."

The U.S. Department of Justice had opposed the deposition,
unsuccessfully arguing that Mr. Greenberg's legal team failed to
show the requisite "extraordinary circumstance" for compelling
testimony of a high-ranking government official.

The 88-year old Greenberg, who retained a large stake in AIG after
his ouster eight years ago, brought the case in late 2011 through
his company Starr International Co. Inc.  He's represented by a
Boies Schiller team led by David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- as
well as by John Gardiner -- john.gardiner@skadden.com -- of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.  They've pegged damages in
the tens of billions of dollars.

The lawsuit gained steam in March, when Judge Wheeler certified
two classes of AIG shareholders.  And on June 26 Judge Wheeler
denied the government's final motion to dismiss the shareholder
claims, though he did preclude Mr. Greenberg from pleading a
shareholder derivative theory.

Depositions are slated to begin on August 6.  Mr. Bernanke's
deposition is tentatively scheduled for August 16 at the
Washington, D.C., office of Boies Schiller.  Judge Wheeler has
indicated that he will attend.  Discovery closes on December 20.
If the case survives summary judgment, trial is expected to be set
for September 2014.

"We are pleased that the Court has permitted us to take
Mr. Bernanke's deposition," Boies Schiller partner Alanna
Rutherford -- arutherford@bsfllp.com -- said in a statement.  "The
Court concluded, as we have believed all along, that 'Mr. Bernanke
is a key witness in this case, and that his testimony will be
highly relevant to the issues presented."


APPLE INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit By iPhone 4S Buyers
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Apple customers dissatisfied with the iPhone 4S's "Siri" function
must specify how the voice-activated feature allegedly fails to
work as advertised, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken dismissed a federal class
action against Apple over its Siri feature, but said the
plaintiffs could amend their complaint "to remedy the
deficiencies."

The iPhone 4S, launched by Apple in October 2011, was the first
Apple device to include "Siri," a voice-activated "intelligent
assistant that helps you get things done just by asking,"
according to Apple's press release.

The company's advertisements and press releases detailed how Siri
could respond to spoken commands and questions, such as providing
current traffic conditions and reminding the user to call a
specific contact.

At an Apple press conference unveiling Siri, a presenter asked
Siri several questions, including the time in Paris and whether
there were any Greek restaurants in Palo Alto, Calif., and
received "prompt and appropriate responses," according to the
ruling.

Apple's "extensive multimillion-dollar nationwide marketing
campaign" for the iPhone 4S paid off, according to the ruling, and
about 90 percent of the iPhones sold in the first fiscal quarter
of 2012 were 4Ss.

But not all buyers were enthralled with the new voice-activated
assistant.

Lead plaintiff Frank M. Fazio filed a class action against Apple
last March, claiming Siri did not work as advertised.

He said he bought the phone based on Apple's ads representing the
Siri feature as easy to use and capable of understanding spoken
commands, but claimed it gave him wrong answers and did not
understand his questions.

Fazio said Apple deceived consumers into buying what was
essentially a more expensive version of the iPhone 4.  He also
accused Apple of exploiting people's trust in its brand to
convince them that the Siri function was "worth paying the extra
money to have," when Apple knew Siri was defective.

Apple sought dismissal, saying the plaintiffs failed to
specifically identify enough statements in its commercials as
false and misleading to proceed in court.  It added that many of
the statements the plaintiffs did identify were not actionable.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in San Francisco sided with
Apple Tuesday and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

"Apple is correct that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficiently
how [its] statements were misrepresentative or fraudulent, and how
Siri failed to perform as advertised," Wilken wrote.  "For
example, plaintiffs do not make clear in the [complaint] whether
their theory is that the advertisements were misleading, because
Siri never responds to questions or is always inaccurate, does so
more slowly than shown in the ads, uses more data than advertised
or is less consistent than shown in the ads.

"They have not explained what exactly Apple led consumers to
believe in the commercials about Siri's performance, through what
particular statements, nor have they stated what about these
representations was in fact false.  They have not specified
precisely how Siri failed to meet the representations that they
claim Apple made, what the truth about Siri's performance actually
was and how Apple knew or should have known that these
representations were false.  These deficiencies deprive Apple of
the opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct that
plaintiffs make."

Wilken dismissed claims of fraud and unfair competition for the
same reason, saying the plaintiffs failed to identify "which
commercials or other misleading advertisements they each relied
upon in purchasing their devices."

Breach-of-warranty claims also failed, Wilken said, because the
plaintiffs did not notify Apple about the alleged breach within a
reasonable time before filing suit, and they failed to show that
the iPhone 4S was inherently unfit for its intended purpose.

"Plaintiffs admitted that the iPhone 4S is at bottom a phone," she
wrote.  "Plaintiffs' argument here, that the ordinary purpose of
the iPhone 4S is to use the Siri feature to send messages and
complete other tasks is not consistent with that argument."

She added that the unjust enrichment claim could no longer be
supported, "because all of the claims that could form a theory of
recovery have been dismissed."

However, Wilken said the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to
fix the pleading "deficiencies."  If they do so, she gave Apple 14
days to respond.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
                  cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Barber, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  kbarber@rgrdlaw.com
                  pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Lynn Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich Paul Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Martin Stuart Bakst, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS E. MOSELEY
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Sixteenth Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 981-1400
          E-mail: msb@mbakst.com

               - and -

          David Eldridge Bower, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID E. BOWER
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew S. Kahn, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8212
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: mkahn@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Gail E. Lees, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
          E-mail: glees@gibsondunn.com

The case is Fazio v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-01127-CW, in
the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District
(Oakland).


APPLE INC: Former Retail Employees File Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bostic, writing for Apple Insider, reports that former
retail employees from Apple Stores in New York and Los Angeles
have formed a class action suit against the iPhone maker, claiming
that the company's anti-theft policies amounted to unpaid work to
the tune of $1,500 per employee per year.

The filing for the suit alleges that "Apple has engaged and
continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that
have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States
of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation."  At
the center of the plaintiffs' case is the anti-theft procedure
Apple requires its employees to go through.

At the end of a shift, as well as when clocking out to leave for a
meal break, Apple's hourly retail employees must submit to
"personal package and bag searches," during which the employees
are off-the-clock.  The complaint notes that these checks are
"significant, integral, indispensable . . . and done solely for
Apple's benefit to prevent employee pilferage."

As the employees were hourly and the checks only occurred when
they were off the clock, they were not compensated for Apple's
security procedures.  The complaint claims the employees waited
typically between 10 and 15 minutes and the end of every shift, as
well as another five without compensation prior to going off for
"uncompensated meal breaks."

"During any given week," the complaint reads, "[one plaintiff]
worked approximately 50 minutes to 1.5 hours of uncompensated
overtime.  By conservative calculations, this equated over the
course of one year to an aggregate amount of approximately $1,400
in uncompensated hours."

Included in the class action are "[a]ll Apple Hourly Employees who
worked in an Apple, Inc. retail store in the United States, who
are or were employed within the three years preceding the the
filing of this action by the Defendant, and who were: (a) not
compensated for off-the-clock time spent waiting in security
screening lines and undergoing personal package and bag searches
before being allowed to leave the premises; and/or (b) were not
fully compensated for this time worked over forty hours per week
at overtime rates."  It further alleges that Apple's "unlawful
conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent" as well as
"willful and in bad faith."

Apple's security checkout policy for employees is not entirely
unique among retailers, specifically among those dealing in
electronic devices.  Game retailer GameStop, for instance, has had
a similar policy for some time, one in which employees search each
other's bags and person following the completion of closing
duties.  The pocket and bag checks at that retailer, though, are
done while employees are still on the clock.

The new lawsuit seeks certification as a class action suit,
recompense for the plaintiffs and other members of the class in
the amount of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid
waiting time.  It also seeks "a declaratory judgment that the
practices complained of herein are unlawful . . . and injunctive
relief requiring termination or modification of the unlawful
practices."

The case -- Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle v. Apple, Inc. -- was
filed on July 25 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury
trial.

Apple's retail operations have grown in popularity along with its
products, and Apple Retail now represents a significant portion of
the company's revenue intake.  They are among the most heavily
trafficked retail spaces in the world, with yearly visitor counts
on the level of popular theme parks.

All along, though, the state of employees working in Apple stores
has been an issue of contention.  Last year, The New York Times
published an expose on Apple's retail outlets, revealing that
employees were making "average pay" according to the standards of
retail, but lower than do employees in some other less profitable
corporations.

An internal interview conducted by Apple found that pay was a
major concern among employees.  Staff in the retail outlets earn
between $9 and $15 per hour, while Geniuses make roughly $30 per
hour.


BERCHICCI IMPORTING: Recalls Igor Brand Gorgonzola Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 30, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Berchicci Importing Ltd.
Distribution:                         Alberta, British Columbia,
                                      Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
                                      Ontario, Quebec, Nova
                                      Scotia, May be National
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products:

   Brand name    Common name              Size     UPC
   ----------    -----------              ----     ---
   Igor          "Gorgonzola Dolce"       1.5 kg   2443880 014541
   Igor          "Gorgonzola Piccante"    1.5 kg   N/A
   Igor          "Gorgonzola Dolce DOP"   200 g    8 021398 256802

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Berchicci Importing
Ltd. are warning the public not to consume the Igor brand
Gorgonzola Cheese described above because the products may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/OHRG8x

Also affected by this alert are the above products which may have
been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers.
Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if they
have the affected products.

These products have been distributed in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.  However,
they may have been distributed in other provinces.

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

The importer, Berchicci Importing Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


BP PLC: CEO Says Class Actions Only Benefit Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits like the ones BP plc is facing in the U.S.
are a "business model" that serve only to benefit attorneys, the
chief executive of BP told CNBC.

"The biggest beneficiaries that I can see broadly are plaintiffs'
attorneys themselves, who are not just collecting fees on behalf
of claims that have been submitted but also their own firms which
are submitting large claims," Bob Dudley said on July 30.

His comments came on the day BP said its $20 billion oil spill
compensation fund has almost run out, after provision for costs
leaped by $1.4 billion in the second quarter.

The British oil company has just $300 million left in the fund,
and the deadline to file an economic loss claim among Gulf coast
businesses -- which make up the bulk of claims -- is not until
April next year.

BP has said claims beyond what the fund can pay will be taken
straight out of future profits.  The company has also increased
its overall provision for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to $42.4
billion from $42.2 billion.

BP shares fell 4.5% in London on July 30, before recovering to
close around 3.4% lower.

Mr. Dudley said BP had no problems with paying for "legitimate"
claims but that the agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
that allowed people to claim for compensation was being
misinterpreted.

"This is not right, it's not good for American business . . .
that's why we're vigorously protesting it.  It happens all the
time in the U.S. with this class action plaintiff system which is
an industry and a business model."

The oil major is locked in a legal battle over compensation
payouts with the administrator Patrick Juneau.  It says Mr. Juneau
is paying out "fictitious" claims due to a misinterpretation of
the settlement.

BP also faces a resumption of its trial on civil charges in
September.

Stripping out the one-time charges, the company reported second
quarter profit from operations declined 24% from the year-ago
period, missing expectations.

Adjusted net profit came in at $2.712 billion compared with
expectations of $3.410 billion and $3.6 billion a year ago.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settles Egg Products Antitrust Claims for $28MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. on July 23, 2013, issued a press release
announcing that it had reached an agreement in principle to settle
all direct purchaser class claims against the Company 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, according to the company's June 23, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Cal-Maine Foods reached an agreement in principle to settle all
direct purchaser class claims against the Company. Pursuant to the
agreement, reached in the In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation matter pending in Pennsylvania federal court, Cal-Maine
will settle all direct purchaser class claims with a single $28
million payment.

"[The company] remain[s] confident that the company's conduct has
at all times been lawful, appropriate and fair to the company's
customers. The largest retailers and egg buyers in the country,
including many of the company's customers, in fact, were fully
aware of, and explicitly supported, the industry-wide animal
welfare guidelines challenged in this litigation. And, the USDA
was fully aware of, and explicitly supported, these animal welfare
guidelines as well as all the other conduct the plaintiffs
challenged," said Dolph Baker, chairman, president and chief
executive officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.

"[The company was] able to negotiate a settlement which would
eliminate most of [the company's] exposure in the antitrust
litigation against the Company for an amount that [the company]
believe[s] is in the best interest of the shareholders, employees,
customers and consumers. It significantly reduces the distraction,
expense, exposure and inconvenience of protracted litigation and
potentially multiple appeals, and allows [the company] to focus on
executing the long-term strategy of [the company's] business."

The terms of the settlement must be formally documented and are
subject to approval by the court following notice to all class
members. The Company will record a pre-tax charge in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2013 of approximately $28 million with respect
to the settlement, which amounts to $17 million, $0.71 per basic
share, after tax. Cal-Maine does not expect other provisions
associated with the settlement to have a material impact on its
results of operations. While the Company expects the settlement
will receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that
the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties.

The plaintiffs in the non-class cases that direct purchasers have
filed against the Company may elect to participate in the
settlement or to opt out and pursue their individual claims. The
settlement does not affect the class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers. These non-class cases and the indirect
purchaser class actions also allege that the Company and certain
other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in an effort to raise egg prices. Cal-
Maine intends to continue to vigorously defend the remaining cases
and believes it has strong defenses.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in the production,
grading, packing and sale of fresh shell eggs, including
conventional, cage-free, organic and nutritionally-enhanced eggs.
The Company, which is headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, is
the largest producer and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the
United States and sells the majority of its shell eggs in
approximately 29 states across the southwestern, southeastern,
mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States.


CANADA: Seeks Dismissal of Injured Soldiers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dene Moore, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that lawyers
for the federal government are asking a British Columbia judge to
dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by current and former
soldiers injured in Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan, saying
Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received
under its controversial New Veterans Charter.

The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new
charter, and the changes it brought to the compensation regime for
Canadian Forces members, violates the constitution and the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.

That claim is "unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an
abuse of process," argue lawyers for the federal Attorney General,
who were in B.C. Supreme Court last week asking a judge to dismiss
the case.

"In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert
the existence of a 'social covenant,' a public law duty, and a
fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government," Jasvinder
S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice
Department, said in an application filed with the court.

The lawsuit invokes the "honour of the Crown," a concept that has
been argued in aboriginal rights claims.

"The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the
representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the
claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they
should be struck out in their entirety."

Each of the six current and former soldiers named in the lawsuit
has received a pension and other compensation from the Department
of Veterans Affairs, including lump sum payments ranging from
C$41,000 to nearly c$261,000, the document said.

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

Among the soldiers named in the suit is Maj. Mark Douglas
Campbell, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in
Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In June 2008, Mr. Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess
Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improved
explosive device and Taliban ambush.  He lost both legs above the
knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured
eardrum.  He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and
post-traumatic stress disorder.

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

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

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

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The federal government application says policy decisions of the
government and legislation passed by Parliament are not subject to
review by the courts.

"The basic argument that they're making is that Parliament can do
what it wants," said Don Sorochan, the soldiers' lawyer.

He said he receives calls almost daily from soldiers affected by
the changes, and thousands ultimately could be involved.

Mr. Sorochan, who is handling the case for free, said he doesn't
believe the objective of the legislation was to save money at the
expense of injured soldiers, but that's what's happened.

"When the legislation was brought in it was believed by the
politicians involved -- and I've talked to several of them, in all
parties -- that they were doing a good thing," Mr. Sorochan said.

"But anybody that can objectively look at what is happening to
these men and women who have served us, can't keep believing
that."


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Gov't Ordered to Come Clean on Drug Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick McCann reports that the
government must come clean about the hazards of drug experiments
to which it subjected Vietnam veterans, a federal judge ruled.

Vietnam Veterans of America filed a class action against the Army
and CIA in 2009, claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been
used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip.

The soldiers say they were administered at least 250, and perhaps
as many as 400, types of drugs, including Sarin, one of the most
deadly drugs known, as well as amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard
gas, phosgene gas and LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs that could control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

The veterans claimed that some soldiers died, and others suffered
seizures and paranoia.

They said the CIA knew it had to conceal the tests from "enemy
forces" and the "American public in general" because revealing it
"would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic
circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its
mission."

After two failed attempts to dismiss the action, the defendants
succeeded last year in getting claims against Attorney General
Eric Holder and the CIA dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the plaintiffs class
action status last September, which could make thousands of
veterans eligible for relief.

The crux of the veterans' argument has been that Administrative
Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test
subjects and to provide them with medical care.

In the years since the experiments, the government defendants say
they have made efforts to contact test subjects and provide them
with notice.

For instance, the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
Affairs put some information about the tests on its public Web
site, including a hotline for additional information.

Both the veterans groups and the government defendants moved for
summary judgment.  Judge Wilken partly granted the veterans'
motion Wednesday.

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
she wrote.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

Wilken was not convinced, however, that the government owes the
veterans additional medical care not already available to them
from the Veterans' Administration.

"Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication that sovereign
immunity has not been waived with regard to this claim because
plaintiffs and the class members can seek medical care through the
DVA and challenge any denial of care through the statutory scheme
prescribed by Congress," the 72-page opinion states.

The government defendants also moved for judgment on the
plaintiffs' constitutional claims for notice and health care.  The
veterans did not move for judgment on those claims.

"Plaintiffs rely on cases in which courts have held that agencies
are bound to follow their own regulations and that failure to do
so may violate the due process clause," Wilken wrote.  "However,
defendants are correct that such a failure does not always amount
to a constitutional violation."

The judge vacated a final pretrial conference and upcoming trial,
and ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed injunction and
judgment to comply with the court's order.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin French Patterson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6818
          E-mail: bpatterson@mofo.com

               - and -

          Eugene G. Illovsky, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: eillovsky@mofo.com

               - and -

          James P. Bennett, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7169
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: jbennett@mofo.com

               - and -

          Stacey Michelle Sprenkel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6040
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: ssprenkel@mofo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua Edward Gardner, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 305-7583
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
          E-mail: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Brigham John Bowen, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-6289
          E-mail: Brigham.Bowen@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Kimberly L. Herb, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 305-8356
          E-mail: Kimberly.L.Herb@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Lily Sara Farel, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 353-7633
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
          E-mail: lily.farel@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Ryan B. Parker, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 514-4336
          E-mail: ryan.parker@usdoj.gov

The case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the
U.S. District Court for the California Northern District
(Oakland).


CHINA-BIOTICS: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
China-Biotics, Inc., is defending itself against a consolidated
shareholder lawsuit pending in New York, according to the
Company's July 12, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2013.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in three putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mohapatra
v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the
"Mohapatra case"), and two in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et
al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Hill case", and Casper v.
Jinan, et al., No. 12-cv-4202 (S.D.N.Y.), the "Casper case").

After certain shareholders filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff, the plaintiff in the Mohapatra case voluntarily
dismissed its case and the plaintiff in the Hill case, together
with another shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs.  The
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege
that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements
or failing to disclose certain material information regarding,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations,
and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and
quantity of the Company's retail outlets.  The lead plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's
securities between July 10, 2008, and August 27, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead.  The
court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim.  On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new
allegations for the Section 11 claim.  On February 27, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim.
Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the
court.  The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

In the Casper case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making material misstatements and seeks to represent a
class of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between
February 9, 2011, and July 1, 2011.  On October 18, 2012, the Hill
case and the Casper case were consolidated, but no consolidated
amended complaint has yet been filed.  The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.

China-Biotics, Inc. -- http://www.chn-biotics.com/-- is engaged
in the research, development, production, marketing and
distribution of probiotics products, which are products that
contain live microbial food supplements that beneficially affect
the host by improving its intestinal microbial balance.  The
Company is headquartered in Shanghai, China.


CITIBANK CREDIT: Merchants Appeal Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several large merchants and associations have appealed from the
court's preliminary approval of the proposed class settlements in
the antitrust litigation over interchange fees, according to
Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust's July 15, 2013, Form 10-D
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In regards to the putative class actions captioned IN RE PAYMENT
CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
numerous merchants, including several large national merchants,
have opted out of and/or objected to the class settlement.  To
date, five opt out lawsuits involving over one hundred merchants
have been filed, one of which names Citigroup and certain of its
subsidiaries, including Citibank, N.A., as a defendant (7-Eleven,
Inc., et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., 12 CV 4442 (S.D.N.Y.).  In
addition, several large merchants and associations have appealed
from the court's preliminary approval of the proposed class
settlements.

Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Citibank Credit Card
Issuance Trust has issued Class A notes, Class B notes and Class C
notes of the Citiseries pursuant to an Indenture between the
issuance trust and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
trustee.  The issuance trust's primary asset -- and its primary
source of funds for the payment of principal of and interest on
the notes -- is a collateral certificate issued by Citibank Credit
Card Master Trust I to the issuance trust.  Citibank, N.A., is the
Depositor and Managing Beneficiary of the issuance trust and as
the depositor and servicer of the master trust.


COMPASS ANIMAL: Recalls "Larry The Cable Guy" Brand Chips
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 26, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Compass Animal Health Inc.
Distribution:                         Alberta, British Columbia,
                                      Manitoba, Ontario,
                                      Saskatchewan, May be
                                      National
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products: Larry The Cable Guy brand Buffalo Wing Flavored
                   Tater Chips

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Compass Animal
Health Inc. are warning people with allergies to mustard not to
consume the Larry the Cable Guy brand products.  The affected
products contain mustard which is not declared on the label.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/ERkoeB

These products have been distributed in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan.  However, they may have been
distributed in other provinces.

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

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard.

The importer, Compass Animal Health Inc., Edmonton, AB, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


COSMETIC WHOLESALE: Recalls 250 Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 26, 2013
Posting date:                         July 26, 2013
Type of communication:                Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                          Electronics
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34767

Affected products: Tourmaline Ionic Hair Dryer

The recall involves the "trinite professional" tourmaline ionic
hair dryer identified by model TRI 801.  The hair dryer is black
and white in colour with "trinite professional" written on the
haft of the product.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/NbqkF6

It has been determined that the identified products are not
authorized to bear the cETL (Intertek) certification mark on the
unit or the cUL (Underwriters Laboratories) certification mark on
the cord.

Cosmetic Wholesale and Health Canada have received one report of
the hair dryer smoking/sparking when the power was turned on.  No
injuries were reported.

Approximately 250 units of the recalled hair dryers were sold at
Winners and Marshalls (TJX Canada) stores in Canada.

The recalled hair dryers were manufactured in China and sold from
October 1st to 18th, 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Viso Trading Inc.
                    China

   Importer         Cosmetic Wholesale
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled hair dryers immediately
and return them to the retailer for a full refund.


CRESTWOOD GAS: "Ginardi" Pollution Lawsuit Now Settled, Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The pollution lawsuit Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et
al. that names as defendant Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC was
already settled, according to Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's
Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 and 2011
and for the three years ended December 31, 2012 filed as Exhibit
99.1 of Inergy L.P.'s July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier
Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against Frontier Gas
Services, LLC, Chesapeake, BHP, Kinder Morgan Treating LP and
Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' operations polluted the
atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases,
chemicals, and compounds and the facilities created excessive
noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance. On
June 27, 2012, this case was settled and dismissed. The settlement
did not have a material impact on the company's results of
operations or financial condition.


CRESTWOOD GAS: "Bartlett" Pollution Lawsuit Settled, Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The pollution lawsuit George Bartlett, et al., v. Frontier Gas
Services, LLC, et al. Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC was already
settled, according to Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's Consolidated
Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the
three years ended December 31, 2012 filed as Exhibit 99.1 of
Inergy L.P.'s July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, George
Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was filed
in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Arkansas against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake, Kinder
Morgan Treating LP and Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' operations polluted the
atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases,
chemicals, and compounds and the facilities created excessive
noise levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance. On
September 17, 2012, this case was settled and dismissed. The
settlement did not have a material impact on the company's results
of operations or financial condition.


CRESTWOOD GAS: Plaintiffs Want Merger-Related Suits Combined
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities suit challenging the merger of
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP and Inergy L.P. filed a motion to
consolidate four cases, according to Exhibit 99.1 of Inergy L.P.'s
July 23, 2013 Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The exhibit contains
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC's Consolidated Financial Statements
as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the three years ended
December 31, 2012.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood-
Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas:

     (i) Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No.
         4:13-cv-01528);

    (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et al.
         (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599);

   (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al.
         (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and

    (iv) Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case
         No. 4:13-cv-01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court,
         Hawley v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case
         No. 8689-VCL).

All of the cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC,
Crestwood Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream,
L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants.

All of the suits are brought by a purported holder of common units
of Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood. The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to
holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an
inadequate process.

The lawsuits further allege that Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream,
L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted
the Crestwood directors in the alleged breach of their fiduciary
duties. The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief
enjoining the merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated,
rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of
plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, (iv) the accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all
damages caused by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable
relief as the court deems just and proper.

Certain of the actions also assert claims of inadequate disclosure
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the Elliot case also names Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
as an alleged aider and abettor. The plaintiff in the Hawley
action in Delaware filed a motion for expedited proceedings but
subsequently withdrew that motion. The plaintiffs in the Knoll,
Podell, Cooper, and Steven Elliot LLC actions filed a motion to
consolidate these four cases. These lawsuits are at a preliminary
stage. Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the other defendants
believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.


EI DU PONT: Hearing to Approve Imprelis Suit Accord on Sept. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
A September 27, 2013 final approval hearing is set in the
settlement of a suit filed against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company over its Imprelis herbicide, according to the company's
July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The company has received claims and been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis herbicide caused damage
to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis were suspended in August 2011
and the product was last applied during the 2011 spring
application season. The lawsuits seeking class action status have
been consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In February 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement. The settlement incorporates the company's
existing claims process and provides certain additional relief.
The proposed settlement class includes affected property owners
and lawn care companies who do not "opt out" of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, DuPont will pay about $7 in plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is providing a
warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use of Imprelis
on class members' properties through May 2015.

The settlement notification process began on March 25, 2013 and
ended on June 28, 2013 which was also the last day to "opt out" of
the settlement or file a new claim. DuPont will not exercise its
right to cancel the settlement based on the number of opt-outs.
The court has scheduled the final approval hearing on September
27, 2013.


FEDEX CORP: Defends Suits Over Owner-Operator Issues vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend a subsidiary against
lawsuits and proceedings alleging that its owner-operators should
be treated as employees, according to the Company's July 15, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended May 31, 2013.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is involved in numerous class-
action lawsuits (including 31 that have been certified as class
actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other
administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of 20 states.  The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all
of these 20 cases.  The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the
Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion
that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness
of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two
questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the
classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under
the Kansas Wage Payment Act.  The other 19 cases that are before
the Seventh Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas
Supreme Court.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits.  Three
of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The other five remain pending in their respective
district courts.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that its independent contractor model will be upheld.  Adverse
determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent
contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain
of the Company's owner-operators and their drivers to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-
hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit
liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in
certain jurisdictions.  The Company believes that FedEx Ground's
owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors
and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the
company's independent contractors.  While it is reasonably
possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such
changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's
owner-operators could be material, the Company cannot yet
determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss.  A
number of factors contribute to this.  The number of plaintiffs in
these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and
others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still
ongoing.  In addition, the parties have conducted only very
limited discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from
plaintiff to plaintiff.  Further, the range of potential loss
could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of
certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on
evidentiary issues.  In any event, the Company does not believe
that a material loss is probable in these matters.

In addition, the Company is defending contractor-model cases that
are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation,
three of which have been certified as class actions.  These cases
are in varying stages of litigation, and the Company does not
expect to incur a material loss in any of these matters.

FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package
specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door
overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground
transportation system.  FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


FEDEX CORP: Still Defends Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour
violations.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other
things, that they were forced to work "off the clock," were not
paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits.
The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.  The Company does not believe that a
material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these
matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 15, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended May 31, 2013.

FedEx Corporation -- http://www.fedex.com/-- operates a package
specialty air freight service in the U.S. offering door-to-door
overnight delivery by operating its own integrated air-ground
transportation system.  FedEx was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Fleetmatics Group PLC to dismiss a labor lawsuit is
pending before the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, according to the company's July 23, 2013,
Amendment No. 1 to Form F-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20.

The company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on September 13, 2012, U.S.
Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case
No. 8:12-CV-2079. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on
September 20, 2012.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and
changed the case caption to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S.
Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.

The amended complaint alleges that the company intercepted,
recorded, disclosed, and used thousands of telephone calls in
violation of Florida Statutes Section 934.03. The amended
complaint seeks certification of a putative class of all
individuals and businesses residing in Florida who spoke with any
representatives of the company's offices in Florida on the
telephone and had their telephone conversations recorded without
their consent or advance notice, from the date of the earliest
recording by the company through the present.

The amended complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorney fees, costs and interest. Florida Statutes Section 934.10
permits an aggrieved person to recover "liquidated damages
computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or
$1,000, whichever is higher."

The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 18,
2012; plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 1, 2012; and the
company filed a reply on June 4, 2013, after the court granted
leave to do so.

The company's motion to dismiss is pending before the court. Given
the early procedural stages of this matter and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss, if any, at this time, but there
can be no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, financial condition,
operating results, and cash flows.


FREEMANTLE NA: Ex-Contestants Accuse American Idol of Racial Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that "American
Idol" singles out black contestants for humiliation by
disqualifying them publicly in promotions, 10 former contestants
claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Jaered N. Andrews sued American Idol Productions
and its producers, sponsors and network associates, alleging
employment discrimination and interference with prize contracts.

Among the many defendants are Freemantle N.A., Fox Broadcasting,
Ford Motors, Coca-Cola, AT&T, and Nigel Lythgoe.

In the 434-page lawsuit, Andrews claims that high-ranking black
contestants have been booted off the show for being witness to a
murder, for admitting having taken taking topless photos that can
no longer be found, and for having an arrest record.  But white
contestants in similar circumstances were allowed to continue
competing, and received support.

"Over the course of the show's eleven year history, the adverse
action of being 'officially disqualified' from American Idol was
reserved exclusively for black contestants, and more specifically,
black male contestants," the lawsuit states, in its 1,747th
paragraph.

"As a statistical matter, the severe disparity between 15
publicized disqualifications of black American Idol contestants
vs. 0 publicized disqualifications of white (or non-black)
American Idol contestants would be highly significant even if the
contestant pool were divided down the middle at 50/50.  But black
contestants only comprised about 28 percent of the contestant
pool.  There can only be one explanation for this glaring
disparity in the actual numbers of black vs. white
disqualifications: race."

The class claims the defendants "engaged in a conscious effort to
perpetuate false stereotypes about African-Americans."

For example, "From April 2002 through at least Jan. 25, 2013,
Enterprise Defendants engaged in an unlawful policy or practice of
utilizing the criminal arrest information (and other confidential
information) obtained form contestant background checks as a form
of commercial advertising or promotional technique to draw
audiences for the American Idol television program.

"From April 2002 through March 2012, it was the standard operating
procedure for Enterprise Defendants to only publish condemn top-
ranking black American Idol contestants.

"Enterprise Defendants engaged in an unlawful policy of
humiliating black American Idol contestants through the
dissemination of their confidential data to media outlets," the
complaint states.

The complaint classifies the defendants into four divisions,
Production-, Network-, Overseer-, and Sponsor-Defendants.
Enterprise Defendants include Production, Network and Overseer
defendants.

The plaintiffs are Jaered Andrews, Cory Clark, Donnie Williams,
Terrell Brittenum, Derrell Brittenum, Thomas Daniels, Akron
Watson, Chris Golightly, Jacob John Smalley and Ju'Not Joyner.

The defendants are FremantleMedia NA Inc., American Idol
Productions Inc., 19 Entertainment Ltd., Core Media Group Inc.,
21st Century Fox Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company Inc., Ford Motor
Co. Inc.; Coca-Cola Company Inc., AT&T; Nigel Lythgoe and Ken
Warwick.

The class seeks $250 million.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James H. Freeman, Esq.
          JH FREEMAN LAW
          1515 Broadway, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 931-8535
          Facsimile: (212) 496-5870
          E-mail: james@jhfreemanlaw.com

The case is Andrews, et al. v. Fremantlemedia N.A., Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-05174-NRB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


GOLD STAR: Recalls Rybacka Wies Brand Herring Fillets in Oil
------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Star Smoked Fish Corp., located at 570 Smith Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11231, is recalling Rybacka Wies Brand Herring
Fillets In Oil "Matjes Sledz w oleju" due to contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others
with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy persons may suffer
only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled product is packaged in 17.64oz/500 grams plastic
containers and has an expiration date of 10/31/13 stamped on the
back of the container.  The UPC Number is 021 143241228.  The
product was sold nationwide.  It is a product of the USA.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/uJEBZT

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who purchased Rybacka Wies Brand Herring
Fillets in Oil/"Matjes Sledz w oleju" should not consume it and
should return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with any
questions may contact the company directly at 718-522-5480.


GROUPE DANONE: August 27 Deadline Set for Yogurt Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grocery Alerts reports that a judgment has passed against Danone
that entitles all persons residing in Canada who have purchased in
Canada between April 1, 2009 and November 6, 2012 Activia(R)
yogurt products or DanActive(R) probiotic drink products will
qualify for at least $30 in compensation, according to the terms
of the agreement.

Basically, if you ate this yogurt and sign and solemnly declare
that you have purchased either Activia(R) or DanActive(R) products
in Canada between April 1, 2009 and November 6, 2012 you are
entitled to $30.

If you sign and solemnly declare that they have purchased either
Activia(R) or DanActive(R) products in Canada between April 1,
2009 and November 6, 2012 and have proof of purchase will be
entitled to receive between $30 and $100, depending on the amount
of the purchases.

If the proof or proofs of purchase is less than $30, the Class
Member is entitled to $30.

If the proof or proofs of purchase show purchase(s) between $30
and $100, then the Class Member is entitled to the amount of
purchase.

If the proof or proofs of purchase show purchase(s) above $100,
then the Class Member is entitled to $100.

It is a really simple e-form to fill out.  The claim is per
person.

Here is the link to get more information on the claim:
http://www.collectiva.ca/en/dossiers/DanoneInc.php

Deadline to submit your claim is August 27, 2013.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Discovery Has Commenced in Sinus Buster Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated lawsuit styled Sinus
Buster Products Consumer Litigation, according to Hi-Tech
Pharmacal Co., Inc.'s July 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 30, 2013.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and the
Company ("Harrison case").  On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David
Delre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brought a class action lawsuit, Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against
Wayne Perry, Dynova Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and
the Company.  Each complaint alleges, among other things, that
their Sinus Buster(R) products are improperly marketed, labeled
and sold as homeopathic products, and that these allegations
support claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express and
implied warranties and alleged violations of various state and
federal statutes.  The Company answered the complaints on July 17,
2012, and June 26, 2012, respectively, and asserted cross-claims
against the other defendants, except Walgreens which was dismissed
from the Harrison case.  The Court consolidated these two cases
into one action entitled Sinus Buster Products Consumer
Litigation.  Discovery has commenced in the consolidated case.
Dynova has filed for bankruptcy.  The case is now proceeding
without Dynova.  A discovery schedule for depositions, expert
discovery and class certification motion is in place.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the complaint and the class certification.  The
Company cannot predict the outcome of the action.

Amityville, New York-based Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. --
http://www.hitechpharm.com/-- a Delaware corporation incorporated
in April 1982, is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing,
manufacturing and marketing generic and branded prescription and
OTC products.  The Company specializes in the manufacture of
liquid and semi-solid dosage forms and produces a range of sterile
ophthalmic, otic and inhalation products.  The Company's Health
Care Products division is a developer and marketer of branded
prescription and OTC products for the diabetes marketplace.  Hi-
Tech's ECR Pharmaceuticals subsidiary markets branded prescription
products.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Has Reached Deal to Settle "Hoover" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., disclosed in its July 11, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended April 30, 2013, that the parties in the class
action lawsuit filed by Linda Hoover have reached a settlement in
principle.

On December 12, 2012, plaintiff Linda Hoover, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of
California, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Civil Action No. 5:2013-
0097, alleging that the Company's marketing and sales of its Nasal
Ease(R) product is a violation of various state statutes,
including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law and Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business
Practices Act.  The Company answered the complaint on January 14,
2013.  The parties have reached a settlement in principle.  As of
April 30, 2013, the Company accrued a legal settlement in the
amount of $700,000 in connection with this complaint.

Amityville, New York-based Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. --
http://www.hitechpharm.com/-- a Delaware corporation incorporated
in April 1982, is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing,
manufacturing and marketing generic and branded prescription and
OTC products.  The Company specializes in the manufacture of
liquid and semi-solid dosage forms and produces a range of sterile
ophthalmic, otic and inhalation products.  The Company's Health
Care Products division is a developer and marketer of branded
prescription and OTC products for the diabetes marketplace.  Hi-
Tech's ECR Pharmaceuticals subsidiary markets branded prescription
products.


INA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 465 Firefly Inline Skates
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 26, 2013
Posting date:                         July 26, 2013
Type of communication:                Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:                          Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:                     Health Canada
Issue:                                Product Safety
Audience:                             General Public
Identification number:                RA-34761

Affected products: FIREFLY Inline Skates

The recall involves the 2013 models of FIREFLY Inline Skates:

   -- Firefly F700 - Ladies' Skate - Black Boot with Purple
      Accent;

   -- Firefly F500 - Ladies' Skate - White Boot with Light Blue-
      Grey Accent; and

   -- Firefly X500 - Men's Skate - Black Boot with Silver, Red,
      White Accents

Due to a manufacturing defect, the central screw connecting the
upper portion of the inline skate with the frame may break while
in use.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/YtLDe5

Sport Chek has received 1 reported incident of the central screw
breaking.  There have been no reported injuries related to the use
of this product.

Approximately 465 units were sold through Sport Chek stores.

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

Companies:

   Distributor     Intersport International Corp.
                   Bern
                   Switzerland

   Distributor     INA International Ltd.
                   Calgary
                   Alberta
                   Canada

Customers who purchased the inline skates are asked to discontinue
use of the product and return it to their local Sport Chek store
for a refund or exchange.


INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Defends NYSE Euronext Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., is defending itself against
merger-related class action lawsuits in Delaware and New York,
according to the Company's July 15, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 20, 2012, the Company announced an agreement to
acquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction.  Under the
agreement, which was amended and restated on March 19, 2013, the
Company will acquire NYSE Euronext under a newly formed holding
company, IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., or ICE Group.
Following successive merger transactions, the Company and NYSE
Euronext will become wholly owned subsidiaries of ICE Group.

In connection with the Company's announcement of its acquisition
of NYSE Euronext in December 2012, twelve complaints were filed in
the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Actions") and in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the
"New York Actions") on behalf of a putative class of NYSE Euronext
stockholders challenging the proposed merger.  Also, on
February 4, 2013, a similar putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 29, 2013, the Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware
Actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On
January 31, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On March 13, 2013, the Chancery Court certified the
consolidated Delaware Actions as a class action.  The parties
completed discovery in connection with plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction in the consolidated Delaware Actions on
April 12, 2013.  On May 10, 2013, the Chancery Court heard oral
argument on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which
was denied by the Court.  On June 10, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions filed a notice and proposed order of dismissal.
By letter dated June 17, 2013, the plaintiffs requested that the
Court take no action on the proposed order at this time.

On January 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
entered an Order consolidating the New York Actions, and on
February 7, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the New York Actions.  On March 1, 2013, the New York
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the New York
Actions, which the defendants have appealed to the Appellate
Division, First Department.  The Defendants moved for a stay of
the action pending appeal and, on March 15, 2013, the New York
appeals court granted defendants motion to stay the New York
Actions on an interim basis, and adjourned for 60 days the motion
for a stay pending appeal.  The appeal and stay motion remain
pending.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., is an
operator of regulated global markets and clearing houses,
including futures exchanges, over-the counter markets, derivatives
clearing houses and post-trade services.  The Company operates
these global marketplaces for trading and clearing of a broad
array of energy, environmental and agricultural commodities,
credit default swaps, equity index and currency contracts.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of a securities suit
against Intuitive Surgical, Inc. remains pending before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against seven of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and
omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis
was appointed Lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was
filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar
to the allegations.

On May 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the
action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an
amended complaint. On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint. The allegations contained therein are
substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012 the
Company's motion was granted. The complaint was dismissed with
prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on June 1, 2012. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The appeal is styled Police Retirement System of St.
Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs
filed their opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed
an answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a
reply brief on December 17, 2012. No oral argument date has been
set, and the appeal remains pending.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Nov. 22 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the purported
class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical et al.
is scheduled to be heard November 22, 2013, according to the
company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against nine of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

A word-for-word identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive
Surgical, et al., No. 3:13-cv-2365, was filed in the same court
against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The lawsuits seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 19, 2011 and April 18, 2013.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in the company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By agreement,
the two cases will be assigned to the same judge and will proceed
together. Motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Abrams were filed by two parties on June 25, 2013. One of those
motions was subsequently withdrawn.

A hearing on the remaining motion is scheduled to be heard
November 22, 2013. By agreement with the Plaintiff in the Abrams
action, no response to the complaint is required until 30 days
after a lead plaintiff is selected by the Court and that lead
plaintiff files a consolidated complaint (or informs the Company
that it has chosen to proceed with the complaint already on file).
The Adel complaint has not been served and no response is
currently required.


KANEBO COSMETICS: Confirms Defects on Recalled Product
------------------------------------------------------
Mayumi Negishi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
under the glare of the sun, 27-year-old Ria Ko holds a parasol,
wears long gloves and applies a new layer of SPF 50 sunscreen
every couple of hours.  Her pale complexion is hard won --
acquired through a decade of effort to stay clear of the sun --
and each freckle that appears causes her a moment of distress.

From Tokyo to Mumbai to Shanghai, the skin-whitening industry is
booming and projected to grow into a $20 billion business globally
by 2018, according to Global Industry Analysts.

In Asia, a fair complexion is synonymous with beauty, higher
social position and wealth.  Companies are scrambling to develop
the next hot product in a culture that for centuries has
identified light skin as a status symbol -- because it proved that
a woman was exempt from field work.

But the industry has been shaken after Japan's second-biggest
cosmetics company, Kanebo Cosmetics Inc. said last week that it
has confirmed the appearance of white stains -- some bigger than 2
inches in diameter -- on the faces, necks, and hands of thousands
of women who had used its skin-lightening products.

The reports emerged after the company earlier this month recalled
millions of products containing its Rhododenol brightening
ingredient.

Kanebo, a unit of Kao Corp., 4452.TO -2.24% said it has received
reports of skin conditions from 6,800 women, of whom 2,250
reported either splotches on multiple parts of the body, clearly
visible splotches on the face, or large splotches.  More than a
hundred reports of similar cases have come in from Taiwan, Kanebo
said.

Some of the unevenness faded after the women stopped using the
Kanebo products, according to doctors and company spokesman Shinji
Yamada.  Doctors also said use of steroid-containing creams has
helped some women.

The blow to Kanebo's brand is likely to lower its sales in the
fiscal second half by about 10%, some analysts said.  Others,
including Daiwa Securities analyst Katsuro Hirozumi, said that the
impact could be bigger, if damage to the Kanebo brand is such that
consumers stop using all Kanebo cosmetics.

"This will leave an impact on consumers' perceptions of safety in
skin-lightener products," said Euromonitor International analyst
Mariko Takemura.  The brand that triggered the recall, Kanebo
Blanchir, is a popular skin whitener, and all cosmetics makers
will need to address those concerns, she said.

Possible causes raised by dermatologists include allergic
reactions following prolonged use of the products and sun
exposure, but Kanebo's Mr. Yamada said that it could be months
before the company understands why Rhododenol -- which it
developed over eight years followed by a three-year trial on 1,000
women -- could cause skin disorders.

The company, which has promised to cover all related medical bills
in women who show symptoms and is preparing to pay compensation,
has enlisted Japan's dermatologist association for help.

In Japan, Asia's biggest market for skin whiteners, the
fascination with pale skin dates back to at least the sixth
century.  Bihaku -- or "beautiful white" in Japanese -- came back
into vogue in the 1990s amid a flurry of development of anti-aging
and whitening substances by cosmetics firms.

Some 20 substances deemed effective in skin brightening have been
approved by the Japanese government since 1988.

In some cases, it is hard to avoid substances added to skin-care
products to lighten skin tones.  More than 41% of facial
moisturizers sold in Japan last year contained skin lighteners, on
a retail value basis, according to Euromonitor.  Skin lighteners
made up roughly 20% of all skin-care products sold, says market-
research firm Fuji Keizai.

On July 4, Kanebo recalled 4.36 million items containing its
patented Rhododenol, or 4HPB, a synthetic version of a compound
found in the bark of white birch trees.  The recall covered all 54
of the company's products containing the substance and extended to
Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, the Philippines and the U.K.

The Japanese government, which had approved the substance in 2008,
is warning consumers to stay away from products with Rhododenol.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an advisory on
the Kanebo brands that contain the substance.

While Japan spends the most money on whiter skin, making it the
world's biggest market for skin lighteners on a revenue basis,
China and India are catching up fast, and will drive the global
market to grow by 13% a year, according to Global Industry
Analysts.  Already, China and India have outstripped Japan in the
use of skin-lightener materials in terms of volume.  China used
422.7 tons of skin-lightener materials in skin-care products in
2012, almost five times as much as it used five years ago, while
India's consumption grew more than four times in the same period
to 233.6 tons, according to Euromonitor.  That compares with 199.9
tons of skin lighteners used in Japan, the market-research firm
said.

Kanebo, which was betting on Rhododenol to drive growth in a
saturated Japanese market, has kept a tight hold on the substance,
and it said it hasn't licensed its use outside the Kanebo group.

Shotaro Nagai, a spokesman at Shiseido Co., Japan's biggest
cosmetics firm, said Shiseido's sales of skin lighteners have
risen slightly since Kanebo announced its recall.  He didn't know
if the two events were related, he said.

The Indian market for skin-whitening products is likely to grow by
more than 8% in two years to about $428 million in 2013, or about
half of an estimated $855 million market for facial-care products,
according to Mintel, a market-research firm.  "Fairness" is
synonymous with beauty in much of India.  In the matrimonial
sections of the Sunday papers, prospective spouses regularly
advertise their "fairness."

The large number of consumer complaints about skin stains in the
past few weeks suggests that the skin problems have been festering
for some time before they came to light.  The scandal also casts
doubt on the thoroughness of product-safety tests for mass-market
skin-care products -- especially of those that promise dramatic
results, such as lighter skin color.

But the obsession with white skin continues, and some industry
watchers are skeptical that consumers will stop buying whitening
products.

"Whiter skin just looks better on Japanese women, as it brings out
the fineness in skin texture," said Tokyo resident Yasumi Kawami,
33, who uses lightening products from Guerlain, a brand owned by
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA.  "People are not going to
stop using bihaku products."


KMART CORP: To Settle Seating Class Action for $280,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Scott, writing for The Recorder, reports that after two
rounds of class certification motions and a bench trial, Kmart
Corp. is prepared to pay $280,000 to settle a suit alleging the
company violated state law by failing to provide seating for
retail cashiers in several California stores.

But first the company's lawyers must satisfy U.S. District Judge
William Alsup, who has expressed doubt the deal would provide much
benefit to 233 class members after lawyers recoup their costs.

Plaintiffs lawyers agreed not to seek fees for their work on
Garvey v. Kmart, 11-2575.  However, they are claiming roughly
$185,000 to cover expenses, while the total amount allotted for
class members is just $17,475, or $75 per claimant.  A state labor
enforcement agency would also collect a portion of the settlement
and two class representatives would be paid $5,000 apiece.

That breakdown led Judge Alsup to balk at the proposal, which was
submitted to the court last week by Kmart's lawyers at Paul
Hastings and a coalition of plaintiffs attorneys who have been
involved in many similar seating cases.

"The parties' proposed settlement appears to be little more than a
reimbursement of class counsel's expenses in exchange for a class-
wide release," Judge Alsup wrote in an order.  "Under the
proposal, the class members would receive only token sums (except
for the class representatives, who would hit bonanzas)."

Judge Alsup, who was set to review the proposed deal at a hearing
on July 30, said it was unlikely the settlement agreement would
receive his blessing.

That led lead plaintiffs lawyer Matthew Righetti of Righetti
Glugoski to fire off a response on July 29 disputing any
suggestion his team is "being made 'whole'" as a result of the
settlement.  Plaintiffs true costs of litigation total roughly
$300,000, Mr. Righetti said.

"The proposed settlement requires class counsel to forgo all the
time they have worked on this case over the last several years,"
he wrote.  "Moreover, class counsel are walking away from much of
their hard out of pocket costs in order to make this settlement
work."

Filed in 2011 amid a wave of similar seating claims against major
retailers, the suit accused Kmart of violating a provision of
California labor law that requires employers to provide workers
with "suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably
permits the use of seats."

Kmart, which maintained the work of its cashiers required
standing, won a limited victory from Judge Alsup after a 2012
bench trial.  The settlement applies to certified classes at two
California Kmart locations -- Tulare in the Central Valley, where
name plaintiff Lisa Garvey worked, and Redlands in Southern
California.  Plaintiffs attorneys had tried twice, without
success, to certify a larger class.

With a small class of plaintiffs and a modest payout, the case's
implications for other seating suits are difficult to parse.  But
the settlement deal seems to leave the door open for future
litigation that would push California retailers to devise workable
seating arrangements for retail workers who are now generally
required to stand all day.

"The plaintiffs didn't get a lot this time, but they might next
time," said UCLA law professor Katherine Stone, an expert in labor
and employment issues.

"Alsup is leaving the door open to where suitable seating will be
required," Ms. Stone said.  "It seems to me that there's definite
movement here from the point of view of being more open to
suitable seating claims."

In his initial written questions about the proposed settlement,
for instance, Judge Alsup asked the attorneys whether the
agreement would bar plaintiffs from suing Kmart in the future if
the company does not make seating available to cashiers. It would
not, the attorneys said.

In an interview, Mr. Righetti said he was reluctant to see Judge
Alsup's questions as an invitation for future cases.

"You read tea leaves from this judge at your own peril. I've
learned that," he said.

Kevin McInerney, a solo based in Reno, Nev., and James Clapp --
jclapp@sdlaw.com -- and Zachariah Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com --
of Dostart Clapp & Coveney San Diego, also represented plaintiffs.

Kmart was represented by partners Jeffrey Wohl --
jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- and Zachary Hutton --
zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- and associates Elizabeth Macgregor
-- elizabethmacgregor@paulhastings.com -- and Brittany Sachs --
brittanysachs@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings in San
Francisco.  The firm did not respond to a request for comment.

"The settlement represents a reasonable compromise in light of the
facts and claims asserted," Mr. Wohl wrote in a brief supporting
the settlement.

Following a bench trial in 2012, Judge Alsup said he would not
force Kmart to pay damages or add seating for cashiers in Tulare,
but he also threw a bone to the plaintiffs.  In his ruling, Judge
Alsup suggested that Kmart could likely provide some form of
seating, such as a stool, that would allow cashiers to take weight
off their feet.  He further suggested that the retailer could be
required to provide such seating even if it meant redesigning its
checkout lines.

A second trial on behalf of the Redlands cashiers had been
scheduled for September.

Ms. Garvey was the first "suitable seating" class action to go to
trial after the provision, buried in California's industry-
specific labor laws, began to spur litigation in 2010.

Similar class actions related to seating are pending against Wal-
Mart, Target Corp., Bank of America, CVS Pharmacy and Rite Aid.
The suits are filed under California's Private Attorney General
Act of 2004, or PAGA, which allows private citizens to sue for
labor code violations.  The same team of attorneys representing
the plaintiffs in the Kmart case has brought many of the other
cases as well.

So far, the courts have sent mixed signals. A group of 22,000 Wal-
Mart employees was certified as a class.  But a court declined to
certify 1,000 Bank of America tellers, finding that they had to
demonstrate they had individually asked for seating and been
denied.  That ruling was later overturned by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"Lower courts are all using different standards," said
Mr. Righetti.  "They're going every which way."

At least three seating cases are now pending before the Ninth
Circuit, and an additional case is pending before the Fourth
District Court of Appeal.

Corporate attorneys have characterized the suits as base
opportunism on the part of employment lawyers.  But there are real
employment issues at stake, according to UCLA's Stone.

"Seating has been an issue, even if it's only recently risen to
the level of litigation in California, so I don't think this is a
totally made up claim from the point of view of the lawyers," she
said.

Mr. Righetti put it this way in his latest filing: "The wage order
is not a polite suggestion to employers who sit on cushioned
chairs all day -- it is the law."


LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Wholey Peeled Cooked Tail 31/40 Count Shrimp
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipari Foods of Warren, MI is recalling Wholey peeled, cooked,
tail-on 31/40 count shrimp, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled cooked shrimp was distributed to manufacturers and
retailers in the following states: Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana over the
course of two days: July 25, 2013 and July 26, 2013.  Of the 1336
recalled cases that Lipari Foods received, only 32 cases are left
in commerce that have yet to be recovered.  Pictures of the
Products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm362989.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled product was received by Lipari Foods from a supplier
in Indonesia and cleared for distribution by FDA inspectors on
July, 24 2013.  On July 26, 2013, Lipari Foods was informed that
the FDA mistakenly released the product, which had sampled
positive for Salmonella contamination.  Lipari Foods immediately
ceased the distribution of this product, initiated recall
procedures, and contacted all customers who have received the
contaminated product.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (586) 447-3500
Monday to Friday from 8AM to 5PM.

Product Information:

   Item Number: 399103
   Item Description: Cooked Shrimp Peeled Tail-On 31/40 Finished
                     Count

   Brand: Wholey
   Package Size: 1 Pound bag
   UPC Number: 094776074556
   Lot Numbers: 30081, 10081, 70081, 30084, and 00884


MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Midwest-CBK LLC, of Cannon Falls, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 550 Bistro chairs.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chair's metal frame can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

The firm has received two reports of the chairs breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves distressed gray wash bistro chairs with metal
frames, metal scrolling with wooden slats on the seatbacks, and
round wooden slat seats.  The chairs measure about 36 inches tall
by 21 inches wide by 17 inches deep.  Item number 304136 and UPC
number 7384490413 are printed on a hangtag attached to the chair.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/H0GbWS

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Gift
stores nationwide from August 2011 through June 2013 for about
$110.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bistro chairs
and contact Midwest-CBK for instructions on returning the chairs
for a full refund.


MILLER ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuits were filed
against Miller Energy Resources, Inc., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The
lawsuits made similar claims and have been consolidated into one
case, styled In re Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The lawsuit names the Company, along with several of
its current and former executive officers, Scott Boruff, Paul
Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, and Deloy Miller, as defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege two causes of action against the defendants:
(1) violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act,
(2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case
seeks money damages against the Company and the other defendants,
and payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has
filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, which is pending before the
court.  Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case,
the Company currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or
reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 15, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2013.

Based in Knoxville, Tennessee, Miller Energy Resources, Inc. --
http://www.millerenergyresources.com/-- is an independent
exploration and production company that utilizes seismic data and
other technologies for the geophysical exploration, development
and production of oil and natural gas wells in the Cook Inlet
Basin of southcentral Alaska and the Appalachian region of eastern
Tennessee.


NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold to Spartan for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nash-Finch Co. (Family Fresh,
Econofoods) is selling itself too cheaply to Spartan Stores in a
1-for-1.2-shares stock swap valued at $1.3 billion, shareholders
claim in Hennepin County Court.

Spartan Stores, Inc., a leading regional grocery distributor and
retailer, and Nash-Finch Company, one of the leading food
distribution companies in the United States, announced on July 22,
2013, that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement
under which Spartan Stores and Nash Finch will combine in an all-
stock merger valued at approximately $1.3 billion, including
existing net debt at each company.

Several law firms have subsequently announced of their
investigation with respect to the proposed merger.  Among other
things, investigations focus on whether the board of directors at
Nash-Finch is undertaking a fair process to obtain maximum value
and adequately compensate its shareholders in the merger.  The
Firms include:

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (877) LEGAL-90
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Email:  jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR. PC
          519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1604
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Toll Free: (800) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
                  info@jlclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Willoughby, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Zach Groover, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR, LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expy., Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (877) 728-9607
          E-mail: zach@powerstaylor.com

               - and -

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
                     (800) 350-6003
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (877) 316-3218
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Henry Young Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
          347 Bridge Street, Suite 201
          Phoenixville, PA 19460
          Toll Free: (888) 452-7252
          E-mail: contact@theyounglf.com


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 19 Hearing in Securities Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities lawsuit is scheduled for August 19, 2013,
according to the Company's July 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 30, 2013.

On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and certain of its executive officers and one consultant
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants") on behalf of certain
purchasers of the Company's common stock.  The complaints have
been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in
general, include allegations that the Company and the Individual
Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the interim median overall survival results of the
Company's bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  On November 27, 2012, four prospective lead plaintiffs
filed motions to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff and appoint
lead counsel.  On February 5, 2013, the court appointed James T.
Fahey as lead plaintiff in the action.  The lead plaintiff filed
an amended consolidated complaint on April 15, 2013.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
June 14, 2013.  The lead plaintiff had until July 15, 2013, to
file an answer to the Company's motion to dismiss.  A hearing
before the court on the Company's motion to dismiss is scheduled
for August 19, 2013.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend the action and is seeking
dismissal of the complaint.  Due to the early stage of the
proceeding, the Company believes that the probability of an
unfavorable outcome or loss related to the proceeding and an
estimate of the amount or range of loss related to the claims, if
any, from an unfavorable outcome is not determinable at this time.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., -- http://www.peregrineinc.com/
-- is a biopharmaceutical company developing first-in-class
monoclonal antibodies focused on the treatment and diagnosis of
cancer.  The Company is a Delaware corporation based in Tustin,
California.


R2J2 STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over Yaz-Related Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit over
robocalls she contends were made in an effort to solicit women
harmed by an oral contraceptive at the center of pending
multidistrict litigation.

Michele Kaffko filed her suit on July 26 in Chicago's federal
court against R2J2 Studios LLC, a Pennsylvania internet marketing
company she claims violated federal law by making unauthorized
calls to her and other similarly situated individuals throughout
the nation.  She brought her complaint under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which she asserts "protects the
privacy right of consumers to be free from receiving unsolicited
telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice."

The TCPA provides for $500 in damages for each violation of the
law, as well as treble the amount of statutory damages if the
violation was willfully and knowingly made.

Ms. Kaffko's suit seeks an order certifying a class, an award of
actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring the
defendant to stop making these types of calls and attorneys' fees
and costs.

She asserts that she received a call on her cell phone on April 15
from a phone number that was registered to R2J2 and when she
answered, heard the following message announced by an artificial
or prerecorded voice:

"We are calling on behalf of a women's patient advocacy group and
are trying to reach women who were harmed by Yaz, Yasmine [sic]
and other birth control/hormone therapies.  If you or someone you
know or love has taken Yaz, Yasmine or any other type of birth
control or hormone therapies, press 1 right now to talk to a
representative . . . or press 9 to no longer receive these calls."

Although the suit makes no mention of it, multidistrict litigation
(MDL) was created over the Yasmin line of birth control pills in
2009.  It remains pending before Chief Judge David Herndon of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs involved in the MDL claim that Bayer Corp.'s birth
control pills caused heart attacks, strokes, embolisms and clots.

According to a July 10 report on pending MDL's on the U.S. Panel
on MultiDistrict Litigation (JPML) website, more than 11,170 suits
have been included in this MDL since it was first created and less
than 10,000 remain pending.

Ms. Kaffko asserts in her suit that "in recent years, marketers
who often have felt stymied by federal laws limiting solicitation
by facsimile machine and e-mail have increasingly looked to
alternative technologies through which to send bulk solicitations
cheaply."

"One of the newest types of such bulk marketing," the suit states,
"is to advertise through robocalls that feature an artificial or
prerecorded voice advertisement," like the one Ms. Kaffko contends
she received from a number registered to R2J2.

She claims that over the course of an extended period starting
this year, R2J2 and its agents directed the transmission of
robocalls to the phones of those "they hoped were users of oral
contraceptive medications and hormone therapies, including the
oral contraceptive drug Yaz, and potential victims of certain
supposed unintended side effects."

In her suit, Ms. Kaffko contends that robocalls invade privacy
more than conventional forms of advertisement because they are
made to cell phones and can actually cost the recipients money
when they pick up the calls, regardless of whether they are
authorized or not.

By making these robocalls, Ms. Kaffko's suit claims that R2J2 "has
caused such call recipients actual harm, not only because the
called parties were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily
accompanies unsolicited calls -- particularly calls using a
prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because the
called parties, like Plaintiff, frequently have to pay their phone
providers for the receipt of such calls, notwithstanding that they
are made in violation of specific legislation on the subject."

The suit seeks certification of a class that would include all
persons in the U.S. who received one or more calls from R2J2 that
used a prerecorded or artificial voice and did not consent to
receive such calls.

Ms. Kaffko asserts in her suit that she "will fairly and
adequately represent and protect the interests of the other
members of the class" and "has retained counsel with substantial
experience in prosecuting complex litigation and class actions."

Her suit states that she and her attorney, Evan M. Meyers of
McGuire Law P.C. in Chicago, "are committed to vigorously
prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the
Class, and have the financial resources to do so."


ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International Inc.'s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013, provided updates on a
lawsuit filed by Vincent Uberti, on his own behalf and on behalf
of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals.

The Company's July 23, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that on July 18,
2013, the United States District Court ordered that: (i) Uberti's
claims against the Company must be arbitrated; (ii) the class
action waiver in the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims between
the Company and Uberti was enforceable and not unconscionable; and
(iii) that the case would be stayed as to Uberti's claims against
the Company.

The Company has determined that the litigation is not currently a
material pending legal proceeding. Accordingly, the Company does
not presently intend to make disclosures regarding this case in
its Securities and Exchange Commission filings subsequent to its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2013.


SEMILEDS CORP: Faces IPO-Related Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
SemiLEDs Corporation is facing a securities class action lawsuit
in New York relating to its initial public offering, according to
the Company's July 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2013.

On July 10, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, styled as Huard v. SemiLEDs Corporation, et al,
alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

SemiLEDs Corporation develops, manufactures and sells LED chips
and LED components that are among the industry-leading LED
products on a lumens per watt basis.  The Company's products are
used primarily for general lighting applications, including street
lights and commercial, industrial and residential lighting.  The
Company's LED chips may also be used in specialty industrial
applications, such as ultraviolet, curing of polymers, LED light
therapy in medical/cosmetic applications, counterfeit detection,
and LED lighting for horticulture applications.  The Company is
based in Miao-Li County, Taiwan.


SOUTH COAST BREWING: Accused of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that South Coast Brewing Co. dba
Steelhead Brewing Co. aka Steelhead Brewery and Cafe stiffs
workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, a class action
claims in Orange County Court.

The case is Daniel Reuland vs. South Coast Brewing Co., Case No.
30-2013-00664320-CU-OE-CXC, in the Superior Court of California
for Orange County.


SRO ENTERTAINMENT: Lawyer Won't Proceed With Salmon Festival Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie says he will
not proceed with legal action against the organizers of the Salmon
Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor.

"We investigated circumstances around the festival and decided not
to pursue a lawsuit," Mr. Crosbie said in a news release.

"We've contacted people who expressed interest in an action to us
and explained what their options are."

Almost 280 people had been interested in pushing the case.

Concertgoers had complained that the event was overcrowded and
there was a shortage of water during the scorching weather.

"I'm happy to learn that the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor has
publicly apologized for this year's festival, and the next
appropriate step would be for the promoter to make an apology for
the festival's poor conditions and disorganization," Mr. Crosbie
said.

Grand Falls-Windsor Mayor Al Hawkins wrote a letter to the St.
John's Telegram over the weekend.

"We apologize for the disruptions to your enjoyment of the
concert, and we look forward to seeing you (as well as some new
faces) next year," Mr. Hawkins wrote.


ST. VINCENT: Dismissal of "Harris" and "Holbert" Suits Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Patricia O. Cotter of the Supreme Court of Montana issued
an opinion affirming District Court decisions in the consolidated
appeal filed by Dorothy J. Harris and Tedeen Holbert from orders
in two separate cases from Montana's Thirteenth Judicial District
Court, Yellowstone County, dismissing Harris and Holbert's breach
of contract and constructive fraud claims against Billings Clinic,
and Harris' similar claims against St. Vincent Healthcare.

The cases are DOROTHY J. HARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ST.
VINCENT HEALTHCARE, Defendant and Appellee, No. DA 12-0602 and
DOROTHY J. HARRIS and TEDEEN HOLBERT, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. BILLINGS CLINIC, Defendant and Appellee, No. DA 12-0661.

A copy of the Supreme Court's July 25, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/WKXSWffrom Leagle.com.

Alexander (Zander) Blewett, III -- zblewett@hoytandblewett.com --
Andrew (Drew) Blewett -- dblewett@hoytandblewett.com -- at Hoyt &
Blewett, Great Falls, Montana;

Jim Edmiston, Shane Colton, Joe Cook, at Edmiston & Colton,
Billings, Montana, for Appellant.

Brendon J. Rohan -- bjr@montana.com -- at Poore, Roth & Robinson,
P.C., Butte, Montana, for Appellee St. Vincent Healthcare.

Ian McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- Kenneth K. Lay --
klay@crowleyfleck.com -- at Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Bozeman, Montana,
for Appellee Billings Clinic.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Stays Chrome 6 Emission Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California
stayed four subset lawsuits of "Virginia Shellman, et al. v.
Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al." until the Shellman
lawsuit over chrome 6 emissions is finally determined, according
to the Texas Industries, Inc.'s July 23, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2013.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The
lawsuit against three of the company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the company's Crestmore cement plant.

The complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to
the exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Trial in Uno Sudden-Acceleration Suit Begins
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Noriko Uno was driving to the bank when she hit another car
at an intersection.  The impact, according to a lawsuit against
Toyota Motor Corp., caused her 2006 Camry to spin nearly 180
degrees, causing her foot to become wedged between the brake and
accelerator pedals.

For the next 35 seconds, Mrs. Uno, 66, found herself traveling the
wrong way down a one-way street, her accelerator pedal stuck in
the depressed position.  She hit the brakes, but her car
accelerated out of control.  To avoid oncoming traffic, she
swerved off the road toward a wooded median, smashing into two
telephone poles and then a large tree.  She died instantly.

The trial, in which opening statements were set to begin on
July 31, represents the first bellwether among hundreds of
lawsuits against Toyota over sudden acceleration problems in its
vehicles.

Most of the massive litigation against Toyota involved alleged
defects with the electronic throttle control system, which led to
the recall of nearly 10 million vehicles; plaintiffs' attorneys
originally asserting that such electronic defects, not the recalls
over floor mats and accelerator pedals, were the real problem
causing sudden acceleration.  By contrast, Mrs. Uno's survivors
claim that Toyota failed to install a brake override system that
would have automatically shut off the engine and saved her life.
Toyota maintains that such a system would not have stopped
Mrs. Uno's car.

"The heart of the mass tort was always the electronic throttle
control.  The fact that the first trial is going and not bringing
that theory is interesting," said Byron Stier, a professor at
Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in mass
tort litigation.  "Look how far that is from the original panic of
this."

Todd Walburg -- twalburg@lchb.com -- who serves on the plaintiffs'
steering committee in the California state court coordinated
proceeding against Toyota, brushed off the distinction.

"The Uno case is focused on Toyota's lack of a brake override
system, which we contend is a safety defect," Mr. Walburg of San
Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein wrote in an email
to The National Law Journal.  "Some of the other upcoming cases
will also include discussion of alleged software defects in
Toyota's electronic throttle control system."

                      Sending a message

The Uno case actually is not the first against Toyota to go to
trial over sudden acceleration.  In 2011, a federal jury in New
York found Toyota not liable for an accident attributed to sudden
acceleration.  And last year, three days before trial, a state
court judge in Ohio issued a directed verdict for Toyota in a
warranty case.

But plaintiffs' attorneys leading the coordinated actions -- of
which neither of those two cases was a part -- consider both to be
outliers.  The Uno case, in contrast, is a bellwether, defined as
a case selected, usually by mutual agreement of both parties, to
go to trial ahead of similar cases because the facts best
represent the mass tort litigation as a whole.  That means a
verdict in the case could serve as a barometer for hundreds of
personal injury or wrongful death cases across the nation.

"The Uno trial will be the first opportunity to observe a jury's
reaction to some of Toyota's internal documents and witness
testimony," Mr. Walburg wrote.  "These observations will be
instructive and helpful for future bellwether cases."

The Uno trial -- to be argued by Garo Mardirossian of Mardirossian
& Associates in Los Angeles, who is not a member of the committee
-- will take place over two months near downtown Los Angeles,
where Judge Lee Smalley Edmon, past presiding judge of the Los
Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court, is overseeing the
consolidated litigation.

The California state court cases are separate from a raft of
federal claims that have been coordinated in multidistrict
litigation before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana,
Calif.  In that litigation, which involves personal injury and
wrongful death actions across the country, the first trial is
scheduled for November 5.

Other trials are scheduled this year in state courts in Oklahoma
and Michigan.

In the Uno case, Judge Edmon ordered a mandatory settlement
conference on July 11.  According to lawyers in the case, both
sides were far apart, with Mr. Mardirossian -- seeking damages for
negligence and strict liability, plus punitive damages -- asking
for $30 million.

Mr. Mardirossian did not return a call for comment.

Mr. Stier, who represented the tobacco industry and other
companies against mass torts claims while in private practice,
said the settlement amount in a single case is not the issue for
Toyota.

"It's not really about the one case.  It's about everybody else,"
he said.  "They want to send a message to all the personal injury
cases banging around in the system, and others that could be
filed: Do not take us lightly, we're not just going to roll over
and settle for huge amounts."

Toyota could feel the need to dispel the public perception that
there's anything wrong with its vehicles, he said.  And after
paying $1.6 billion to settle related consumer claims, in a deal
that Judge Selna approved on July 19, Toyota is in a position to
resolve what remains of the sudden-acceleration lawsuits.

                'Simple, easy, and inexpensive'

In alleging a failure to install a brake-override system in her
Camry, Uno's husband, Yasuharu "Peter" Uno, and son, Jeffrey Uno,
note that Toyota had done so in eight other models of its cars
since 2001.  The installation of such a system would have been
"simple, easy, and inexpensive," Mr. Mardirossian wrote in court
records.  An override system, he contended, is designed to cut
engine power in the event that the accelerator and brake pedals
are depressed at the same time.

In Mrs. Uno's case, that's exactly what happened, he wrote, after
her car hit a 2003 Lexus driven by Olga Bello at about 4:00 p.m.
on August 28, 2009, in Upland, Calif.  The suit alleges that
Ms. Bello, 86, drove through a stop sign, hitting the driver's
side of Ms. Uno's car.

"Defendant Olga Bellow started this tragedy by failing to follow
the law, failing to stop at the stop sign . . .  and failing to
yield the right of way to Noriko Uno," Mr. Mardirossian wrote.
"Defendant Toyota compounded it by choosing not to install brake
override in Mrs. Uno's 2006 Toyota Camry."

Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore issued a formal statement
about the Uno case: "Our sympathies go out to the family and
friends of Noriko Uno.  Toyota is committed to providing its
customers with safe and reliable vehicles, including the 2006
Camry driven by Mrs. Uno, which was equipped with a state-of-the-
art braking system and has earned top safety and quality honors.
We are confident the evidence will show that a brake override
system would not have prevented this accident and that there was
no defect in Mrs. Uno's vehicle."

Toyota attorney Vincent Galvin, managing partner of the San Jose,
Calif., office of Bowman and Brooke wrote in court records that a
brake override wouldn't have prevented the accident.

Mrs. Uno, he argued, also bears some blame.  For one thing, there
is scant evidence that she hit the brakes.  Her car stopped after
colliding with Ms. Bello; then she drove off, eventually against
traffic for half a mile.  Moreover, Toyota's experts plan to
testify that Mrs. Uno's foot could not have become stuck as her
family describes and that low blood sugar levels brought on by her
diabetes "caused her cognitive impairment and confusion" in the
moments following the crash with Ms. Bello, Mr. Galvin wrote.

Moreover, Uno's vehicle was never subject to the recalls.

Also in the case is Ms. Bello, who was sued for negligence.  In
court records, she claims she was returning home after getting ice
cream with her daughter, 44, who has Down's syndrome, when she
slowed at a stop sign.  She insists that the collision was minor,
and that she was only going 10 miles per hour at the time.

She also claims that Mrs. Uno's car, after spinning around,
stopped, and then started again, eventually heading in the wrong
direction.

"Our client did not even see her after the collision occurred
because Uno left the scene, and of course half a mile away was the
accident that resulted in her death," John Duffy, Ms. Bello's
attorney, told The National Law Journal.  "Our accident was just
essentially a fender-bender type thing."

Like Toyota, Duffy, of Gray Duffy in Encino, Calif., said that
Uno's diabetes impaired her driving that day -- and that there is
no way her foot could become stuck on the accelerator pedal as the
lawsuit alleges.  "It couldn't have happened that way," he said.
"They did tests on it, we did tests on it.  The foot couldn't get
entrapped that way."

In the days leading to trial, more than two dozen motions were
filed, mostly to withhold information from jurors.  Jury selection
began on July 21.

So far, Toyota has settled bellwether cases.  One case, which
settled for an undisclosed sum about a month before trial in
February, stemmed from an accident involving four passengers in a
2008 Camry in Utah, two of whom died, including the driver.  That
case was slated to be the first bellwether trial in the federal
MDL.  In 2010, Toyota also paid $10 million to the family of
Mark Saylor, a former California Highway Patrol officer who died,
along with three other passengers, after his rented 2009 Lexus
sped down a San Diego highway.  That accident, which involved a
terrifying 911 call, occurred on the same day that Mrs. Uno died.


TRACFONE WIRELESS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Farnham, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action
suit filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims
that consumers who buy Straight Talk cell phone plans aren't
getting straight talk: The plans, advertised as providing
"unlimited" data use, in fact have limitations, the suit claims.

The complaint against Walmart Stores and TracFone Wireless, which
jointly created Straight Talk in 2009, says that the advertising
claim is false, and that customers are routinely subject to having
their flows of data "throttled" (slowed) or to having their access
to data terminated without notice.

Throttling takes place, according to the complaint, when
subscribers near or exceed "internally established, but
undisclosed" data usage limits, or when the strain imposed on
wireless networks by peak data usage requires easing.

The complaint says customers who objected to being "throttled"
were blamed by TracFone service reps for having misused the data
service, without being told how they had allegedly misused it.

As an example, the suit cites Northern California wireless
customer Edward Tooley, who switched to Straight Talk's unlimited
plan from a competitor's plan that expressly limited him to 2.5GB
of high speed data, above which ceiling his data would be
throttled.

He used his Straight Talk plan to access email, browse websites,
navigate via Google Maps, "occasionally stream music" and
"occasionally watch videos," says the complaint.  Within only a
few days of his having activated his service, says the complaint,
he found his data being throttled to extremely low speeds without
warning.  His service later was terminated without notice.

The suit claims there are enough Tooleys among TracFone's more
than 23 million subscribers to constitute a class.  TracFone, it
says, is the fifth largest wireless carrier in the U.S. Walmart it
describes as the exclusive retailer of TracFone plans.

A TracFone spokesman, contacted by ABC News, said the company does
not comment on current litigation.  A request for comment from
Walmart got no response.

Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press, a group advocating
affordable Internet access, tells ABC that unlimited data plans
used to be common.  But providers, Mr. Wood says, "have now
monetized data more aggressively" by offering tiered plans in
which the customer pays up to a certain cap, or level of data use.
If he exceeds that, he pays a penalty.

Asked if throttling is wrong, Mr. Wood says, "No.  We actually
think it's preferable to capping.  A cap is a much more blunt tool
for trying to manage traffic load.  Throttling, if properly
disclosed, is the better way."

The class action suit contends throttling was not properly
disclosed either in Straight Talk advertising or in Straight
Talk's terms and conditions of service.

Dr. Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation
of America, says that while heavy data users may object to
throttling, there's nothing illegal about it, provided it's
properly disclosed in the customer agreement and isn't at odds
with what's promised in the plan's advertising.

Cell phone service providers, he says, routinely use throttling to
manage data flow during times of peak use.

"If you're running a skinny little application, you're not going
to notice it; but if you're streaming an HD movie at rush hour,
you will see deterioration," he says.

Borrowing a restaurant analogy, he questions whether an
"unlimited" customer should have the right to use a literally
unlimited amount data any time he wants: "Suppose you walk into an
all-you-can-eat restaurant, carrying a big cooler, and you fill it
up, because the restaurant didn't say when you had to eat the
food." Cooper calls the ethics of such a situation "murky."


UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Larson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the case entitled CYNTHIA LARSON, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-1256.

This proposed class action alleges that six major health-insurance
companies are violating Wisconsin law by requiring co-payments for
chiropractic care.  Because the plaintiffs are insured through
employer-based health plans, the complaint seeks relief under two
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Section
502(a)(1)(B), for recovery of benefits due, see 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B); and Section 502(a)(3), for breach of fiduciary
duty, see id. Sections 1132(a)(3), 1104.

The District Court had dismissed the complaint, holding that
insurance companies are not proper defendants on an ERISA claim
for benefits and the practice of requiring chiropractic co-pays is
not a fiduciary act.

The Seventh Circuit affirms saying the complaint fails to state a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Setting policy terms,
including copayment requirements, determines the content of the
policy, and "decisions about the content of a plan are not
themselves fiduciary acts," the ruling added.

Although the benefits claim was properly lodged against the
insurers, it fails on the merits, says the Seventh Circuit.

The plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the insurers impose
unequal copayments in violation of the statute. This claim is new
on appeal and is therefore waived, the Seventh Circuit says.

A copy of the Circuit Court's July 26, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/VnMSqCfrom Leagle.com.


VANTAGE FOODS: Recalls Western Family Brand Marinated Steak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 26, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Allergy Alert
Subcategory:                          Allergen - Sulphites,
                                      Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:                Class 1
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Vantage Foods (BC) Inc.
Distribution:                         Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products: Western Family brand Marinated Steak

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Vantage Foods (BC)
Inc. are warning people with allergies to wheat or sensitivities
to sulphites not to consume the Western Family brand product.  The
affected product may contain wheat and sulphites which are not
declared on the label.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/N4VGLO

The product has been distributed in Alberta and British Columbia.

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

Consumption of this product may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to wheat or
sensitivities to sulphites.

The manufacturer, Vantage Foods (BC) Inc., Chilliwack, BC, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


ZIP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Herring Fillet in Oil Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zip International Group LLC, 160 Raritan Center Parkway #6,
Edison, NJ  08837, is recalling herring fillet in oil (FOSFOREL,
ATLANTIKA) 400 gram in plastic packaging due to Listeria
contamination.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women

The recalled herring fillet in oil (FOSFOREL, ATLANTIKA) 400 gram
in plastic packaging includes best by dates 05/15/2013 and
7/17/2013 (UPC: 4607095500208).  The best by date is located on
the round side of the packaging and was sold to retail grocery
stores in New York State beginning on 03/15/2013 and ending on
5/24/2013.  It is a product of Russia.  Pictures of the Products
are available at: http://is.gd/3pYWt8

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture & Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent
analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel found the
product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased herring fillet in oil
(FOSFOREL, ATLANTIKA) should not consume it, but should return it
to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the
company @ 732-225-3600, 9:00AM-5:00 PM EST from Monday to Friday.


* Iowa Railroads Face Class Action Over Cedar Rapids Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS 2/FOX 28 reports that a local law firm has filed a class
action lawsuit against some Iowa railroads.  According to its
website, the Sam Sheronick Law Firm in Cedar Rapids says
plaintiffs believe the railroads made the 2008 flooding in
Cedar Rapids worse.  The plaintiffs claim that when defendants
filled their railcars with heavy rock and place them on their
bridges they engaged in activity which could pose grave harm to
others if the bridges collapsed and the railcars prevented water
from going down river.  The suit seeks to prove, among other
things, that actions taken by railroads and others to protect
their property came at the expense of other Cedar Rapids Property
owners.


* Prepackaged Salad Mix Likely Source of Cyclospora Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Schultemary and Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated
Press, report that health officials in Iowa and Nebraska on
July 30 identified prepackaged salad mix as the source of a severe
stomach bug that sickened hundreds of people in both states, but
federal authorities said it's not clear whether cyclospora
outbreaks elsewhere in the U.S. are also linked to that produce.

Cyclospora is a rare parasite that causes a lengthy
gastrointestinal illness, and outbreaks of the illness have been
reported in 15 states.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention said on July 30 that it's not clear whether all of the
illnesses are linked to a single source.  The outbreak has
sickened at least 145 residents in Iowa and 78 in Nebraska.

Nebraska officials said the salad mix in question included iceberg
and romaine lettuce, along with red cabbage and carrots, which
came through national distribution chains.  They did not identify
specific brands.  A Nebraska health department spokeswoman said
the agency was working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
to get a "clear picture" of which were involved and whether
they're tied to one common source, such as the same farm or
producer.

"Our goal is to protect Nebraskans, pinpoint the source of the
illness and make sure the risk is eliminated," said Dr. Joseph
Acierno, the department's chief medical officer and director of
public health.

In Iowa, officials said they were confident that most if not all
of the product was no longer on the shelves.  The affected
products were traced to grocery stores and restaurants, said
Steven Mandernach, the state's top food-safety inspector.
Mr. Mandernach said cases were reported throughout the state, but
the largest number was in the eastern Iowa city of Cedar Rapids.

Mr. Mandernach said officials have traced 80 percent of the Iowa
cases to a common source, which he did not identify because
officials believe there's no longer any immediate safety threat.
Mr. Mandernach said it's possible that the parasite spread through
contaminated floodwater and onto farm fields after arriving in the
state.  Before the outbreak, he said, Iowa had seen about 20 cases
of cyclospora in the last decade.

Local health departments are working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to identify exactly where the contamination
originated in the food production chain and where the product was
distributed.

The CDC says 372 cases of the cyclospora infection, which causes
diarrhea and other flu-like symptoms, have been reported in 15
states: Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, New
York, Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota,
New Jersey and Ohio.

The CDC said at least 21 people have been hospitalized and most of
the reported illnesses occurred from mid-June to early July.  The
CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are investigating the
cyclospora infections but have not yet pointed to a source.

"CDC is still actively pursuing all leads and hasn't implicated
any single food item as the cause of the outbreak in all states,"
said CDC spokeswoman Sharon Hoskins.  "We're still not sure if the
cases in all of the states are linked to the same outbreak."

Ms. Hoskins said that in some previous outbreaks of cyclospora,
the cause was never discovered.  The illness is rare in the United
States but is sometimes contracted abroad or from imported food,
according to the CDC.

The FDA said investigators are trying to trace the paths of food
eaten by those who fell ill.  That process is "labor intensive and
painstaking work, requiring the collection, review and analysis of
hundreds and at times thousands of invoices and shipping
documents," the FDA said.

The agency said it has a seven person team in its Maryland
headquarters and specialists in 10 field offices across the
country working to identify the source of the outbreak.

Cyclospora illnesses are spread when people ingest food or water
contaminated with feces.  The illnesses are most often found in
tropical or subtropical countries and have been linked to imported
fresh fruits and vegetables in the past.

In Texas, public health officials have received 122 reports of the
illness but have not yet found a link.  The state issued an
advisory that urged health care providers to test patients if they
show symptoms of the infection, said Christine Mann, a spokeswoman
for the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Connecticut has two reported cases, state Department of Public
Health spokesman William Gerrish said on July 30.  Mr. Gerrish
said the agency interviewed the two people to determine if there
is any relation to the national outbreak.  One patient likely
acquired the infection while traveling internationally and the
case is not related to the multistate outbreak, he said

In Kansas, state health department spokeswoman Miranda Steele said
two cyclospora cases were tied to the outbreak.  Ms. Steele said
officials there believe both illnesses were caused by food eaten
in Nebraska.


                         Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Wants Action Removal Date Moved to Nov. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yarway Corporation asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware to extend until Nov. 18, 2013, its time to file
notices of removal of claims and causes of action.

The Debtor's deadline to file notices to remove claims or causes
of action was scheduled to expire on July 22.

The Debtor is a defendant in more than 5,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits commenced prior to the Petition Date by plaintiffs
seeking damages for personal injuries purportedly caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured,
distributed and/or sold by the Debtor.

An Aug. 20, 2013, hearing at 1 p.m., has been set.  Objections, if
any, are due Aug. 5, at 4 p.m.

                        About Yarway Corporation

Yarway Corporation sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Case No. 13-11025) on April 22, 2013, to deal with claims arising
from asbestos containing products it allegedly sold as early as
the 1920s.

Yarway was founded in 1908 by Robert Yarnall and Bernard Waring as
the Simplex Engineering Company and originally manufactured pipe
clamps, steam traps, valves and controls.  Based in Pennsylvania,
Yarway was a privately-owned company until 1986 when KeyStone
International, Inc. bought equity in the company.  Yarway became a
unit of Tyco International Ltd. when Tyco purchased KeyStone in
1997.

Yarway's asbestos-related liabilities derive from Yarway's (i)
purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing,
manufactured by others, in its production of steam valves and
traps from the 1920s to 1970s, and (ii) alleged manufacture of
expansion joint packing that was allegedly made up of a compound
of Teflon and asbestos from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Over the past five years, about 10,021 new asbestos claims have
been asserted against Yarway, including 1,014 in Yarway's 2013
fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

The Debtor estimated assets and debts in excess of $100 million as
of the Chapter 11 filing.

Attorneys at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. and
Sidley Austin LLP serve as the Debtor's counsel in the Chapter 11
case.  Logan and Co. is the claims and notice agent.

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed an
official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants.  The
Committee tapped Elihu Inselbuch, Esq. at Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered, as lead bankruptcy counsel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Nixes Garlock's Appeal in WR Grace Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit denied Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's appeal from the
Chapter 11 reorganization plan of W.R. Grace & Co.

The Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware federal court decision
upholding an earlier ruling by the bankruptcy court that Garlock
lacked standing to block the reorganization plan, rejecting
Garlock's contention that it would be injured by the plan.

The Third Circuit explained that, under the Bankruptcy Code, any
"party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a
creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a
creditor, an equity security holder, or an indenture trustee,"
has standing to "raise and ... be heard on any issue" in a
bankruptcy case.  That list of parties in interest is not
exclusive and it "has been construed to create a broad right of
participation in Chapter 11 cases" that includes "anyone who has
a legally protected interest that could be affected by a
bankruptcy proceeding."  Nonetheless, "Article III standing and
standing under the Bankruptcy Code are effectively coextensive."
A party objecting to the confirmation of a plan for
reorganization under Chapter 11 must therefore "meet the
requirements for standing that litigants in all federal cases
face under Article III of the Constitution."

Thos requirements include that the party has suffered an injury
in fact, the Third Circuit further explained.  Although any
"specific, identifiable triffle of injury will do," Article III
requires that there be some "invasion of a legally protected
interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."

Garlock argues that it has suffered an injury in fact because it
has rights to contribution and setoff that will be harmed by the
Joint Plan.  In other words, Garlock claims that the Plan
threatens to diminish contribution payments and setoff amounts it
may receive from Grace in future cases.  Garlock concedes,
however, that there is no evidence that it has ever sought
contribution or setoff in the past due to Grace's liability, and
it does not assert that it has any current claims against Grace.
Rather, it explains that it resolved prior cases "against the
backdrop of" those rights, making it unnecessary to actually
assert contribution or setoff claims.

The Third Circuit found that that explanation does not address
the absence of any contribution and setoff claims arising from
cases brought against Garlock after Grace entered bankruptcy.
Once Grace filed for Chapter 11 protection, all actions against
the company were subject to an automatic stay under Section 362
of the Bankruptcy Code.  Therefore, between 2001 and 2010,
plaintiffs with joint claims against Grace and Garlock were able
to recover only from Garlock.  Yet Garlock concedes that there is
no evidence that it ever "suffered a judgment for which Grace
owes it contribution during Grace's bankruptcy."

Garlock's alleged future injury can thus only be called
speculative, and it fails to satisfy Article III's requirements
for standing, the Third Circuit ruled.  In order for the Joint
Plan to threaten Garlock's contribution and setoff rights,
Garlock must have a basis for asserting those rights, the Third
Circuit said.  That there may be future plaintiffs with claims
against both Grace and Garlock -- which is by no means a
certainty -- does not by itself provide that foundation, as those
claims must also produce verdicts or settlements that entitle
Garlock to contribution or setoff, the Third Circuit added.

The case is W.R. GRACE & CO., et al, Debtors, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, Appellant, NO. 12-2807 (3rd Circ.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated July 24, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/QpYhiDfrom Leagle.com.

Garland S. Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Susan M. Huber,
Esq. -- shuber@rbh.com -- Richard C. Worf, Jr., Esq. --
rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, in Charlotte,
North Carolina; and Brett D. Fallon, Esq. --
bfallon@morrisjames.com -- and Eric J. Monzo, Esq. --
emonzo@morrisjames.com -- at Morris James, in Wilmington,
Delaware, for Appellant.

Ann C. Cordo, Esq. -- acordo@mnat.com -- at Morris, Nichols,
Arsht & Tunnell, in Wilmington, Delaware; John Donley, Esq., Lisa
G. Esayian, Esq. -- lisa.esayian@kirkland.com -- and Adam C.
Paul, Esq. -- adam.paul@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, in
Chicago, Illinois; Christopher Landau, Esq. --
christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, in
Washington, D.C.; Roger J. Higgins, Esq. --
rhiggin@rogerhigginslaw.com -- at The Law Offices of Roger
Higgins LLC, in Chicago, Illinois; and Laura D. Jones, Esq. --
ljones@pszjlaw.com -- and James E. O'Neill, III, Esq. --
joneill@pszjlaw.com -- at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, in
Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee W.R. Grace & Co.

Mark T. Hurford, Esq. -- mhurford@camlev.com -- at Campbell &
Levine, in Wilmington, Delaware; Peter V. Lockwood, Esq. --
plockwood@capdale.com -- at Caplin & Drysdale, in Washington,
D.C., for Appellee Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury.

                          About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).
David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, and Laura
Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP,
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The Debtors
hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.

Roger Frankel serves as legal representative for victims of
asbestos exposure who may file claims against W.R. Grace.  Mr.
Frankel, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, replaces
David Austern, who was appointed to that role in 2004.  Mr.
Frankel has served as legal counsel for Mr. Austern who passed
away in May 2013.

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.  Implementation of the Plan has
been held up by appeals in District Court from various parties,
including a group of prepetition bank lenders and the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

The plan can't be implemented because pre-bankruptcy secured bank
lenders filed an appeal currently pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia.

Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes W.R. Grace
Bankruptcy News.  The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding
undertaken by W.R. Grace, W.R. Grace Co. - Conn. and their
affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).

                       About Garlock Sealing

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Porter Hayden Strikes $21MM Deal Over Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha, writing for BankruptcyLaw360, reported that
Porter Hayden Co. asked a Maryland federal court to greenlight its
$21.5 million settlement with two Ace Group insurers over coverage
of asbestos claims, a deal it said would quickly provide
substantial funds to its creditors.

According to the report, under the deal, Westchester Fire
Insurance Co. would pay $20 million, while Century Indemnity Co.
would fork over $1.5 million to settle with Porter Hayden, which
sold and installed asbestos-containing insulation products. Porter
Hayden said the settlement was negotiated in good faith and was
fair and reasonable.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $100,000 Net of Insurance Recoveries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., recorded $100,000 net of insurance
recoveries related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

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 health problems resulting
from exposure to asbestos. For the three months ended June 30,
2013, we recorded income, net of insurance recoveries, of $0.1
million and for the six months ended June 30, 2013, we recorded
charges, net of insurance recoveries, of $0.5 million related to
asbestos matters. These charges were recorded in Selling, general
and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated
Statements of Operation. We also expect that additional claims
will be brought against us in the future. However, the Company
believes our liability exposure from those additional future
claims cannot currently be estimated because of numerous
uncertainties, including the number of such claims and lawsuits
and the costs of defending and settling them, possible adverse
judgments in amounts greater than previously experienced, and
possible changes in the laws and process governing the
compensation of asbestos claimants."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $227.9-Mil Liability as of June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd., recorded $227.9 million estimated liability for
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 June 29, 2013.

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 June 29, 2013, there were approximately 2,000 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of
June 29, 2013. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not
actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or
duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our
current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us,
our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the
amount does not include certain claims pending against third
parties for which we have provided an indemnification.
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 $227.9
million and $235.5 million as of June 29, 2013 and December 31,
2012, 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 $156.5 million and $157.4
million as of June 29, 2013 and December 31, 2012, 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 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 Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd., is
global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection
partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid
Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal.
Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and
fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the
manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves & Controls
segment's products, services and solutions address applications in
the general process, oil and gas, power generation and mining
industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of
products focused on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a
provider of electric heat management solutions. On September 28,
2012, Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger)
with Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012,
the Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Travelers Had $2.28B Reserve at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were $2.28
billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2013.

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 intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos
claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on previously
peripheral defendants. 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
previously peripheral defendants, 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. 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.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims.

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 losses in the first six months of 2013 were $100
million, compared with $114 million in the same period of 2012.
Net asbestos reserves were $2.28 billion at June 30, 2013,
compared with $2.33 billion at June 30, 2012.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products.
The Company's Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering individuals' personal
risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Records $847.5-Mil Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's total asbestos-related liabilities is $847.5
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2013.

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 Ingersoll-Rand Company
(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:

* he 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 against it and the historical ratio between the
numbers of non-malignancy and 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;

* 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 June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, over 80 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy 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 June 30, 2013, the Company's total asbestos-related
liabilities is $847.5 million; and total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries is $312.2 million.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $126.0 million and $186.2 million at June 30,
2013, and $125.5 million and $194.8 million at December 31, 2012,
respectively.

The (costs) income associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries for the three
and six months ended June 30 were as follows: Total
$(5.3)million and $(9.9).

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries 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 June 30, 2013. 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 had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves 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.
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:

* 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;

* 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, 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, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. On December 30, 2011, it completed the
divestiture of its security installation and service business,
which was sold under the Integrated Systems and Services brand in
the United States and Canada, to Kratos Public Safety & Security
Solutions, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a
substantial number of lawsuits allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have
claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more
favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result
in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently
unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-
related claims, although future claims would also be subject to
then existing indemnities and insurance coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and
manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral
to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials
in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in
three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes
long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump
systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts
and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which
includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and
related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD),
which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves,
actuators and controls and related services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had 2,716 PI Lawsuits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is named defendant in 2,716
lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted, among
other diseases, asbestos-related cumulative trauma diseases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We categorize the product liability losses
that we experience into two main categories, single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur
and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable
damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident
product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for
pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims
derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant
information. Our reserve for single incident product liability
claims was $5.0 million at June 30, 2013 and $4.4 million at
December 31, 2012. Single incident product liability expense
during the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $0.6
million and $0.6 million, respectively. We evaluate our single
incident product liability exposures on an ongoing basis and make
adjustments to the reserve as new information becomes available.
Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in
2,716 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these
lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or
the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple
defendants.

Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to
predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given
cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the
amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are
highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the
relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit.

Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our
potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We,
therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability
losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn
sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we
will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with
open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.

We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related
to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product
liability claims that we may face. As new information about
cumulative trauma product liability cases and future developments
becomes available, we reassess our potential exposures.

For the six-months ended June 30,2013, there were 2,716 open
cumulative trauma product liability claims.

With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased
insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that
provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses
and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we
make payments to settle product liability claims and for related
defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are
covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are
many times our recorded insurance receivable balance.
Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of
our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations
with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability
insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become
insolvent in the future.

Our insurance receivables at June 30, 2013 totaled $152.9 million,
of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets and
$150.9 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance
receivables at December 31, 2012 totaled $130.0 million.

Additions to insurance receivables represent insured cumulative
trauma product liability losses and related defense costs.
Uninsured cumulative trauma product liability losses were $0.9
million during the six months ended June 30, 2013. Uninsured
cumulative trauma product liability losses were $5.9 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2012.

Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and
administrative and defense costs for the three years ended
December 31, 2012, totaled approximately $99.7 million,
substantially all of which was insured.

We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance
that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to
disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with
us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are
triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared
to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest
that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our
ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with
various insurance carriers in recent years demonstrates that we
have strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage.

We regularly evaluate the collectability of the insurance
receivables and record the amounts that we conclude are probable
of collection. Our conclusions are based on our analysis of the
terms of the underlying insurance policies, our experience in
successfully recovering cumulative trauma product liability claims
from our insurers under other policies, the financial ability of
our insurance carriers to pay the claims, our understanding and
interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law and the
advice of legal counsel, who believe that our insurers are
required to provide coverage based on the terms of the policies.

Although the outcome of cumulative trauma product liability
matters cannot be predicted with certainty and unfavorable
resolutions could materially affect our results of operations on a
quarter-to-quarter basis, based on information currently available
and the amounts of insurance coverage available to us, we believe
that the disposition of cumulative trauma product liability
lawsuits that are pending against us will not have a materially
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
condition, or liquidity.

We are currently involved in insurance coverage litigations with
various of our insurance carriers.

In 2009, we sued The North River Insurance Company (North River)
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that North River breached one of its
insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owed to us and that
it engaged in bad-faith claims handling. We believe that North
River's refusal to indemnify us under the policy for product
liability losses and legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to
Pennsylvania law and we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions
necessary to collect all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and
motions for summary judgment on certain issues have been submitted
to the court. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.
In 2010, North River sued us in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment
concerning their responsibilities under three additional policies
shared with Allstate Insurance Company (as successor in interest
to policies issued by the Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance
Company). We asserted claims against North River and Allstate for
breaches of contract for failures to pay amounts owed to us. We
also alleged that North River engaged in bad-faith claims
handling. We believe that North River's and Allstate's refusals to
indemnify us under these policies for product liability losses and
legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law and
we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions necessary to collect
all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and motions for summary
judgment on certain issues have been submitted to the court. A
trial date has not yet been scheduled.

In July 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of Delaware seeking declaratory and other relief from the
majority of our excess insurance carriers concerning the future
rights and obligations of MSA and our excess insurance carriers
under various insurance policies. The reason for this insurance
coverage action is to secure a comprehensive resolution of our
rights under the insurance policies issued by our insurers. The
case is currently in discovery. We have resolved our claims
against certain of our insurance carriers on some of their
policies through negotiated settlements. When a settlement is
reached, we dismiss the settling carrier from this action in
Delaware."

Established in 1914, MSA is a global leader in the development,
manufacture and supply of safety products that protect people's
health and safety. Many MSA products typically integrate a
combination of electronics, mechanical systems and advanced
materials to protect users against hazardous or life-threatening
situations. The company's comprehensive line of products is used
by workers around the world in a broad range of industries,
including the oil, gas and petrochemical industry, the fire
service, construction, mining and utilities, and the military.
Principal products include self-contained breathing
apparatus, handheld gas detection instruments, fixed gas and flame
detection systems, head protection products, and fall protection
devices . The company also provides a broad
range of consumer and contractor safety products through a joint
venture with MCR Safety. These products are marketed and sold
under the Safety Works(R) brand. MSA has annual sales of
approximately $1.2 billion, manufacturing operations in the United
States, Europe, Asia and Latin America, and 42 international
locations. Additional information is available on the company's
Web site at www.MSAsafety.com. Information on Safety Works
products can be found at www.SafetyWorks.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,633 Claims as of June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 22,633 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 June 28, 2013.

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 is a diversified global manufacturing and
engineering company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and
fabrication technology products and services to commercial and
governmental customers around the world under the Howden,
Colfax Fluid Handling and ESAB brands. Colfax believes that its
brands are among the most highly recognized in each of the
markets that it serves. Colfax is traded on the NYSE under the
ticker "CFX." Additional information about Colfax is available at
www.colfaxcorp.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Has 57 Pending "Filter" Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., had 57 "Filter" cases pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including former
employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, 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 Lorillard for a limited period of time ending more
than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 56 of the
57 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in one of the
56 Filter Cases that are pending against Lorillard Tobacco.
Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in one additional Filter Case
in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Corp. Had 25,000 Pending PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had approximately 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 June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30, 2013
and December 31, 2012. In addition, approximately 1,000 mostly
inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have
accrued $79 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at June 30, 2013, compared to $83
million at December 31, 2012. We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

At June 30, 2013, we had recorded $47 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $50 million
recorded at December 31, 2012. 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. We have coverage agreements in place
with our 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 our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs.

As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was
then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities, a
callable note received in connection with a divestiture in 2004
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC 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 is global provider of technology
driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for vehicle
manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway markets. The
Company operates in four business units: Light Vehicle Driveline
Technologies (Light Vehicle Driveline (LVD)), Commercial Vehicle
Driveline Technologies (Commercial Vehicle), Off-Highway Driveline
Technologies (Off-Highway) and Power Technologies. The Company's
LVD segment includes front and rear axles, driveshafts,
differentials, torque couplings and modular assemblies. The
Company's commercial vehicle segment includes axles, driveshafts,
steering shafts, suspensions and tire management systems. The
Company's off-highway segment includes axles, driveshafts and end-
fittings, transmissions, torque converters and electronic
controls. Power Technologies includes gaskets, cover modules, heat
shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat transfer
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuit
and claims alleging bodily injury and death as a result of
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

As of June 30, 2013, the Company has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately
2,600 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the
lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2012, approximately 66% of
plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or
in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke
the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 30%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15 million or less,
and 4% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15
million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million.

As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice
permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary
damages. The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands
of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period
demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be alleged in a
complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or
disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is
determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2013, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately
392,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of approximately $8,400. Certain of these dispositions
have included deferred amounts payable over time. Deferred amounts
payable totaled approximately $11 million at June 30, 2013 ($24
million at December 31, 2012) and are included in the foregoing
average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's asbestos
indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are
expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of the
Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of
asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of
claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in
the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has
generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that
would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts
and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal
or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received.
These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion
through 2012, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of
non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation,
and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large
numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust
but have no present physical asbestos impairment.

The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods
arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos
claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company
believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the
legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the
foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

a)  the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who
were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing insulation prior
to its exit from that business in 1958;

b)  the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's
administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those
set forth in those agreements;

c)  the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious
disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

d)  the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself
successfully at trial;

e)  the extent to which courts and legislatures eliminate, reduce
or permit the diversion of financial resources for unimpaired
claimants;

f)  the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies;

g)  the extent to which bankruptcy trusts direct resources to
resolve claims that are also presented to the Company and the
timing of the payments made by the bankruptcy trusts; and

h)  the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources
and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution
of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2012 were
materially affected by the $155 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81
glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures
these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. It has four
geographical segments: Europe, North America, South America, and
Asia Pacific. On September 1, 2010, it completed the acquisition
of Brazilian glassmaker Companhia Industrial de Vidros (CIV). On
December 23, 2010, the Company acquired Hebei Rixin Glass Group
Co., Ltd. On December 7, 2010, the Company acquired the majority
interest in Zhaoqing Jiaxin Glasswork Co., LTD. On March 11, 2010,
the Company acquired the majority interest in Cristalerias
Rosario.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,045 Exposure Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation is party to 1,045 cases alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company was a party to 1,045 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,897 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.

During the six-months ended June 30, 2013, the Company's total
defense costs was $1,365,000. There were 25 claims settled during
the period, and the average settlement amount per claim was
$1,888.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,897 claims pending at June 30, 2013, 107
set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).

The Company reported specific amounts that seek compensatory and
punitive damages -- 89 claims seeking $0.0 million to $5.0
million; 14 claims seeking $5.0 million to $10.0 million; and 4
claims seeking more than $10.0 million.

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $6.4 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately
40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of
asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to
the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace &
Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America. On September 13, 2011, the Company purchased all of
the assets of a standard ring type joint gasket manufacturer
located in Faridabad. On August 1, 2011, it acquired the stock of
Innovative Molding (Innovative). On December 22, 2011, the Company
sold its Hi-Vol Products and Precision Tool Company subsidiaries
to ARCH Global Precision LLC, a newly formed entity created by
Strength Capital Partners. On February 24, 2012, the Company
acquired 70% interest in Arminak & Associates, LLC. On January 14,
2013, the Company's business, Lamons acquired Gasket Vedacoes
Tecnicas Ltd. On January 28, 2013, it acquired Martinic
Engineering, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., had approximately 16,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We believe
that the Company's involvement is limited because, in general,
these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products
that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both June 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately 16,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively. Of the
approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2013,
approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have
undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities
subsequent to the filing of these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2013, of the approximately 900 claims
resolved, 153 (17%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2012, of the
approximately 2,400 claims resolved, 308 (13%) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

The Company has paid and accrued $254.3 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
$124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The net balance of
$129.5 million, is expected to be fully recovered, of which
approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered within one
year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final resolution of the
declaratory judgment action or additional negotiated settlements.
At December 31, 2012, insurers owed $111.0 million in association
with these claims.

In addition to the $129.5 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $103.6 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2013. The
Company also has a related asset of $103.6 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which, more-
likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to June 30, 2014. At
December 31, 2012, the comparable value of the accrued liability
and associated insurance asset was $85.6 million.

The 2013 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation estimates that its asbestos-related
aggregate liability to range between $8,000,000 and $13,000,000,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2013.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $8,000,000 and $13,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
June 30, 2013. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$11,000,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2013. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,350,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In August 2012, it
sold its Gaffey division of Crane Equipment and Service Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Unit Has 52,000 PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary had 52,000
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 June 30, 2013.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. In 1963, Crown
Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating businesses, one
of which is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing
insulation products. Crown Cork believes that the business ceased
manufacturing such products in 1963.

The Company recorded pre-tax charges of $35 million, $28 million
and $46 million to increase its accrual for asbestos-related
liabilities in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of June 30,
2013, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related
claims and related legal costs was $243 million, including $182
million for unasserted claims. Crown Cork's accrual includes
estimated probable costs for claims through the year 2022. Crown
Cork's accrual excludes potential costs for claims beyond 2022
because the Company believes that the key assumptions underlying
its accrual are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection
period lengthens. Assumptions underlying the accrual include that
claims for exposure to asbestos that occurred after the sale of
the subsidiary's insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled
to settlement payouts and state statutes, including Texas and
Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly favorable
impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against
asbestos-related claims in those states and other states where
Pennsylvania law may apply.

Crown Cork had approximately 51,000 asbestos-related claims
outstanding at December 31, 2012. Of these claims, approximately
15,000 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to
asbestos after 1964 and approximately 36,000 relate to claimants
alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of
which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 2,000 were filed
in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have
enacted asbestos legislation and 15,000 were filed in other
states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2012 exclude 3,100
pending claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or
were, maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose
claims the Company believes will not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position
or cash flow. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2012 also
exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage
of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in
these cases will pursue further action. The exclusion of these
inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company's
accrual as the claims were filed in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute. The Company devotes significant
time and expense to defend against these various claims,
complaints and proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the
expenses or distractions from operating the Company's businesses
arising from these defenses will not increase materially.

During the six months ended June 30, 2013, Crown Cork received
approximately 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately
1,000 claims, and had approximately 52,000 claims outstanding at
the end of the period.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003. The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

Crown Cork made cash payments of $28 million, $28 million, $27
million and $13 million in 2012, 2011, 2010 and for the six months
ended June 30, 2013, respectively, for asbestos-related claims
including settlement payments and legal fees. These payments have
reduced and any such future payments will reduce the cash flow
available to Crown Cork for its business operations and debt
payments.

Asbestos-related payments including defense costs may be
significantly higher than those estimated by Crown Cork because
the outcome of this type of litigation (and, therefore, Crown
Cork's reserve) is subject to a number of assumptions and
uncertainties, such as the number or size of asbestos-related
claims or settlements, the number of financially viable
responsible parties, the extent to which state statutes relating
to asbestos liability are upheld and/or applied by the courts,
Crown Cork's ability to obtain resolution without payment of
asbestos-related claims by persons alleging first exposure to
asbestos after 1964, and the potential impact of any pending or
future asbestos-related legislation. Accordingly, Crown Cork may
be required to make payments for claims substantially in excess of
its accrual, which could reduce the Company's cash flow and impair
its ability to satisfy its obligations. As a result of the
uncertainties regarding its asbestos-related liabilities and its
reduced cash flow, the ability of the Company to raise new money
in the capital markets is more difficult and more costly, and the
Company may not be able to access the capital markets in the
future."

Crown Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a leading
supplier of packaging products to consumer marketing companies
around the world. World headquarters are located in Philadelphia,
PA. For more information, visit www.crowncork.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Had 5,400 Pending Claims at June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., has determined it has approximately 5,400
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 June 28, 2013.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with 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 the Company has
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. The Company's 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, the Company cannot predict the extent to which it will
be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. In addition,
the Company continues to assess its strategy for resolving
asbestos claims. Due to the number of claims and limited amount of
assets held by Yarway Corporation ("Yarway"), one of the Company's
indirect subsidiaries, on April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware. As a result of this filing, all asbestos claims against
Yarway have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of
reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court. Yarway's goal is to
negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of
reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to
provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current
and future Yarway asbestos claims, accompanied by appropriate
injunctive relief permanently protecting Yarway and certain other
protected parties from any further asbestos claims arising from
products manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Yarway. Upon
confirmation of such plan of reorganization, the Company expects
to deconsolidate Yarway. As a result of filing the voluntary
petition during the quarter, the Company recorded an expected loss
upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway
bankruptcy petition. Although the terms of Yarway's plan of
reorganization are unknown at this time, the Company does not
expect them to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

As of June 28, 2013, the Company has determined that there were
approximately 5,400 claims pending against it, its subsidiaries or
entities for which the Company has assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions and divestitures. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against such entities 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.

The Company's estimate of its liability and corresponding
insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs
is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and
estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future
claims that may be filed. The Company's legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company
considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period
of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and
settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims
reasonably projected to be made in the future during a defined
period of time (the look-forward period). On a quarterly basis,
Tyco assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for
pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual
experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and
amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement
experience, Tyco considers additional quantitative and qualitative
factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and
the Company's defense strategy. Tyco also evaluates the
recoverability of its insurance receivable on a quarterly basis.
The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether
a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company determined
that a look-back period of three years was more appropriate than a
five year period because the Company had experienced a higher and
more consistent level of claims activity and settlement costs in
the past three years. As a result, the Company believes a three
year look-back period is more representative of future claim and
settlement activity than the five year period it previously used.
The Company also revised its look-forward period from seven years
to fifteen years. The Company's decision to revise its look-
forward period was primarily based on improvements in the
consistency of observable data and the Company's more extensive
experience with asbestos claims since the look-forward period was
originally established in 2005. The revisions to the Company's
look-forward and look-back periods do not apply to claims made
against Yarway. Excluding these claims, the Company believes it
can make a more reliable estimate of pending and future claims
beyond seven years. The Company believes valuation of pending
claims and future claims to be filed over the next fifteen years
produces a reasonable estimate of its asbestos liability, which it
records in the unaudited consolidated financial statements on an
undiscounted basis. The effect of the change in our look-back and
look-forward periods reduced income from continuing operations
before income taxes and net income by approximately $90 million
and $55 million, respectively. In addition, the effect of the
change increased the Company's basic and diluted loss from
continuing operations by $0.12 per share and decreased the
Company's basic and diluted net income by $0.12 per share.

The Company's estimate of asbestos related insurance recoveries
represents estimated amounts due to the Company for previously
paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating
to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. In
determining the amount of insurance recoverable, the Company
considers a number of factors, including available insurance,
allocation methodologies, and the solvency and creditworthiness of
insurers. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company
reached an agreement with one of its primary insurance carriers
for asbestos related claims. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Company agreed with the insurance carrier to accept a lump sum
cash payment of $97 million in respect of certain policies, and
has reached a coverage-in-place agreement with the insurance
carrier with respect to certain claims. Upon receipt of the
payments from the insurance carrier in the first quarter of fiscal
2013, the Company terminated a cost-sharing agreement that it had
entered into with an entity that it had acquired a business from
several decades ago and as a result, has access to all of the
insurance policies and is responsible for all liabilities arising
from asbestos claims made against the subsidiary that was
acquired.

As of June 28, 2013, the Company's estimated net liability of $176
million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related
defense costs of $328 million, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $152 million. The Company believes that
its asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets as
of June 28, 2013 are appropriate. Similarly, as of September 28,
2012, the Company's estimated net liability of $155 million was
recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $401 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of $246 million.

The net liabilities reflected in the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet represent the Company's best estimates of probable
losses for the look-forward periods. It is reasonably possible
that losses will be incurred for claims made subsequent to such
look-forward periods. However, due to the inherent uncertainty and
lack of reliable trend data in predicting losses beyond 2027, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of losses
beyond such date. With respect to claims made against Yarway, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate losses beyond what it has
accrued because it is uncertain what the impact of Yarway's
reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code will
be on the Company. However, the Company does not expect the impact
to be materially adverse to its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers,
amount of insurance and the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely
linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will
impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or
assumption predominately influences the determination of the
Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
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 the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.

Tyco International Ltd is a Switzerland-based holding company of
Tyco Group. The Tyco Group (the Group) is a diversifies, global
provider of diversified products ranging from electronic security
and alarm monitoring to fire-fighting equipment and breathing
apparatus, water purification and flow control solutions. The
Company diversifies its activities into three segments: Tyco
Security Solutions; Tyco Fire Protection and Tyco Flow Control.
The Tyco Security Solutions segment designs, sells, installs,
services and monitors electronic security systems, as well as
designs, manufactures and sells security products. The Tyco Fire
Protection segment designs, manufactures, sells, installs and
services fire detection and fire suppression systems, among
others. The Tyco Flow Control segment designs, manufactures, sells
and services valves, pipes, fittings, automation and controls,
valve automation and heat tracing products for various industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 12 Pending Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., had 12 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
June 30, 2013.

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 72 pending silica cases and 12 pending asbestos cases. To
date, 1,394 silica cases and 33 asbestos cases have been
dismissed. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the second quarter
of 2013. 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 not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  The Company states, "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 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 12 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 that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The
Specialty Minerals segment produces and sells the synthetic
mineral product precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) and processed
mineral product quicklime (lime), and mines mineral ores then
processes and sells natural mineral products, primarily limestone
and talc. The Refractories segment produces and markets monolithic
and shaped refractory materials and specialty products, services
and application and measurement equipment, and calcium metal and
metallurgical wire products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Had $298-Mil. Casualty Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation had casualty reserves of $298 million representing
accruals for personal injury, occupational injury, and asbestos
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2013.

Casualty reserves of $298 million for the second quarter 2013
represent accruals for personal injury, occupational injury and
asbestos claims. The Company's self-insured retention amount for
these claims is $50 million per occurrence. Currently, no
individual claim is expected to exceed the self-insured retention
amount. To the extent the value of an individual claim exceeds the
self-insured retention amount, the Company would present the
liability on a gross basis with a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate based upon the
timing of payments as well as changes in independent third-party
estimates, which are reviewed by management. Actual results may
vary from estimates due to the number, type and severity of the
injury, costs of medical treatments and uncertainties in
litigation. Most of the claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise
noted. Defense and processing costs, which historically have been
insignificant and are anticipated to be insignificant in the
future, are not included in the recorded liabilities.

Personal injury reserves represent liabilities for employee work-
related and third-party injuries. Work-related injuries for CSXT
employees are primarily subject to the Federal Employers'
Liability Act ("FELA"). In addition to FELA liabilities, employees
of other CSX subsidiaries are covered by various state workers'
compensation laws, the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Program or the Maritime Jones Act.

CSXT retains an independent actuarial firm to assist management in
assessing the value of personal injury claims. An analysis is
performed by the independent actuarial firm quarterly and is
reviewed by management. The methodology used by the actuary
includes a development factor to reflect growth or reduction in
the value of these personal injury claims. It is based largely on
CSXT's historical claims and settlement experience.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss. The Company is
also party to a number of asbestos claims by current or former
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an
independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management.
Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos
claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent
third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective
of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the
third-party actuarial firm and specialist (the "third-party
specialists") is to determine the number of incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") claims. The third-party specialists analyze
CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and
average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims
reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using
CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis,
the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability.

CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a
transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services, including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides
link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately
21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states
east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has access to over 70
ocean, river and lake port terminals along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal business links customers
to railroads through trucks and terminals. CSXT also serves
production and distribution facilities through track connections
to approximately 240 short-line and regional railroads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Corp. Had $134-Mil Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation recorded $134 million for its asbestos-
related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2013.

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 23% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 77% related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2013.

For the six-months ended June 30, 2013, the ending balance of our
asbestos-related liability is $134 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 June 30, 2013, and December
31, 2012.

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) owns transportation companies. Its
principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links
23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific
Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal.
Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the
United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems
division of Ansaldo STS USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Charges $50MM to Resolve Bendix Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., charged $50 million to its estimated
liability to resolve Bendix related asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we
recognized a charge of $50 million primarily representing an
update to our estimated liability for the resolution of Bendix
related asbestos claims as of June 30, 2013, net of probable
insurance recoveries.

In the six months ended June 30, 2013, we recognized a charge of
$91 million primarily representing an update to our estimated
liability for the resolution of Bendix related asbestos claims as
of June 30, 2013, net of probable insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In December 2011, the Company acquired King's Safetywear
Limited (KSW), a provider of branded safety footwear. In August
2011, it completed the acquisition of EMS Technologies, Inc.
(EMS). In October 2012, the Company's UOP business had completed
its acquisition of a 70% interest in Thomas Russell Co. In June
2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reduction of Award for Victim's Family Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Dixon contracted mesothelioma.  While still alive, she and
her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and
Georgia-Pacific Corp. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
claiming negligence on the companies' part for failing to warn
Mrs. Dixon of the danger lurking in their products.  Mrs. Dixon
died and was succeeded in the lawsuit by her husband and children.


After a 12-day trial, a jury concluded that the only substantial
contributing factor in causing Ms. Dixon's mesothelioma was the
dust from the Ford brake products.  On that finding, it returned
substantial verdicts in favor of Mr. Dixon and his daughters
against Ford and denied a cross-claim by Ford against Georgia-
Pacific.

The trial court subsequently modified those verdicts in two
respects by (1) reducing the amount of the verdicts and (2)
expressing its disagreement with the jury's conclusion that the
Georgia-Pacific compound was not also a substantial contributing
factor and entered judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against
Georgia-Pacific.

Both the Plaintiffs and Ford filed appeals to the Court of Special
Appeals, which addressed only one of several issues raised -- the
opinion evidence by the Plaintiffs' principal expert, Dr. Laura
Welch, that every exposure to asbestos, including the short-fiber
chrysotile asbestos contained in the Ford brake products,
increased the likelihood of contracting mesothelioma and thus
constituted a substantial contributing cause of that disease.  The
Special Appeals Court held that Dr. Welch's opinion was not
helpful to the jury and that the trial court abused its discretion
in allowing it into evidence.  The Special Appeals Court reversed
the judgments entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and remanded the
case for a new trial and, as a result, did not consider the cross-
claim against Georgia-Pacific or any of the other issues raised by
the parties.

In an opinion dated July 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
Maryland reversed the judgment of the Special Appeals Court and
remanded the case with instructions to affirm the trial court's
judgments entered in favor of the Plaintiffs against Ford Motor
and reserve the judgment entered in favor of Ford Motor on its
cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific.

On the reduction of the amounts of the verdicts, the Court of
Appeals held that under the statute in effect when the cause of
action arose, the trial court's reductions are numerically
correct.  According to the Court of Appeals, the cap imposed by
the trial court does not intrude on the jury's right to determine
the relative degree of harm suffered by the individual claimants;
nor does it create irrational classifications among the claimants.


The Court of Appeals found no violation of equal protection, due
process, the right to jury trial, and thus sustained the
reductions made by the trial court.

On the reversal of the jury's verdict on Ford's cross-claim
against Georgia-Pacific, the Court of Appeals held that the trial
court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on
the cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific.  According to the Court
of Appeals, there was no direct evidence that Ms. Dixon was ever
exposed to asbestos emanating from a Georgia-Pacific product.  At
best, an inference could fairly have been drawn that she was,
which made the issue one for the jury to resolve.  The Court of
Appeals pointed out that the trial court carefully and properly
instructed the jury on the standards it was to apply in weighing
the evidence, explaining that the jury was the sole judge of
whether testimony should be believed and of the weight of the
evidence and that the party asserting a cross-claim had the burden
of proving it.  There is no indication that, with respect to
Ford's cross-claim, the jury did anything other than what it was
instructed to do and what was properly within its province to do,
the Court of Appeals noted.  There was no triumph of technicality
over justice, the Court of Appeals said.  The verdict was not
against the weight of the evidence but simply reflected the jury's
belief that evidence of Ms. Dixon's exposure to asbestos from a
Georgia-Pacific product was insufficient to show by a
preponderance that such exposure was a substantial contributing
factor in causing her mesothelioma, the Court of Appeals added.

The case is BERNARD DIXON, etc., et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, NO.
82, SEPTEMBER TERM 2012 (Md.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/64Ww2wfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Flips Decision in PGE Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Portland General Electric Company seeks review of a
Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court
order denying defendant Lexington Insurance Company's motion to
set aside a default judgment entered against it in PGE's favor, on
the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the
default judgment.

On review, the issues are (1) whether a default judgment awarding
monetary relief violates Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) if
the underlying complaint, in this case an asbestos-related
personal injury action, did not state the specific amount of money
or damages being sought; and (2) if so, whether a defect renders
the judgment merely voidable and therefore not subject to
collateral attack or, instead, renders the judgment void and
therefore subject to challenge at any time.

In a decision dated July 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of Oregon
concluded that the default judgment did violate ORCP in the
asserted respect.  However, the Supreme Court also concluded that,
in the circumstances of the case, the rule violation did not
render the judgment void.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed
the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded to that court
for further proceedings.

The case is PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oregon
corporation, Plaintiff- Respondent, Petitioner on Review, v.
EBASCO SERVICES, INC., fka Esicorp, Inc.; et al., Defendants, and
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Respondent on
Review. EECI, INC., a Nevada corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York Corporation; et al.,
Third-Party Defendants, NO. S060584 (Or.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/gD09ZDfrom Leagle.com.

Brian R. Talcott, Esq. -- btalcott@dunncarney.com -- at Dunn
Carney Allen Higgins and Tongue, LLP, in Portland, argued the
cause for petitioner on review.  With him on the brief were Thomas
H. Tongue, Esq. -- ttongue@dunncarney.com -- and Bridget D. Lynn,
Esq. -- blynn@dunncarney.com -- at Dunn Carney Allen Higgins and
Tongue, LLP.

David M. Axelrad, Esq. -- at daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com -- Horitz &
Levy LLP, Encino, California, argued the cause for respondent on
review.  On the brief were Stephen F. Deatherage, Esq. --
stephen.deatherage@bullivant.com -- at Bullivant Houser Bailey,
PC, in Portland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi-Cola's Suit v. Cooper Remains in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, LLC and Cooper US, Inc., filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth
District, Houston, asking the Court to compel the Honorable Larry
Weiman, presiding judge of the 80th District Court of Harris
County, to set aside his May 23, 2013, order denying their plea to
the jurisdiction and to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Pepsi-Cola
Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc., in Texas to challenge a
settlement agreement, which resulted in a trust approved by a New
York court providing "hundreds of millions of dollars" for the
defense and payment of asbestos claims.  At issue in the Texas
case are the funds for claims against Pneumo Abex LLC, which has
indemnity obligations to Pepsi.  Cooper's indemnity obligations to
Pneumo Abex were released in the settlement agreement.

The Relators' plea raised the principle of comity, asserting that
a New York state court should maintain jurisdiction over Pepsi-
Cola's case.  The Supreme Court held that under the facts
presented, comity does not require abatement of the Texas suit.
Relators have not established that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying their request for dismissal of the Texas
suit based on principles of comity, the Supreme Court said.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

The Relators also filed a motion for a temporary stay of discovery
pending the proceeding, which the Supreme Court denied holding
that consideration of certain factors weights against staying the
Texas suit.  The Supreme Court pointed out that the Texas and New
York suits involve different causes of action, different issues,
and seek different relief.

Moreover, the New York litigation has concluded.  At the hearing
approving the settlement, the New York trial judge stated that his
court would "continue to have jurisdiction over this action and
settling parties with respect to any further matters that might
arise out of the settlement agreement. . . .," the Supreme Court
noted.  Because Pepsi was not a party to the New York action,
Pepsi's suit is not required to be litigated in the New York
court, the Supreme Court held.

The case is IN RE COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC AND COOPER US, INC.,
Relators, NO. 14-13-00500-CV (Tex. App.).  A full-text copy of the
memorandum and decision dated July 25, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/VYLIfUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane's Liability in "Keeney" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Keeney developed mesothelioma, a disease caused by
exposure to asbestos.  He and Howard J. Garcia filed suit against
numerous defendants, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
Keeney's exposure to asbestos during his 20 years of service in
the United States Navy and his 16-year employment by C & H Sugar
Company.

A jury trial was held against John Crane Inc., the only remaining
defendant after the others either settled or were dismissed.  The
jury allocated the majority of the liability to the Navy but found
that John Crane was 12 percent liable for Keeney's damages.  John
Crane filed an appeal, and appellants filed a cross-appeal.
However, John Crane paid the judgment and subsequently abandoned
its appeal.  The Appellants contend in their cross-appeal that the
evidence is not sufficient to sustain the jury's allocation of
liability and that John Crane should be held liable for 100
percent of the damages.

In a decision dated July 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four, disagreed and found
that there is substantial evidence to support the jury's findings.


The Appellants also contend that the trial court abused its
discretion in allowing a former Navy commander to testify because
it violated a Navy regulation.  The Court of Appeals also
disagreed, and affirmed the judgment.

The case is RICHARD KEENEY et al., Plaintiffs and Cross-
Appellants, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al., Defendants and
Cross-Respondents, NO. B240313 (Calif. App.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/BU31FFfrom Leagle.com.

Simona A. Farrise, Esq., and Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., at The Arkin
Law Firm, for Plaintiffs and Cross- Appellants.

Robert E. Thackston, Esq. -- rthackston@hptylaw.com -- and Julia
A. Gowin, Esq. -- jgowin@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell
Thackston & Young, for Defendant and Cross- Respondent John Crane
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favoring Crane in "Bone" Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated
and remanded a trial court's entry of summary judgment against
Plaintiffs Robert and Annemarie Bone and in favor of Defendant
Crane Company.  The trial court granted Crane's summary judgment
motion, holding that the Plaintiffs failed to file their action
within the two-year statute of limitations.

According to the Superior Court, the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment against Bone and in favor of Crane.  The Superior
Court noted that the record does not support the trial court's
conclusion that Mr. Bone's progress notes from the Durham Medical
Center, which indicated a history of diagnosed asbestosis and
inhalers for treatment triggered a duty to know of a diagnosis of
symptomatic asbestosis, or a duty of further inquiry, prior to
2009.

The case is ROBERT AND ANNEMARIE BONE, Appellants, v. AMERICAN
STANDARD, A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, ASBESTOS INSULATION COMPANY,
INC., A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., BAYER CORPSCIENCE, INC., BRAND
INSULATIONS, INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, COPESVULCAN, CRANE
CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CRANE PACKING, CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY,
INC., DANA COMPANIES, LLC, DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS, FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION,
GARLOCK, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA,
INC., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREEN, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., HAJOCA
PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., INGERSOLL RAND CO.,
ITT CORPORATION, J.A. SEXAUER MANUFACTURING CO., J.H. FRANCE
REFRACTORIES CO., McMASTER CARR SUPPLY HOUSE, MELRATH GASKET,
INC., METROPOLITAN INSURANCE CO., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PARS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PECORA CORPORATION, RILEY STOKER
CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VELLUMOID, INC., WEIL
McLAIN CO., YARWAY CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, Appellees, NO.
2468 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Decision, dated July 29, 2013, is
available for free at http://is.gd/hNKVmafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mechanic's PI Suit v. Courter Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted Defendant Courter & Company, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment dismissing an asbestos-related personal injury action
against it and all cross-claims arising from the action.

According to Judge Heitler, Alberto Fernandez, who worked for
Consolidated Edison as a general utility man as a mechanic, could
not say who employed the workers at the Ravenswood facility that
maintained the main boiler at that location, what work they were
doing, where the dust came from, or whether that dust contained
asbestos.  Judge Heitler said that even if the Court were to
assume, arguendo, that that work was performed by Courter
employees, there is no evidence to show that it contributed to Mr.
Fernandez' asbestos exposure.

The case is ALEIDA FERNANDEZ, Individually and as Administratrix
of the Estate of ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. A.C. and S.,
Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190399/11, MOTION SEQ. NO.
010, (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision
dated July 22, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/AAjCBufrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's 8th Amendment Violation Claim Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Haden, a pro se inmate currently housed at Buena Vista
Correctional Facility (BVCF), filed four claims, including one
claim alleging that his Eight Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment was violated because of poor living
conditions at BVCF including asbestos, poor air circulation,
fluctuating temperatures, and the presence of mice, insects, and
molds.  The claims were referred to Magistrate Judge Tafoya who
recommended that all of the claims be dismissed.  Following de
novo review, the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado adopted Magistrate Judge Tafoya's recommendation.  With
regards to his Eight Amendment violation claim, the Court held
that Mr. Haden could not show that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his health or safety.  Mr. Haden now
wants the Court to alter or amend its orders.

In a order dated July 29, 2013, the Court refused to alter or
amend its prior judgment, finding that Mr. Haden does not cite to
any specific mistakes that were made, offer new evidence, or cite
to any extraordinary circumstances.  In the alternative, the Court
granted Mr. Haden leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

The case is STEVEN HADEN, Plaintiff, v. STEVE GREEN, Warden, Buena
Vista Correctional Facility, WILLIAM BRUNNELL, GEORGE DUNBAR,
TERRI BARTRUFF, R. DANSDILL, J. LENGERICH, D. CONNORS, G.
SMETHERS, L. BLAND, V. DENT, T. COLEMAN, A. ORTEGA, DR. SHEPARD,
G. SMITH, C. McCORMACK, CROCKETT, and C. LAGUE, Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 10-CV-0515-RBJ-KMT (D. Colo.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/ogTQ65from Leagle.com.

Steven T. Haden, Plaintiff, Pro Se.  David M. Shepard, Defendant,
represented by Nicole S. Gellar, Colorado Attorney General's
Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Pipefitter's Claim Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.H. Glatfelter (Employer) petitions for review of an adjudication
of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board granting James Henry's
claim for an occupational disease.  The Claimant filed a claim
alleging that he had pulmonary fibrosis caused by long-time
exposure to hazardous materials, including asbestos, at the
Employer's workplace.  In granting the Claim, the Board affirmed
the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge that Claimant
proved that exposure to hazardous materials at Employer's plant
caused him to develop a disabling lung disease.  The Employer does
not dispute that the Claimant's lung disease was caused by his
employment and is disabling.  The Employer contends only that the
Claimant failed to present evidence adequate to prove that his
disability occurred within 300 weeks of his last exposure to
hazardous materials as required by Section 301(c)(2) of the
Workers' Compensation Act.

In a memorandum opinion dated July 30, 2013, a three-judge panel
of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment
after finding that the Claimant did meet his burden of proof.

The case is P.H. Glatfelter, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation
Appeal Board (Henry), Respondent, NO. 48 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision penned by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt
is available at http://is.gd/HmWjTEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Jensen" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted Plaintiff
Peter E. Jensen's motion to remand his asbestos-related personal
injury action to Pierce County Superior Court in Washington, after
finding that Saberhagen Holding's presence as a properly joined
Washington corporation defeats diversity.

The case is PETER E. JENSEN, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-5449 (W.D.
Wash.).  A full-text copy of Judge Leighton's Decision dated
July 29, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/S6uGJ3from
Leagle.com.

Peter E. Jensen, Plaintiff, is represented by Glenn S Draper, Esq.
-- glenn@bergmanlegal.com -- and Brian F Ladenburg, Esq. --
brian@bergmanlegal.com -- at BERGMAN DRAPER LADENBURG.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Richard G Gawlowski, Esq. -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- at WILSON SMITH
COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Katherine M. Steele,
Esq. -- ksteele@williamskastner.com -- at WILLIAMS KASTNER &
GIBBS.

Terex Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Kevin J Craig,
Esq. -- kcraig@gordonrees.com -- and Mark B Tuvim, Esq. --
mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz's NY Suit v. Blackmer Pump Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION - WEITZ &
LUXEMBURG, P.C., v. BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-3435 (N.Y.
App. Div.) is stayed in the interim pending hearing and
determination of an appeal.  A full-text copy of the Decision
dated July 30, 2013, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, is available at
http://is.gd/AUQJdCfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Old Thunder Bay Hotel Prompts Caution
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the company removing the debris from the
former Empire Hotel in Thunder Bay's south-side downtown says
asbestos in the collapsed building poses no risk to the public.

According to the report, a sign at the site on Simpson Street
warns passers-by of the presence of asbestos, but a supervisor
with DRD construction says workers are taking care to wet the
debris so dangerous particles are not released into the air.

"We usually use amended water, it's called," Rob Trystruha told
the news agency. "You can use a [fabric softener] product or
different things mixed with water, which will encapsulate the
asbestos."

Trystruha said workers also keep the rubble covered during the
drive to the landfill, where the asbestos is buried rather than
left sitting in the open air, the report related.

"We're taking all precautions that this contamination doesn't get
anywhere."

The building is being demolished after it had partially caved in,
the report said.

Trystruha said there was asbestos in one of the walls of the
building -- but only a fraction of a per cent. Because the
percentage is so low, he said there is no risk to the public.  He
noted "asbestos can only be inhaled. You can't absorb it through
your skin or eat it."

Workers are wearing masks and the sidewalk alongside the
demolition site is closed. Pedestrians are being asked to walk on
the other side of the street.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Could Delay Marion County Jail Razing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Gazette-Bulletin reported that Marion County's plans to
raze its former jail by year's end may have hit a snag.

According to the report, environmental health director Tonya
Richards confirmed that all six tests she performed on insulation
from ducts in the old jail were positive for asbestos.

Under state law, the county must hire a licensed removal firm to
get rid of the asbestos before it can demolish the building, the
report related.

Seven other tests Richards performed on walls and surfaces were
negative, the report said.

"It's actually good news," Commissioner Dan Holub said. "I was
afraid it was the whole building."

Commissioners voted to seek bids from licensed removal firms and
to ask a formerly licensed remover, Stuart Isaac of Supreme Floor
in Hillsboro, whether he might be interested in renewing his
license and bidding.

The commission also is seeking bids on 420 feet of fencing to be
installed around the new jail.

Portions of the fence will, according to the commissioners, meet
contractual obligations to provide a privacy fence shielding the
jail from nearby property owners.

However, the commission is looking to possibly extend the fence
around the entire jail.

"It just finishes it off," Holub said, "but if it's too much,
we'll just do the contractual requirements."

The six-foot concrete fence that the commissioners envision is
designed to shield the jail from view. However, nearby property
owner Darvin Markley has contended that local terrain dictates
that an eight-foot fence is needed to fully shield it from view.
Bids will be due Aug. 12. Construction is to be completed by
Sept. 30.

Despite the commissioners' disagreement with Markley, his
business, Markley Service, won the low bid for two chemicals
ordered for the noxious weed department.  Cooperative Grain and
Supply of Hillsboro was low bidder for two other chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Payout Halved Due to "Reduced Lifespan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GetSurrey reported that a widow struck by lung cancer caused by
washing her husband's asbestos-soiled overalls has had her
GBP500,000 compensation nearly halved because her illness has
reduced her life expectancy.

According to the report, Monica Haxton, 66, watched her husband
Ronald succumb to mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer of the
lining of the lungs associated with asbestos, caused by his years
spent working as an electrician for Philips Electronics UK Ltd in
Guildford.

He was struck by the terminal illness in 2008 and she nursed him
throughout his last year of life, witnessing his 'terrific
suffering," the report related. Just two years after his death,
she began experiencing the same symptoms of acute breathlessness
and was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in January 2012. Mrs
Haxton quickly made the connection between the hours she had spent
washing her husband's dusty boiler suit in the mid 1960s and her
own terminal disease.

Judge David Pittaway QC said Mr Haxton was exposed to large
quantities of asbestos while dismantling boilers and other
equipment at the Guildford-based company's factory in Balham,
South London, almost 50 years ago, the report further related. He
added: "At that time they did not have a washing machine and she
would shake his clothes out to remove the dust before washing the
clothes by hand in the sink."

Harry Steinberg, representing Mrs Haxton, said she nursed her
husband through his illness as his suffering became more intense
every day, and her life expectance had been 'drastically
curtailed'.

A doctor who examined Mrs Haxton in February estimated she had
another six or 12 months to live. Judge Pittaway added: "It is her
intention to use part of the damages recovered to go on holiday
with her daughters."

Mrs Haxton, who worked as a ward clerk at St Anthony's Hospital,
Cheam, was awarded GBP310,000 in damages. The payout would have
been GBP200,000 higher had she had a normal life expectancy.
Philips admitted liability, but had argued the compensation should
be reduced to take account of her much shorter life expectancy and
therefore her reduced 'loss of dependency' on her husband. This
argument was upheld by the court.

Judge Pittaway said: "There is no future dependency on her husband
to which she is entitled beyond her predicted life expectancy."
Mrs Haxton's claim is believed to be the largest made in a
mesothelioma case.

Asbestos was used in the workplace until its health implications
were revealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trailer Homes Need $11,500 for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Yost, writing for Britt News Tribune, reported that the cost
to remove asbestos from nine trailer homes in the former mobile
home park in Britt owned by the West Hancock School District is
lower than originally believed.

According to the report, the school board approved at the July 17
meeting a quote of about $11,500 to remove the asbestos.
Superintendent Wayne Kronemann said the original estimate was
about $20,000.

Kronemann said when the asbestos has been removed from the trailer
homes, the trailers will be offered to the public, the report
related.

"We're not going to charge anything," Kronemann said, the report
further related.

The hope is that people will take the free trailers which will
reduce the district's cost to demolish any of the 10 remaining
trailer homes on the property.

Some people use the trailers for hunting houses or use the actual
trailer under the home to create a flatbed trailer, Kronemann
said.

The school district bought the former mobile home park near the
school for $121,000. The property is a potential site for a bus
barn and educational use, school board chairman Jay Burgardt said.

West Hancock is land-locked in Britt and it had few options near
the school, Burgardt said.

"We just don't have much room," Burgardt said. The school district
has been looking at land and site options for "years and years,"
he said.

"Nothing was working well," Burgardt said.

The district has discussed a new bus barn but also a facility to
be used for education purposes, Burgardt said.

". . . there is no guarantee that will happen," Burgardt said of
education classes such as continuing education or classes offered
through North Iowa Area Community College classes being in a
facility at the former mobile home park.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Hospital, Contractor Over Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patti Singer, writing for Democrat and Chronicle, reported that
renovation to an inpatient unit at Strong Memorial Hospital could
resume, once asbestos abatement is completed.

According to the report, during demolition, asbestos was found in
some samples of joint compound that had been used on the drywall,
said University of Rochester Medical Center spokeswoman Teri
D'Agostino. The drywall itself was not affected. Asbestos testing
had been done on other surfaces, but not walls.

According to a statement from URMC, precautions had been taken to
protect patients and visitors.

Based on a review of the incident, risk to workers is very low,
D'Agostino said, the report related.  Air quality tests conducted
after the demolition showed no asbestos and the duration of the
exposure was very short.

The hospital faces $40,000 in fines from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration for failure to determine "the presence,
location and quantity of asbestos-containing materials," and not
labeling the materials and posting warning signs, according to a
news release from the federal agency.

OSHA said the hospital and contractor DGA Builders of East
Rochester failed to provide proper monitoring for asbestos
exposure and take other steps to protect workers.

DGA Builders faces $13,200 in fines, according to the news
release. A call to DGA Builders was not immediately returned.

Strong and DGA each have 15 business days after receiving the
citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA
representatives or contest the findings. D'Agostino said the
hospital is still in that period.

The unit was being gutted in January when workers raised concerns
about whether asbestos was present, D'Agostino said. Surfaces and
some of the wall material that already had been removed were
tested and work was stopped in late March.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal at Former Chicopee Library Begins
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette DeForge, writing for The Republican, reported that after
a long debate, work has begun to remove asbestos from the long-
closed public library.

According to the report, the removal of the hazardous waste was
something that had to be done before the future of the structure
could be discussed. Even if city officials decide to tear down the
building, the asbestos would have to be removed, Mayor Michael D.
Bissonnette said.

"We hope to obtain a structural analysis soon after the asbestos
is removed. Then we can make some reasonable assessment about
relocating the school administration to the city hall complex,"
Bissonnette said, the report related.

After months of back-and-forth debates, in April the City Council
agreed to appropriate $230,000 from the sale of a real estate
account to remove the asbestos, the report recalled.

Bids for the project ranged from the highest at $297,000 to the
lowest, at $191,800, which was lower than the estimated cost, the
report said. The city hired Abide, Inc., from East Longmeadow,
which submitted the lowest bid, to do the work, said Lee Pouliot,
planner and administrator who handled the project.

The work is expected to be completed in September, Pouliot said.

The asbestos is so widespread in the library no work could be done
without it being removed. Not only was it around the pipes, it is
in the floor tiles and the plaster, Pouliot said.

Bissonnette pushed for the removal so a structural analysis can be
done of the building so city officials can then plan how to reuse
the library which has been closed since a new library was built 10
years ago.

One proposal is to renovate the building, attach it to the
adjacent city hall to make both structures more accessible to the
disabled, and move school offices from the aging Helen O'Connell
building to the former library.

Some School Committee members support the idea but others said
they are concerned about having enough parking for employees near
the old library.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearing Work Begins in Estes Park School Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juley Harvey, writing for Estes Park Trail-Gazette, reported that
Cornerstone is beginning the process of "dealing with the
building" that is the old elementary school, Estes Park R-3 school
superintendent Patrick Hickey said.  Demolition is planned for
next year. They are starting with the asbestos abatement process
now.

According to the report, the asbestos in the building will be
handled and recyclable material (not affected by asbestos) will be
sold. Hickey said the proceeds will offset about 80 percent of the
costs.

"The goal is to continue to move forward on the process, utilizing
the space that is in use today," he said, the report cited.

Because the space is used for children, the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), enforced by the Environmental
Protection Agency, provides a higher level of expectation of the
management of the materials, the report related.

Hickey emphasized asbestos only becomes a problem when the
material becomes "friable," the report said. Asbestos fibers,
released, can fly, becoming airborne for people to breathe. If
people are exposed to the friable asbestos, they may develop cysts
in their lungs, but that can take up to 30 to 40 years, Hickey
said. Asbestos does not become a problem until it's airborne and
potentially ingested, through breathing.

Hickey pointed out that one of the biggest exposures to asbestos
can be found on street corners -- from the application of vehicle
brakes.

However, AHERA says to pay attention to asbestos. Cornerstone will
be removing and encapsulating the asbestos found in the building.

"We know where it is," Hickey said. "There's an asbestos
management plan in place always."

AHERA is particular about the way asbestos is managed, he said.

As for the mold in the old elementary school building, it "will
disappear when the building disappears."

When will that be? The plan now is to begin demolishing the
building after Memorial Day in 2014. Graduation weekend, the old
building will be closed down and Cornerstone will start
demolishing it.

"It will be gone before the kids come back to school (in the fall
of 2014). The goal is to operate the construction site when school
is not in session," Hickey said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Called to Garlock Estimation Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the estimation
trial to determine the extent of liability a company that
manufactures gaskets owes claimants exposed to asbestos from its
products has resumed with expert witnesses called to the stand.

According to the report, attorneys for Garlock Sealing
Technologies called several industrial hygienists to give
testimony on their expertise in conducting exposure assessment
evaluations before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  As
Garlock's witnesses laid out their credentials on direct
examination, opposing attorneys sought to undermine their
credibility by questioning their impartiality as paid experts.

"You sell your time?" Scott Frost, an attorney for the claimants,
asked Fred Boelter, an industrial hygienist retained by Garlock
who testified he first started researching asbestos issues while
inspecting facilities in the 1970s, the report related.

"Yes," Boelter replied. Boelter said he has served as an expert
for several asbestos defendants but has not been retained as an
expert by any asbestos plaintiffs since 1989, the report said.
Frost continued questioning Boelter on an asbestos study he
authored on Garlock gaskets that had been funded by Garlock's
parent company.

Boelter denied knowing at the time that the funds came from a
company related to Garlock, according to the report.  Boelter
testified that he was approached to conduct the study because he
had developed an expertise in examining asbestos exposure stemming
from gaskets. Boelter contended that it is his competency that
draws asbestos defendants to retain his services, not because of
any partiality.

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Veterans at Risk of Fibro-Related Diseases
--------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that US Navy Veterans are at
high risk for asbestos-related disease, due to their asbestos
exposure while working on navy ships undergoing refits, for
example. But because asbestos-related disease can take up to
30 years or more to manifest, it is often detected long after men
have left the Navy.

According to the report, the states with the most US Navy Veterans
include California, Florida, New York, Texas, Ohio, Michigan,
Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, Maine, Oregon, Arizona,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Montana, Kansas, North
Dakota, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Mississippi.

US Navy Veterans are not the only group of workers at high risk
for asbestos exposure, the report said.  Men and women who worked
in power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil
refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities,
demolition construction work sites, railroads, automotive
manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops may also have been
exposed to high levels of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Awarded $1.5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that an 81-year-old Los Angeles
man and his wife have been awarded a $1.525 million verdict in his
asbestos-cancer lawsuit this July.

According to the report, in May of 2012, Marty Marteney, a
successful architect whose father was an immigrant to the United
States from Mexico, was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma.
After a three week trial, a Los Angeles jury returned a verdict on
July 1 in favor of Marteney, giving him a judgment against Union
Carbide Corporation and Elementis Chemicals, Inc.

According to the attorneys representing the Marteneys, Mr.
Marteney's disease stemmed from his exposure to workers who used
asbestos-containing construction products and automotive parts.
Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos fiber and Elementis was
the distributor of Union Carbide's asbestos on the West Coast.

Marteney's asbestos exposure goes back to his childhood, when his
father took him out of school and made him work in his father's
auto shop, where he handled these toxic materials without any
knowledge of their danger, the report said.

Without an education and with no knowledge of his asbestos
exposure, Marteney enlisted in the armed forces, started a family,
and later became an apprentice architect, the report related.

Eventually Mr. Marteney returned to school and built a career as a
well-respected architect, designing homes for the rich and famous
in Beverly Hills. Unknowingly, this hard work exposed him to
asbestos-containing construction products that would later cause
the cancer that would ruin his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Marteney is currently undergoing treatment for his
mesothelioma. Marteney lives in San Marino, California, with his
wife.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $190MM to 5 Men Exposed to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that an asbestos verdict of
$190 million has been awarded in a lawsuit brought by five men who
were exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment during
their jobs as steamfitters, plumbers, and construction workers.

According to the report, a panel of New York Supreme Court jurors
found the two defendant companies had acted negligently and
recklessly, then rendering a verdict worth a total of $190
million, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York
history. It is believed that the $60 million individual amounts
two of the men received are the largest individual sums awarded in
a New York asbestos case.

Daniel Blouin, an attorney with Weitz & Luxenberg, the firm
representing the plaintiffs, said he and his team tackled the case
by telling the jury a story of five men who worked honest jobs for
decades only to be repaid with immense suffering, the report said.
"We wanted to show the jury the sorrow our clients were and are
going through," Blouin said. "And not just physically but
psychologically. Once you are exposed to asbestos and develop
mesothelioma, you know your fate. It's an unbearably heavy
burden."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs told the jury there wasn't an amount
they could give the men that would be unreasonable, the report
related.  The defendants in this case subjected thousands of men
and women to a terribly toxic substance. It is likely the
companies took a calculated risk in doing so. That isn't a debt
that can be repaid, the attorneys said.

The jury, returning a verdict on July 23, found both defendants --
boiler companies Cleaver Brooks and Burnham -- negligent in having
failed to warn about the dangers of the asbestos used in
connection with their equipment. The verdict said both companies
had acted with reckless disregard for human life.

All five of the plaintiffs were tradesmen from the tri-state area.

One man, from Toms River, NJ, worked in the 50s and 60s as a
pipefitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He was exposed to asbestos
daily while fitting pipes into the salt-water distilling units
aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Constellation and USS
Independence.

Another, from Oyster Bay, NY, worked for nearly 30 years as a
plumber, handling dozens of different types of products
contaminated with asbestos.

A third, of Middle Village, NY, was also exposed to asbestos
working as a plumber in Brooklyn, Queens, and Rockland Co.

Another man, from Howard Beach, NY, was exposed to asbestos on the
job as a painter and construction worker. He was involved with the
removal and demolition of boilers containing asbestos-laden parts.

The final client, from Kent, CT, also worked with boilers and
boiler parts in the course of his job as a steamfitter.

All five men developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos
exposure. Three have died of complications related to the disease.

The trial (Index Nos. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12,
190184/12) was held in New York Supreme Court before Judge Joan
Madden.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 10,000 Sqm. of Queensland Bldgs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that there are 10,000
square metres of asbestos in Queensland public buildings which is
too costly to remove, the state government says.

According to the report, the state spent $989,000 removing
asbestos last financial year on 31 projects in 26 schools, a
budget estimates hearing was told.  But Department of Housing and
Public Works director-general Neil Castles says there are still
10,000 square metres left in government buildings, the bulk of
which is going to remain there for now.

"It is impractical and impossible to actually, I suppose, to have
the money to spend on that removal," Mr Castles said, the report
said.  "It would be just horrendous."

Mr Castles added asbestos was safe in buildings as long as
surfaces were painted, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Union Calls for Commercial Fibro Audit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the construction union is calling for
commercial buildings in Canberra built before the late 1980s to be
checked for asbestos.

According to the report, an asbestos insulation removal program
was carried out on houses in the capital during the 1990s.  But
Dean Hall from the CMFEU says commercial properties should also be
examined.

"Asbestos was banned in the early '80s but there was an overrun of
the product because people still had it and they used it in
buildings ," he said, the report related.  "So probably up to the
middle to late '80s you have to be concerned about asbestos in
houses and buildings."

Mr Hall says thorough audits need to look beyond the usual loose-
fill insulation and bonded sheets, the report further related.

"We need people to go in who are competent at what they're doing
and to do a bit of exploratory work," he said.  "People to open up
and go into areas where the air-conditioning is, to pop a couple
of tiles off in areas and take samples."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Call for Fibro Removal in Kimberley Bldg
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that residents, community leaders and
politicians are demanding urgent action to remove asbestos-ridden
buildings in the Kimberley.

According to the report, it has been confirmed abandoned buildings
close to schools in the Beagle Bay and Bayulu communities contain
the toxic material.

Photographs show exposed walls and crumbling building material
where local children play, the report said.

Both structures are the responsibility of the Department of
Aboriginal Affairs which, after months of appeals for action, has
fenced off the buildings and starting removing the asbestos this
week, the report related.

Labor MP Stephen Dawson, who toured the sites, says the response
is not good enough, the report further related.

"What I'm saying is that the Government needs to get cracking and
demolish these buildings as soon as possible," he said.  "And I've
got to say, this is a remote community in the Kimberley.

"If this was in the metro area, people would have acted a hell of
a lot sooner."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Seeks Transfer of Mass Tort Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that
attorneys for Union Carbide Corp. have petitioned the federal
court in Philadelphia for a transfer of an asbestos mass tort
claim that was brought last month by a Florida woman at the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

According to the report, Susan E. Murphy is suing Union Carbide
over the mesothelioma related death of Donald Murphy, who was
diagnosed with the disease in July 2011 by a doctor at Broward
General Medical Center in the Sunshine State.

Donald Murphy's disease, the plaintiff claims, was directly
attributed to the man's exposure to asbestos, which occurred
during his career with the United States Army and during private
work as a housing renovator, the report said.  Donald Murphy, the
lawsuit shows, was also a cigarette and pipe smoker for a number
of years.

The plaintiff claims the defendant manufactured and distributed
the asbestos-containing products that Donald Murphy came into
contact with during his career, the report related.

While the exact nature of the relationship between the plaintiff
and Donald Murphy could not be ascertained by the lawsuit, which
was filed as a short-form complaint in the master Asbestos
Litigation in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, their respective
birth dates show the two could have been father and daughter;
Donald Murphy was born in 1929 while Susan Murphy was born in
1953, the report added.

The plaintiff is being represented by attorney Tia Dinh, of the
Cherry Hill, N.J. firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

On July 24, Philadelphia lawyers Robert N. Spinelli, Esq. --
rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- and Catherine N. Jasons, Esq., --
cjasons@kjmsh.com -- of the firm Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli
Hanna & Reber LLP, filed a notice of removal at the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia on behalf of their
client, Union Carbide.

The notice seeks to remove the complaint, originally filed June 28
in Common Pleas Court, to the federal venue because diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties.

While the plaintiff is a Florida resident, Union Carbide is a New
York corporation with its principal place of business in Houston,
TX, the defense filing states.

The defense lawyers stated that the matter also meets the $75,000
threshold for federal court jurisdiction.

The state case ID number is 130600387 and the federal case number
is 2:13-cv-04288-ER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Plymouth Courthouse Shuts After Fibro Find
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lyn Humphreys, writing for Taranaki Daily News Online, reported
that workers upgrading the New Plymouth Courthouse had discovered
asbestos, the Ministry of Justice confirmed.  However, court
hearings and a jury drug trial have continued without disruption
this week and staff remain at work.

According to the report, one of the three courtrooms is closed to
the public and a large white cover has been placed over the
western side of the building.  Large hazard notices have been
erected.

Inhalation of asbestos fibres is known to cause life-threatening
illnesses such as the lung cancer mesothelioma, and asbestosis,
the report related.

The ministry's commercial and property general manager, Fraser
Gibbs, said from Wellington that it was not unusual to find
asbestos in buildings of that era.

"During the refurbishment workers discovered asbestos in the
window cavity," Mr Gibbs said.

"The ministry has engaged an accredited contractor who specialises
in the safe containment and removal of asbestos."

Those who have worked with asbestos can sign up to a register.

In the meantime, Mr Gibbs said the $800,000 refurbishment of the
courthouse was progressing well and it was hoped it would be
completed in October.

"We have replaced the roof, and work on replacing the windows and
air-conditioning is ongoing."

The project is being led by South Coast Construction Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Closes Portion of Garlock Estimation Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a federal
judge closed his courtroom to the public during portions of
testimony by a law professor who leveled charges of fraud against
some claimants who sued Garlock Sealing Technologies after being
exposed to asbestos.

According to the report, the bankruptcy trial, which is expected
to last three weeks, will determine the estimated liability of the
company for current and future asbestos claims.

Lester Brickman, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
at Yeshiva University in New York, said during unsealed portions
of his testimony that certain confidentiality provisions enacted
for trusts established to pay claimants who came into contact with
asbestos caused significant transparency issues preventing Garlock
from cost-effectively ferretting out bogus claims, the report
related.  Brickman authored a report on fraudulent asbestos claims
and has testified before Congress on the issue.

To date, Garlock has paid out more than $1.3 billion in asbestos
claims, Brickman said, the report said.  Of that amount, about $1
billion had been paid out to claimants who did not develop any
malignant cancers, which he labeled as fraudulent claims.

"These settlements as well as others were affected significantly
by plaintiffs suppressing evidence," Brickman said.

"My opinion is that Garlock's settlement history is not an
accurate reflection of Garlock's liability," he said.

Brickman said some plaintiff law firms routinely planted false
memories into their clients. He cited a memo by the law firm Baron
& Budd distributed to claimants that detailed the kinds of
information defense attorneys would or would not be privy to. The
memo stated Garlock by name and made mention that the company
manufactured gaskets.

Judge George Hodges, who denied Garlock's motion to remove
confidentiality designations from evidence relating to the trust
claims as well as Garlock's request to keep Brickman's entire
testimony open to the public, closed the courtroom after a brief
recess. A Legal Newsline reporter present at the trial objected to
the closure requesting that the judge delay Brickman's testimony
until after the company's lawyers had a chance to argue for full
media and public access to all of Brickman's testimony.

Hodges overruled the request closing the courtroom for the rest of
Brickman's testimony, which continued on for approximately three
more hours. Following Brickman's testimony, the judge reopened the
courtroom to the public and media.

One tort reform advocate called the judge's move "highly unusual."

"The closure violates the Bankruptcy Code's provisions for public
access, and appears designed to hide public disclosure of evidence
of asbestos trust fraud," said Ted Frank, the president and
founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness and a regular
contributor to Overlawyered.com.

When the courtroom was reopened, Garlock attorneys called Richard
Magee, a senior vice president for EnPro, Garlock's parent company
to testify. Magee was the former general counsel for EnPro and
oversaw much of the Garlock asbestos litigation.

Magee said when he first began working on the asbestos litigation
for the company, he was "amazed and shocked at how many claims
there were how much it cost."

"My initial reaction was we should've been trying more cases,"
Magee said. Garlock was a victim of circumstance, he said. Garlock
made asbestos products that just happened to "be in the same place
with some very dangerous (asbestos) products," he said.

But Magee said he quickly understood why the company decided to
settle a majority of its asbestos cases instead of taking them to
trial because the litigation expenses would have been
astronomical. On average, the company was paying between $1,000 to
$2,500 to non-malignant claimants.

"We couldn't even pay a lawyer to go to a deposition for $1,000 a
claim," Magee said.

"It was all about cash flow," he said. "It wasn't about
liability."

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Seek Inquest in Barnstable
---------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cassidy, writing for Cape Cod Times, reported that workers
concerned they were exposed to asbestos while renovating a town
building have asked state Attorney General Martha Coakley to
investigate whether Barnstable officials allowed the work to
continue despite knowing the carcinogenic material may have been
present.

"Whether the actions of the town management were intentional or
not remains to be seen," officials with the union representing the
workers wrote in a letter sent to Coakley earlier this month,
according to the report. "However, at the very least, it appears
that the actions of the town may well have constituted gross
negligence."

The renovations on the fourth floor of 230 South St., which houses
school administration and other town offices, began Oct. 1,
according to documents provided to the Times by officials with the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO.

Shortly after the renovations began, workers with the town's
Structures and Grounds Division found what they believed to be
material containing asbestos and asked their supervisors --
including general foreman Bryan Lauzon -- to have it tested, said
Mark Tubbs, president of the union's Local 3003 and one of the
five or six employees who worked on the site.

Lauzon told the workers that he had checked and there was no
asbestos where they were working, Tubbs said.

Although they pushed for the test results, which were provided to
the town within 24 hours of being completed on Oct. 22 by a
Virginia laboratory, the workers weren't given them until Nov. 9
and only after filing a labor grievance with Assistant Town
Manager Mark Ells, Tubbs said.

The results showed the materials contained asbestos, including one
sample that was 33 percent chrysotile, one of the most common
forms of asbestos.

"That's the bad stuff," Tubbs said.

Asbestos, once commonly used as a construction material because of
its fire-resistant properties, has been known to cause cancer and
the lung disease asbestosis when disturbed and inhaled. Often
material with asbestos in it is sealed off and left in place when
found to avoid further disturbance.

Tubbs said workers used a Shop-Vac vacuum cleaner that may have
blown the asbestos into the air and wore no masks or other
protection, wiping their hands on their faces and eating after
working in some cases.

Lauzon and Structures and Grounds Supervisor Stephen Sundelin
referred all questions to Barnstable Department of Public Works
Director Daniel Santos.

Santos, who was named to the position in February, said he had
interviewed the workers and did not believe they were exposed to
asbestos.

"The material that had asbestos was in part of the floor that had
not been removed," he said. According to his investigation, he
added, management became aware of the possibility that asbestos
was in the materials on Oct. 19 and stopped the project.

Santos said he believed the workers' concerns were addressed
through two labor grievances..

"In this case they chose not to go to arbitration," he said.
"Presumably they were satisfied."

Many of the old buildings in town have asbestos in them, and the
town takes related health concerns seriously, Santos said.

"We have an outside contractor come in and test those materials
before any work begins," he said.

There is training and other requirements for employees who may be
working in areas where asbestos may be found, Santos said, adding
that he believes training existed at the time work on the fourth
floor of 230 South St. started.

Not true, said Tubbs.

And at the 230 South St. building, workers were not only tearing
down walls and cutting into floors that appeared to cover
asbestos, which was found in red tiles and a white paper used as a
liner in the building, but material from the demolition was then
moved in four or five open truckloads through town to the transfer
station in Marstons Mills, said James Durkin, assistant director
of legislation, political action and communications for the
union's headquarters in Boston.

The only landfill in Massachusetts permitted to accept asbestos
waste is in Chicopee, but that facility is not currently accepting
the material, according to the state Department of Environmental
Protection.

Work on the project wasn't stopped until an official with the
state's Department of Labor Standards contacted town officials
after the test results were returned, Tubbs said.

The union wants the town to acknowledge that workers were exposed
to asbestos on the job either through gross negligence or
intentional actions and the town to pay for annual checkups at a
specialist for the workers who may have been exposed, Durkin and
Tubbs said.

The union also wants to send a message to every municipality in
the state that if workers are intentionally or negligently put in
harm's way, there will be consequences, Durkin said.

Although town officials have said they will pay for checkups as
long as the workers are employed by the town, that doesn't address
longer-term health concerns, Tubbs said. "This doesn't happen
now," he said about asbestos-related illness. "It happens 20 years
from now."

Although no one has reported becoming sick, workers will have that
fear for the rest of their lives, Tubbs added.

Dust from the work also filtered into other parts of the building
and anyone who came in contact with the material as it was trucked
through town may have been exposed, Tubbs said.

But town officials are not convinced that anyone was exposed to
the asbestos. "When the facts come out, I think it will show that
we did what was appropriate," Town Manager Thomas Lynch said. "We
don't want to put anyone at risk."

If an employee becomes ill later and it can be traced back to work
done for the town, the town's workers' compensation insurance will
cover it, said William Kole, the town's human resources director.

Ells said town officials haven't been notified by the attorney
general's office about any investigation, and Ells and Santos
questioned whether the chronology of events outlined by the union
lines up with what actually occurred.

In an email to the Times, Lauren Jones, a spokeswoman with the
state Department of Labor Standards, wrote that after reviewing
allegations about the renovations in October, the department
issued a series of recommendations to the town, including a
request to stop all work. "Flooring materials were subsequently
tested positive for asbestos, then a licensed asbestos contractor
was hired and the suspected area was properly abated and cleaned,"
Jones wrote. "Following the cleanup, DLS confirmed that the town
of Barnstable would implement proper safety measures relative to
asbestos cleanup going forward."

There was no fine against the town, according to Jones.

Over the past four years, there have been $360,350 in fines for
asbestos-related violations levied against consultants and schools
in Massachusetts, including a $3,300 fine against Cape Cod
Regional Technical High School in Harwich in 2012 after nine
students were exposed to asbestos while renovating a building on
school property.

Anyone doing renovations in a commercial or industrial building,
or in a residential building with more than 20 units, should do an
asbestos survey before any work and provide the state Department
of Environmental Protection with a plan for how any asbestos found
will be handled, DEP spokesman Edmund Coletta said.

"Regulations require that you immediately stop the job and report
it to (the DEP) that you found it and do a survey of the remainder
of the site to see if there was any other asbestos around,"
Coletta said.

"We have been made aware of the situation there," he said about
the 230 South St. property. "We are investigating it. Because it's
an ongoing investigation, I can't talk about specifics at this
time."

Emalie Gainey, spokeswoman with the attorney general's office,
declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Release Info on Fibro & Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of d'Oliveira & Associates has issued a new
infographic on mesothelioma. The firm works with some of the more
experienced attorneys in the country who are filing asbestos
lawsuits.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that most often occurs in
the lungs. The most common cause of this disease is the inhalation
of asbestos. This material was once widely used in the
construction and manufacturing industries. It has been used to
fireproof, insulate, and strengthen products. Repeated and
sustained exposures to this material can increase the risk that a
person will develop mesothelioma. In many cases this type of
cancer does not occur until years or even decades after exposure
to asbestos. Signs of this disease include fatigue, shortness of
breath, wheezing, coughing up blood, abdominal pain, and chest
pain (i). According to the National Cancer Institute, people who
work in brake lining, construction, gaskets, insulation, milling,
mining, and ship building may face an increased risk of asbestos
exposure (i).

Mesothelioma is a serious health concern for people around the
world and in the United States. According to the World Health
Organization, about 125 million people are exposed to asbestos in
the workplace each year worldwide. Additionally, more than 100,000
people die each year from diseases caused by this type of exposure
(ii). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has also found
that every year 3,000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in
the United States. And, in 2005 alone, 2,704 people died from this
type of cancer (iii). People who have suffered injuries due to
asbestos exposure should talk to a personal injury lawyer because
they may have a valid lawsuit, workers' compensation claim, or
another legal claim.

A report from the Rand Institute for Civil Justice states,
"Asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort litigation
in the United States." After reviewing studies on the topic, the
Institute found that 730,000 people who have been exposed to this
dangerous material have filed legal claims against 8,400
businesses. Additionally, up to $70 billion have been spent by
defendants and insurance companies on this type of litigation
(iv).
Attorney Paul d'Oliveira stated, "The use of asbestos has dropped
in recent years due to increased education about its dangers.
Unfortunately, this product is still used in some industries.
Another thing people suffering mesothelioma should realize is that
their exposure to the carcinogen was probably years or even
decades ago but that should not prevent them from talking to a
lawyer. In many cases, the statute of limitations for an asbestos
lawsuit is based upon when the cancer is discovered and not when
the exposure occurs."

The Mesothelioma infographic provides general information about
the disease as well as statistics. d'Oliveira & Associates has
been providing legal advice to RI and MA residents for over 24
years. The lawyers at the firm exclusively handle injury and
disability cases. They also work with experienced attorneys across
the nation who can file a mesothelioma lawsuit and there are no
legal fees until a settlement or award is obtained. Contact the
firm toll-free at 1-800-992-6878 or fill out an online contact
form for a free legal consultation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jacksonville Lawsuit Claims Companies Knew Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Bozarth, writing for My Journal Courier, reported that a
former professional insulator in Jacksonville is seeking $1.75
million from 23 separate companies he contends over the years
exposed him to dozens of products that contained asbestos without
being warned of its hazardous nature.

According to the report, Rex Hill said he was employed as an
insulator from 1968 to 2010. He was diagnosed this year with the
disease asbestosis. The chronic inflammatory condition affects the
tissue in the lungs and puts sufferers at a higher risk of
mesothelioma and other lung diseases, according to the National
Cancer Institute. The disease can take decades to manifest itself.
Hill claims in a lawsuit filed in Morgan Circuit Court that the
disease was a result of years of exposure to various products.

Among the allegations is that Pneumo Abex, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., Owens-Illinois and Honeywell International
conspired to keep employees unaware of the dangers in working
around asbestos.

The lawsuit contends pamphlets detailing the safe handling of
asbestos did not contain information that the material can cause
serious disease and that products produced and bought from the
named companies also did not include any such warnings.

Two of the five counts outlined in the civil action are against
companies Sprinkmann Sons, Union Carbide, Georgia-Pacific, John
Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Brand Insulations, Mechanical
Insulation Co., Trane U.S., Weil McLain, General Electric and CBS
Corp. Each was in the business or owned holdings in the business
of manufacturing or selling products containing asbestos,
according to the claim.

Hill contends his illness was a result of each company's
negligence or willful action. He claims that the companies were
aware of the serious dangers of working with asbestos but did not
inform employees.

The lawsuit -- which presents only one side of a claim -- also
names Ameren Illinois, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Bridgestone
Americas, Caterpillar, Commonwealth Edison, Dynegy Power, Exelon,
NiSource and Tate & Lyle Ingredients.

Hill is seeking damage from these companies on claims that he
worked at job sites owned by them where he was required to work
with and around materials containing asbestos without any proper
safety equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potentially Lethal Dust Found in Carlisle Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Parsons, writing for Times & Star, reported that potentially
lethal asbestos could lie hidden in thousands of housing
association homes in north Cumbria.

According to the report, social landlord Riverside has admitted it
has no idea how many of its properties have asbestos -- although
it could be half of its 6,000 homes -- after a couple told of
their health fears after inhaling potentially toxic dust.

John and Ann Stewart spent hours sweeping up broken tiles, after
lifting up the carpet and underlay in their Hethersgill home, the
report related.  The couple were preparing to complete a housing
exchange and swap their home in Church Lane for a property in St
Martin's Close, Brampton.

In the process of cleaning the property, Mr Stewart, 51, says they
received a letter asking them to lift the carpet and underlay, the
report said.

"We revealed broken and crumbling tiles underneath," the self-
employed burger van owner said. "Me and the wife were sweeping all
the tiles up ready for the exchange."

But they were horrified when the company's building inspector
returned from his holiday and told the Stewarts they should not
have touched the carpet.

Mr Stewart added: "He said that he'd been going to get special
contractors in as it was low hazardous material -- asbestos.

"Contractors came round to check the property and they had masks
and gloves on. We were sweeping it up on our knees."

He claims the housing association has since apologised and made a
GBP2,000 out-of-court settlement offer.

The couple rejected it though, claiming they have no idea of the
effect on their health.

"They put our lives in danger," Mr Stewart insisted. "Fifteen to
20 years down the line who knows, we may have asbestosis. This is
our future."

This is not the only case of its kind.

City councillor Willie Whalen has been campaigning for the removal
of asbestos from former council homes and schools for years.

"I've got a case with them [Riverside] at the moment, where a
woman discovered that underneath the carpet and underlay there was
broken tiles and asbestos," Mr Whalen said.

"It is very similar [to the Stewart's case].

"Health and Safety says if you don't touch or disturb asbestos it
is perfectly safe.

"But if you're going to be walking on tiles or working on walls,
can you say that is safe and undisturbed? Why are 20 people a week
diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer if it is safe? Why are
there people dying of it?"

A spokeswoman for Riverside said the Stewarts' case is with their
solicitors, who are "liaising directly" with the couple.

She added: "Asbestos was used extensively as a building material
in Great Britain from the 1930s through to the mid-1980s,
therefore most homes built or repaired in this period may have
some asbestos.

"This could mean approximately 50 per cent of our stock has some
asbestos."

The majority of Riverside's homes are those it inherited through
stock transfer from the city council.

But the spokeswoman was quick to reassure residents, adding: "This
does not mean that these materials present a risk.

"If asbestos material is undisturbed and undamaged it is safe and
should be left alone.

"Guidance from the Health and Safety Executive states that 'If
materials containing asbestos are in good condition and in a
position where they are not going to be disturbed then it is safer
to leave them where they are'."

Riverside has an asbestos register, which records areas where the
company has discovered asbestos in properties while it has been
undertaking works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Near Birmingham Youth Center
---------------------------------------------------------
John-Paul Holden, writing for Edinburgh News, reported that
furious parents have slammed health and safety chiefs after a
potentially lethal pile of dumped asbestos was left next to a
youth centre for almost a month.

According to the report, anxious families phoned the council as
soon as a pile of abandoned cement roofing panels containing the
harmful substance was discovered yards from Bingham Community
Centre around four weeks ago.

Worry quickly turned to anger as time passed without any uplift of
the panels, which were eventually removed nearly four weeks later
by council staff wearing protective suits and masks.

City leaders said the delay was due to the need to hire a
specialist removal team for the GBP1000 operation.

But mum Janine Baird, 27, whose eight-year-old daughter, Ellie
Greig, has been kept away from the club, said: "Is GBP1000 worth
more than the health of children? "I don't care if it was going to
cost GBP10,000, it should have been taken away on the day it was
removed from wherever it came from.

"The kids round here like to roam and kick about -- any one of
them could have smashed it up and that would have been it
everywhere."

Ms Baird said the centre -- which offers sport and other
activities to dozens of children aged between five and 16 -- was
very popular and predicted parents would demand answers.

"The people they sent to remove it had white suits and these
massive gas masks on," she said. "They said there was no risk but
when I asked them why they were wearing those suits, they didn't
answer."

City chiefs said asbestos only became dangerous if disturbed or
broken and insisted the health risk from the pile was negligible.
A council spokeswoman said: "The council fully understands the
concerns of local residents and can confirm that asbestos cement
roofing panels (as commonly found on garages etc) were found
dumped in a park.

"After being notified, the area was cordoned off, the material
tested and a specialist contractor engaged to remove the material
for proper disposal."

Health risks

ASBESTOS is a naturally occurring mineral used in a range of
building materials to make them more rigid and fire resistant.

The substance was used extensively in British construction from
the 1950s to the mid-1980s, and any building erected before 2000
can contain it.

Health risks are generated by the thin, fibrous crystals of which
asbestos is made.

Prolonged inhalation of dangerous asbestos fibres can result in
serious illness, including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and dust-related lung diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roof Adjacent to Mizzi House to be Removed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Dalli, writing for Malta Today, reported that the asbestos
roof adjacent to Mizzi House, which houses the Malta Competition
and Consumer Affairs Authority, will be removed, minister Helena
Dalli said.

According to the report, addressing a press conference, Dalli said
the landlords have agreed to remove the roof at their own expense
after an experts' report confirmed the roof could be hazardous for
the workers' health.

Works will be carried put in August, when most of the 100 workers
will be out on leave, the report related.  The minister said
arrangements for teleworking will also be made.

"The workers' health is always a priority and we couldn't leave
the situation as it is, knowing that the asbestos roof was not
safe," the minister said, the report cited.

She said that the latest report compiled by air quality
specialists was yet another confirmation of the risk the roof
posed to the workers.

"I had raised the issue several times while in Opposition, but the
previous government had always denied the asbestos containing
material was detrimental to the workers' health. But the situation
is so serious that some windows in these offices are sealed,"
Dalli said.

MCCAA chairman Marcel Pizzuto said it had been the workers
themselves, some of whom scientists, who sealed the windows for
protection. He said the commissioned report had confirmed the
corrosion state of the roof could be hazardous for the workers.

The works have also been approved by the Occupational Health and
Safety Authority.

The minister said an operations review was also being conducted to
study how the operations of MCCAA could be improved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neighbors Fear Fibro as A.C. Tears Down Eye Sore
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Landau, writing for Press of Atlantic City, reported that
residents of an Atlantic City condominium complex are concerned
about potential safety hazards as a neighboring building undergoes
demolition.  But the city's fire chief said the work is being done
by professionals and the condo residents will not be affected.

According to the report, demolition began on a former apartment
complex next to the Roosevelt Beach Condominiums complex on the
3800 block of Boardwalk. Joel Kaplan, president of the Roosevelt
condo association, said residents of the Roosevelt are not certain
enough has been done to ensure their safety.

"As an association, we have done whatever we could to protect our
residents," he said, the report related. "Our pool has been closed
for approximately two weeks (since plans for demolition began),
and we have urged residents to leave."

The association's Washington Township, Gloucester County-based
attorney, Tal Karmer, said he reached out to the city July 19 but
did not receive an answer, the report further related.  He said
the residents are most concerned about asbestos in the building.

Kramer said they were told by crews doing the work that the
building is structurally unsafe and any asbestos cannot be removed
before the demolition. Instead, the workers said they will
constantly spray the materials with water during the project to
control the asbestos.

"We are not experts, but we would like a little more response from
the city to ensure the plan to protect the condo association
covered all bases," he said.

The city is conducting the demolition of the property, which has
been vacant for several years. The association is concerned about
asbestos being carried to their building by wind, and that
scaffolding erected may not properly protect the building.

Kaplan said the demolition company offered to put any concerned
resident in a hotel for a few days, and that one resident opted
for the precaution.

Kaplan said the scaffolding does not protect an open area where
debris could fall.

A message left with LVI Demolition Services in East Hanover,
Morris County, which is handling the demolition, was not returned.

Fire Chief Dennis Brooks said the work is expected to be complete
by the end of the week. There have been several meetings through
multiple city agencies, including Emergency Management, Code
Enforcement and police and fire departments, on the project, he
said.

"These are professionals that come in and do this for a living,"
he said. "Every safety precaution that can be taken has been
taken."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts Loss on Review of A&E Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Tracer, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc., the insurer exiting life operations
to focus on property-casualty coverage, posted a third straight
loss on asbestos liabilities and costs tied to variable annuities.

According to the report, the second-quarter net loss widened to
$190 million, or 42 cents a share, from $101 million, or 26 cents,
a year earlier when the company incurred costs retiring
investments made by Allianz SE, Hartford said on July 30 in a
statement. Operating earnings, which exclude some investment
results, were 66 cents a share, missing the 71-cent average
estimate of 17 analysts polled by Bloomberg.

Chief Executive Officer Liam McGee, 58, divested life-insurance
and retirement-plan units, leaving operations that insure cars,
homes and businesses, the report related.  He struck a deal in
June to sell a U.K. annuity business to Warren Buffett's Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., part of a strategy to limit risks from retirement
products. Hartford, based in the Connecticut city of the same
name, reviews asbestos-linked liabilities every year in the second
quarter.

"There has to be more focus on the P&C operations," Vincent
DeAugustino, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a
Bloomberg interview before results were announced. "It comes down
to how hard are they being on rate and what does that imply for
retention and new business growth."

Book value, a measure of assets minus liabilities, fell to $38.59
per share as of June 30, from $42.43 three months earlier, as
rising interest rates pressured the value of Hartford's bond
portfolio.

                      Variable Annuities

Hartford recorded a $126 million after-tax loss on the sale of the
U.K. unit. Buffett's company agreed to pay $285 million for the
business, adding about $1.75 billion in assets under management.
Hartford recorded $421 million of realized capital losses, mostly
tied to hedges on risks from variable annuities sold outside the
U.S.

Losses related to the review of asbestos and environmental
reserves were $91 million, compared with $33 million a year ago.

The insurer spent $1.05 on claims an expenses for every premium
dollar at the property-casualty unit. That's an improvement from
$1.08 a year earlier. Policy sales increased 1.2 percent to $2.5
billion.

Hartford has rallied 37 percent this year through the close of
regular trading on July 30, beating the 35 percent advance of the
24-company KBW Insurance Index. The shares gained 7 cents to
$30.85 in extended trading at 4:49 p.m., on July 30.

McGee increased the share-repurchase authorization last month by
$750 million to $1.25 billion and lifted the dividend 50 percent.
Results were released after the close of regular trading.

McGee agreed last year to divest a life insurer, a broker-dealer,
a retirement-plans unit and an annuities business. The sales,
which Hartford has said freed up more than $2 billion in capital,
came after billionaire hedge-fund manager John Paulson pressed
McGee to split the company in two, an approach the CEO resisted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mines Name JMX to Lead Removal Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mines Inc. has appointed JMX Environmental to lead the
process of remedying asbestos contamination at the Redstone and
McWatters sites in Timmins.  JMX Environmental is a leading
asbestos abatement firm that has extensive experience in the safe
removal and disposal of asbestos across various industries. It is
a member of the Environmental Abatement Council of Ontario.

Pat Gleeson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty
Mines, commented, "Following a thorough request for proposal
process, Liberty Mines selected JMX Environmental to lead the
clean-up of our site. The appointment of JMX Environmental is key
to a timely remediation of the Redstone mill per the order of the
Ministry of Labour."

Liberty Mines has borrowed funds from Jien International
Investment Ltd. to cover the cost of engaging JMX Environmental.
Terms of such loan are subject to execution of definitive loan
agreements. Jien International is a related party of Liberty Mines
based on its approximate 60% shareholding in Liberty Mines.

                      Director Appointment

Liberty Mines welcomes Haodong Li as a member of its board of
directors. Mr. Li joined Jilin Jien Nickel Industry Co., Ltd in
2005 and subsequently joined Horoc Group, which is Jilin Jien's
controlling shareholder. At Horoc Group he serves currently as
deputy director of Planning and Strategy Department. Haodong Li
replaces Mr. Tao Li, who has resigned as a director of Liberty
Mines. Tao Li has resigned to pursue other non-business
initiatives. Liberty Mines expresses its sincere gratitude to Tao
Li for his hard work and contributions to the company.

                    About Liberty Mines Inc.

Liberty Mines Inc. owns the only nickel concentrator in the Shaw
Dome area, a prospective nickel belt region near Timmins, Ontario.
Liberty also owns two former producing nickel mines and a
prospective land package near Timmins, Ontario.

Liberty Mines Inc.
Pat Gleeson
President & CEO
(416) 861-5800
pgleeson@forbesmanhattan.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in November in Fibro Dumping Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Toledo Blade reported that a Toledo man who admitted to
illegally removing then dumping cancer-causing asbestos around the
city from a warehouse in Toledo is to be sentenced Nov. 25 by U.S.
District Court Judge James Carr.

According to the report, John J. Mayer, 52, pleaded guilty in
federal court to a four-count indictment that alleged he violated
the Clean Air Act and regulations involving the removal and
disposal of asbestos-containing material.  Some 82 trash bags
containing insulation were discovered at three sites in East and
North Toledo in 2010.

Mayer admitted he failed to notify city, state, and federal
authorities before removing the material, failed to adequately wet
the materials in preparation for disposal, failed to have trained
personnel at the job site, and illegally disposed of the asbestos-
containing waste, the report related.

Co-defendant Timothy Bayes, 32, of Toledo pleaded guilty this
month to illegal disposal of asbestos, the report further related.
Bayes, who was hired by Mayer to get rid of trash bags containing
the material, is to be sentenced Nov. 18 by Judge Carr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Ex-Installation Engr's Death
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that exposure to asbestos contributed
to the death of a retired installation engineer, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Eric Woodford was found dead in the back
garden of his Lymington home by his daughter in April 2012.
Southampton Coroners' Court heard that it appeared the 85-year-
old, of Southbourne Road, had been trying to get off his scooter
when his heart failed.

The pensioner, who had a history of heart problems and strokes,
had worked for many years as an installation engineer where he was
exposed to "significant quantities" of asbestos dust, the report
related.

The post-mortem examination revealed that, while heart disease was
the immediate cause of death, asbestosis was a contributing factor
due to the damage of the lungs, the report said.

Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death from natural
causes, contributed by asbestos exposure, the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haverhill Company Fined $3,000 Over Handling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sentinel & Enterprise reported that a Haverhill company has been
fined $3,000 by the state Department of Environmental Protection
for failing to follow proper asbestos removal procedures at a job
site in Fitchburg last summer.

According to a press release, during an August 2012 inspection of
the former Fitchburg Gas and Electric power plant site, located at
115 Sawyer Passway, Fitchburg, DEP inspectors observed workers
from Absolute Environmental Contractors, Inc., improperly handling
and disposing of asbestos-insulated pipes.

According to the DEP, the pipes were placed in an open-top roll-
off container without being adequately wetted or sealed in leak-
tight, labeled containers, as required by law.

State regulations require removal contractors to wet asbestos-
containing materials thoroughly during all phases of removal,
handling and packaging for disposal, in order to minimize the
potential for asbestos fibers to become airborne and reduce the
chance of exposure for workers and members of the public, the
report related.

Absolute Environmental Contractors is licensed by the state
Department of Labor Standards to be an asbestos contractor, the
report said.

"Licensed asbestos contractors are most certainly aware of the
required asbestos removal procedures and must strictly follow all
work practices prescribed by the MassDEP asbestos regulations,"
said Lee Dillard Adams, director of the DEP Central Regional
Office in Worcester. "The cost of noncompliance includes payment
of penalties and escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring
costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thai Ministry Finds No Health Risks in Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bangkok Post reported that a Public Health Ministry committee
said it could find no solid evidence that chrysotile a common form
of asbestos was harmful to human health.

According to the report, the finding contradicts an international
body of scientific evidence linking exposure to the mineral with
various forms of cancer and pleural abnormalities.

The cabinet ordered the ministry to investigate the health impacts
of chrysotile in 2011 after the National Economic and Social
Development Board proposed the substance be banned in Thailand,
the report said.

Deputy permanent secretary Charnwit Tharathep, who led the study
said his committee had found insufficient evidence to suggest
exposure to chrysotile posed health risks, the report added.

Chrysotile is commonly used in brake linings, clutch systems and
heat-resistant household appliances such as toasters, irons and
ovens, the report said.

"We can't amend the law [to ban chrysotile] without pointing to
clear evidence [of negative health impacts] in Thailand," he said.


"We will certainly ban chrysotile if we can find solid evidence of
the substance's impacts on people's health."

The committee will report its findings to the cabinet this month.

The World Health Organisation's website states that "all types" of
asbestos can cause lung cancer mesothelioma cancer of the larynx
and ovaries, and asbestosis, the report noted.  About 50 countries
have banned all types of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Newsline Wants to Keep Garlock Trial Open
----------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that attorneys for
Legal Newsline filed a motion to keep the bankruptcy trial of
Garlock Sealing Technologies open to the public following a
judge's decision to close off portions of a law professor's
testimony.

According to the report, Judge George Hodges excluded members of
the media and public from testimony given by Lester Brickman, a
professor of law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva
University in New York. Brickman, an expert witness retained by
Garlock, was testifying about trust provisions meant to protect
confidentiality that he says allowed for rampant claimant abuse
and fraud in asbestos settlement cases.

The bankruptcy trial, which is expected to last three weeks, will
determine the estimated liability of the company for current and
future asbestos claims, the report said.

Legal Newsline's attorneys are challenging Hodges' decision under
a First Amendment claim. In the motion, the attorneys are
requesting that the rest of the remaining trial stay open to the
public and that transcripts of the closed portion be made
available as well.

Brickman had been testifying during the open portion of his
testimony about certain confidentiality provisions enacted for
trusts established to pay claimants who came into contact with
asbestos. The provisions caused significant transparency issues
preventing Garlock from cost-effectively ferretting out bogus
claims.  Brickman authored a report on fraudulent asbestos claims
and has testified before Congress on the issue.

Hodges previously denied a Garlock motion to remove
confidentiality designations from evidence relating to the trust
claims as well as Garlock's request to keep Brickman's entire
testimony open to the public. Hodges closed the courtroom after a
brief recess.

A Legal Newsline reporter present at the trial objected to the
closure requesting that the judge delay Brickman's testimony until
after the company's lawyers had a chance to argue for full media
and public access to all of Brickman's testimony. Hodges overruled
the request closing the courtroom for the rest of Brickman's
testimony, which continued on for about three more hours.

Following Brickman's testimony, the judge reopened the courtroom
to the public and media.

Meanwhile the trial continued with attorneys representing the
claimants calling more expert witnesses to testify.  Arnold Brody,
a doctor in cellular biology specializing in lung diseases and
asbestos, testified about studies he says show chrysotile asbestos
fibers to be toxic to humans and animals.

During the first week of trial, experts for Garlock testified that
chrysotile asbestos, the kind that had been mostly used to make
gaskets, did not significantly elevate the risk of developing
mesothelioma. One of the central questions that will help
establish how much Garlock will owe the claimants revolves around
whether Garlock products, many removed decades ago, and no other
sources of asbestos, led to cases of mesothelioma.

On cross examination, Brody agreed with Garlock attorneys who
pointed out that millions of chrysotile asbestos fibers can be
present in a person's lung at any given time without ever causing
cancer.

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


                             *********

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

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

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *