CAR_Public/130809.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 156

                             Headlines


ALCOA INC: Still Awaits Appeals Court Ruling in "Curtis" Suit
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Settles N.J. Red Light Camera Class Action
ANGIE'S LIST: Continues to Defend "Fritzinger" Suit in Indiana
BANK OF AMERICA: U.S. Gov't Files Suit Over Mortgage Bond Sale
BOIRON INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Fraud Suit

BRENT REINKE: Bid to Dismiss Prisoners' Suit Gets Partial Approval
CHEMED CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Amend in Securities Suit
CHEMED CORP: Reached Deal to Settle "Morangelli" Suit for $14.3MM
CIRRUS LOGIC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Koplyay" Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Securities Litigation Settlement Gets Final Okay

CMS ENERGY: High Court Petition in Gas Index Price Suit Due Aug.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle ERISA Litigation
COLORADO ROCKIES: Faces Class Action Over Resale of Tickets
CRST VAN: Court Approves Bid for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs
EQUIFAX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California

EVERSHING INT'L: Recalls Ginger Candy Due to Lead Presence
FIRST AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits Over Business Practices
FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Probed by NZ Over Latest Tainted-Milk Scare
FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Botulism Scare Worries Chinese Consumers
FORD MOTOR: Pays $17.35MM Penalty Over Delayed SUV Recall

GENTEK BUILDING: Settlement of Steel Peel Suit Has Final Approval
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Uppercut Fixed Blade Knife & Sheath Set
GLIDEAWAY BED: Recalls Sleepharmony Metal Youth Beds Due to Lead
GUNNS: Law Firm Attempts to Revive Shareholder Class Action
HEEREN BROTHERS: Recalls Cantaloupes Due to Health Risk

IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Canada
INFOSYS: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practices
JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington Women's Shoes Over Fall Hazard
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Accord in Insurance Brokerage Suit Approved

MATTEL INC: MGA's Bid to Reassert Trade Secret Claim Pending
MET-PRO CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
OUTERWALL INC: Awaits Court Ruling in "Piechur" Class Suit
OUTERWALL INC: Parties in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Suit Awaits Ruling
OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Awaits Judgment Bid Ruling in Privacy Suit

PVF CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Ohio
REMINGTON ARMS: Seeks Dismissal of Rifle Defect Class Action
RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $37.5 Million to Dead Smoker's Family
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 13
SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Ruling in "Garcia" Suit Pending

SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Schwartz" Suit Pending
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
SERVICE CORP: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Louisiana
SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Class Suit Scheduled for Trial This Month
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objector Fails to Get Class Certification

U.S. MARSHALS: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Logue" Suit
UBS AG: Settles SEC Charges Over Bond Sale for $50 Million
UNITED AIR: Pilots Suit in Missouri Transferred to Illinois Court
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiropractors' Suit
USG CORP: Chinese Wallboard Damage Claims vs. L&W Still Pending

USG CORP: Continues to Defend MDL Over Gypsum Wallboard Pricing
UTILIQUEST LLC: Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Add Class Allegations in "Rosell" Suit Denied

* Battle Over Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Suits Heats Up
* Looming Dispute Over MICRA Big Political Test for Plaintiffs Bar
* US Presses for Restrictions on Genetically Modified Food Imports


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co.'s Plan Confirmation Order Reaffirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guilford Project Finished Ahead of Schedule
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Adds $70,000 to Carnegie Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Clearing Work Delays Threaten Jobs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VINE Hits Unexpected Additional Abatement Cost

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Committee Opposes Motion to Open Garlock Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies Motion to Keep Garlock Trial Open
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pueblo Neighborhood Bids Fibro-Laden Home Goodbye
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caravan Warns Renovators About Dangers of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed at Auto Plaza Ford

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Dumps Records in Baw Baw Shire Not Kept
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waikato Hospital Fibro Scare Seals Transfer Area
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis School Staff & Children Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Painter Dies of Fibro-related Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Art Showing Rochdale's Fibro Legacy Unveiled

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Closed Testimony Continues at Garlock Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks to Appeal Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Fine for Violations in Worcester
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Contractor Fined for Handling Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Loads of Fibro Dumped in Hereford County

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thurrock Pair to Pay GBP13,000 for Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Plaintiff Seeks $1.75MM in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still not Removed from Gary Sheraton Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Shocks Bay of Plenty Engineers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO President to Testify Before Senate

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Inside Luzerne County Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Testimony Switches to Financial Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Council Dismisses Safety Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Fibro After 2-3 Days Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmania Not a Priority in Telstra's Repair Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 34 Companies Named in Jefferson County PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis School Lab Test Confirms Presence of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blackwood Man Sues Newport Council Over PI Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Remove Fibro From Homes Damaged by Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Die of Fibro-Related Diseases in US

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Could Kill Gogebic's Iron Ore Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Appeal Estimation Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waste Sparks Fibro Fear at Jack Vanny Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Warns More Fibro Legal Action Possible
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Claimants' Expert Testifies on Defendants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: M'bah Maccas Work Halted After Fibro Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Duplessis" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Wins in Impairment Rating Spat v. Liberty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Suit Dismissed for Lack of Diligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Widow's Anti-SLAPP Motion Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sturgis" Suit Consolidated With Inmates' NY Suit


                             *********


ALCOA INC: Still Awaits Appeals Court Ruling in "Curtis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. is still awaiting an appellate court decision in the
class action lawsuit titled Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., according to the
Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.  The Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits.  The Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.  The Plaintiffs sought
injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and
attorneys' fees.  Alcoa had consented to treatment of the
plaintiffs' claims as a class action.  During the fourth quarter
of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered
consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction
with trial, certified a plaintiff class, and bifurcated and stayed
the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Trial in the
matter was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009, and
ending on October 1, 2009, in federal court in Knoxville, TN,
before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing the
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  On
March 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification
and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other
things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested
subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior
to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which the plaintiffs
are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that
plaintiffs must pay.  Also on March 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed
a motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses.

On June 11, 2012, the court issued its memorandum and order
denying plaintiffs' motion for clarification and/or amendment to
the original judgment order.  On July 6, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the court's March 9, 2011 judgment.
On July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed Alcoa's motion for
assessment of costs pending resolution of plaintiffs' appeal.  The
appeal is docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801.  On August 29, 2012, the
trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
without prejudice to refiling the motion following the resolution
of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
opinion affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' claims
for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits.  The
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013, to
which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed Alcoa to file a
response, which was completed on June 7, 2013.  The Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals has not yet issued its ruling on the petition.

New York-based Alcoa Inc. produces and manages primary aluminum,
fabricated aluminum, and alumina combined, through its active and
growing participation in all major aspects of the industry:
technology, mining, refining, smelting, fabricating, and
recycling.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Settles N.J. Red Light Camera Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
UPI reports that a half-million New Jersey motorists stand to get
a 10-cent-on-the-dollar rebate on tickets issued as a result of
red light cameras.

Eighteen municipalities in New Jersey participating in the state's
pilot red light camera program were targeted in a class-action
lawsuit that alleges the cameras were not properly maintained and
erroneously gave out tickets to motorists who never ran a light,
the South Jersey Times reported on Aug. 5.  Lawyers filing the
suit also said municipalities never conducted traffic studies to
determine where the cameras should be placed.

The municipalities have denied the allegations but the company
that manufactures the lights, American Traffic Solutions, has
agreed to pay back $4.2 million to motorists who received tickets
before Aug. 1, 2012, court documents indicate.  Those who received
a ticket will get a check for $8.50 -- 10 percent of the $85
ticket they got in the mail after one of the cameras recorded them
running a red light.

A hearing in federal court is scheduled for Sept. 12 where a judge
will decide whether to accept the settlement on behalf of drivers.


ANGIE'S LIST: Continues to Defend "Fritzinger" Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status, Fritzinger v. Angie's List,
Inc. was filed against the Company on August 14, 2012, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court").
After the Court granted the Company's partial Motion to Dismiss
plaintiff's deception claims, the lawsuit currently alleges claims
for breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and requests
certification of a class consisting of all current and former
Angie's List members whose membership was renewed between
August 14, 2006, and the present.  The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit and continues to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Angie's List, Inc., --
http://www.angieslist.com/-- operates a consumer-driven service
for members to research, hire, rate and review local professionals
for critical needs, such as home, health care and automotive
services.  The Company's ratings and reviews, which are available
only to its members, help the members find the best provider for
their local service needs.


BANK OF AMERICA: U.S. Gov't Files Suit Over Mortgage Bond Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
U.S. government has accused Bank of America Corp. of civil fraud,
saying the company failed to disclose risks and misled investors
in its sale of $850 million of mortgage bonds during 2008.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Aug. 6 against the bank
and several subsidiaries in federal court in Charlotte, N.C.,
where Bank of America is based.  The Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a related lawsuit against Bank of America there,
too.

Bank of America disputed the allegations.

The lawsuits accuse the second-largest U.S. bank of misleading
investors about the risks of the mortgages tied to the securities.

And the government said the bank failed to tell investors that
more than 70% of the mortgages backing the investment were written
by mortgage brokers outside the banks' network.  That made the
mortgages more vulnerable to default, they said.  The bank
disclosed the percentage of such mortgage loans in the investment
only to a select group of investors, the suits alleged.

Bank of America could face monetary penalties. The government
didn't specify how much it is seeking, but it estimated that
investors lost more than $100 million on the deal.

Bank of America's CEO at the time described those mortgages as
"toxic waste," the SEC said.

"Bank of America's reckless and fraudulent . . . practices in the
lead-up to the financial crisis caused significant losses to
investors," Anne Tompkins, the U.S. attorney for the Western
District of North Carolina, said in a statement.  "Now, Bank of
America will have to face the consequences of its actions."

Bank of America said it will refute the government's allegations
in court.

"These were prime mortgages sold to sophisticated investors who
had ample access to the underlying data and we will demonstrate
that," company spokesman Lawrence Grayson said in a statement.
"The loans in this pool performed better than loans with similar
characteristics (made and packaged into securities) at the same
time by other financial institutions."

"We are not responsible for the housing market collapse that
caused mortgage loans to default at unprecedented rates and these
securities to lose value as a result," Ms. Grayson added.

The action was brought by a financial-fraud enforcement task force
set up to pursue cases related to the 2008 financial crisis.  The
Justice Department lawsuit marks the most high-profile action
brought by the Obama administration over conduct related to the
financial crisis since the department sued credit rating agency
Standard & Poor's in February.  That lawsuit alleged that S&P
knowingly inflated its ratings of risky mortgage investments ahead
of the crisis.

S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos., has rejected the allegations.

The actions against S&P and Bank of America followed years of
criticism that the government had failed to do enough to hold
accountable those companies that contributed to the crisis.

When the real estate bubble burst in 2007, home values plunged and
millions of people defaulted on their mortgages and lost their
homes.  Investors who bought securities backed by high-risk
mortgages lost billions.  Regulators have said that inaccurate
statements by banks in packaging and selling mortgage bonds
contributed to the investors' losses.

The lawsuit "marks the latest step forward in the Justice
Department's ongoing efforts to hold accountable those who engage
in fraudulent or irresponsible conduct," Attorney General Eric
Holder said.

Bank of America received $45 billion in federal bailout aid during
the crisis.  It became one of the biggest players in the mortgage
market through its acquisitions of Merrill Lynch and Countrywide
Financial, which wrote many high-risk mortgages that contributed
to the crisis.

Bank of America has been dogged by litigation largely as a result
of those acquisitions.  The bank has had to pay tens of billions
of dollars to settle class-action lawsuits and previous actions
brought by the SEC.


BOIRON INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin is granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the class action captioned REBECCA BOHN,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. BOIRON, INC. and BOIRON USA, INC., Defendants, NO. 11 C 08704,
(N.D. Ill.).

Rebecca Bohn filed the class action complaint against Defendants
Boiron, Inc. and Boiron USA, Inc. alleging violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
ILCS 502/1, et seq. R. 41 (Am. Compl.)  Boiron moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.

Judge Durkin held that Ms. Bohn's claim for injunctive relief is
dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing.  Her class allegations are stricken, as it is clear from
her amended complaint that class certification of any of the four
proposed classes is inappropriate in this case, the Court said.
Finally, Boiron's motion to dismiss the ICFA claim pursuant to
Rules 9 and 12(b)(6) is denied, Judge Durkin added.

The Court directed the parties to appear before the Court on
August 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., for a status hearing regarding the
sole claim that remains in the case: Bohn's individual ICFA claim.
Lead counsel should be present to discuss the next steps in the
matter, including whether the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over what remains of the case, concludes Judge
Durkin.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/EttgUTfrom Leagle.com.

Rebecca Bohn, Plaintiff, represented by Stewart M. Weltman --
sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com -- at Stewart M Weltman, LLC, Charles
C. Sweedler -- csweedler@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein Sedran &
Berman, Dana Marie Pesha -- dpesha@futtermanhoward.com -- at
Futterman Howard Ashley Watkins & Weltman, P.C., Howard J. Sedran
-- hsedran@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman &
Keith J. Verrier -- kverrier@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman.

Boiron, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina G Sarchio --
csarchio@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Haven G Ward -- haven.ward@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP & John Constantine Gekas -- jgekas@gekaslaw.com --
at Gekas Law LLP.

Boiron USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina G Sarchio,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Haven G Ward, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & John Constantine Gekas, Gekas Law
LLP.


BRENT REINKE: Bid to Dismiss Prisoners' Suit Gets Partial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted in part and denied in
part defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned SANDY JONAS,
Plaintiff, v. BRENT REINKE, JIM WOOLF, LEEANNE HAMILTON, JEFF
KIRKMAN, FELICIA FUNK, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 Defendants,
CASE NO. 4:12-CV-00251-BLW, (D. Idaho).

The Plaintiff was part of a group of prisoners at the Pocatello
Women's Correctional Center who started a lawsuit by jointly
filing a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint docketed as Blanc v.
Reinke, et al., 4:11-cv-00333-BLW, in which they challenged wide-
ranging conditions at PWCC, alleging that prison officials and
employees violated their constitutional rights and contravened
various federal criminal statues. The Plaintiffs also requested
certification as a class action.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush, who
conducted an initial review of the Complaint as required by 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 and Section 1915A.  Judge Bush determined that
the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. He instructed each Plaintiff who wished to proceed to
file her own amended complaint, rather than to continue as joint
plaintiffs in a single case, and to submit a new application to
proceed in forma pauperis.  The case was then reassigned to the
undersigned District Judge, who independently reviewed the
Complaint and agreed with Judge Bush that it failed to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff
filed the Complaint in the instant case.

Judge Winmill granted the motion to dismiss as to Defendant Woolf.
All claims against Defendant Woolf are dismissed with prejudice.
As to Defendant Hamilton, given that both parties have submitted
matters outside of the pleadings to address whether or not she was
personally involved, the Court concludes this issue would be more
appropriately heard as a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Defendant Hamilton will be
denied concerning the medical treatment and care Plaintiff
received for her thumb.  However, the Defendants may file a motion
for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.Proc.] Rule 56 on this issue,
Judge Winmill said.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at http://is.gd/puxgJsfrom Leagle.com.

Sandy Jonas, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

LeeAnne Hamilton, Defendant, represented by Leslie Marie Hayes,
Idaho Attorney General's Office.


CHEMED CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Amend in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation is awaiting a court decision on the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, according to
the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On January 12, 2012, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Company, Kevin
McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole.  On April 9, 2012,
the Court issued orders (a) renaming the lawsuit as In re Chemed
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D.
Ohio); (b) appointing the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension
Fund and the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W.
as Lead Plaintiffs; and (c) approving Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Co-Lead Counsel.  On June 18, 2012, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
Defendants, and violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and
O'Toole.  The lawsuit's allegations concern the VITAS Healthcare
Corporation hospice segment of the Company's business.  The Lead
Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Chemed Capital Stock between February 15, 2010, and November 16,
2011, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees and expenses, arising from Defendants' failure to disclose an
alleged fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible hospice patients
and to fraudulently obtain payments from the federal government.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 17, 2012.

On June 7, 2013, following the filing of U.S. v. VITAS, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  The Defendants oppose this motion.

The Defendants believe the Plaintiffs' claims are without merit,
and intend to defend vigorously against them.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chemed Corporation --
http://www.chemed.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as
a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971,
and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace until March 10, 1982.
Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in
diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing
shareholder value.


CHEMED CORP: Reached Deal to Settle "Morangelli" Suit for $14.3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit filed by Anthony Morangelli, et al.,
reached in June 2013 an agreement to settle the case for $14.3
million, according to Chemed Corporation's July 25, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2010, Chemed and Roto-Rooter Corporation, a
subsidiary, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
entitled Anthony Morangelli, et al., v. Chemed Corp. and Roto-
Rooter Services Co., No. 10 CV-00876 (BMC).  The named plaintiffs
in this lawsuit, who are current and former technicians employed
by Roto-Rooter who were paid on a commission basis, asserted
against Chemed and Roto-Rooter claims for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and claims for violations of the
labor laws of multiple states.  In June 2013, the parties reached
an agreement to settle the case for $14.3 million plus applicable
payroll taxes ($9.0 million after tax), which is subject to Court
approval.  As such, $14.8 million is recorded as other operating
expense in the quarter ended June 30, 2013 Statement of Income.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Chemed Corporation --
http://www.chemed.com/-- was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as
a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971,
and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace until March 10, 1982.
Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in
diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing
shareholder value.


CIRRUS LOGIC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Koplyay" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cirrus Logic, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

On February 4, 2013, a purported shareholder filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two of the Company's
executives (the "Securities Case").  The lawsuit is captioned
Koplyay v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 13-CV-0790.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business results between
July 31, 2012, and October 31, 2012, and seeks unspecified damages
along with the plaintiff's costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.  A second complaint was filed on April 13, 2013,
by a different purported shareholder, in the same Court, setting
forth substantially the same allegations.  On April 19, 2013, the
Court appointed the plaintiff and counsel in the first class
action complaint as the lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2013, including
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.  On
May 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The parties completed the
briefing on that motion on June 16, 2013, and the Company expects
a ruling on its motion shortly.

Austin, Texas-based Cirrus Logic, Inc., develops high-precision,
analog and mixed-signal integrated circuits for a broad range of
audio and energy markets.  Cirrus Logic delivers highly optimized
products for consumer and professional audio, automotive
entertainment, and targeted industrial applications including
energy control, energy management, light emitting diode lighting
and energy exploration.


CITIGROUP INC: Securities Litigation Settlement Gets Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs brought the securities fraud action captioned IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Citigroup, Inc. common stock against that the
company and certain of its officials. Plaintiffs allege that
Citigroup misled investors by understating the risks associated
with assets backed by subprime mortgages and overstating the value
of those assets, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as a result, all those who
purchased Citigroup common stock between February 26, 2007 and
April 18, 2008 paid an allegedly inflated price. The parties have
reached a settlement of their dispute for $590 million to be paid
to the class.

The Court must determine whether that settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and what a reasonable fee for the
plaintiffs' attorneys should be.

District Judge Sidney H. Stein holds that the proposed $590
million settlement and the proposed plan of allocation are fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court further finds that the class
was provided with adequate notice of class certification and the
settlement. The Court, thus, grants plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the settlement and plan of allocation.

The Court also grants Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees -- albeit a lower fee than requested. The Court
awards Lead Counsel $70.8 million in attorneys' fees.  The Court
also grants the Lead Counsel's motion for reimbursement of
$2,842,841.59 in litigation expenses.

The case is IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, NOS. 09 MD
2070 (SHS), 07 CIV. 9901 (SHS), (S.D. New York).

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Rb35Lsfrom Leagle.com.

ATD Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Wagner Pederson,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Peter S Linden, Kirby McInerney LLP & Ira M.
Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Tillie Saltzman, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado, Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP &
Peter S Linden, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented
by Andrew J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Peter S Linden,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

Sjunde Ap-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

Fjarde Ap-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

Pensionskassernes Administration A/S, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

John A. Baden, Plaintiff, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Warren Pinchuk, Plaintiff, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Anthony Sedutto, Plaintiff, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Edward Claus, Plaintiff, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Carol Weil, Plaintiff, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Mr. Mark C. Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by Vincent J. Montell,
Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer, P.A.

Lennard Hammerschlag, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Dustin Peter Mansoor, Houser & Allison, APC & James Stuart Notis,
Gardy & Notis, LLP.

David Garden, Movant, represented by Joseph Harry Weiss, Weiss &
Lurie.

Edward Altman, Movant, represented by Ira M. Press, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Elaine Altman, Movant, represented by Ira M. Press, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Jonathan Butler, Movant, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

M. David Diamond, Movant, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

David Whitcomb, Movant, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Henrietta Whitcomb, Movant, represented by Peter S Linden, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney LLP & Ira M. Press,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Movant, represented by
Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP &
Jeffrey Craig Block, Berman DeValerio.

Division of Investment of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey,
Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP & Jeffrey Craig Block, Berman DeValerio.

State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, Movant,
represented by Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP & Jeffrey Craig Block, Berman DeValerio.

U.S. Public Fund Group, Movant, represented by Anne Faith O'Berry,
Berman Devalerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Jeffrey Craig
Block, Berman DeValerio & Michael Jameson Pucillo, Berman
DeValerio.

Citigroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele Buergel,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Charles O. Prince, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele
Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Robert E. Rubin, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele Buergel,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Stephen R. Volk, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Sallie L. Krawcheck, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Gary L. Crittenden, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele
Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Robert Druskin, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele Buergel,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Todd S. Thomson, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Thomas G. Maheras, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele
Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Michael Stuart Klein, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele
Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

David C. Bushnell, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Susanna Michele
Buergel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

John C. Gerspach, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Vikram Pandit, Defendant, represented by Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

C. Michael Armstrong, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
Alain J.P. Belda, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

George David, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence B.
Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Kenneth T. Derr, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

John M. Deutch, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence B.
Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Roberto Hernandez Ramirez, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Ann Dibble Jordan, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Klaus Kleinfeld, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Andrew N. Liveris, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Dudley C. Mecum, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Anne M. Mulcahy, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Richard D. Parsons, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Dr. Judith Rodin, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Robert E. Rubin, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Robert L. Ryan, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence B.
Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Franklin A. Thomas, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Winfried Bischoff, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

William R. Rhodes, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Steven J. Freiberg, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Richard A.
Rosen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek
O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Michael S. Helfer, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence
B. Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Lewis B. Kaden, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Lawrence B.
Pedowitz, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Richard A. Rosen, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Jane Baek O'Brien, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

ST. STEPHEN, INC., ADR Provider, represented by Forrest Scott
Turkish, Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office.

SMOKESTACK LIGHTENING LTD., ADR Provider, represented by Forrest
Scott Turkish, Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office.

Marshall Orloff, ADR Provider, represented by Forrest Scott
Turkish, Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office.

Daniel Brecher, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Scott Short, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Jennifer Murphy, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Chad Taylor, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Mark Oelfke, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Paul Koch, Objector, represented by Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Matthew Moylan Guiney, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Steve A. Miller, P.C. Profit Sharing Plan, Objector, Pro Se.
Theodore H. Frank, Objector, Pro Se.

Mr. Eric Behar, Objector, represented by Leon Isidore Behar, Leon
I. Behar, P.C.


CMS ENERGY: High Court Petition in Gas Index Price Suit Due Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and other defendants' deadline to file a
petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gas Index Price
Reporting Litigation is due this month, according to the Company's
July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in various
lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas
price reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.  The following provides more detail on
the cases in which CMS Energy affiliates remain as parties:

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
     named as defendants in a putative class action filed in
     Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et
     al.  The complaint alleges that during the putative class
     period, January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002, the
     defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
     Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full
     consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly
     purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
     Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a
     putative class action in Missouri state court alleging
     violations of Missouri antitrust laws.  The Defendants,
     including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are
     alleged to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in
     connection with their natural gas reporting activities.  The
     Plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages and treble
     damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
     Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
     court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that
     purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000, and
     October 31, 2002.  The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
     ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated
     Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages and
     attorneys' fees.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
     CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
     County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
     Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full
     consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
     attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
     Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
     Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field
     Services, and others.  The complaint alleges various claims
     under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is
     seeking statutory full consideration damages for its
     purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas Company were
dismissed from the Newpage case.  In 2011, all claims against
remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed
based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preemption.
The Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases.  The issues on
appeal were whether the district court erred in dismissing the
cases based on FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions
for leave to amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act
antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of
CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy
entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the MDL decision and remanded the case to the MDL judge
for further proceedings.  The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.  The
Court affirmed the MDL court's denial of leave to amend to add
federal antitrust claims.

The joint defense group in these cases, of which CMS Energy
defendants are members, plans to file a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The petition is due in
August 2013.

The Company says these cases involve complex facts, a large number
of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions,
and multiple jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability
would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible
loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested
in this context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable,
these cases could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.

CMS Energy Corporation -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an
energy company operating primarily in Michigan.  CMS Energy is the
parent holding company of several subsidiaries, including
Consumers Energy Company and CMS Enterprises Company.  Consumers
is an electric and gas utility, and CMS Enterprises is primarily a
domestic independent power producer.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: In Discussions to Settle ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its July 25, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it is in discussions via
non-binding mediation to determine whether the class action
lawsuit styled In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation can be
settled.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman,
claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation.  The complaint in the consolidated action alleges
improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to
satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim
for age discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation
of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  This action has
not been certified as a class action as yet.

The parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to
determine whether the action can be settled.  The Company and the
Plan intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties
be unable to reach a settlement.

Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company.
Colgate's products are marketed in over 200 countries and
territories worldwide.  The Company operates in two product
segments: Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet Nutrition.


COLORADO ROCKIES: Faces Class Action Over Resale of Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Heitner -- DHeitner@wolfelawmiami.com -- partner at Wolfe
Law Miami, P.A., in an article for Forbes, says that Colorado
consumers have a right to engage in a secondary ticket market void
of any restrictions.  That is the basis for plaintiff Marilyn
Sweet's Class Action Complaint filed on August 1 in federal court
against the Colorado Rockies, and on behalf of all U.S. citizens
who have ever purchased a ticket to a Colorado Rockies home game
at any time between March 19, 2008 and the present.

Ms. Sweet says that the Rockies' exclusive relationship with
online secondary ticket marketplace StubHub (a subsidiary of eBay)
is in direct violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
which was amended by the Colorado legislature on March 19, 2008
(explaining Sweet's decision to choose that date as benchmark by
which to establish the potential class of plaintiffs).  The
relevant section of that Act reads, "It is void as against public
policy to apply a term or condition to the original sale to the
purchaser to limit the terms or conditions of resale, including,
but not limited to, a term or condition . . . That imposes a
sanction on the purchaser if the sale of the ticket is not through
a reseller approved by the operator."

Did MLB Overpay In Its Purchase Of Rockies.com?

What is the specific sanction if a secondary market consumer
attempts to use a service other than StubHub to sell or purchase
Colorado Rockies home game tickets?  Ms. Sweet's complaint says
that said individuals would face expulsion from the stadium and
are threatened that they will have their ticket licenses
invalidated.

The Terms and Conditions section on each Colorado Rockies home
game ticket states, "[t]his ticket may not be resold or offered
for resale (i) via the Internet or any other interactive media,
except, if applicable, through the official website of the
Colorado Rockies -- http://www.coloradorockies.com-- or sites
authorized by the Colorado Rockies or (ii) in a manner at a price
or otherwise in violation of any Federal, State, or local
laws/ordinances/regulations.  Any such resale will invalidate the
license granted by this ticket."  Sweet's claim rests on the
assumption that the only site authorized by the Rockies is the one
owned and operated by StubHub.

The claimed damages arise from the forfeiture of rights and
opportunities in using other online secondary resellers, the
requirement that tickets be listed on StubHub for no less than
$6.00 a piece and the profits gained by StubHub through the
service fee it charges to consumers.  Reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, and an injunction against further restrictions have
also been requested.


CRST VAN: Court Approves Bid for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CRST VAN
EXPEDITED, INC., Defendant, NO. 07-CV-95-LRR, (N.D. Iowa), was
filed on behalf of Monika Starke "and a class of similarly
situated female employees of [CRST]."  The EEOC brought suit in
its own name "to correct [CRST's] unlawful employment practices on
the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to [Starke]
and a class of similarly situated female employees of [CRST] who
were adversely affected by such practices."  Consequently, the
EEOC was barred from pursuing relief on behalf of all 255
allegedly aggrieved individuals the EEOC had identified and the
court dismissed the Complaint in its entirety. The court further
ordered the EEOC to pay CRST's ordinary costs, which CRST could
request 10 days after disposition of the entire case. The court
determined that CRST was a "prevailing party" as to the EEOC and,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(k), CRST could seek
attorneys' fees from the EEOC within 20 days after disposition of
the entire case.

Before Chief District Judge Linda R. Reade are CRST's "Bill of
Costs" and "Motion for an Award of Its Reasonable Attorney[s']
Fees and Out-of-Pocket Expenses.

In an August 1, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/rm4OHAfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Reade ruled that costs in the amount of
$91,758.46 are taxed in favor of CRST, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1920.  CRST's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in
part and denied in part in that the EEOC is ordered to pay CRST
$4,189,296.10 in attorneys' fees and $413,387.58 in out-of-pocket
expenses.

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor
of CRST in the amount of $4,694,442.14. This figure includes
attorneys' fees, expenses and the costs taxed in favor of CRST
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1920.

The Court further directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, represented by
Ann Marie Henry, EEOC, Brian C Tyndall, EEOC, Jean P Kamp, EEOC,
Jeanne Bowman Szromba, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Nicholas J Pladson, EEOC & John H Mathias, Jr., Jenner & Block
LLP.

CRST Van Expedited Inc, Defendant, represented by Carla J Rozycki
-- crozycki@jenner.com -- at Jenner and Block LLP, Emma J Sullivan
-- esullivan@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block, LLP, J Andrew Hirth,
Jenner & Block, LLP, James T Malysiak -- jmalysiak@jenner.com --
at Jenner & Block, LLP, John H Mathias, Jr. -- jmathias@jenner.com
-- at Jenner & Block LLP, Richard P Campbell --
rcampbell@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block, LLP, Robert T
Markowski, Jenner & Block, LLP, Sally K Sears Coder --
ssearscoder@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block, LLP, Kevin J Visser
-- kvisser@simmonsperrine.com -- at Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman
PLC & Thomas D Wolle -- twolle@simmonsperrine.com -- at Moyer &
Bergman, PLC.


EQUIFAX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit in California, according to the Company's July 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al., the plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the California
Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether
credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method
for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy
discharge.  On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a
Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in
the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in
bankruptcy on consumer credit files.  That settlement resolved
claims for injunctive relief, but not the plaintiffs' claims for
damages.

On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims.  The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the
re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011.  The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement.  Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Equifax Inc. -- http://www.equifax.com/--
is a global provider of information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses and
consumers.  The Company has a large and diversified group of
clients, including financial institutions, corporations,
governments and individuals.


EVERSHING INT'L: Recalls Ginger Candy Due to Lead Presence
----------------------------------------------------------
Evershing International Trading, Inc. of San Jose, CA, is
recalling all Ginger Candy it received from Lucky Shing Company
due to elevated levels of lead.  Ginger Candy is imported from
Vietnam.

Evershing International Trading, Inc. learned on July 30, 2013
from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), that the
Ginger Candy contains high levels of lead that could cause health
problems to consumers, particularly infants, small children, and
pregnant women.  Evershing International Trading, Inc. immediately
segregated its entire Ginger Candy inventory and is notifying
consumers and customers not to consume this product.

The Ginger Candy being recalled is slices of dehydrated ginger
coated in sugar.  The label reads "Mut Gung Non, Ginger Candy."
The product was sold in 8 ounce sealed plastic pouches, and 12
ounce sealed shrink wrapped plastic tubs.  The label contains
red, black, and green lettering.  Ingredient statement list:
ginger, sugar, and water.  Contact information on the label reads
P. By: E.T.I, San Jose, CA.  A green coconut tree appears on the
top of the label above the words "Coconut Tree Brand".

Recent analysis of the Ginger Candy by CDPH found that the product
contained lead levels as high as 0.12 parts per million (ppm).
This concentration of lead could provide up to 10.21 micrograms of
lead per serving and children under 6 years of age should not
consume more than 6.0 micrograms of lead per day from all dietary
sources.  Therefore, sale of this Ginger Candy is prohibited in
the State of California.

Evershing International Trading, Inc. wants to ensure its products
are safe.  Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation
with the CDPH, Evershing International Trading, Inc. is
voluntarily recalling all Ginger Candy from all of its customers.
Consumers in possession of Ginger Candy should not eat the product
and should return the product to the place of purchase.

Pregnant women and parents of children who may have consumed any
Ginger Candy should consult with their physician or health care
provider to determine whether further medical testing is required.
For more information about lead poisoning, parents and caretakers
should contact their local childhood lead poisoning prevention
program or local public health department.

Evershing International Trading, Inc. will be sending recall
notices to all of its direct customers.  Please call Alanna Hua at
(408) 975-9660 for further information.


FIRST AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits Over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
and its subsidiaries from lawsuits challenging practices in its
title insurance business, according to the Company's July 25,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non-
ordinary course lawsuits.  Frequently, these lawsuits are similar
in nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company's
competitors.

For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has
determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable,
a liability representing the best estimate of the Company's
financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded.  Actual
losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however, it is not
possible to assess the probability of loss.  Most of these
lawsuits are putative class actions, which require a plaintiff to
satisfy a number of procedural requirements before proceeding to
trial.  These requirements include, among others, demonstration to
a court that the law proscribes in some manner the Company's
activities, the making of factual allegations sufficient to
suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the limits of the
law and a determination by the court -- known as class
certification -- that the law permits a group of individuals to
pursue the case together as a class.  In certain instances the
Company may also be able to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its
claim on an individual basis.  If these procedural requirements
are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case
with class certification or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs
lose the financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the
amount at issue effectively becomes de minimus).  Frequently, a
court's determination as to these procedural requirements is
subject to appeal to a higher court.  As a result of, among other
factors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws
applicable to the Company's business and the uniqueness of the
factual issues presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often
cannot determine the probability of loss until a court has finally
determined that a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural
requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible.  Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members
-- is often time consuming and burdensome.  Moreover, these
lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty
as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove.  In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines.  These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its
agents:

   -- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
      transaction, including:

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake County,

      * Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on September 29, 2010, and pending in the United States
        District Court of New Jersey,

      * Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New
        York, filed on March 9, 2012, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New York,

      * Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 26, 2009, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Pennsylvania,

      * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 28, 2006, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Idaho,

      * Mitchell-Tracey v. First American Title Insurance
        Company, et al., filed on April 30, 2012, and pending in
        the United States District Court for the Northern District
        of Maryland,

      * Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 14, 2004, and pending in the Circuit Court,
        Nassau County, Florida, and

      * Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on December 19, 2005, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

      All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A court
      has only granted class certification in Hamilton, Lewis,
      Raffone and Slapikas.  For the reasons stated, the Company
      has been unable to assess the probability of loss or
      estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
      the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
      believes the amount is immaterial to the financial
      statements as a whole.

   -- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
      an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting
      business to the Company or gave items of value to title
      insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in
      each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
      Procedures Act, including:

      * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 12, 2007, and pending in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California.

        In Edwards a narrow class has been certified.  For the
        reasons stated, the Company has been unable to estimate
        the possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
      engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

      * Klein v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on July 10, 2012, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Columbia.

        Klein is a putative class action for which a class has
        not been certified.  For reasons described, the Company
        has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss
        or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

      * Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 16, 2006, and pending in the United
        States District Court of Connecticut, and

      * Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al.,
        filed on May 9, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Massachusetts.

        Katin is a putative class action for which a class has
        not been certified.  The class originally certified in
        Gale was subsequently decertified.  For the reasons
        stated, the Company has not yet been able to assess the
        probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the
        range of loss.

   -- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
      services provided in connection with the closing of real
      estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
      telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
      items of value to developers, builders and others as
      inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
      laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
      prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
      obligations, including:

      * Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009, and pending in
        the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
        Los Angeles,

      * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on January 22, 2009, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New Jersey,

      * Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009, and
        pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
        County of Los Angeles,

      * Deceuster v. First American Title Insurance Company,
        filed on February 13, 2013, and pending in the Court of
        Common Pleas of Ohio,

      * Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on July 14, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

      * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on December 21, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 15, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the
        State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Muehling v. First American Title Company, filed on
        December 11, 2012, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, County of Alameda,

      * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on February 25, 2005, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 23, 2011, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009, and
        pending in the United States District Court for the
        Western District of Washington, and

      * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on April 20, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

   All of these lawsuits, except Kirk, Sjobring, and Tavenner,
   are putative class actions for which a class has not been
   certified.  In Sjobring a class was certified but that
   certification was subsequently vacated.  For reasons stated,
   the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
   loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or,
   where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the
   Company believes the amount is immaterial to the financial
   statements as a whole.

While some of the lawsuits may be material to the Company's
operating results in any particular period if an unfavorable
outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
overall financial condition or liquidity.

Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, First American Financial
Corporation became a publicly traded company following its spin-
off from its prior parent, The First American Corporation, in June
2010.  After TFAC distributed all of the Company's outstanding
shares, the Company owned TFAC's financial services businesses and
TFAC, which reincorporated and assumed the name CoreLogic, Inc.,
continued to own its information solutions businesses.


FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Probed by NZ Over Latest Tainted-Milk Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Howard, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
government officials in New Zealand began poring over documents
held by Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd., as criticism mounted over
its handling of a tainted-milk scare.

The probe began as lawmakers weighed the economic impact of bans
imposed by China and Russia on some milk products following a
warning by Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, that it
had sold products potentially containing harmful bacteria.  Dairy
accounts for around a quarter of New Zealand's exports, and this
incident could risk its hard-won reputation as a safe supplier of
food.

Officials were sent to Fonterra's offices in Auckland and
Melbourne to find out what management knew in advance of problems
with its exports and to track the tainted products.  Going to a
private company's offices to verify information is unprecedented
under this government, aides to Prime Minister John Key said.  A
key question for investigators is why Fonterra waited more than 48
hours to inform lawmakers of possible contamination.

"I can't explain that gap in time," Mr. Key said.  "That is one of
the very real issues that needs to be looked at."  The prime
minister also noted that information provided by Fonterra changed
several times over the initial two days.

Fonterra has apologized for the food scare, which began Saturday,
August 3, 2013, when it said some of its exported whey-protein
products may contain Clostridium botulinum bacteria, which can
cause botulism -- severe and even deadly food poisoning.

Fonterra produced the whey protein for use in infant formula and
other products in May 2012.  The issue was not identified until
March and testing was then carried out to isolate the specific
bacteria.  On Wednesday, August 7, 2013, tests indicated the
potential presence of the botulism bacteria.  However, it took a
further two days to inform the government.

Fonterra confirmed that the Ministry of Primary Industries, or
MPI, is studying data related to the contamination scare.
Ministry officials have also inspected the manufacturing plant
where the contamination is thought to have occurred.

"We have been working very, very closely with them," Gary Romano,
a company spokesman, told reporters.

According to the Company, the contamination problem was due to a
pipe that hadn't been sufficiently cleaned and which has since
been destroyed.

Finance Minister Bill English said the government is assessing the
impact of the food-safety scare on the economy, which leans
heavily on agriculture exports and has outperformed many of its
developed peers.

So far, China has banned whey-protein products and base powder
formula used to manufacture infant formula, and Russia has
reportedly banned all New Zealand dairy products.  Products have
been recalled in several countries including China, New Zealand
and Malaysia.

Although China is a key market for New Zealand, taking around a
quarter of its dairy exports, Mr. English said products affected
by the ban were worth only 125 million New Zealand dollars (US$112
million) a year, or around 1% of dairy shipments.

"At this stage there is no indication the issue has escalated to
the point where it could have significant impact," Mr. English
told reporters.

Much will depend on how international customers respond to the
scare, and whether they look to replace New Zealand milk products
with those of rival suppliers like Switzerland and the
Netherlands.  Mr. English said the outcome of the main price-
setting auction for milk, GlobalDairyTrade, later Tuesday,
August 6, 2013, would be a key test.

Still, lawmakers signaled their frustration at how Fonterra, a
cooperative of 10,500 individual farmers that is New Zealand's
only global brand, had handled its third quality issue with milk
products in recent years.

Fonterra owned a stake in a company involved in the 2008 scandal
in China when at least six children died and 300,000 became sick
from milk containing dangerous levels of melamine.  Earlier this
year, the Company acknowledged finding traces of the chemical
dicyandiamide in its milk powder.  Fonterra at the time said the
government advised it the low levels found weren't a safety
concern to humans.

"Fonterra has let us down -- its strategic communications have
been hugely lacking," said David Shearer, leader of New Zealand's
opposition Labour Party.  "This issue is bigger than politics, but
Fonterra is not bigger than parliament."

A spokesman for the Financial Market Authority also said it has
concerns about how long it took Fonterra to disclose the current
food-safety scare to the share market -- where it has a listed
fund -- and was seeking a response from the Company.

The scare risks straining relations between Fonterra and companies
that rely on its milk for their own products.  Fonterra said it
has informed eight of its customers about the possible
contamination.  Nutricia New Zealand Ltd., a unit of Paris-based
Danone SA, Coca-Cola China, a unit of U.S.-based Coca-Cola Co.,
and Danone Dumex (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. all announced precautionary
recalls over the weekend.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, China's national quality watchdog
asked a Chinese arm of the U.S.-based Abbott Laboratories to
recall two infant formula products.

Fonterra said possible compensation to customers hasn't yet been
discussed.  Nutricia declined to comment on whether it would seek
compensation.


FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Botulism Scare Worries Chinese Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Watt, Fu Ting, Nick Perry and Krishan Francis, writing for
The Associated Press, report that a botulism scare has soured
China's taste for New Zealand milk powder that amassed big sales
on a reputation for purity, but consumers even more wary of their
own country's dairy industry likely won't eschew the foreign
product for long.

China's dairy business has long been beset by quality lapses and
criminal scams, the most infamous in 2008 when six babies died and
hundreds of thousands were sickened by infant formula contaminated
with a chemical added to mask that the product had been watered
down.

The current food scare created by New Zealand's largest company,
Fonterra, stems from a dirty pipe in one of its plants last year,
which led to a contamination of whey protein concentrate that
could cause botulism.

While this has worried Chinese consumers who have been willing to
pay a premium for foreign brands they believe are safer, school
teacher Zhu Danyan said the current case is different from what
happened in 2008.

"In this case, the producer did not mean to hurt babies. They made
a mistake in their work," she said.  The earlier scandal in China
was "more serious and unforgivable," Ms. Zhu said.  "They knew
what they are doing.  They just wanted to make money."

While angry at Fonterra for taking several months to identify the
contamination problem, Ms. Zhu said she wouldn't switch to Chinese
milk for her 6-week-old baby.  "I just have no sense of confidence
in Chinese milk."

Fonterra, the world's largest dairy exporter, announced on Aug. 3
that hundreds of tons of infant formula, sports drinks and other
products sold in seven countries could be tainted.  The scare
prompted China and Russia to stop importing some Fonterra
products, according to New Zealand officials and the company.

China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection
and Quarantine ordered officials to "step up supervision" of dairy
products from New Zealand.  On Aug. 6, Sri Lanka's health ministry
ordered all milk products imported from New Zealand stopped at
ports and the withdrawal of whey protein products from
supermarkets as a precaution.

China's state media have jumped on the scare, saying "even famous
foreign brands can't always be reliable."  "Some Chinese consumers
have expected 'absolute safety' of foreign brands," wrote the
People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, on
Tuesday.

Fonterra has stressed there have been no reports of anyone being
sickened and that it has been open in dealing with the
contamination.

"We decided to be fully transparent with the market and to go out
straight after we found it on the 31st of July although we did not
have all the answers available at that time," Fonterra's chief
executive Theo Spierings told a news conference Monday in Beijing,
where he also apologized for any distress caused.

China's thirst for quality milk made it New Zealand's top export
market for the first time in the first quarter of this year,
overtaking Australia which had long been its neighbor's biggest
market.  China slipped back behind Australia in the second
quarter, the offseason for dairy products.  New Zealand's dairy
exports were worth $13.4 billion in the year to June 2013. Of
that, dairy trade to China was worth $3.17 billion.

While there may be a short-term decline in sales of milk products
with New Zealand ingredients, "the market will ultimately
recover," said David Mahon, managing director of Mahon China
Investment Management, a Beijing research and investment advisory
firm.

Some parents may take comfort that no one was sickened and "at
least there was an act of transparency here," he said.  "Frankly
some will have no choice but to go back to the brand they have
been using because a Chinese brand in their minds may not be a
better alternative, but if there are other brands, a Dutch brand,
a South Korean brand, and they can secure it, they will."

Since the 2008 formula scandal, China's milk testing standards
have begun to improve and domestic companies that produce infant
formula are increasingly required to become accountable for the
entire supply chain, said Mahon.  A dairy farmer and a milk
salesman were executed and 19 other people were jailed for their
role in adding melamine, an industrial chemical, to diluted dairy
products to make protein counts appear normal.

However, Chinese parents with enough money have largely shunned
local brands since 2008.

Foreign brands' market share was 30% in 2008 and more than 50% in
2012, while it was 70% in the high-end milk powder market,
according to a domestic media report citing the China Chamber of
Commerce of Foodstuffs and Native Produce.

In March, Hong Kong's government enacted measures to restrict the
amount of baby formula individuals could take out of the city to
two cans after supermarket shelves were emptied by mainland
Chinese visitors.  Even retailers in Britain and Germany and
elsewhere in Europe limited purchases of baby formula earlier this
year to prevent customers from bulk-buying and exporting it to
China for profit.


FORD MOTOR: Pays $17.35MM Penalty Over Delayed SUV Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Ford has paid the top penalty of
$17.35 million to settle government allegations that the company
was slow to recall nearly a half-million SUVs last year.

The fine announced on Aug. 1 is linked to the July 2012 recall of
nearly 485,000 Ford Escape SUVs from the 2001 to 2004 model years.
The SUVs, equipped with 3-Liter V-6 engines, were recalled to fix
sticking gas pedals that could cause crashes.  It's the maximum
fine that safety regulators are allowed to levy against an
automaker.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contends that
Ford knew about the problem in May of 2011, but failed to take
action until the agency began investigating the Escapes in July of
2012.  The probe was started after a teenage Arizona girl died in
an Escape crash in January of last year.

It's the third time in less than a year that automakers have paid
fines or reached settlements with NHTSA to sidestep lengthy public
battles with the agency.  In December, Toyota paid the maximum
fine in a case that also involved a delayed recall.  Earlier this
year, Chrysler reached a deal to install trailer hitches on some
older Jeep Grand Cherokees and Libertys, avoiding a wider recall.

Recall delays are a significant problem, said Joan Claybrook,
NHTSA administrator under President Jimmy Carter and a leading
auto safety advocate.  If an automaker can delay a recall, the
number of vehicles affected declines, she said.

"In the past, a lot of companies have delayed, delayed, delayed
and tried not to face the music, only to have it become a big
public issue," Ms. Claybrook said.  "When it becomes a big public
issue, they will act immediately."

Ford agreed to the recall in July 2012, a week after asked for
information about the Escapes.  Eventually Ford turned over the
information, and NHTSA found evidence that Ford knew about the
problem more than a year earlier.

"It is our job to ensure that manufacturers are held accountable
to address safety issues promptly and responsively," NHTSA said in
a statement.  "Recalls are a serious safety matter."

At the time of the recall, NHTSA said it had 68 complaints about
the Escape problem, including 13 crashes, nine injuries and the
death in Arizona.

Ford said in a statement that it agreed in June to pay the fine to
avoid a protracted dispute with NHTSA.  Spokeswoman Kelli Felker
said Ford faced a complex situation with a low number of
complaints.  The problem was compounded by improper repairs made
to the vehicles, she said.

"We are absolutely committed to addressing potential vehicle
issues and responding quickly for our customers," Ms. Felker said
on Aug. 1.

On the older Escapes the cruise control cables can snag on the
plastic cover atop the engine and cause the gas pedals to stick.
For the problem to happen, the pedals must be pushed to or near
the floor, and the cruise control cables must have been bent or
moved from their original position, Ford said at the time.  Cable
positions can be changed when the SUVs are serviced, the company
noted.

Dealers were to replace the fasteners on the engine cover, raising
them so there's plenty of room for the cruise control cable.

NHTSA said when the Escapes were recalled that investigators would
look into whether the sticky throttles could have been caused by
repairs made as part of a 2004 accelerator cable recall.

Ms. Felker urged Escape owners who have not had their SUVs
repaired to take them to a dealer as soon as possible.

Ms. Claybrook said it's clear that Ford realized it made a
mistake.  "It's really important for the agency to penalize these
companies for not being timely," she said.

Last December, Toyota paid a $17.35 million fine for failing to
quickly report problems to NHTSA and for delaying a safety recall.
At the time, it was the largest single fine ever assessed against
a car company over safety defects.  In 2010, Toyota paid a total
of $48.8 million in fines for three similar violations.

The fines are a tiny fraction of both companies' earnings. Last
week Ford said it made $1.23 billion in the second quarter, while
Toyota made $3.2 billion in the first quarter.

A key difference between the two cases is that Ford doesn't appear
to have fought the fine the way Toyota did, Ms. Claybrook said.

"If you're going to have a fight with a government agency, be sure
you have good grounds to have that fight," she said.  "Toyota made
a lot of mistakes. Ford is shrewder.  They just didn't want to
have that fight."


GENTEK BUILDING: Settlement of Steel Peel Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered a final order and
judgment approving the class action settlement in DONALD ELIASON,
TODD MOOS, VALDIE MAGSTADT, RUTH HANSON, GERALD HERNING, DOUGLAS
and KAREN LAMM, ROBERT PATRICK, PATRICK FLECK, GARY and DONNA
McINTYRE, RHEA CLARK, DUSTIN JOHNSON, RICHARD WROUGHTON, VIRGINIA
STROH, and KEVIN and CHARLENE OLSON, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENTEK BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC., and ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 1:10CV2093, (N.D. Ohio).

The Court held that the Settlement Agreement is fully and finally
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate as to, and in the best
interests of the Defendants and Settlement Class Members and in
full compliance with all applicable requirements of law, including
constitutional due process.

The class, for settlement purposes, is certified consisting of all
persons, organizations, municipalities, corporations and entities
that own property, whether commercial or residential, on which
Gentek Steel Siding was applied during the period January 1, 1991
through March 15, 2013, that are covered by a Gentek Steel Siding
warranty and which siding experienced Steel Peel. Excluded from
the Settlement Class are Defendants, Defendants' employees,
Defendants' subsidiaries, the Judge to whom this case is assigned
and the immediate family of the Judge to whom this case is
assigned, those who repaired the Steel Siding on their own, those
who previously accepted a cash remedy from Gentek in lieu of a
repair or replacement (though only with respect to the particular
face for which the cash remedy was previously accepted), and those
who previously sued Gentek claiming that their Siding experienced
Steel Peel and that lawsuit was resolved through a settlement or
decision by a court or arbitrator.

Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Gary Mason of
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; Barbara Quinn Smith of Maddox
Hargett & Caruso; John A. Peca of Climaco, Wilcox, Peca,
Tarantino, & Garofoli Co., LPA; Charles E. Schaffer of Levin
Fishbein Sedran & Berman; Craig Boeckel of Boeckel Law Office;
Robert K. Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP; Michael
McShane of Audet & Partners, LLP; Shawn M. Raiter of Larson King
LLP; Shanon J. Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C.; Michael D.
Plachy of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP; Eric D. Holland of
Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze; Richard J. Arsenault of
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; and Jordan Chaikin of Parker Waichman,
LLP are appointed as Settlement Class Counsel, and Virginia Stroh
and Robert Patrick are appointed Settlement Class Representatives.

Incentive awards are awarded to these Plaintiffs: Donald Eliason,
Todd Moos, Valdie Magstadt, Ruth Hanson, Gerald Herning,
Jacqueline Herning, Douglas and Karen Lamm, Robert Patrick,
Patrick Fleck, Gary and Donna McIntyre, Rhea Clark, Dustin
Johnson, Richard Wroughton, Virginia Stroh, and Kevin and Charlene
Olson. The total collective amount of the incentive payments will
be $70,000. The Defendants' responsibility for the incentive
payments will not exceed a total of $25,000 and the Defendants
will have no involvement in or responsibility for the
determination of how the funds will be distributed to individual
class representatives. The Defendants will pay the incentive award
within ten days of the Effective Date of the settlement.

The instant case and the member cases 1:11-cv-02232, 1:11-cv-
02719; and 1:12-cv-01109 are terminated.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Final Order and
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/FWctwFfrom Leagle.com.

Donald Eliason, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners,
Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli,
Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A.
Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert
& LaDuca, Craig A. Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T.
John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso, Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox Hargett & Caruso.
Todd Moos, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G.
Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C.
Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T. John Kirk, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso, Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso &
Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox Hargett & Caruso.

Valdie Magstadt, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T. John Kirk, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso.

Gerald Herning, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T.
John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso.

Ruth Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco,
Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Donna F. Solen,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli &
T. John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso.

Jacqueline Herning, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T.
John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso.

Douglas Lamm, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T. John Kirk, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso.

Karen Lamm, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco,
Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A. Boeckel,
Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary
E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco,
Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T. John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett
& Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso.

Virginia Stroh, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G. Warner,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C. Warren,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Craig A.
Boeckel, Boeckel Law Office, Donna F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, T.
John Kirk, Maddox, Hargett & Caruso & Thomas K. Caldwell, Maddox,
Hargett & Caruso.

Richard Wroughton, Plaintiff in consolidated case 1:11-cv-2719,
Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca.

Richard Wroughton, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. McShane,
Audet & Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca,
Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Donna F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
John R. Climaco, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John
A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan
L. Chaikin, Parker Waichman Alonso - Bonita Springs, Patrick G.
Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J.
Arsenault, Neblett Beard & Arsenault & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso.

Robert Patrick, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert &
LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Michael J.
Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet &
Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin
A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna F.
Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D. Holland, Holland, Groves,
Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca,
Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca,
Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin, Parker Waichman Alonso -
Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger & Montague, Michael D.
Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Nathaniel S. Barker,
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague,
Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli,
Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Robert K.
Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J. Carson, Berger &
Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L. Groves, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze & Thomas M. Rogers, III, Rothgerber
Johnson & Lyons.

Patrick Fleck, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Michael
J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet &
Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin
A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna F.
Solen, INVALID ADDRESS - Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D.
Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman Alonso - Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger
& Montague, Michael D. Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons,
Nathaniel S. Barker, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L.
Groves, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Thomas M. Rogers,
III, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso.

Gary McIntyre, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Michael
J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet &
Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin
A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna F.
Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D.
Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman Alonso - Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger
& Montague, Michael D. Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons,
Nathaniel S. Barker, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L.
Groves, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Thomas M. Rogers,
III, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso.

Donna McIntyre, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane,
Audet & Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca,
Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna
F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS - Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D.
Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman Alonso -- Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger
& Montague, Michael D. Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons,
Nathaniel S. Barker, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L.
Groves, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Thomas M. Rogers,
III, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso.

Rhea Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Michael
J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet &
Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin
A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo,
Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna F.
Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D.
Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman Alonso -- Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger
& Montague, Michael D. Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons,
Nathaniel S. Barker, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L.
Groves, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze & Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso.

Dustin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason,
Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane,
Audet & Partners, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca,
Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Brendan S. Thompson,
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Donna
F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Eric D.
Holland, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker Waichman Alonso -- Bonita Springs, Lawrence Deutsch, Berger
& Montague, Michael D. Plachy, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons,
Nathaniel S. Barker, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, Patrick F.
Madden, Berger & Montague, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Shanon J.
Carson, Berger & Montague, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, Steven L.
Groves, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, Thomas M. Rogers,
III, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox
Hargett & Caruso.

Charlene Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners,
Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli,
Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A.
Schwartzman, Anderson Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert
& LaDuca, Donna F. Solen, INVALID ADDRESS - Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr.,
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli & Barbara Quinn Smith,
Maddox Hargett & Caruso.

Kevin Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, Patrick G.
Warner, Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli, Alexandra C.
Warren, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Anderson
Banducci, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Donna F.
Solen, INVALID ADDRESS -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason, Gary E. Mason,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, John A. Peca, Jr., Climaco, Lefkowitz,
Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli & Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox Hargett &
Caruso.

Gentek Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claude
M. Stern, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges -- Redwood
Shores, Eric J. Bakewell, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Rory
S. Miller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Daniel L. Brockett,
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, David J. Tocco, Vorys,
Sater, Seymour & Pease & Karin A. Kramer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan.

Associated Materials LLC, Defendant, represented by Claude M.
Stern, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges -- Redwood
Shores, Daniel L. Brockett, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, David J. Tocco, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Eric J.
Bakewell, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Karin A. Kramer,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan & Rory S. Miller, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Uppercut Fixed Blade Knife & Sheath Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Ore., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,900 Gerber Uppercut Fixed Blade Knife and Sheath
Set.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Uppercut sheath does not hold the knife securely, allowing the
knife to come out of the sheath unexpectedly, posing a laceration
hazard.

Gerber Legendary Blades has received one report of a laceration to
a consumer that required medical attention, but no stitches.

All Uppercut Knife and Sheath sets include a black nylon sheath
with an engraved Gerber sword and shield logo printed on the front
and "GERBER" engraved on the snap clip on the back.  The sheaths
are approximately 2.25-inches long and 1.25-inches wide at the
top, tapering down to 0.5-inch at the base.  The knife sold with
the sheath is a T-handled knife with an overall length of 4-inches
and a 2-inch double-edged blade that snaps into the molded sheath.
The knife has a laser marked white sword and shield logo on the
front and a white alphanumeric code on the back tang of the knife.
The Uppercut sets that were sold in a box have model number
30-000650 printed on the box.  Sets sold in blister pack packaging
have model number 31-001727 printed on the packaging.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide and online at
http://www.gerbergear.comfrom March 2013 through June 2013 for
about $60 per knife and sheath set.

Consumers should immediately cover and store the Uppercut knife in
a safe area out of the reach of children.  Contact Gerber
Legendary Blades for instructions on returning the sheath for a
free replacement sheath.


GLIDEAWAY BED: Recalls Sleepharmony Metal Youth Beds Due to Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Glideaway Bed Carriage Manufacturing Company, of St. Louis, Mo.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,850 Sleepharmony Metal
Youth Beds in pink.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The surface paint on the pink-colored youth beds contains levels
of lead that exceed the limits allowed by law.

The recall involves pink-colored twin-size, metal beds with three
pink heart-shaped designs on both the footboard and headboard.
The beds come with an assortment of stickers that can be applied
to the heart shape design.  The model number for the pink beds is
#MB-YPT-R1 and can be found on the box and the instruction sheet
that came with the bed.  The manufacture date code is located on a
yellow label affixed to the inside of the metal side rail and
appears as MFG: year/month/day: "MFG: 2013/01/25."  The recalled
beds were manufactured between December 2011 and May 2013.  Black
and white models are not part of the recall.  Mattresses are not
part of the recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Mnq66K

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
furniture and other retail stores nationwide from February 2012 to
June 2013 from between $120 to $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the beds and contact the
firm for instructions for exchanging the bed for a replacement or
for a full refund.


GUNNS: Law Firm Attempts to Revive Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a legal firm is trying to revive a class
action against the collapsed Tasmanian timber company Gunns, after
its former chairman admitted to insider trading.

The Tasmanian community is still coming to terms with John Gay's
surprise guilty plea in court on Aug. 5.  Mr. Gay admitted selling
3.4 million shares while in possession of unreleased information
he ought to have known would affect the share price.

Legal firm Maurice Blackburn is trying to revive a class action by
shareholders who claim Gunns breached its disclosure obligations
in 2010.  But shareholder activist Stephen Mayne is skeptical
about whether it will go ahead.

"In the case of Gunns, there's no one left to sue because they've
gone broke," he said.

There has been no movement on the class action since Gunns entered
administration last year, owing AUD750 million.

Mr. Gay will be sentenced next week.

                       Pulp mill support

The Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings, has thrown her support
behind any push to revitalize Gunns' controversial Tamar Valley
pulp mill project.

Gunns' administrators say the project's future will depend on the
volume of resource which is available.  They are looking for an
entity to take over the management of 18 plantation investment
schemes which could feed a pulp mill.

Ms. Giddings says if there is a chance the AUD2 billion project
can go ahead, the Government will support it.

"If there is an investor who would like to able to invest in it,
the Government's door is open to help that investor through all
the processes they may need to ensure the project gets up," she
said.


HEEREN BROTHERS: Recalls Cantaloupes Due to Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Heeren Brothers Produce is recalling approximately 5,400
cantaloupes because of a possible health risk to consumers.

The produce, which was distributed to small, independent grocers
in Michigan July 23-26, has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes and should be discarded and not consumed.
The cantaloupes are Athena Cantaloupes, but have no stickers or
other markings that identify them as such.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, the elderly or
others with weak immune systems.  Healthy individuals may suffer
short-term symptoms, such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain or diarrhea.  Listeria can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths in pregnant women.

Heeren Brothers Produce has not received any case of reported
illnesses related to this product to date.  The recall does not
affect any other Heeren Brothers Produce products.

Heeren Brothers Produce became aware of this issue after the Food
& Drug Administration conducted a routine sampling and found the
cantaloupes contained the bacteria.

After receiving notice from the FDA, Heeren Brothers Produce
immediately alerted retailers and requested that they remove the
produce from their shelves.  Heeren Brothers Produce has also
contacted the supplier of the cantaloupes.  The source of the
potential issue is still under investigation.  Heeren Brothers
Produce is cooperating fully with the FDA.

Heeren Brothers Produce is committed to consumer safety.  Heeren
has product handling and safety protocols in place to assure that
it provides its retailers and their customers with fresh, safe and
healthy products.  A recent audit by an independent, third-party
laboratory rated its procedures as excellent in the industry.

Consumers who have questions may contact Heeren Brothers Produce
at 616.452.2101 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.


IMAX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in N.Y. & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation continues to defend itself against securities
class action lawsuits pending in New York and Canada, according to
the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court").  On January 18, 2007, the Court
consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and appointed
Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On
October 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock on the
NASDAQ between February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S.
Class"), alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices.  The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.  On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order
appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier
Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On November 2,
2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding
containing the terms and conditions of a settlement of this
action.

On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
a formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to
the class, which the Court preliminarily approved on February 1,
2012.  Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S.
Class who did not opt out of the settlement will release
defendants from liability for all claims that were alleged in this
action or could have been alleged in this action or any other
proceeding (including the action in Canada as described in (d) of
this note (the "Canadian Action") relating to the purchase of IMAX
securities on the NASDAQ from February 27, 2003, and July 20,
2007, or the subject matter and facts relating to this action. As
part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, defendants
will pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which amount will be
funded by the carriers of the Company's directors and officers
insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  On March 26,
2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court an amended
formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of notice to
the class, which the court preliminarily approved on March 28,
2012.

On June 20, 2012, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  The settlement is conditioned on the
Company's receipt of an order from the court in the Canadian
Action, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, (the "Canadian
Court") excluding from the class in the Canadian Action every
member of the class in both actions who has not opted out of the
U.S. settlement.  A hearing on the motion for the order occurred
on July 30, 2012, before the Canadian Court and on March 19, 2013,
the Canadian Court issued a decision granting the Company's motion
to exclude from the class in the Canadian Action every member of
the classes in both actions who has not opted out of the U.S.
settlement.  However, no final order will be granted by the Court
until the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have exhausted their
appeals.

                         Canadian Action

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Canadian Court against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws.  This
lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the
Company's securities between February 17, 2006, and August 9,
2006.  The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as costs.  For reasons released
December 14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim.  Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings.  The Company's directors and
officers insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits, exclusions and deductibles.

Ontario, Canada-based IMAX Corporation -- http://www.imax.com/--
is an entertainment technology companies, specializing in motion
picture technologies and presentations.  The Company's principal
business is the design and manufacture of premium theater systems
(IMAX theater systems) and the sale, lease or contribution to
customers under revenue-sharing arrangements of IMAX theater
systems.


INFOSYS: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Don Tennant, writing for IT Business Edge, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Infosys, alleging that the
company has engaged in systematic, company-wide discrimination
against Americans and others who are not of South Asian descent.
The suit details alleged discriminatory practices stemming from
the company's abuse of the H-1B and B-1 visa programs, and makes
extensive reference to alleged illegal and discriminatory
activities revealed by Infosys employee and original
whistleblower, Jay Palmer.

The new lawsuit, filed on Aug. 1 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, was brought on behalf of Brenda
Koehler, an American IT project manager in Milwaukee who, the suit
alleges, was denied employment at Infosys because she is not of
South Asian descent.  According to the complaint, "this matter is
a class action with an amount in controversy of greater than $5
million."  Daniel Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- of Kotchen &
Low LLP in Washington, D.C., lead counsel on the legal team that
filed the lawsuit, was adamant about the egregiousness of
Infosys's actions.

"We are convinced there are very serious issues with Infosys,"
Mr. Kotchen said.  "We believe strongly in the case, and we look
forward to prosecuting it."


JP BODEN: Recalls Kensington Women's Shoes Over Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2013, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
published a recall regarding Boden, Kensington Court Women's Shoes
due to a potential fall hazard.  This product sold new beginning
in January 2013 for about $170.

About 200 units are involved in this Boden shoe recall.  Learn
more and find out what to do if you own this product below.

This is the 2nd recall of products in the Shoes, Sandals & Boots
category in 2013.  Since 2005, there have been approximately 10
similar recalls, involving about 600,000 product units.

Note: The recalling company may not have provided images for every
model.  Please review the detailed description below.
Company Contact Information:

Website: http://www.bodenusa.com
Phone: (866) 206-9508

Do you work for a company involved with this recall? Contact us to
learn how you can control data, information and ads shown on this
page.

What is the problem?

The heel on the shoe can loosen with wear and become unstable,
posing a fall hazard.

How can I tell if I own this product?

The Kensington Court 3.5 inch high heel patent leather shoes were
sold in four colors including dark blue with beige trim, cream
with tan trim, red with gray trim and turquoise  blue with beige
trim.  The plain toe pump women's shoes were sold in sizes 5.5 to
10.5.  The Boden logo is printed on a label on the inside sole of
the shoe.

These items were sold new+ at Boden catalog nationwide and online
at http://www.bodenusa.comfrom January 2013 through June 2013 for
about $170.

What should I do if I own this recalled product?

First, stop using the item.

Then, add the item to a free, private Items I Own account.  This
will enable you to easily access the CPSC and recalling company's
remedy instructions as well as track your progress toward getting
the item returned or fixed.  Click "I Own THIS Item" to continue.

The CPSC provides the following remedy information:

Consumers should stop wearing the shoes and contact JP Boden to
receive a postage paid label to return the shoes and receive a
full refund.

JP Boden toll-free at (866) 206-9508 from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or online at http://www.bodenusa.comand
click on Product Recalls for more information.

+WeMakeItSafer cautions consumers that recalled items may have
been acquired at different locations, prices and times than
specified in the CPSC recall announcement. This is especially true
for items purchased in online marketplaces, resale shops or yard
sales.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magellan Health Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits relating to its operations or business
practices, according to the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is subject to or party to certain class actions and
other litigation and claims relating to its operations or business
practices.  In the opinion of management, the Company has recorded
reserves that are adequate to cover litigation, claims or
assessments that have been or may be asserted against the Company,
and for which the outcome is probable and reasonably estimable.
Management believes that the resolution of such litigation and
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations; however, there can
be no assurance in this regard.

Headquartered in Avon, Connecticut, Magellan Health Services,
Inc., is engaged in the specialty managed healthcare business.
The Company provides services to health plans, insurance
companies, employers, labor unions and various governmental
agencies.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Accord in Insurance Brokerage Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claire C. Cecchi granted final approval of the
settlement agreement resolving the case entitled IN RE INSURANCE
BROKERAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-5184 (CCC),
MDL NO. 1663 (D. N.J.).

The Court certified the proposed class for purposes of the
Settlement and approved the Settlement Agreement.  The Court
concludes that the settlement of $10.5 million represents a
reasonable and adequate result for the Settlement Class
considering the substantial risks Plaintiffs face and the
immediate benefits provided by the Settlement.

The Court also granted the applications of Class Counsel for
attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive award
payments. The Class Counsel had filed an application for an award
of attorney fees in the amount of $3.465 million, which is 33% of
the Settlement Fund, and for reimbursement of litigation expenses
in the amount of $1,023,188.76. Class Counsel also applied for
service awards of $1,000 for each of the remaining named
Plaintiffs. The Class Counsel also requested that the Court
approve the payment of incentive awards to each of the eight named
Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000. The total incentive awards
requested for all eight named Plaintiffs is $8,000.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/wAfPJRfrom Leagle.com.

EAGLE PRODUCTS, INC., Movant, represented by HOWARD J. SEDRAN,
LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS, Movant,
represented by WILLIAM F. MEGNA, MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP.

INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC, Movant,
represented by SHAFFIN ABDUL DATOO, THOMPSON WIGDOR & GILLY LLP.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Movant, represented by CHRISTOPHER R. HUNT,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

IAAD O INC., Objector, represented by DAVID MARC NIEPORENT, SAMUEL
& STEIN.

ZORKESS LLC, Objector, represented by JOHN J. PENTZ, CLASS ACTION
FAIRNESS GROUP & DAVID MARC NIEPORENT, SAMUEL & STEIN.

ROMERO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, Objector, represented by ANDREA J.
LAWRENCE, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C..

SHAPIRO & LODWICK CO. LPA, Objector, represented by IRA E. WEINER.

SPORTS & SPINE PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., Objector, represented by
IRA E. WEINER.

WILLIAM AKERS, Objector, represented by JOHN B.M. FROHLING.

HAROLD B. WOLFE, Objector, represented by JOHN B.M. FROHLING.

THE CHABA LAW GROUP, LLC, Objector, represented by JOHN B.M.
FROHLING.

EMERALD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Objector, represented by ANDREA J.
LAWRENCE, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C..

CROSS & SIR, Objector, represented by IRA E. WEINER.

PRIVATE CARE, INC. ET AL, Objector, represented by THOMAS LARKIN.

CONNIE PENTZ REALTY COMPANY, Objector, represented by JOHN J.
PENTZ, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS GROUP.

STANLEY H. EPSTEIN, Objector, represented by DANIEL A. OSBORN,
BEATIE & OSBORN LLP.

LAYN R. PHILLIPS, Mediator, represented by LAYN R. PHILLIPS, IRELL
& MANELLA, LLP.

STEPHEN LEWIS, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM J LEVITT, GRANT &
EISENHOFER P.A., FRED TAYLOR ISQUITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERTZ LLP, JAYNE ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, MARK C.
RIFKIN, WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP, JOANNE M.
CICALA, KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP, PETER S. LINDEN, KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
& RICHARD L. STONE, KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP.

DIANE PRUESS, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM J LEVITT, GRANT &
EISENHOFER P.A., FRED TAYLOR ISQUITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERTZ LLP, JAYNE ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, MARK C.
RIFKIN, WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP & MARY JANE
EDELSTEIN FAIT, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERTZ LLP.

OPTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS INC, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M.
KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, JOE R. WHATLEY, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC,
JOHN J. STOIA, COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP,
KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, THOMAS R. MERRICK, BONNY ELAINE SWEENEY,
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, CHARLENE P. FORD, WHATLEY
DRAKE, LLC, PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN &
KNOPF, LLP & RACHEL LYNN JENSEN, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER, RUDMAN &
ROBBINS, LLP.

MARYANN WAXMAN, (Civil 05-1079), Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH
I. TRUJILLO.

MARYANN WAXMAN, Plaintiff, represented by PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

SUNBURST HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH
M. KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, ELLEN MERIWETHER, CAFFERTY CLOBES
MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, MELODY FORRESTER,
MILLER, FAUCHER & CAFFERTY, LLP, BRYAN L. CLOBES, CAFFERTY CLOBES
MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, JENNIFER W. SPRENGEL, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & NYRAN ROSE PEARSON, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,
Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER L. LEBSOCK, HAUSFELD LLP,
DANIEL B. ALLANOFF, MEREDITH, COHEN,GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, PC,
EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, FREDERICK P. FURTH, THE
FURTH FIRM LLP, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, MICHAEL P. LEHMANN, HAUSFELD
LLP, STEVEN J. GREENFOGEL, JULIO J. RAMOS, FURTH, LEHMANN & GRANT,
LLP & KAREN LOUISE JONES, FURTH, LEHMANN & GRANT, LLP.

REDWOOD OIL CO, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLC, FREDERICK P. FURTH, THE FURTH FIRM LLP, KENNETH I.
TRUJILLO, MICHAEL P. LEHMANN, HAUSFELD LLP, JON T. KING, Hausfeld
LLP & JULIO J. RAMOS, FURTH, LEHMANN & GRANT, LLP.

SHELL VACATIONS LLC, Plaintiff, represented by DOUGLAS A. MILLEN,
MUCH, SHELIST, FREED, DENENBERG, AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC, FREDERICK
P. FURTH, THE FURTH FIRM LLP, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, MICHAEL P.
LEHMANN, HAUSFELD LLP, STEVEN A. KANNER, MUCH, SHELIST, FREED,
DENENBERG, AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC, THOMAS P. DOVE, FURTH, LEHMANN
& GRANT, LLP, WILLIAM HENRY LONDON, MUCH, SHELIST, FREED,
DENENBERG, AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC, JON T. KING, Hausfeld LLP &
JULIO J. RAMOS, FURTH, LEHMANN & GRANT, LLP.

BAYOU STEEL CORP, Plaintiff, represented by AUSTIN B COHEN, LEVIN,
FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC,
HOWARD J. SEDRAN, LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN & KENNETH I.
TRUJILLO.

REDWOOD OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS,
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC & JAMES S. SHEDDEN, BELLER, SCHAD & DIAMOND,
PC.

REDWOOD OIL COMPANY, (Civil No. 05-1798), Plaintiff, represented
by KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

REDWOOD OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE WILEY
SCHAD, BEELER, SCHAD & DIAMOND, PC, MICHAEL S HILICKI, BEELER,
SCHAD & DIAMOND, PC, TONY KIM, BEELER, SCHAD & DIAMOND, PC & W.
TIMOTHY NEEDHAM, JANSSEN MALLOY NEEDHAM MORRISON REINHOLTSEN &
CROWLEY.

CLEAR LAM PACKAGING INC, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M.
KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, KATHLEEN CURRIE CHAVEZ, CHAVEZ LAW
FIRM, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, ROBERT M. FOOTE, FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE
& FLOWERS, LLC, HARVEY JOEL BARNETT & MARK ANTHONY BULGARELLI,
FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWERS, LLC.

DR ROBERT H KIMBALL, (Civil 05-2374), Plaintiff, represented by
JAMES L REED, LOOPER REED & MCGRAW & TRAVIS SCOTT CRABTREE, LOOPER
REED & MCGRAW.

DAVID BOROS, (Civil No. 05-1793), Plaintiff, represented by CADIO
ZIRPOLI, SAVERI & SAVERI, GEOFFREY C. RUSHING, SAVERI & SAVERI,
GUIDO SAVERI, SAVERI & SAVERI, INC., KENNETH I. TRUJILLO & RICHARD
ALEXANDER SAVERI, SAVERI & SAVERI, INC..

SHELDON LANGENDORF, (Civil 05-3284), Plaintiff, represented by
KENNETH I. TRUJILLO & LARRY D. DRURY.

ESTELLE LANGENDORF, (Civil 05-3284), Plaintiff, represented by
KENNETH I. TRUJILLO & LARRY D. DRURY.

CELLECT, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLC & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

CITY OF STAMFORD, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS,
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

COMCAR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M.
KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO, JOSEPH PRESTON
STROM, STROM LAW FIRM LLC & MARIO ANTHONY PACELLA, STROM LAW FIRM
LLP.

GATEWAY CLUB APARTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M.
KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

MICHIGAN MULTI-KING CORP., (Civil 08-0235), Plaintiff, represented
by EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC, KENNETH I. TRUJILLO &
THOMAS R. MERRICK.

ROBERT MULCAHY, (Civil 05-1064), Plaintiff, represented by ALLYN
ZISSEL LITE, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC, EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLC, ELLEN MERIWETHER, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP & MELODY FORRESTER, MILLER, FAUCHER & CAFFERTY, LLP.
GLENN SINGER, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS, WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLC & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

THE ENCLAVE, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS,
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

THE OMNI GROUP OF COMPANIES, Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH I.
TRUJILLO.

SIGNUM LLC, (Civil No. 05-4047), Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH
I. TRUJILLO.

KLLM INC, (Civil No. 05-4046), Plaintiff, represented by JON
STEPHEN KENNEDY, RICHARD F. YARBOROUGH, ROY H. LIDDELL, WELLS,
MARBLE & HURST, PLLC & THOMAS M. LOUIS, WELLS, MARBLE & HURST,
PLLC.

SLAY INDUSTRIES, (Civil Number 05-5698), Plaintiff, represented by
JEFFREY J. LOWE & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

SLAY TRANSPORTATION CO INC, (Civil Number 05-5698), Plaintiff,
represented by JEFFREY J. LOWE & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., (Civil No. 05-5697), Plaintiff, represented
by DOROTHY L. WHITE-COLEMAN, WHITE, COLEMAN & ASOCIATES, LLC, JOHN
C. CABANISS & KENNETH I. TRUJILLO.

CAMERON OFFSHORE BOATS INC, (Civil No. 05-5696), Plaintiff,
represented by H. ALAN MCCALL.

CONNECTICUT SPRING & STAMP CO., Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT
M. PARKER.

BELMONT HOLDINGS CORP., Plaintiff in Civ. 05-5533, Plaintiff,
represented by DOUGLAS A. ABRAHAMS, KOHN, SWIFT, & GRAF, PC.
AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Plaintiff, represented by BARBARA T.
SICALIDES, PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP, JOANNA J. CLINE, PEPPER HAMILTON,
LLP & DAVID T. EMANUELSON, HOWREY, LLP.

AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
BARBARA T. SICALIDES, PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP, JOANNA J. CLINE,
PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP & DAVID T. EMANUELSON, HOWREY, LLP.
SINCLAIR OIL CORP, Plaintiff in 06-3844, Plaintiff, represented by
J. ANDREW SJOBLOM, HOLME, ROBERTS & OWEN, LLP.

AL AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by BRYAN S.
DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

AMERICAN AIR LIQUIDE HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

AMERICAN AIR LIQUIDE, INC, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff,
represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP &
ROBERT M. PARKER.

AMERICAN PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, INC., (Civil No. 06-3804),
Plaintiff, represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI
LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

HUNTSMAN ADVANCE MATERIALS LLC, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff,
represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP &
ROBERT M. PARKER.

HUNTSMAN CORPORATION, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff, represented
by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

HUNTSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff,
represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP &
ROBERT M. PARKER.

HUNTSMAN LLC, Plaintiff, represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL,
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

INTERNATIONAL RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, (Civil No. 06-3804),
Plaintiff, represented by BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI
LLP, ROBERT M. PARKER & PHILIP J. BEZANSON, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI,
LLP.

JOHN BAIRD, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff, represented by BRYAN
S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

PLAINT CORPORATION, (Civil No. 06-3804), Plaintiff, represented by
BRYAN S. DUMESNIL, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & ROBERT M. PARKER.

JACK THORNELL, Plaintiff in 06-5121, Plaintiff, represented by
ANDREW D. ARONS, CHILDRESS, DUFFY & GOLDBLATT, LTD. & RYAN A.
HAAS, CHILDRESS, DUFFY & GOLDBLATT, LTD.

JUDY THORNELL, Plaintiff in 06-5121, Plaintiff, represented by
ANDREW D. ARONS, CHILDRESS, DUFFY & GOLDBLATT, LTD. & RYAN A.
HAAS, CHILDRESS, DUFFY & GOLDBLATT, LTD.

HERITAGE CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, Plaintiff in 06-6127,
Plaintiff, represented by GUY BURDETTE BAILEY, JR., BAILEY &
DAWES, LC & OWEI BELLEH, BAILEY & DAWES, LC.

HAROLD FOLSOM JENSEN, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREA J.
LAWRENCE, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C..

PALOMAR GRADING AND PAVING, INC., Plaintiff, represented by ANDREA
J. LAWRENCE, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C..

HENLEY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff, represented
by JENNIFER A. WATERS, SCHOPF & WEISS LLP, KELLY M. GLYNN, SCHOPF
& WEISS LLP & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

BIG BEAR PROPERTIES, INC., (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff, represented
by PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

NORTHBROOK PROPERTIES, INC., (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff,
represented by PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

RCK PROPERTIES, INC., (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff, represented by
PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

KITCHENS, INC., (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff, represented by EDITH
M. KALLAS, WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF &
WEISS.

ABERFELDY LP, (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff, represented by IAN
HOWARD FISHER & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

PAYROLL AND INSURANCE GROUP, INC., (Civil 07-2389), Plaintiff,
represented by PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

CATERPILLAR INC., Plaintiff in 07-5566, Plaintiff, represented by
ANDREW M REIDY, HOWREY LLP, DANIEL L. JOHNS, WESTERVELT JOHNSON
NICOLL & KELLER, MICHELE A. MILLER, WESTERVELT JOHNSON NICOLL &
KELLER & ROBERT G. ABRAMS, HOWREY LLP.

TYSON FOODS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by IAN HOWARD FISHER,
PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS & WILLIAM G. SCHOPF, SCHOPF &
WEISS.

SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., (Civil 07-5736), Plaintiff, represented by
IAN HOWARD FISHER, PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS & WILLIAM
G. SCHOPF, SCHOPF & WEISS.

PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP, Plaintiff, represented by IAN
HOWARD FISHER, PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS & WILLIAM G.
SCHOPF, SCHOPF & WEISS.

CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff, represented
by R. DOUGLAS REES.

EPIX Holdings Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT GERARD
GOODMAN, PALMISANO & GOODMAN, ESQS.

SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, (Civil 07-5736), Plaintiff,
represented by JENNIFER A. WATERS, SCHOPF & WEISS LLP, KELLY M.
GLYNN, SCHOPF & WEISS LLP, DAVID ANTHONY SIRNA, KREVOLIN & HORST,
IAN HOWARD FISHER, SCHOPF & WEISS, JEFFREY D. HORST, KREVOLIN &
HORST, KENNETH EMANUEL KRAUS, SCHOPF & WEISS, LLP, PATRICK J.
HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS & WILLIAM G. SCHOPF, SCHOPF & WEISS.

KMART CORPORATION, (Civil 07-5736), Plaintiff, represented by
KMART CORPORATION & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

LANDS' END INC., (Civil 07-5736), Plaintiff, represented by LANDS'
END INC. & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC, (Civil 08-0235), Plaintiff, represented by
CARMEN A. MEDICI, PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN,
HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP & RACHEL LYNN JENSEN, COUGHLIN, STOIA,
GELLER, RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP.

SUPREME AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC, (Civil 08-1106), Plaintiff,
represented by SUPREME AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC.

Michigan Multi-King Inc., Plaintiff, represented by PETER S.
PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP & RACHEL
LYNN JENSEN, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER, RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP.
Texas Independent Energy, LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Texas
Independent Energy, LLP & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS HEADQUARTERS, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
JENNIFER A. WATERS, SCHOPF & WEISS LLP, KELLY M. GLYNN, SCHOPF &
WEISS LLP & PATRICK J. HENEGHAN, SCHOPF & WEISS.

Aberfeldy Properties Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Aberfeldy
Properties Inc.

AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, represented by AVERY
DENNISON CORPORATION.

All Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiff, represented by EDITH M. KALLAS,
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC.

MARK TOBEY, SETTLING ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by GREGG ABBOTT, OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

KIM VAN WINKLE, SETTLING ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by GREGG ABBOTT, OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW
T. BERRY, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, C. LARRY CORBO, III, JACKSON
WALKER LLP, CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
LLP, DANIEL P. JORDAN, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA,
PLLC, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DAVID C GUSTMAN, FREEBORN & PETERS,
DONALD ARTHUR BLACKWELL, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL &
BAUMGARTEN, FRANCIS A. ANANIA, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL &
BAUMGARTEN, FREDERICK BARTLETT WULFF, SR, KONING RUBARTS LLP,
GREGORY K. CONWAY, WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP, JILL CHRISTINE
ANDERSON, FREEBORN & PETERS, JOHN ROBERT OLLER, WILKIE, FARR &
GALLAGHER, LLP, KEVIN F HORMUTH, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, KEVIN F.
O'MALLEY, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE
FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, P. RYAN BECKETT, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA,
STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC, PHILIP RITCHEY SIMS, CHAFFE MCCALL,
WILLIAM F. GRACE, CHAFFE MCCALL & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP.

MARSH INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW T. BERRY, MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP, CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
LLP, DANIEL P. JORDAN, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA,
PLLC, DAVID C GUSTMAN, FREEBORN & PETERS, DONALD ARTHUR BLACKWELL,
ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL & BAUMGARTEN, FRANCIS A. ANANIA,
ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL & BAUMGARTEN, FREDERICK BARTLETT
WULFF, SR, KONING RUBARTS LLP, JILL CHRISTINE ANDERSON, FREEBORN &
PETERS, JOHN ROBERT OLLER, WILKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP, KEVIN F
HORMUTH, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, KEVIN F. O'MALLEY, GREENSFELDER &
HEMKER, MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, P.
RYAN BECKETT, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC &
BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

MARSH USA INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW T. BERRY,
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER LLP, DANIEL P. JORDAN, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS &
CANNADA, PLLC, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DAVID C GUSTMAN, FREEBORN &
PETERS, DONALD ARTHUR BLACKWELL, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL &
BAUMGARTEN, FRANCIS A. ANANIA, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL &
BAUMGARTEN, GREGORY K. CONWAY, WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP,
JILL CHRISTINE ANDERSON, FREEBORN & PETERS, JOHN ROBERT OLLER,
WILKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP, KEVIN F HORMUTH, GREENSFELDER &
HEMKER, KEVIN F. O'MALLEY, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, MITCHELL JAY
AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, P. RYAN BECKETT, BUTLER,
SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC, PHILIP RITCHEY SIMS, CHAFFE
MCCALL, WILLIAM F. GRACE, CHAFFE MCCALL & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER
& ENGLISH, LLP.

SEABURY & SMITH, INC., doing business as MARSH ASVANTAGE AMERICA,
Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL & MITCHELL JAY
AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

BB&T CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JAMES PAUL WEHNER,
JR., SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP & JACK LOUIS WUERKER, SQUIRE,
SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP.

BB&T INSURANCE SERVICES INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES PAUL
WEHNER, JR., SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP & JACK LOUIS WUERKER,
SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP.

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JAMES
PAUL WEHNER, JR., SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP.

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ALEXANDER W.
WOOD, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, DEBORAH E HYRB, PAUL HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
WALKER, LLP, JENNIFER BATES MCINTYRE, PERKINS COIE LLC, PATRICK
SHEA, PAUL HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP, RACHEL ROSS KRAUSE,
OGDEN & SULLIVAN, PA, ROSEANN OLIVER, PERKINS COIE LLC, STEVEN P.
DEL MAURO, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, TIMON V
SULLIVAN, OGDEN & SULLIVAN, PA & RANDI F. KNEPPER, MCELROY,
DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLC.

ACE INA HOLDINGS, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
JEREMY J BRANDON, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JOHNNY W. CARTER, SUSMAN
GODFREY, LLP, LIZA M. WALSH, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP, M. DUNCAN GRANT,
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.
ACE LIMITED, (pur. to order dated 3/11/2005, Defendant,
represented by ALAN N. SALPETER.

ACE LIMITED, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL, H. LEE
GODFREY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JEFFREY R. SEELY, SUSMAN GODFREY,
LLP, JEREMY J BRANDON, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JOHNNY W. CARTER,
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, LIZA M. WALSH, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP, MICHAEL P.
GEISER, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, NEAL S. MANNE, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP,
ROBERT J KRISS, MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP, VINEET BHATIA,
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

ACE USA, Defendant, represented by ALAN N. SALPETER, DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, FREDERIC STANLEY, JR, STANLEY, DEHLINGER & RASCHER,
GRETHCHEN S. SWEEN, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, H. LEE GODFREY, SUSMAN
GODFREY, LLP, JEFFREY R. SEELY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JEREMY J
BRANDON, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JOHNNY W. CARTER, SUSMAN GODFREY,
LLP, L. JANE RAY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, LIZA M. WALSH, CONNELL
FOLEY, LLP, M. DUNCAN GRANT, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, MICHAEL P.
GEISER, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, NEAL S. MANNE, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP,
ROBERT J KRISS, MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP, VINEET BHATIA,
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, JEFFREY T. SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, ANASTASIA
ANGELOVA, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II,
SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

WILLIS GROUP LIMITED, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
JEFFREY T. SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, ANASTASIA ANGELOVA,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN &
CROMWELL, LLP.

WILLIS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, JEFFREY T. SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, ANASTASIA
ANGELOVA, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II,
SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by CARL
H POCDTKE, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GARY CARY US LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP,
LAYALIZA KLEIN SOLOVEICHIK, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP, MARK A. ARONCHICK, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN,
MARTIN FLUMENBAUM, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP,
ROBERTA A. KAPLAN, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP,
SAMUEL BAYARD ISAACSON, DLA PUPER RUDICK GRAY CARY US LLP &
STEPHEN W SCHWAB, DLA PIPER RUDICK GRAY CARY US LLP.

THE ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by
MICHAEL J. GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

BROWN & BROWN, INC., Defendant, represented by BARRY G. SHER,
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP, KEVIN C. LOGUE, PAUL,
HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP, SARAH EMILY HAGANS, PAUL,
HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP & VICTORIA ASHWORTH, PAUL,
HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP.

ACORDIA INC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL & RICHARD
C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., (Civil 05-1064), Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER C. GILBERT, UNGER LAW GROUP, PL, JOHN
R. MIDDLETON, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC & MARTIN B. UNGER, UNGER LAW
GROUP, PL.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., (Civil 05-
1064), Defendant, represented by JOHN R. MIDDLETON, LOWENSTEIN
SANDLER, PC.

U.S.I. HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RACHEL L.
GERSTEIN, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, RICHARD B.
ZABEL, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAVER & FELD, LLP & ROBERT HARDY PEES,
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP.

ACE INA, Defendant, represented by FREDERIC STANLEY, JR, STANLEY,
DEHLINGER & RASCHER, GRETHCHEN S. SWEEN, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, H.
LEE GODFREY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JEFFREY R. SEELY, SUSMAN
GODFREY, LLP, JEREMY J BRANDON, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JOHNNY W.
CARTER, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, L. JANE RAY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP,
NEAL S. MANNE, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL
FOLEY, LLP.

ACE INA HOLDINGS INC, Defendant, represented by ALAN N. SALPETER,
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, H. LEE GODFREY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JEFFREY R.
SEELY, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, JOHNNY W. CARTER, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP,
M. DUNCAN GRANT, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, MICHAEL P. GEISER, SUSMAN
GODFREY LLP, NEAL S. MANNE, SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP, ROBERT J KRISS,
MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP, VINEET BHATIA, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP &
MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

ACE LTD, (Civil 05-1167), Defendant, represented by M. DUNCAN
GRANT, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.
AON CORPORATION, (Civil 05-4047), Defendant, represented by AMY D
HARMON, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, BENJAMIN R. OSTAPUK,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK &
LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, DAVID U. FIERST, DENIS C.
MITCHELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC,
ELIZABETH A. LARSEN, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM,
LLP, JILL M. STEINBERG, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, JOHN ARMANDO BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, KEITH J.
MILLER, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, MARGUERITE S. WILLIS, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD,
REBECCA R. ANZIDEI, RENEE WICKLUND, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, RICHARD
C GODFREY, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, ROBERT F. MUSE, RUSSELL THOMAS
BURKE, NEXSEN PRUET JACOBS & POLLARD, DEVON MCKECHAN LARGIO & LEDA
DUNN WETTRE, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AON CORP, (Civil 05-1801), Defendant, represented by DONALD A.
ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC, LEDA DUNN WETTRE,
ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II,
SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON SERVICES GROUP, (Civil 05-1167), Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DONALD
A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC & LEDA DUNN WETTRE,
ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

MARSH USA INC., (Connecticut) Defendant, represented by ANDREW T.
BERRY, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, MITCHELL JAY
AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER
& ENGLISH, LLP.

HILB, ROGAL & HOBBS, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
SHAWN PATRICK REGAN, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, JONATHAN MICHAEL
WILAN, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, NEIL KEITH GILMAN, HUNTON & WILLIAMS
LLP & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP.

U.S.I HOLDINGS CORP, Defendant, represented by ROBERT HARDY PEES,
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP & RICHARD B. ZABEL, AKIN,
GUMP, STRAUSS, HAVER & FELD, LLP.

HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, GREGORY M. REISER, WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING,
HALE & DORR, LLP, JAMES E. FOSTER, AKERMAN SENTERFITT, MARCI A
EISENSTEIN, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, ROBIN L. ALPERSTEIN, WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP, VIRGINIA B. TOWNES, AKERMAN SENTERFITT
& WILLIAM M HANNAY, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP.

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL, JAMES E. FOSTER, AKERMAN SENTERFITT & VIRGINIA B.
TOWNES, AKERMAN SENTERFITT.

PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Defendant,
represented by MARCI A EISENSTEIN, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP & WILLIAM M
HANNAY, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP.

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL.

AON GROUP INC, (Civil No. 05-1801), Defendant, represented by
BENJAMIN R. OSTAPUK, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN,
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
JILL M. STEINBERG, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ,
JOHN ARMANDO BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, LESLIE M. SMITH,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, RICHARD C GODFREY, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP &
DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AON DIRECT GROUP INC, (Civil No. 05-1801), Defendant, represented
by DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NICHOLSON,
GRAHAM, LLP, JILL M. STEINBERG, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, RICHARD C
GODFREY, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON,
WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES INC, (Civil No. 05-1801), Defendant,
represented by DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART,
NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JILL M. STEINBERG,
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, LESLIE M. SMITH,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, RICHARD C GODFREY, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP &
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS SERVICE ORGANIZATION, (Civil No. 05-1801),
Defendant, represented by DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK &
LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, JILL M. STEINBERG, BAKER
DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP & RICHARD C GODFREY, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

AMERICAN RE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, DAVID GRAIS, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP, EAMON O'KELLY, ARENT
FOX LLP, MAE AMELIA STILES & MOLLY LEHR PEASE, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH
LLP.

AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, DAVID GRAIS, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP, EAMON O'KELLY, ARENT
FOX LLP, HOUSTON S. PARK, III, STEPHENS, LYNN, KLEIN, LA CAVA,
HOFFMAN, MAE AMELIA STILES & MOLLY LEHR PEASE, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH
LLP.

MUNICH-AMERICAN RISK PARTNERS INC, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DAVID GRAIS, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP, EAMON
O'KELLY, ARENT FOX LLP, MAE AMELIA STILES & MOLLY LEHR PEASE,
GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES COMPANIES INC, Defendant, represented by
BENJAMIN R. OSTAPUK, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN,
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
JOHN ARMANDO BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, LESLIE M. SMITH,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE &
MILLER LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES INC U.S., Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN R.
OSTAPUK, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK &
LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP & DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AON SERVICES GROUP INC, Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN R.
OSTAPUK, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL EDWARD LAYTIN, KIRKPATRICK &
LOCKHART, NICHOLSON, GRAHAM, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JOHN ARMANDO
BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP & DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

UNIVERSAL LIFE RESOURCES, doing business as ULR, Defendant,
represented by ERIC NEAL MACEY, NOVACK & MACEY, LLP & SCOTT L.
METZGER, DUCKOR, SPRADLING, METZGER & WYNNE.

UNIVERSAL LIFE RESOURCES INC, doing business as ULR INSURANCE
SERVICES INC, Defendant, represented by ERIC NEAL MACEY, NOVACK &
MACEY, LLP, NED GELHAAR, HANCOCK, ROTHERT & BUNSHOFT, LLP & SCOTT
L. METZGER, DUCKOR, SPRADLING, METZGER & WYNNE.

WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD., Defendant, represented by ANASTASIA
ANGELOVA, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP, FREDRICK H. MCCLURE, PIP
RUDNICK LLP, JOHN L. WARDEN, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & RICHARD C.
PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

WILLIS GROUP LTD., Defendant, represented by ANASTASIA ANGELOVA,
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, FREDRICK H. MCCLURE,
PIP RUDNICK LLP, JOHN L. WARDEN, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL & RICHARD C.
PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

BENEFITS COMMERCE, Defendant, represented by ERIC NEAL MACEY,
NOVACK & MACEY, LLP & SCOTT L. METZGER, DUCKOR, SPRADLING, METZGER
& WYNNE.

DOUGLAS P. COX, Defendant, represented by ERIC NEAL MACEY, NOVACK
& MACEY, LLP & SCOTT L. METZGER, DUCKOR, SPRADLING, METZGER &
WYNNE.

MUNICH REINSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BRIAN PETER
CALANDRA, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP.

METLIFE INC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER C. GILBERT,
UNGER LAW GROUP, PL, MARTIN B. UNGER, UNGER LAW GROUP, PL, PAUL
JEFFREY RIEHLE, SEDGWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD & MARGARET O'ROURKE
WOOD, WOLFF SAMSON, PC.

ST PAUL TRAVELERS COS INC, Defendant, represented by BRYCE L.
FRIEDMAN, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP & PAUL C. CURNIN,
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP.

NATIONAL FINANCIAL PARTNERS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
DONNA L. MCDEVITT, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP & TIMOTHY
ALAN NELSEN, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP.

WELLS FARGO & CO, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

HILB ROGAL & HAMILTON CO, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY T.
SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, JONATHAN MICHAEL WILAN, HUNTON &
WILLIAMS LLP & NEIL KEITH GILMAN, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP.

BB&T CORP, Defendant, represented by JAMES PAUL WEHNER, JR.,
SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP & JACK LOUIS WUERKER, SQUIRE,
SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP.

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CO, Defendant, represented by JAMES PAUL
WEHNER, JR., SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP.

HUB INTERNATIONAL LTD, Defendant, represented by ALAN SETH
RABINOWITZ, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP.

MUNICH RE GROUP, Defendant, represented by BRIAN PETER CALANDRA,
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP & HENRY WEISBURG.

AMERICAN RE CORP, Defendant, represented by EAMON O'KELLY, ARENT
FOX LLP.

MARSH USA INC., (Illinois), Defendant, represented by ANDREW T.
BERRY, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & BRIAN J OSIAS,
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & MOLLY LEHR PEASE, GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP.

AON BROKERS SERVICES INC, Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN R.
OSTAPUK, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JOHN ARMANDO
BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, LESLIE M. SMITH, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC & RICHARD
C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON GROUP INT, Defendant, represented by DONALD A. ROBINSON,
ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AMERICAN RE INSURANCE CO, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & EAMON O'KELLY.

MERCER HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING INC, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & FREDERICK BARTLETT WULFF, SR, KONING RUBARTS
LLP.

MERCER HUMAN RESOURCE CONSULTING OF TEXAS INC, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL, FREDERICK BARTLETT WULFF, SR,
KONING RUBARTS LLP & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER LLP.

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & MARC D. HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

AIU INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP.
AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL, MICHAEL R. BLANKSHAIN, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN &
DIXON, LLP, MICHAEL LEE MCCLUGGAGE, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN &
DIXON, LLP, BETH L. FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & MATTHEW
JOSEPH CACCAMO, WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON.

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., Defendant,
represented by KYMBERLY KOCHIS, ELIZABETH BARRY SANDZA, LEBOEUF,
LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, LLP, G. RICHARD DODGE, JR., Mayer Brown,
LLP & JONATHAN E. RICHMAN, DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP.

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP.

AON GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC & RICHARD C.
PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RE WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendant, represented by DONALD A.
ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AON RE, INC., Defendant, represented by DONALD A. ROBINSON,
ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

AON RISK SERVICES INC U S, Defendant, represented by JOHN ARMANDO
BOUDET, GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON,
WETTRE & MILLER LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN &
CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC &
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES, INC. OF LOUISIANA, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER
LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES, INC. OF MARYLAND, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER
LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES, INC. OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER
LLC & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

AON SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, DONALD A. ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC &
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, Defendant, represented by ELIZABETH
BARRY SANDZA, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, LLP.

ATHENA ASSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BRYCE L. FRIEDMAN,
SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & MICHAEL J.
GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

AXIS REINSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM F. CLARKE,
JR., SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM. LLP.

AXIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & WILLIAM F. CLARKE, JR., SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM. LLP.

AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & WILLIAM F. CLARKE, JR., SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM. LLP.

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH J.
SCHIAVONE, BUDD LARNER, PC.

BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PA, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP.

CHICAGO INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

CNA FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL,
MICHAEL R. BLANKSHAIN, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP,
MICHAEL LEE MCCLUGGAGE, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP, BETH
L. FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & MATTHEW JOSEPH CACCAMO,
WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON.

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, MICHAEL R. BLANKSHAIN, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON,
LLP, MICHAEL LEE MCCLUGGAGE, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP,
BETH L. FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & MATTHEW JOSEPH
CACCAMO, WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON.

CRUM & FORSTER HOLDINGS CORP, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, LOUIS G. CORSI, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD,
CHRISTOPHER G. FRETEL, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD & STEPHEN
JACOBS, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD.

EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
KYMBERLY KOCHIS, ELIZABETH BARRY SANDZA, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE &
MACRAE, LLP & JONATHAN E. RICHMAN, DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP.

EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
ELIZABETH BARRY SANDZA, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, LLP.
EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & PETER RICHARD BISIO, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, Defendant, represented by
KYMBERLY KOCHIS, ELIZABETH BARRY SANDZA, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE &
MACRAE, LLP & JONATHAN E. RICHMAN, DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP.

GENERAL RE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH J.
SCHIAVONE, BUDD LARNER, PC.

GENERAL REINSURANCE CORP., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH J.
SCHIAVONE, BUDD LARNER, PC.

GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ALAN PATRICK
SMITH, CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, AMY E. BARABAS, CAHILL,
GORDON & REINDELL, LLP, CAROLINE SPINDLER WHITTEMORE, CAHILL,
GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JUSTIN M. GIOVANNELLI,
CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP & TAMMY L. ROY, CAHILL, GORDON &
REINDEL, LLP.

GULF INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BRYCE L. FRIEDMAN,
SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & MICHAEL J.
GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE CO., Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL, KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS,
RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE
FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ALAN
PATRICK SMITH, CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, AMY E. BARABAS,
CAHILL, GORDON & REINDELL, LLP, CAROLINE SPINDLER WHITTEMORE,
CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JUSTIN M.
GIOVANNELLI, CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP & TAMMY L. ROY, CAHILL,
GORDON & REINDEL, LLP.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KEVIN JOSEPH FEE, KORNSTEIN, WEISZ, WEXLER &
POLLARD.

LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & KEVIN JOSEPH FEE, KORNSTEIN, WEISZ, WEXLER & POLLARD.
NATIONAL SURETY CORP., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF LOUISIANA, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS,
RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURG, PA, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL, KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS,
RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE
FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP.

NUTMEG LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

PACIFIC INSURANCE CO., LTD, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by BRYCE L. FRIEDMAN, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & MICHAEL J. GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BRYCE L.
FRIEDMAN, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
MICHAEL J. GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

STEADFAST INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by ELIZABETH BARRY
SANDZA, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, LLP.

SUMMIT GLOBAL PARTNERS OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, represented by
ROBERT HARDY PEES, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP.

THE CHUBB CORP., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
PETER RICHARD BISIO, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL
R. BLANKSHAIN, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP, MICHAEL LEE
MCCLUGGAGE, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON, LLP, BETH L.
FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & MATTHEW JOSEPH CACCAMO,
WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON.

THE HARTFORD FIDELITY & BONDING, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL.

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. OF AMERICA, Defendant,
represented by BRYCE L. FRIEDMAN, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT,
LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, MICHAEL J. GARVEY, SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT LLP & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
LLP.

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BRYCE L.
FRIEDMAN, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, MICHAEL J. GARVEY,
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE
FARR & GALLAGHER LLP & DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL, LOUIS G. CORSI, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD,
CHRISTOPHER G. FRETEL, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD & STEPHEN
JACOBS, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD.

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL, LOUIS G. CORSI, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE &
FORD, CHRISTOPHER G. FRETEL, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD &
STEPHEN JACOBS, LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD.

USI INSURANCE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, represented by
ROBERT HARDY PEES, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP.
VIGILANT INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & PETER RICHARD BISIO, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL & KEVIN JOSEPH FEE, KORNSTEIN, WEISZ, WEXLER &
POLLARD.

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by
DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

WILLIS OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, JEFFREY T. SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP & RICHARD C.
PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

XL CAPITAL LTD., Defendant, represented by ALAN PATRICK SMITH,
CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, CAROLINE SPINDLER WHITTEMORE,
CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & JUSTIN M.
GIOVANNELLI, CAHILL, GORDON & REINDEL, LLP.

AON RISK SERVICES OF THE CAROLINAS INC, (Civil 05-4047),
Defendant, represented by AMY D HARMON, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS &
POLLARD, MARGUERITE S. WILLIS, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD,
RUSSELL THOMAS BURKE, NEXSEN PRUET JACOBS & POLLARD & DONALD A.
ROBINSON, ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC.

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, (Civil No. 05-4046),
Defendant, represented by KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP & DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

MARSH & MCLENNAN, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW T. BERRY,
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, DANIEL P. JORDAN, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA,
STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC & P. RYAN BECKETT, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA,
STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC.

RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MITCHELL JAY
AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

DISCOVER RE MANAGERS, INC.,, Defendant, represented by MIRIAM
THERESA DOWD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP.

DISCOVER REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BARRY
HASSELL, COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, CHARLES GREG COPELAND,
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, MICHAEL W. BAXTER, COPELAND, COOK,
TAYLOR & BUSH & MIRIAM THERESA DOWD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP.

DISCOVERY MANAGERS LTD, Defendant, represented by BARRY HASSELL,
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, CHARLES GREG COPELAND, COPELAND,
COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, MICHAEL W. BAXTER, COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR &
BUSH & MIRIAM THERESA DOWD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by BARRY HASSELL, COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, CHARLES GREG
COPELAND, COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, MICHAEL W. BAXTER,
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH & MIRIAM THERESA DOWD, BINGHAM
MCCUTCHEN, LLP.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, represented by MIRIAM THERESA DOWD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN,
LLP.

MARK A SMITH, (Civil Number 05-5698), Defendant, represented by
KEVIN F HORMUTH, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, KEVIN F. O'MALLEY,
GREENSFELDER & HEMKER & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, Defendant, represented by CHRIS S.
COUTROULIS, CARLTON FIELDS, PA, JAMES E. FOSTER, AKERMAN
SENTERFITT, STEVEN J BRODIE, CARLTON FIELDS, PA, VIRGINIA B.
TOWNES, AKERMAN SENTERFITT & DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

WILLIS NORTH AMERICAN INC, Defendant, represented by ANASTASIA
ANGELOVA, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL, FREDRICK H.
MCCLURE, PIP RUDNICK LLP, JOHN L. WARDEN, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL &
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II, SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

HARTFORD INSURANCE CO OF THE SOUTHEAST, Defendant, represented by
JAMES E. FOSTER, AKERMAN SENTERFITT & VIRGINIA B. TOWNES, AKERMAN
SENTERFITT.

HARTFORD UNDERWRITER INS. CO., Defendant, represented by JAMES E.
FOSTER, AKERMAN SENTERFITT & VIRGINIA B. TOWNES, AKERMAN
SENTERFITT.

USI HOLDINGS INC, Defendant, represented by DENIS L. DURKIN, BAKER
& HOSTETLER, LLP, RACHEL L. GERSTEIN, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER &
FELD, LLP & ROBERT HARDY PEES, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD,
LLP.

JOSEPH E LAMPEN, Defendant, represented by KEVIN F HORMUTH,
GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, KEVIN F. O'MALLEY, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER &
MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH USA INC OF LOUISIANA, Defendant, represented by DANIEL P.
JORDAN, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC & P. RYAN
BECKETT, BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC.

MARSHA USA INC, Defendant, represented by ANDREW T. BERRY,
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP & DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

MARSH & MCLENNAN INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by ANDREW T.
BERRY, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION & INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG PA, Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL.

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE SERVICES OF TEXAS INC, Defendant, represented
by ELTON F DUNCAN, DUNCAN, COURINGTON & RYDBERG, JESSICA G ROUX,
DUNCAN, COURINGTON & RYDBERG, KELLEY SEVIN, DUNCAN, COURINGTON &
RYDBERG & THOMAS A. FRENCH, DUNCAN, COURINGTON & RYDBERG.

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BETH
L. FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
MATTHEW JOSEPH CACCAMO.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, represented by JAMES B.
CLARK, III, OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY.

GUY CARPENTER & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.
MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, DANIEL J.
LEFFELL, MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP.

MARSH ADVANTAGE AMERICA, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH GLOBAL BROKING, INC. (MISSOURI), Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH GLOBAL BROKING, INC. (NEW JERSEY), Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH GLOBAL PLACEMENT, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS,
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH,
LLP.

MARSH USA INC. (CONNECTICUT), Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, DANIEL J.
LEFFELL & MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH USA INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. ST.
JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & BRIAN J
OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

SEABURY & SMITH INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. ST.
JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP, DANIEL J. LEFFELL & MITCHELL
JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

MARSH ADVANTAGE AMERICA, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
ST. JEANOS, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. ST. JEANOS,
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP & BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH,
LLP.

MARSH USA INC. (CONNECTICUT), Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

MARSH USA INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL &
BRIAN J OSIAS, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

SEABURY & SMITH INC., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL.
MARSH & MCLENNAN, Defendant in 06-3844, Defendant, represented by
DARREN K. NELSON, PARR, WADDOUPS, BROWN, GEE & LOVELESS.

MARSH, Defendant in 06-3844, Defendant, represented by DARREN K.
NELSON, PARR, WADDOUPS, BROWN, GEE & LOVELESS.

MAX RE LTD., Defendant, represented by THOMAS F. BUSH, Wildman,
Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP & KATHRYN K. WYCOFF.

USI CONSULTING GROUP, Defendant, represented by ROBERT HARDY PEES,
AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP.

USI SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ROBERT HARDY
PEES, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP.

NAVIGATORS GROUP INC., Defendant, represented by KEVIN R.J.
SCHROTH, Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard.

GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BETH L.
FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by BETH
L. FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., Defendant, represented by BETH L.
FANCSALI, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

MARSH PLACEMENT INC, Defendant, represented by DAVID C GUSTMAN,
FREEBORN & PETERS, JILL CHRISTINE ANDERSON, FREEBORN & PETERS &
MITCHELL JAY AUSLANDER, WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP.

MARSH USA INC (NEVADA), Defendant, represented by DAVID C GUSTMAN,
FREEBORN & PETERS & JILL CHRISTINE ANDERSON, FREEBORN & PETERS.
AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.
LEFFELL.

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, ORGANIZED AS SYNDICATE 2001
(AML), Defendant, represented by JOHN M. TORIELLO, HOLLAND &
KNIGHT, LLP.

AETNA INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN HERFORT, GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER & JAMES HALLOWELL, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER.

THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, MEMBERS OF
SYNDICATES 190 AND 282 FOR THE UNDERWRITING YEARS AT ISSUE,
Defendant, represented by PAUL L. FIELDS, JR., STACEY SEXTON
FARRELL & GREGORY L. MAST, FIELDS, HOWELL, ATHANS & MCLAUGHLIN.
MARSH RISK CONSULTING, Defendant in 06-6127, Defendant,
represented by DONALD ARTHUR BLACKWELL, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER,
BLACKWELL & BAUMGARTEN.

MARSH RISK CONSULTING, Defendant in 06-6127, Defendant,
represented by FRANCIS A. ANANIA, ANANIA, BANDKLAYDER, BLACKWELL &
BAUMGARTEN.

AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPAMY, Defendant, represented by GEORGE
BENNET FORBES, Plata Forbes Ferrer & Gutierrez LLC.
ACE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARC D.
HAEFNER, CONNELL FOLEY, LLP.

AXIS CAPITAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM
F. CLARKE, JR., SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM. LLP.

CHUBB & SON, INC., Defendant, represented by PETER RICHARD BISIO,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

WILLIS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY T.
SCOTT, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP & RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II,
SULLLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

Athena Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by PATRICK T.
SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by PATRICK T.
SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by PATRICK T. SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
PATRICK T. SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by PATRICK
T. SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by PATRICK
T. SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant,
represented by PATRICK T. SHILLING, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
LLP.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Organized as Syndicate
2001, Defendant, represented by DUVOL M. THOMPSON, HOLLAND &
KNIGHT LLP.

Donald R. Pierson, Defendant, Pro Se.

ARCH CAPITAL GROUP, LTD, (Civil 06-5120), Defendant, represented
by ROBERT J. BRENER, LeClairRyan.

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, (Civil 06-5120), Defendant, represented by
ROBERT J. BRENER, LeClairRyan.

ARCH REINSURANCE LIMITED, (Civil 06-5120), Defendant, represented
by ROBERT J. BRENER, LeClairRyan.

ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., (Civil 06-5120), Defendant,
represented by ROBERT J. BRENER, LeClairRyan.

LLOYDS LONDON SYNDICATE 2791 MAP, (Civil 06-5120), Defendant,
represented by ROBERT J. BRENER, LeClairRyan & THOMAS F. BUSH.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Organized as Syndicate
of 2001 (AML), Defendant, represented by ROBERT J. BURNS.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London organized as syndicates 33,
102, 382, 435, 510, 623, 727, 958, 1003, 1084, 1096, 1183, 1245,
1886, 2003, 2020, 2623 and 2987, Defendant, represented by AN>ANNE
JOHNSON PALMER.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London organized as syndicates 33,
102, 382, 435, 510, 623, 727, 958, 1003, 1084, 1096, 1183, 1245,
1886, 2003, 2020, 2623 and 2987, Defendant, represented by MATTHEW
M. BURKE, ROPES & GRAY LLP & ROBERT A. SKINNER.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London organized as Syndicates 570
and 609, Defendant, represented by ABIGAIL NITKA, Messner Reeves
LP & WENDY JEANNE LINDSTROM, WILSON ELSER.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London organized as Syndicate
2020, Defendant, represented by WENDY JEANNE LINDSTROM, WILSON
ELSER.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE CO., Consol
Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. LEFFELL, JEFFREY MICHAEL
COHEN, KENNETH A. GALLO, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON,
LLP, STEVEN J BRODIE, CARLTON FIELDS, PA & PATRICIA C. CROWLEY,
PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., Consol Defendant, represented by DANIEL
J. LEFFELL & PATRICIA C. CROWLEY, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP.

INTERVENOR ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Intervenor, represented by GREGG
ABBOTT, OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL.


MATTEL INC: MGA's Bid to Reassert Trade Secret Claim Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
MGA Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to amend its complaint to
reassert the trade secret claim that the appeals court dismissed
without prejudice remains pending, according to the Company's
July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee.  The lawsuit alleges that Bryant aided and
assisted a Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"),
during the time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his
contractual and other duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant
asserted counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in
which Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened
as a party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting
that its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the
litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed lawsuit against Mattel in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
MGA's action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade
dress dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition,
and unjust enrichment.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television
commercials in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon
products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for
various MGA product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also
asserts that various alleged Mattel acts with respect to
unidentified retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged
MGA and that various alleged acts by industry organizations,
purportedly induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's lawsuit
alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach
or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive
damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief Executive
Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.
The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by
recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them to
bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary information,
unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets,
confidential information, and key employees to build their
business.  On January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to
file these claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases,
which Mattel did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation.  In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008, in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter.  After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims.  Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several
new claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing lawsuit.  The Court granted that motion as to
the wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice,
and as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck.
The Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret
misappropriation claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010. Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion.  The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets.  The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages.  The jury
ruled against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets.  The jury
found that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions.  The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim.  The Court reduced the jury's damages award of
$88.5 million to $85.0 million.  The Court awarded MGA an
additional $85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately
$140 million in attorney's fees and costs.  The Court entered a
judgment which totaled approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on appeal the entirety
of the District Court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including
both the award of $170 million in damages for alleged trade secret
misappropriation and approximately $140 million in attorney's fees
and costs.  On January 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a ruling on Mattel's appeal.  In that ruling, the
Court found that MGA's claim for trade secrets misappropriation
was not compulsory to any Mattel claim and could not be filed as a
counterclaim-in-reply.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated
the portion of the judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees
and costs to MGA for prevailing on its trade secrets
misappropriation claim, totaling approximately $172.5 million.  It
ruled that, on remand, the District Court must dismiss MGA's trade
secret claim without prejudice.  In its ruling, the Court of
Appeals also affirmed the District Court's award of attorney's
fees and costs under the Copyright Act.  Accordingly, Mattel
recorded a litigation accrual of $137.8 million during the fourth
quarter of 2012 to cover these fees and costs.

On February 27, 2013, MGA filed a motion to amend its complaint to
reassert the trade secret claim that the Court of Appeals ordered
dismissed without prejudice.  Mattel believes that it has strong
arguments that such an amendment is improper in federal court
because the claim is purely one of state law and that even if
amendment is allowed, or if MGA were to file the claim in state
court, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, among
other defenses, and should be dismissed without a trial.

Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Mattel, Inc., designs,
manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy products
worldwide, which are sold to its customers and directly to
consumers.  Mattel's products include Barbie fashion dolls and
accessories, Polly Pocket, Little Mommy, Disney Classics, Monster
High, Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Tyco R/C vehicles and play sets, CARS,
Radica, Toy Story, Max Steel, WWE Wrestling, Batman, and games and
puzzles.


MET-PRO CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/65201/0001140361-13-028903-
index.htm

Met-Pro Corporation entered into a memorandum of understanding on
July 20, 2013, regarding the settlement of a putative class action
captioned Gold v. De Hont, et al., according to the Company's
July 25, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania related to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated April 21, 2013, between the Company and CECO
Environmental Corp., in which Met-Pro will be merged into a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the
lawsuit following completion of confirmatory discovery by
plaintiff.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to court
approval following notice to shareholders.

           Additional Information and Where to Find It

In connection with the proposed merger, CECO has filed with the
SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-4, as it may be amended
from time to time, which includes a joint proxy
statement/prospectus of Met-Pro and CECO and which contains
important information, including detailed risk factors.  This
communication is not a substitute for the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  Investors in Met-Pro or CECO are urged to
read the joint proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant
documents that have or will be filed by Met-Pro and CECO with the
SEC.  A free copy of the joint proxy statement/prospectus and
other documents that will be filed by Met-Pro and CECO with the
SEC may be obtained at the SEC's Web site, http://www.sec.gov/,or
by directing a request to Met-Pro Corporation, P.O. Box 144,
Harleysville, Pennsylvania 19438, Attention: Investor Relations;
or to CECO Environmental Corp., 4625 Red Bank Road, Suite 200,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45227, Attention: Investor Relations.  The
definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus will be mailed to
shareholders of Met-Pro and CECO's stockholders.

This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to buy securities, nor shall there be any
sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer,
solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or
qualification under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.

                       Proxy Solicitation

Met-Pro and CECO, and certain of their respective directors,
executive officers and other members of management and employees
are participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with
the proposed transactions.  Information about the directors and
executive officers of Met-Pro is set forth in its proxy statement
for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and Met-Pro's Form
10-K for the year ended January 31, 2013.  Information about the
directors and executive officers of CECO is set forth in the proxy
statement for its 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and CECO's
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.  Investors may obtain
additional information regarding the interests of such
participants in the proposed transactions by reading the joint
proxy statement/prospectus for such proposed transactions filed by
CECO in the Form S-4 Amendment No. 2 filed on July 22, 2013.

                          About Met-Pro

Met-Pro Corporation -- http://www.met-pro.com/-- with
headquarters at 160 Cassell Road, Harleysville, Pennsylvania, is a
leading niche-oriented global provider of product recovery,
pollution control, fluid handling and filtration solutions.  The
Company's diverse and synergistic solutions and products address
the world's growing need for clean air and water, reduced energy
consumption and improved operating efficiencies.  Through its
global sales organization, internationally recognized brands, and
operations in North America, South America, Europe and The
People's Republic of China, Met-Pro's solutions, products and
systems are sold to a well-diversified cross-section of customers
and markets around the world.


OUTERWALL INC: Awaits Court Ruling in "Piechur" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. is awaiting a court decision on Laurie Piechur's
motion for additional time in which to seek leave to appeal a
court ruling, according to the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief.  In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  In May 2010, the court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  In
November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment.  The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012.  The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for
class certification on June 5, 2012.  The court denied Redbox's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The amended class
certification motion was briefed and argued.  At the hearing on
plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff
dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under
the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied the plaintiff's amended class
action motion.  The Plaintiff has filed for additional time in
which to seek leave to appeal the court's ruling.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, Outerwall Inc. is a
provider of automated retail solutions offering convenient
products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental
retail traffic and revenue for retailers.  On June 27, 2013, the
Company's name change from Coinstar, Inc. to Outerwall Inc. was
approved by stockholders.  The name change reflects the evolution
of the Company from a single coin-counting kiosk business into
multiple automated retail businesses.


OUTERWALL INC: Parties in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Suit Awaits Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case are awaiting a
determination from the appellate court, according to Outerwall
Inc.'s July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly.  A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi.  A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff.  The Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest.  Redbox removed
the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated.  At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted
Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case.
After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the
Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders.  Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification.  In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot.  On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal.  After a stay pending the California
Supreme Court's decision in a case presenting similar issues
involving Song-Beverly in a case to which Redbox is not a party,
the Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 15, 2013.  The
matter is now fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a
determination from the appellate court as to whether oral argument
will be required.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, Outerwall Inc. is a
provider of automated retail solutions offering convenient
products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental
retail traffic and revenue for retailers.  On June 27, 2013, the
Company's name change from Coinstar, Inc. to Outerwall Inc. was
approved by stockholders.  The name change reflects the evolution
of the Company from a single coin-counting kiosk business into
multiple automated retail businesses.


OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Awaits Judgment Bid Ruling in Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc.'s Redbox subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on
its motion seeking summary judgment in its favor on all remaining
claims in the consolidated class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, according to the
Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq.  A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to the plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information.  The Plaintiffs are seeking
statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of
lawsuit, and interest.  The court has consolidated the cases.  The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
upon interlocutory appeal.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims involving retention of
information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a
lawsuit for damages under this theory.  On April 25, 2012, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of
contract.  On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added
retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek
injunctive, non-monetary relief.

On April 8, 2013, Redbox filed a motion seeking summary judgment
in its favor on all remaining claims, and requested that the court
stay further class proceedings pending resolution of the summary
judgment motion.  The court granted the motion to stay further
class proceedings, and the parties are awaiting a ruling on
Redbox's fully-briefed motion for summary judgment.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

Headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, Outerwall Inc. is a
provider of automated retail solutions offering convenient
products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental
retail traffic and revenue for retailers.  On June 27, 2013, the
Company's name change from Coinstar, Inc. to Outerwall Inc. was
approved by stockholders.  The name change reflects the evolution
of the Company from a single coin-counting kiosk business into
multiple automated retail businesses.


PVF CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky LLP on Aug. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01606) on
behalf of all current stockholders of PVF Capital Corp. in
connection with the proposed sale of the company to F.N.B.
Corporation.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that PVF
Capital and the members of its board of directors violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 14a-9, as promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
defendants have filed proxy solicitation materials with the SEC
that misrepresent or omit material information regarding FNB's
proposed acquisition of PVF Capital.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 5, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Joseph E.
Levi, at (212) 363-7500 or, via email, at jlevi@zlk.com or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/pvf-capital/

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

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  AT THIS TIME YOU MAY DO NOTHING AND REMAIN AN ABSENT
CLASS MEMBER.  YOU MAY ALSO RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, and Washington, D.C.  The firm prosecutes securities
litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors
throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits.

CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky LLP
         Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
         30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972


REMINGTON ARMS: Seeks Dismissal of Rifle Defect Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that gun manufacturer Remington has
asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit
by Montanans who bought a type of rifle that can reportedly
misfire without the trigger being pulled.

Allen Bowker and Eric Huleatt filed their lawsuit in June on
behalf of thousands of Montana residents who bought Remington
Model 700 bolt-action rifles.

They are asking U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to grant them
class-action status for all Montana residents who purchased the
rifle, claiming that Remington owes them for their economic loss
for buying rifles with faulty trigger assemblies that make them
worthless.

Messrs. Bowker and Huleatt allege the manufacturer's parent
companies knew the trigger assembly was defective and did nothing
to warn customers or fix the problem.  Their product-liability
claim also alleges the manufacture breached the express and
implied warranties of the rifle.

They are suing Remington Arms Co., Sporting Goods Properties Inc.
-- the name by which the gun manufacturer is now known -- and E.I.
DuPont de Nemours Inc., which owned all of Remington's stock
before 1993.

Excluded from the class-action lawsuit is anybody who was injured
by the rifle's misfiring.

Robert Carlson, attorney for the gun manufacturer, said in his
court filing on Aug. 5 that time had run out on the warranty
claims for the two named plaintiffs, and this is only the latest
of several claims filed recently.

Similar lawsuits have been dismissed in Oklahoma and Arkansas,
Mr. Carlson said.

Several people filed lawsuits against Remington following a 2010
CNBC documentary about problems with the trigger assembly.

In one of the most recent, a federal judge in Montana ruled that
the statute of limitations had expired on a lawsuit by Brad and
Dianna Humphrey of Fairfield that claimed Brad Humphrey was
paralyzed when his stepson's Remington Model 700 misfired in 1989.

The Humphreys said they found out about the problems with the
bolt-action rifle only after the documentary aired, but the judge
dismissed their lawsuit in April.  They are appealing.

Mr. Huleatt bought his rifle in 2000, and Mr. Bowker bought his in
2006.  Implied warranty claims run out after four years, and
express-warranty claims run out after two years, Mr. Carlson said.

In addition, Mr. Huleatt never alleges that his own rifle actually
misfired, he said.  No Montana court has ever recognized a
liability for a defect that has not manifested itself, Mr. Carlson
said.

Judge Christensen did not immediately rule on the request to
dismiss the lawsuit.


RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $37.5 Million to Dead Smoker's Family
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
the survivors of a Coral Springs mother who died at 38 from
smoking-related lung cancer were awarded $37.5 million by a
Fort Lauderdale jury.

Laura Grossman, 36 when diagnosed with cancer, made one of the
most valiant struggles to live that her pain management doctor
said she had ever witnessed, according to testimony in the trial
that ended on July 31.

The defendant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., was assessed 75 percent
fault on a $15 million compensatory damage award.  However, the
entire award goes to the family because the jury found Reynolds
committed an intentional tort, said plaintiffs attorney Steven J.
Hammer -- shammer@schlesingerlaw.com -- of the Schlesinger Law
Offices in Fort Lauderdale. In addition, the family was awarded
$22.5 million in punitive damages.

Ms. Grossman died in 1995, leaving behind her husband Jan,
11-year-old daughter Jessica and 3-year-old son Steven.

Ms. Grossman started smoking at 15 in 1972.  Reynolds attorneys
argued she was responsible for her illness since cigarette packs
had by then begun carrying warning labels.

However, Ms. Grossman was in the demographic targeted by tobacco
companies -- a young teen whose developing brain was highly
susceptible to nicotine's addictive properties, said
Scott Schlesinger, who worked on the case with Jonathan Gdanski --
jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com -- and Brittany Chambers, all of the
same firm.

"Laura Grossman's horrible, painful death was made that much worse
with the family's telling of their loss," said Mr. Schlesinger,
recalling the effect on jurors who were at times moved to tears.
"This was the most emotionally raw case I've ever participated
in."

Reynolds relied on the warning labels for its defense, but jurors
in the trial before Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter rejected
that, Mr. Schlesinger said.

The Grossmans are one of about 8,000 families that were once part
of the Engle class action against the major cigarette
manufacturers.  After the Florida Supreme Court disbanded the
class in 2006, cases have been pursued individually.

Reynolds attorney Eric Lundt of Sedgwick in Fort Lauderdale had no
comment on the case by deadline.


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued an order approving a
stipulation modifying the claims administration deadlines and date
of final approval hearing in LEWIS v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC.

Plaintiff Demetriot K. Lewis and Defendant Safelite Fulfillment,
Inc. entered into the Stipulation which provides that the claims
administration deadlines previously agreed to by the parties in
their class action settlement agreement are modified and the date
for the final fairness and approval hearing is set as follows:

* Deadline for mailing notices to class members: August 16, 2013

* Deadline for class members to submit claims forms to the claims
   administrator: November 14, 2013

* Deadline for claims administrator to provide final claims
   information to the parties: November 18, 2013

* Deadline for Defendant to revoke the settlement: November 22,
   2013

* Deadline for filing motion for final approval of class action
   settlement: November 29, 2013

* Final approval hearing: December 13, 2013

The case is DEMETRIOT K. LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10. Defendants, CASE NO. CV-11-5512-CRB,
(N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's July 30, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/iMppJTfrom Leagle.com.

Gregory N. Karasik (SBN 115834) -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- at
Karasik Law Firm, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMETRIOT K. LEWIS.

Brent M. Giddens, State Bar No. 133652 -- bgiddens@cdflaborlaw.com
-- Kent J. Sprinkle, State Bar No. 226971 --
ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com -- Kimberly M. Foster, State Bar No.
243216 -- kfoster@cdflaborlaw.com -- at CAROTHERS DISANTE &
FREUDENBERGER LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Defendant SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC.

Alexander I. Dychter (SBN 234526) -- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- at
Dychter Law Offices, APC, San Diego, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiff DEMETRIOT K. LEWIS.

Andrew C. Smith Ohio Registration No. 0008136 -- acsmith@vorys.com
-- Robert A. Harris, Ohio Registration No. 0059549 --
raharris@vorys.com -- Daniel J. Clark, Ohio Registration No.
0075125 -- djclark@vorys.com -- at VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE
LLP, Columbus, OH, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendant
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Cert. Ruling in "Garcia" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International's appeal from an order
certifying a class in the lawsuit filed by Reyvis Garcia and
Alicia Garcia remains pending, according to the Company's July 25,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32.  The Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the
decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park
South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise
Memorial Gardens, Inc.  Initially, the lawsuit sought damages on
the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of
Eloisa Garcia.  The Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor
recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the
family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the
burial location of the decedent could not be readily located.
Subsequently, the decedent's grave was located and verified.  In
July 2006, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to
certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose
burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor
recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and
added two additional named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive
relief.  On May 4, 2011, the trial court certified a class and the
Company is appealing that ruling.  The Company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit; however, an adverse decision in the matter could have
a material effect on the Company, its financial condition, results
of operations, and cash flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Schwartz" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Schwartz and Carol Neitlich's appeal from the dismissal of
their claims against Service Corporation International remains
pending, according to the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The lawsuit captioned Barbara Schwartz & Carol Neitlich,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., et al.; Case No. 2012CA015954,
In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and is now Case No. 9:12-CV-
80180-DMM.  This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the
Sands case regarding the Company's Star of David Memorial Gardens
Cemetery and Funeral Chapel and Bailey Memorial Gardens located in
North Lauderdale, Florida.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
of cemetery plot owners and their families.  The Plaintiffs allege
the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not
disclose them to customers.  The Plaintiffs seek compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a
receiver to oversee the cemetery operations.  On the Company's
motion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in March 2013.
The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal.  The Company cannot
quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any
damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matters pending
against it cannot be determined at this time.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits; however, an adverse
decision in one or more of such matters could have a material
effect on the Company, its financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to defend itself
against wage and hour class action lawsuits in California,
according to the Company's July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The cases captioned Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v.
AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, were filed on December 5,
2007.  These cases were removed to federal court in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco/Oakland Division.  The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-
CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI.  On
December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification.
On March 9, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motions
to certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and
dismissed the Helm case.  The Helm plaintiff is appealing the
court's order decertifying her claims.  The individual claims in
the Bryant case are still pending.  The plaintiffs have also (i)
filed additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class
certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii)
made a large number of demands for arbitration.  The Company
cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matters pending
against it cannot be determined at this time.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits; however, an adverse
decision in one or more of such matters could have a material
effect on the Company, its financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is defending a merger-related
class action lawsuit in Louisiana, according to the Company's
July 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, was filed as a class action
in June 2013 against SCI and its subsidiary in connection with
SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.  The
plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in
negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI.  The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction
against the proposed combination.  The Company cannot quantify its
ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matters pending
against it cannot be determined at this time.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits; however, an adverse
decision in one or more of such matters could have a material
effect on the Company, its financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


SERVICE CORP: "Sands" Class Suit Scheduled for Trial This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its July 25, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the class action lawsuit
initiated by F. Charles Sands is scheduled for trial this month.

F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No.
BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles - Central District, was filed in September
2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding its Eden
Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages
as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery
operations.  The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in
wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers.
After a hearing in February 2012, the court in May 2012 issued an
order certifying classes of cemetery plot owners and their
families based on alleged Company misrepresentation, concealment
or nondisclosure of material facts regarding alleged improper
burial practices pertaining to the period from February 1985 to
September 2009.  Pursuant to a court order, the Company may be
precluded from making certain arguments that challenge the
sufficiency of plaintiff's physical evidence, although the extent
to which that order will apply at trial remains unclear.  The case
is scheduled for trial in August 2013.  The Company cannot
quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any
damages.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit; however, an adverse decision in the matter could have
a material effect on the Company, its financial condition, results
of operations, and cash flows.

Service Corporation International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/--
is a North American provider of deathcare products and services,
with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries
primarily operating in the United States and Canada.  The
operations of the Houston, Texas-based Company consist of funeral
service locations, cemeteries, funeral service/cemetery
combination locations, crematoria, and related businesses.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objector Fails to Get Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a California man who objected to the $1.6 billion sudden-
acceleration class action settlement with Toyota because the deal
might have released his claims in a separate case has failed to
secure class certification, effectively ending the litigation over
brake defects in the Prius hybrid.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for three other objectors to the settlement is
seeking more than $8 million in fees and costs; a hearing on that
matter is scheduled on August 19.

On July 24, U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif.,
gave final approval to the sudden-acceleration settlement, which
resolves claims by consumers that their vehicles suffered economic
losses due to the recalls in 2009 and 2010 for defective floor
mats and accelerator pedals.

David Gelber objected to that deal, fearing Toyota would move to
dismiss his case, filed on behalf of a purported class of
California consumers over anti-lock braking defects in Prius and
Lexus hybrids.  Specifically, Mr. Gelber argued that the
settlement would release his claims, which are based on a similar
theory that the recalls diminished the value of his vehicle,
according to a June 4 filing.

Toyota agreed not to release those claims.  But on July 30, U.S.
District Judge Cormac Carney, overseeing the hybrid brake-defect
litigation, granted summary judgment to Toyota on Mr. Gelber's
claim and denied his motion for class certification.  The two
rulings, in effect, close the door on all the litigation asserting
hybrid brake defect claims against Toyota.

Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore issued a statement: "Given the
outstanding performance of the Generation II Prius for more than a
decade, we are pleased the Court agreed with Toyota and found that
there was no defect as alleged by the plaintiffs and that Toyota
customers received vehicles with a safe and operable anti-lock
brake system."

Mr. Gelber's attorneys, plaintiffs' liaison counsel Paul Kiesel --
kiesel@kbla.com -- a partner at Kiesel + Larson in Beverly Hills,
Calif., and Paul Paradis -- pparadis@hhplawny.com -- a partner at
New York's Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, who is lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, did not return calls for comment.

About a dozen cases against Toyota were coordinated as
multidistrict litigation in Santa Ana, Calif., before Judge Carney
following the recall of 150,000 2010 Prius and 2010 Lexus HS 250h
models.  The 2010 recall addressed a defect that prevented the
anti-lock braking systems from engaging properly, sometimes
resulting in accidents.

The litigation proceeded down two paths: One for owners and
lessees of recalled vehicles, and one for those with model years
before 2010.  On January 9, Judge Carney rejected certification of
a class of California and Texas consumers who had purchased or
leased the recalled vehicles.  He concluded, in part, that most of
the named plaintiffs had not established a true defect since
Toyota, through its recall, had rectified the problem by
installing updated software.  He also threw out one named
plaintiff on summary judgment who admitted that the recall fix
"solved" the problems.

On February 28, on summary judgment, Judge Carney threw out two
other named plaintiffs with recalled vehicle for similar reasons.
A fourth named plaintiff, who claims he lost $300 after trading in
his old 2010 Prius, has stayed his case pending any potential
appeals of the litigation.

Toyota has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a
January 30 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit striking its attempt to arbitrate the hybrid brake claims.
Toyota moved to compel arbitration after the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that class action waivers
in arbitration agreements were enforceable.  Judge Carney ruled
that Toyota could not enforce arbitration clauses in purchase
agreements with its dealers, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that
ruling.  Toyota filed its petition for review on April 10.

Meanwhile, the remaining hybrid brake litigation dwindled to a
purported class action by consumers in California who had
purchased or leased Prius vehicles not subject to the recalls --
those with model years 2004 to 2009, referred to as the Generation
II Prius.

Mr. Gelber became the only named plaintiff left in the Generation
II purported class action after the others voluntarily dismissed
their actions.

In granting summary judgment, Judge Carney found that Gerber had
failed to provide evidence of an actual brake defect in his own
vehicle, which he purchased in 2006 and continues to drive on a
regular basis.  "In addition to failing to present evidence of a
specific design defect common to all Gen II Prius vehicles,
Mr. Gelber has failed to present any evidence that his specific
vehicle suffers from a defective ABS [anti-lock braking system],"
Carney wrote.

To probe further would require discovery on various vehicles,
making certification of a class inappropriate, the judge
concluded.

The sudden-acceleration settlement was reached last year in
advance of class certification.  Judge Selna approved the deal
after initially raising concerns about whether an estimated $350
million in excess cash would go to class members.

Three objectors, represented by Ben Barnow of Barnow and
Associates in Chicago, had opposed a provision of the settlement
that allocated $30 million to a research fund focused on driver
safety, not sudden acceleration defects.  The revised settlement
retained that $30 million but eliminated an additional provision
that would have shifted some of the excess cash to the research
fund rather than class members.

Although Judge Selna overruled their objections, Barlow and seven
other firms serving as co-counsel now are seeking $8.25 million in
fees and $9,225 in costs. They also want $2,000 for each objector.

The co-lead plaintiffs' counsel who obtained the settlement
opposed Mr. Barnow's request, calling it "grossly excessive" in a
July 29 filing.  They wrote that the deal's revisions regarding
the research fund were "well under discussion long before Barnow
filed the objection."

"This is simply a ludicrous request," wrote Steve Berman of
Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Marc Seltzer --
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey in Los Angeles;
and Frank Pitre -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com --of Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy in Burlingame, Calif.  "Barnow, who submitted an
application to be appointed class counsel at the outset of the
case but was rejected, should not now be permitted to collect
objector's attorneys' fees as a misguided form of revenge."

Judge Selna has approved $200 million in fees and $27 million in
expenses to the three lead firms, along with 28 others
representing plaintiffs in the case.


U.S. MARSHALS: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Logue" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DEREK LOGUE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. MARSHALS, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 1:13-CV-348, (S.D. Ohio), is a pro se civil action filed by a
Cincinnati, Ohio, resident, who has been granted in forma pauperis
status.  Mr. Logue came before the Court asking for leave to file
an amended complaint on June 18, 2013, followed by the filing of
the amended complaint on June 25, 2013, after he was served with
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman's June 10, 2013 Report and
Recommendation to dismiss the original complaint with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

Mr. Logue's complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
against the named defendants for alleged violations of his federal
rights that occurred when a sex offender "compliance check" was
conducted on May 22, 2012.

Judge Bowman granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, and vacated the Report and Recommendation to
dismiss the original complaint.

To the extent that the Plaintiff has submitted completed summons
and United States Marshal forms for defendants USMS and HCSO, the
United States Marshal will serve a copy of the amended complaint,
summons, the Order issued on June 10, 2013 granting plaintiff's in
forma pauperis application, the original complaint and Report and
Recommendation to dismiss that complaint, and this Order and
Report and Recommendation upon those defendants as directed by
plaintiff, says Judge Bowman. All costs of service will be
advanced by the United States, he added.

To the extent that the Plaintiff has not submitted summons and
United States Marshal forms for the new defendants named in the
amended complaint, the Plaintiff is ordered to submit completed
summons and United States Marshal forms for those defendant within
30 days of the date of the Order. Once the Court receives the
completed forms, the Court will order service of process by the
United States Marshal on the additional defendants who remain in
the action. The Clerk of Court is directed to send summons and
United States Marshal forms to plaintiff for this purpose.

The Plaintiff will serve upon the defendants or, if appearance has
been entered by counsel, upon the defendants' attorneys, a copy of
every further pleading or other document submitted for
consideration by the Court. The Plaintiff will include with the
original paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate
stating the date a true and correct copy of any document was
mailed to defendants or their counsel. Any paper received by a
district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with
the clerk or which fails to include a certificate of service will
be disregarded by the Court.

The Plaintiff is directed to inform the Court promptly of any
changes in his address which may occur during the pendency of the
lawsuit.

However, Judge Bowman recommended that the amended complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted to the extent that the Plaintiff has named the United
States Department of Justice as a defendant and seeks to bring (1)
a class action on behalf of other persons "similarly situated";
(2) a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 14141; (3) a civil
rights claim under Bivens and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on
the allegation that the May 22, 2012 compliance check was
conducted in a militaristic and "very threatening, aggressive and
frightening manner;" and (4) a claim challenging the
constitutionality of the registration and notification provisions
contained in the AWA, as codified in Ohio.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order and Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/zBeMzBfrom
Leagle.com.


UBS AG: Settles SEC Charges Over Bond Sale for $50 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Switzerland's biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to pay about $50
million to settle federal civil charges of misleading investors in
its sale of risky mortgage bonds ahead of the 2008 financial
crisis.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement on
Aug. 6 with UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment arm.  The
SEC said the bank failed to disclose that it had kept $23.6
million in payments it received as it acquired collateral for the
mortgage-backed securities.  The agency said the money should have
gone into the securities for the benefit of investors.

UBS agreed to pay a $5.7 million penalty.  In addition, it agreed
to return the $23.6 million and a $10.8 million fee it received
and disclosed for putting together the 2007 transaction.  It will
also pay $9.7 million in interest.

UBS neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

The UBS investment involved pooled securities known as
collateralized debt obligations, which Wall Street banks sold at
the height of the housing boom.  CDOs combine slices of debt that
have varying levels of risk.

When the real estate bubble burst in 2007, home values plunged and
millions of people defaulted on their mortgages and lost their
homes.  Investors who bought the CDOs and other securities backed
by mortgages lost billions.  The SEC has said that inaccurate
statements by banks in packaging and selling mortgage bonds
contributed to the investors' losses.

"UBS is pleased to put this investigation behind us, which
involved a legacy business that was closed almost five years ago,"
the bank said in a statement on Aug. 6.  "We believe this
settlement marks the conclusion of all SEC investigations relating
to UBS's structuring and marketing of CDOs backed by residential
mortgage-backed securities."

The settlement with UBS was the latest in a series of SEC actions
regarding Wall Street firms' conduct in the years preceding the
2008 crisis.  The roughly $50 million that UBS is paying is
smaller than most of the previous accords with other big banks.

Goldman Sachs agreed in July 2010 to pay $550 million to settle
similar SEC charges of misleading buyers of a complex mortgage
investment.  JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, settled
similar charges in June 2011 by agreeing to pay $153.6 million,
and reached another agreement over mortgage bonds for $296.9
million last November.  Credit Suisse, Switzerland's second-
largest bank, agreed to pay $120 million.


UNITED AIR: Pilots Suit in Missouri Transferred to Illinois Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross granted motions to transfer venue in
the class action captioned SCOTT CUNNINGHAM, ANDREW HOLZMANN, and
TROY LOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and AIR LINE
PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Defendants, NO. 4:13-CV-322-JAR, (E.D. Mo.).

Judge Ross directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the
Northern District of Illinois saying two factors -- convenience of
the parties, and convenience of the witnesses -- weigh in favor of
transfer.

Plaintiffs are commercial pilots employed by Defendant United Air
Lines, Inc. They allege that ALPA breached its duty of fair
representation by agreeing to limit the longevity of the proposed
pilot class members. The Plaintiffs further allege that United
breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it reduced the
proposed class members' longevity and colluded with ALPA when it
agreed to these longevity provisions to secure ALPA's agreement to
the CBA. United and ALPA seek to transfer venue to the Northern
District of Illinois, where United is headquartered and where the
Defendants conducted many of the negotiations regarding the CBA at
issue.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/KXV3MFfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Allen P. Press --
Press@stlouislaw.com -- at GREEN JACOBSON, P.C.

Andrew Holzmann, Plaintiff, represented by Allen P. Press, GREEN
JACOBSON, P.C.

Troy Lown, Plaintiff, represented by Allen P. Press, GREEN
JACOBSON, P.C.

United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aparna B. Joshi
-- ajoshi@omm.com -- at O'MELVENY AND MYERS, John D. Ryan --
jryan@lathropgage.com -- at LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP & Robert
A. Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- at O'MELVENY AND MYERS.

Air Line Pilots Association, Defendant, represented by Sally E.
Barker, at SCHUCHAT AND COOK.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiropractors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dickinson R. DeBevoise grants summary judgment in
favor of defendants in the case captioned PREMIER HEALTH CENTER,
P.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al.,
Defendants, CIV. NO. 11-425 (ES), (D. N.J.).

The matter arises out of the methods by which Defendant
UnitedHealth Group (1) monitors and recoups benefit overpayments
from a variety of healthcare providers, and (2) regulates
reimbursement of services provided by chiropractors. On January
24, 2011, Plaintiffs Premier Health Center, P.C., Judson G.
Sprandel, II, D.C., Brian S. Hicks, D.C., Tri3 Enterprises, LLC,
Beverly Hills Surgical Center, and Jeremy Rogers, D.C. filed a
Class Action Complaint against United and several of its
subsidiaries, including United HealthCare Services, Inc.,
OptumHealth Solutions, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.,
and Health Net of New York, Inc., asserting claims for benefits,
failure to provide a full and fair review, and equitable relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint with additional factual allegations in support of their
claims. The ACAC sets forth two proposed classes: the ERISA
Recoupment Class and the ERISA Chiropractor Class. The Plaintiffs
moved to certify both the ERISA Recoupment Class and the ERISA
Chiropractor Class. The Defendants moved for Summary Judgment
against the named plaintiffs of the ERISA Chiropractor Class on
all of their claims.

According to Judge DeBevoise, the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment against the named plaintiffs of the ERISA Chiropractor
Class is granted on all of their claims. The claims of Dr. Rodgers
and Dr. O'Donnell, the named Plaintiffs under the ERISA
Chiropractor Class, are dismissed with prejudice.  Consequently,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the ERISA Chiropractor Class is
denied as moot, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the ERISA
Recoupment Class is also denied.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/s6NAT8from Leagle.com.

POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP D. Brian Hufford,
Esq. -- dbhufford@pomlaw.com -- Robert J. Axelrod, Esq. --
rjaxelrod@pomlaw.com -- New York, New York.

CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. James E.
Cecchi, Esq. -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Roseland, New Jersey.

BUTTACI & LEARDI, LLC, Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq. --
vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com -- John W. Leardi, Esq. --
jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- Princeton, New Jersey, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

GRAHAM CURTIN, P.A., Thomas R. Curtin, Esq. --
tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com -- George C. Jones, Esq. --
gjones@grahamcurtin.com -- Morristown, New Jersey.

O'MELVENEY & MYERS LLP, Henry C. Thumann, Esq. -- hthumann@omm.com
-- Brian D. Boyle, Esq. -- bboyle@omm.com -- Stephen D. Brody,
Esq. -- sbrody@omm.com -- Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants
United Health Group, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., and
OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc.


USG CORP: Chinese Wallboard Damage Claims vs. L&W Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
L&W Supply Corporation, a USG Corporation subsidiary, is one of
many defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits, most of
whom are homeowners, seek damages associated with the removal and
replacement of the Chinese-made wallboard which they claim emits
elevated levels of sulfur gases causing a bad smell and corrosion
of metal surfaces.  Most of the lawsuits against L&W Supply
Corporation are part of the multi-district class action litigation
titled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2047, pending in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The vast majority of the claims against L&W Supply Corporation
relate to wallboard the Company delivered that was manufactured by
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or Knauf Tianjin, an affiliate
of a multi-national manufacturer of building materials that also
beneficially owns approximately 14% of USG's outstanding shares of
common stock.  The Company has reached settlement agreements with
Knauf and the plaintiffs in the multi-district class action
litigation that cap the Company's responsibility for all claims
against it for homes to which the Company delivered Knauf Tianjin
wallboard.  The Company is also subject to a small number of
similar claims that relate to Chinese-made wallboard that was not
manufactured by Knauf.  Those claims are not encompassed within
the Company's settlement with Knauf or the multi-district class
action settlement.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company has an accrual of $7 million for
its estimated cost of resolving all Chinese wallboard property
damage claims pending against it and expected to be asserted in
the future, and, based on the terms of its settlement with Knauf,
the Company has a related receivable of $2 million recorded as an
offset to the accrual.  The Company's accrual does not take into
account litigation costs, which are expensed as incurred, or any
set-off for potential insurance recoveries.  Based on the
information available to the Company to date regarding the number
and type of pending claims, estimates of likely future claims, and
the estimated costs of resolving those claims, the Company
believes that it has appropriately accrued for its exposure
related to the Chinese wallboard claims, and the Company believes
that these claims and other similar claims that might be asserted
will not have a material effect on its results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

USG Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials.
The Company produces a wide range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and residential and
nonresidential repair and remodel construction as well as products
used in certain industrial processes.


USG CORP: Continues to Defend MDL Over Gypsum Wallboard Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation continues to defend itself against an antitrust
multidistrict litigation over the pricing of gypsum wallboard sold
in the United States, according to the Company's July 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning December 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum
Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged
conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on
wallboard.  These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the
title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.
Two consolidated complaints have been filed. One group of
plaintiffs purports to represent a class of entities that
purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States directly from any
of the defendants or their affiliates from January 1, 2012, to the
present.  On behalf of this alleged direct purchaser class, the
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, tripled under the
antitrust laws, as well as pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees.  The second group of plaintiffs
purports to bring their claims and seek damages on behalf of
indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard.  These indirect purchaser
plaintiffs seek to certify a separate class of persons or entities
who from January 1, 2012, through the present indirectly purchased
wallboard in the United States from the defendants or their
affiliates for end use and not for resale.  These wallboard
pricing class action lawsuits are in a preliminary stage.
However, based on the information known to it, the Company
believes these lawsuits will not have a material effect on its
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

USG Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials.
The Company produces a wide range of products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and residential and
nonresidential repair and remodel construction as well as products
used in certain industrial processes.


UTILIQUEST LLC: Wage and Hour Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Allen commenced a putative wage and hour class action
against Utiliquest, LLC in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco captioned JEFFREY H. ALLEN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
UTILIQUEST, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendant(s),
CASE NO. C 13-00049 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

The action was removed to the District Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  The parties are
now before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and the
Defendant's motion for a more definite statement.

In a July 26, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/wB8LwZfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong concludes that
the Defendant has failed to sustain its burden to establish to a
legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
Accordingly, CAFA provides no basis for exercising jurisdiction in
this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.
The action is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco, says Judge Armstrong.  The Defendant's motion
for a more definite statement is denied as moot.  The Court
directs the Clerk to close the file and terminate all pending
matters.

Jeffrey H. Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel H. Qualls --
dan@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls & Workman, L.L.P., Aviva N
Roller -- aviva@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls & Workman, L.L.P.
& Robin Gibson Workman -- robin@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls &
Workman, L.L.P..

Utiliquest, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Beane --
eric.beane@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Bid to Add Class Allegations in "Rosell" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied a motion for leave to
amend complaint to add class allegations filed by plaintiffs in
JON ROSELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, Defendant,
NO. C 12-6321 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

At the hearing on the motion, the Plaintiffs' counsel . . . went
on to say, "I don't know if there's a class here," but that he
wanted "to put them on notice" and then "do some discovery to see"
whether Wells Fargo has been "siphoning off" $0.02 from each loan
payment. He added that "discovery will determine the shape of the
class allegations," Judge Hamilton said.

"Plainly, by counsel's own admission, plaintiffs lack a factual
basis for the class allegations. In the event that plaintiffs
learn in discovery that there is a factual basis for class
allegations, the denial of the present motion is without prejudice
for plaintiffs to again seek leave to amend," Judge Hamilton said.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/nGH1Zwfrom Leagle.com.

Jon Rosell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Galleta at Mellen
Law Firm & Matthew David Mellen, Mellen Law Firm.

Jane Rosell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Galleta, Mellen Law
Firm & Matthew David Mellen, Mellen Law Firm.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael Rapkine
-- mrapkine@afrct.com -- at Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell &
Trytten LLP.


* Battle Over Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Suits Heats Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Walters, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that one of
the Capitol's longest-running battles -- over the state's $250,000
cap on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
-- is heating up again.

Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members press malpractice
suits, wants the Legislature to lift the cap or repeal it.

Meanwhile, a wealthy man whose children died in an auto accident
caused, he says, by a driver overmedicated by prescription drugs,
and Consumer Watchdog, a Southern California organization, have
filed a ballot measure to more or less do what the lawyers want
the Legislature to do.

The attorneys say the Consumer Watchdog drive is independent, but
it stretches credulity to believe that the twin drives are
coincidental.

No legislation has surfaced yet, but before the legislative
session ends in mid-September, something will happen, or at least
will be attempted.

The fight over the malpractice cap has been simmering -- and
occasionally boiling over -- for 38 years.  A newly elected
Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act
(MICRA) in 1975 in response to medical providers' claims that
their insurance market was drying up due to outrageously high
malpractice awards.

Doctors' wives even camped out in Gov. Brown's foyer -- albeit
with down sleeping bags and catered dinners -- to dramatize the
issue.  The lawyer lobby, then known as the California Trial
Lawyers Association, didn't like what was happening -- especially
since MICRA also limited their fees -- but were steamrollered, and
apparently made a big tactical error.

Barry Keene, the legislator who carried MICRA, said in a recent
email that he wanted to place an inflation escalator in the
$250,000 cap, but trial lawyers opposed it, believing that a more
restrictive bill would be easier to defeat in the Legislature or
in the courts.

"It may have been a good bet at the time, but it lost," Ms. Keene
says.

The limit on lawyers' fees was modified in the late 1980s in the
infamous "napkin deal" that lobbyists worked out in a Sacramento
restaurant.

Occasionally thereafter, the attorneys attempted to modify the
cap.  But even though they had become a major source of campaign
funds for the Capitol's dominant Democrats, their efforts failed
as medical providers and insurers lobbied hard against them.

So with Gov. Brown back in the governorship, lawyers and others
who yearn for changes in the cap are trying again, arguing that
inflation has made the $250,000 limit worth only a quarter of its
original value.  But their opponents are also beating the drums,
marshaling clinics that serve women and the poor to argue that
raising the cap could curb their services while enriching lawyers.

The Capitol likes nothing better than a high-dollar battle between
powerful interest groups, and this is a doozy.


* Looming Dispute Over MICRA Big Political Test for Plaintiffs Bar
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that it's a
political war nearly 40 years in the making.

After months of trying unsuccessfully to engage the Legislature on
the issue, Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog and tech executive
Bob Pack late last month filed a ballot initiative that would,
among other things, raise California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic
damages in medical malpractice cases.

The filing may be a concession that the Legislature truly has no
stomach to rework the 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act,
better known as MICRA, and that advocates will have to take the
issue directly to voters in 2014.  Or it may be a last-ditch
attempt to pressure lawmakers to broker a cap-raising deal in the
final weeks of the legislative session.

Either way, the looming fight over MICRA will offer one of the
biggest political tests for the plaintiffs bar in decades.
Executives representing Planned Parenthood, the California Medical
Association, the California Dental Association and the Central
Valley Health Network have already opened a campaign account, with
the doctors' lobby quickly seeding it with $5 million.

"Something's got to give," said Consumer Attorneys of California
president Brian Kabateck.  "This has gone on for too long.
$250,000 made sense 38 years ago.  It doesn't make sense today."

Ever since Governor Jerry Brown -- in his first stint as governor
-- signed the med-mal cap into law, MICRA has been both the
bogeyman and rallying cry for California trial lawyers, an
enduring symbol of unfairness for their clients and an attack on
their profession.  Over the years they've tried to nibble away at
the law's edges legislatively and to attack its full measure in
the courts, to no avail.

Events this year, however, have created more favorable conditions
for launching a MICRA attack.  Doctors, the traditional face of
MICRA support, have had to play political defense with public and
legislative scrutiny of their drug prescription practices and
allegations of a feckless medical board.  With significant changes
in federal and state health care laws, the public, too, is anxious
about the quality of medical treatment that will be available to
them in coming years.

Consumer Watchdog has already qualified a measure for the November
2014 election that would allow the insurance commissioner to
reject health insurance premium increases deemed excessive.  The
MICRA initiative could fall right below it on the ballot, allowing
advocates to market the two measures as a consumer-protection duo.

"It's the perfect storm for an initiative," said Bruce Brusavich,
a past Consumer Attorneys president.

In addition to tying the MICRA cap to inflation, which would lift
the ceiling to about $1.1 million today, initiative writers
included two provisions that seem aimed at pushing doctors and
other cap backers to the negotiating table.  The first would
require random drug and alcohol testing of physicians.  The second
would force doctors to turn in substance-abusing colleagues.

But MICRA defenders have shown no interest in cutting a deal in
the Legislature.  They continue to publicly question whether the
CAOC and Consumer Watchdog are serious about pursuing an
initiative.

"We believe the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages should
remain," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for a coalition of
groups that back MICRA.  "It strikes the right balance between
allowing legitimate claims to move forward, while providing
disincentives for lawyers to file meritless lawsuits."

The anti-MICRA campaign has been buoyed by the support of
Mr. Pack, a former executive with internet service providers
NetZero and AOL.  Mr. Pack, immune from attacks that he's a greedy
trial lawyer seeking a big payday, brings a horrifying personal
story to the campaign that makes him an even more compelling
advocate.  In 2003, Mr. Pack's wife and two young children were
walking on a Danville sidewalk when they were hit by a
prescription-drug addict driving under the influence.  Ten-year-
old Troy and 7-year-old Alana were killed, and Mr. Pack's wife
lost the twins she was carrying.

Mr. Pack has been best known for seeking mandatory use of a
statewide prescription drug database that would make it tougher
for addicts to pill shop among doctors.  But he has also been
critical of the $250,000 cap that effectively prevented him from
seeking civil damages from the pill-prescribing doctors.

"I think Bob Pack is the secret ingredient," said Consumer
Watchdog president Jamie Court.  "That and the [prescription drug]
overdose scandal have driven this issue to the front and center."

Consumer Attorneys have been willing to let Consumer Watchdog,
their usual political ally, and Mr. Pack take the limelight in the
fight so far.  In fact, the lawyers' lobby hasn't taken an
official position on the initiative yet.  But no one doubts that
the plaintiffs bar's financial and political support will be the
backbone of any initiative campaign.

Mr. Kabateck said an endorsement by the organization's leadership
should be forthcoming.

"I see it as a real fight, and I also see it as unfortunate that
money that would otherwise be available for candidates isn't going
to be available" if an initiative fight develops, Mr. Kabateck
said.

That may be the real threat to state political leaders.  Every
election cycle, the CAOC, the California Medical Association and
the insurance industry spend millions on legislative candidates
and their own independent expenditure campaigns.  Such money has
been crucial in enabling Democrats to obtain super-majorities in
both houses.  Dollars spent on the initiative are dollars that
won't go to the candidates.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has said
he supports lifting the MICRA cap, but, he told reporters last
month, "that's different from whether or not we have the votes now
in both houses to pass [a] bill."

Mr. Steinberg said he'd consider end-of-session legislation if the
MICRA combatants reach a deal among themselves.  But Assembly
leader John Perez, D-Los Angeles, has been more pessimistic.

"The lawyers' interest has made a strategic mistake," Mr. Perez
told Los Angeles television station KNBC in a July 20 interview.
"By threatening to go to the ballot if they don't get it exactly
the way they want, they've gotten a whole segment of the
Legislature who would have engaged saying, 'Fine, take it to the
ballot.  You're not going to be happy with the solution we come up
with as a compromise.  A pox on both your houses.'"

Initiative proponents are now waiting for Attorney General Kamala
Harris to provide an official title and summary of their measure
so they can begin collecting signatures.  The AG's language is
expected to arrive around the time the Legislature recesses for
the year on Sept. 13, which gives the initiative sponsors just six
weeks to gain lawmakers' support or face going all-in on a costly
signature-gathering campaign.

"We've got legislators who are afraid of supporting changes to
MICRA because CMA . . . will support their ouster if they do,"
said San Francisco plaintiff lawyer Christopher Dolan.  "At some
point an organization has to stand up for people who are being
harmed and killed because the Legislature doesn't have the cajones
to do it."


* US Presses for Restrictions on Genetically Modified Food Imports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Olster, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
one of the biggest stumbling blocks to securing a massive free
trade agreement between the United States and Europe is a sharp
disagreement on genetically modified foods.

Much of the corn, soybean, sugar beets and cotton cultivated in
the United States today contains plants whose DNA was manipulated
in labs to resist disease and drought, ward off insects and boost
the food supply.  Though common in the U.S., they are largely
banned in the 28-nation European Union.

Washington wants Europe to ease restrictions on imports of these
foods, commonly known as GMOs for genetically modified organisms,
but the EU is skeptical they are safe.  Intense emotions on both
sides of the divide make it difficult to separate between strongly
held belief and science.

A look at key points in the debate:

Safe or unsafe?

Most studies show genetically modified foods are safe for human
consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term
health effects are unknown.  The Food and Drug Administration
generally recognized these foods as safe, and the World Health
Organization has said no ill health effects have resulted on the
international market.

Opponents on both sides of the Atlantic say there has been
inadequate testing and regulation.  They worry that people who eat
genetically modified foods may be more prone to allergies or
diseases resistant to antibiotics.  But they have been hard
pressed to show scientific studies to back up those fears.

GM foods have been a mainstay in the U.S. for more than a decade.
Most of the crops are used for animal feed or in common processed
foods such as cookies, cereal, potato chips and salad dressing.

Europe largely bans genetically engineered foods and has strict
requirements on labeling them.  They do allow the import of a
number of GM crops such as soy, mostly for animal feed, and
individual European countries have opted to plant these types of
crops.  Genetically engineered corn is grown in Spain, though it
amounts to only a fraction of European farmland.

The American Medical Association favors mandatory, pre-market
safety testing, something that has not been required by U.S.
regulators.  The WHO and the U.N. food agency, the Food and
Agriculture Organization, say the safety of genetically modified
foods must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Can GM food help combat world hunger?

By 2050, the world's population is projected to rise to 9 billion
from just over 7 billion currently.  Proponents of genetically
modified foods say they are safe and can boost harvests even in
bad conditions by protecting against pests, weeds and drought.
This, they argue, will be essential to meeting the needs of a
booming population in decades to come and avoiding starvation.

However Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the food and
environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an
advocacy group, said genetic engineering for insect resistance has
provided only a modest increase in yields since the 1990s and
drought-resistant strains have only modestly reduced losses from
drought.

Moreover, he said conventional crossbreeding or cross-pollinating
of different varieties for desirable traits, along with improved
farming, are getting better results boosting yields at a lower
cost.  In fact, much of the food Americans eat has been
genetically modified by those conventional methods over thousands
of years, before genetic engineering came into practice.

"Overall, genetic engineering does not get nearly the bang for the
buck as conventional breeding" and improved agricultural
practices, Gurian-Sherman said.  His organization advises caution
on GM foods and favors labeling, though it acknowledges the risks
of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated.

Andrea Roberto Sonnino, chief of research at the U.N. food agency,
said total food production at present is enough to feed the entire
global population.  The problem is uneven distribution, leaving
870 million suffering from hunger.  He said world food production
will need to increase by 60% to meet the demands of 9 billion by
2050.  This must be achieved by increasing yields, he added,
because there is little room to expand cultivated land used for
agriculture.

Genetically modified foods, in some instances, can help if the
individual product has been assessed as safe, he said. "It's an
opportunity that we cannot just miss."

To label or not to label?

Europe requires all GM food to be labeled unless GM ingredients
amount to 0.9% or less of the total.  The U.S. does not require
labels on the view that genetically modified food is not
materially different than non-modified food.  Opponents of
labeling say it would scare consumers away from safe foods, giving
the appearance that there is something wrong with them.

U.S. activists insist consumers should have the right to choose
whether to eat genetically modified foods and that labeling would
offer them that choice, whether the foods are safe or not.  They
are pushing for labeling at the state and federal level.
California voters last year rejected a ballot initiative that
would have required GM food labeling.  The legislatures of
Connecticut and Maine have passed laws to label genetically
modified foods, and more than 20 other states are contemplating
labeling.

Could GM food torpedo the trade deal?

Absolutely. The U.S is pressing for the restrictions on importing
genetically modified food to be eased but there is no sign that
the EU's firm opposition is softening.  German Chancellor Angela
Merkel said recently that Europe will defend its restrictions in
the trade negotiations, which began last month.  Some in the U.S.
see the European resistance as just another form of protectionism
that promotes domestic products over imported ones.

GM foods are not the only seemingly intractable issue standing in
the way of a comprehensive free trade agreement to remove most
tariffs and other trade barriers, aiming to boost jobs and growth.
Genetically modified foods are part of a broader set of
restrictions on both sides related to agriculture and food safety.
There are also significant differences on intellectual property
and financial regulations, among other thorny issues.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co.'s Plan Confirmation Order Reaffirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BankruptcyData reported that the U.S. District Court reaffirmed
the June 28, 2013 U.S. Bankruptcy Court order confirming Quigley's
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization.  Because this proceeding
involved asbestos-related litigation, both Bankruptcy and District
Court approval was required, the report said.

Quigley Co. was acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended
to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and
Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed
dust. Quigley filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and has a Chapter 11
plan and a settlement with Chrysler.

Quigley filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-15739) on Sept. 3, 2004, to implement a
proposed global resolution of all pending and future asbestos-
related personal injury liabilities.

Lawrence V. Gelber, Esq., and Michael L. Cook, Esq., at Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring
efforts.  Elihu Inselbuch Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When
the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it disclosed
$155,187,000 in total assets and $141,933,000 in total debts.

In April 2011, the bankruptcy judge approved a plan-support
agreement with Pfizer and an ad hoc committee representing 30,000
asbestos claimants.

A May 20, 2011 opinion by District Judge Richard Holwell concluded
that Pfizer was directly liable for some asbestos claims arising
from products sold by its now non-operating subsidiary Quigley.
The district court ruling was upheld in the appeals court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guilford Project Finished Ahead of Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Faher, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reported that
Guilford Central School now has a clean bill of health.

According to the report, officials say an asbestos-removal project
was finished ahead of schedule and on budget, in spite of the fact
that crews found more of the hazardous construction material than
originally expected.

"Everything just worked out very smoothly in terms of getting it
out," Principal John Gagnon said, the report related. "The air-
quality tests were done in a very timely manner and came back
clean."

Officials had known for some time that there was asbestos in pipe
wrapping and ceiling tiles in some areas of the school, the report
said. Gagnon previously had told parents that school
administrators were following an "EPA-approved and monitored
regimen to make sure the asbestos does not pose a threat to
students and staff."  But school board members decided, after
looking at projected costs, that it made sense to remove the
material.

In March, Town Meeting voters approved capital expenses not to
exceed $50,000 for asbestos abatement. The meeting article said
the project cost would be financed, with first-year expenses
budgeted at $18,167 in the fiscal 2014 spending plan.

Catamount Environmental Inc. of Wilmington was the project's low
bidder.

Officials credited Catamount as well as school staff led by Head
Custodian Troy Revis with getting the project done correctly and
quickly. Work began July 1 and had been expected to take up to a
month, but crews were finished by July 17.

"Troy has worked very hard, and the people who have worked with
him have worked very hard," Gagnon said.

Revis said he also had volunteer help, including time donated by
school board member Steve Redmond.

"It's a team process, and one hand washed the other," Revis said
of his work with Catamount.  He added that most restoration work
has been completed, including replacement of ceiling tiles,
electrical infrastructure and insulation.

There was one hitch: Catamount found an additional 140 feet of
asbestos on piping above ceiling tiles in a hallway, Revis said.
But that did not end up costing the school.

"We received their bill, and it did not go up in price," Revis
said. "They did not charge us for it."

At a meeting, Gagnon estimated the project's final cost to be
approximately $45,000.

In addition to asbestos abatement, regular summer maintenance work
has been progressing at the school. Revis said that includes
remodeling, plumbing, painting and testing the school's sprinkler
system and fire-alarm panel.

"There's been quite a bit of work done," he said.

The first day of Guilford Central's 2013-14 school year is
scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Adds $70,000 to Carnegie Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Guza, writing for TribLive, reported that contractors
renovating Carnegie Elementary School ran into a hiccup when they
discovered asbestos on top of the ceiling, which caused the
Carlynton School Board to approve just over $70,000 in repair
costs.

According to the report, the asbestos debris was found above and
on top of the ceiling tiles in the basement and first floor of the
school during scheduled renovations that include the installation
of new heating, ventilation and air conditioning, or HVAC,
equipment.

Jon Thomas, of Thomas & Williamson Project Management, which is
overseeing the contracting work for the school, said teachers and
students never were exposed to the asbestos.

"It's not in the airstream," he said. "All the air is circulating
below the ceiling."  He said the hazard was to the contractors,
who are unable to go in and complete the work until the asbestos
is abated.

The board approved an additional $27,850 to remove asbestos debris
found on top of the ceilings in the basement and first floor. The
board also approved $42,400 to remove asbestos found in three
areas during installation of the new HVAC equipment.

The funding for the work will come from a type of contingency
fund, he said.

"When we go into projects like this, we set money aside to deal
with these unforeseen things," Thomas said. "While we say it's
unforeseen, we know we're going to run into some of this. It's
just not quantified at the time."

Schools must be tested every three years for asbestos, but, Thomas
said, tests don't always include concealed spaces -- such as above
ceiling tiles.

Thomas said that while the newly found asbestos does create a
small bump in the road, it will not delay progress on the
renovations, as contractors are able to work in other areas while
the asbestos is abated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBN Clearing Work Delays Threaten Jobs
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Denhol, writing for The Australian, reported that hundreds
of workers employed on rolling out the National Broadband Network
will be laid off within days because of delays in clearing
asbestos from telecommunications pits.

According to the report, the Civil Contractors Federation said
subcontractors had already begun laying off workers in some
states, with hundreds more to follow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VINE Hits Unexpected Additional Abatement Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robb Murray, writing for The Mankato Free Press, reported that a
little unexpected asbestos abatement has bumped up the cost of the
renovation of the Nichols Office Building for VINE Faith in
Action, but the additional cost and work won't delay the project
and reportedly falls within the project's contingency fund.

According to the report, VINE Executive Director Pam Determan said
the additional asbestos abatement was minimal. She said it fell
within the project's contingency fund set up to cover unforeseen
developments in the progress of a project.

"Every project comes with some hiccups," she said, the report
related.

Determan said she didn't know the total dollar amount of the
additional abatement, but said the contingency fund is between
5 and 7 percent of the project's total cost, which is $1.7
million, the report said.

Even with the additional abatement, Determan said, the renovation
is still cheaper than if they'd built new, the report added.

According to a flier circulated in 2012, VINE said, "Compared to
the cost of new construction, the Nichols Building is a wonderful
value. Renovating the building will be about 60 percent of the
cost of building new. The full city block of land is included in
the purchase price of one dollar."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Committee Opposes Motion to Open Garlock Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants is opposing a news outlet's
motion requesting that the court open Garlock Sealing
Technologies' entire estimation trial, arguing that the court has
already addressed the issue.

According to the report, in the July 30 opposition brief, filed in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, the Committee contends that Garlock's earlier attempt to
"strip" confidentiality designations on asbestos trust claim
details was denied by the court, which at the time questioned the
amount of public interest in the information.

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: Judge Denies Motion to Keep Garlock Trial Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
news agency's efforts to keep a North Carolina bankruptcy trial
open to the public have failed.

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges
had closed the courtroom to the news media and the public during a
portion of a law professor's testimony in the bankruptcy case
filed by Garlock Sealing Technologies.

Attorneys for Legal Newsline filed a motion to keep the entire
trial open to the public.

The report said Hodges denied Legal Newsline's motion, saying none
of the seven orders previously entered in the case relating to
confidentiality of documents had been challenged by Legal Newsline
or anyone else. Nor did Legal Newsline appear with respect to a
motion by Garlock, which Hodges denied, to remove the
confidentiality designation from certain documents.

Hodges did not assert that any of those orders or that motion
concerned closure of a hearing from the public, the report noted.
July 26 was the first time during the trial that the courtroom had
been closed, the report said.  After denying the motion, Hodges
went on to close a portion of the trial again later in the day.

The judge's ruling denying Legal Newsline's motion stressed that
the trial, which will determine the estimated liability of Garlock
for current and future asbestos claims, was not a dispositive
proceeding and was merely a preliminary step in the formulation of
a plan of reorganization.

According to Hodges' order, some of the subjects of testimony from
which the news media and the public will be required to leave the
courtroom include:

     * The different sources of asbestos to which particular
plaintiffs were exposed. That testimony would apparently address
the extent to which plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos from
Garlock products and other sources.

     * How law firms identified and analyzed products to which
their clients were exposed.  That testimony would apparently bear
on the basis for law firms to assert claims against Garlock and/or
other manufacturers of products containing asbestos.

     * The process by which law firms were retained by clients.
That might show, for example, if clients were enlisted through
television or internet advertising.

     * The sources of cases referred to law firms that brought
claims against Garlock.

     * The extent of the law firms' pre-filing investigations and
how they responded to discovery.  That would apparently include
testimony bearing on Garlock's allegation that some law firms
concealed information about their clients' exposure to asbestos
from non-Garlock sources.

     * The questions the law firms asked their clients in
responding to discovery.

     * How law firms approached settlement negotiations.

Hodges had excluded members of the media and public from a portion
of the 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 settlements.

Brickman had been testifying during the open portion of his
testimony about certain confidentiality provisions pertaining to
trusts established to pay claimants who came into contact with
asbestos. The provisions caused significant transparency issues
preventing Garlock from cost-effectively ferreting out bogus
claims.  Brickman authored a report on fraudulent asbestos claims
and has testified before Congress on the issue.

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 and ordered the news media and public to
leave the courtroom for the rest of Brickman's testimony, which
continued for another three hours.

The bankruptcy trial at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina is expected to last three weeks.

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: Pueblo Neighborhood Bids Fibro-Laden Home Goodbye
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Rzemek, writing for KOAA.com, reported that a small Pueblo
neighborhood has said good-bye to an unsightly and unhealthy
property that once stood on West 13th Street. A News Five
Investigation into a asbestos laden home has seen results. The
home burned down a year ago, leaving behind dangerous debris
containing asbestos, and no one was making an effort to clean it
up.

"It's a biohazard affecting other people. It's not just an eyesore
it's affecting people and their health, people and people's
children, and it's not safe," says Jennifer Murray, who moved into
the neighborhood with her family last November, the report
related. "I'm not understanding why they collapsed it if there's
asbestos . . . putting it more into the air and the community."

The news agency related that it asked why no one's bothered to
clean up the place. That question moved the Colorado State Health
Department to action. A permit was issued and a company removed
the asbestos and the property no longer poses a health threat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caravan Warns Renovators About Dangers of Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Parks, writing for The Coffs Coast Advocate, reported that a
caravan by the name of Betty rolled into Lismore to warn home
renovators about the dangers of asbestos.

According to the report, most homes built or renovated before 1980
contain asbestos, with at least one in three having the deadly
dust somewhere.

Betty has been designed to show typical examples of a shed, lounge
room, bathroom and kitchen and curators Geoff and Karen Wicks show
people the most common places where asbestos is found, the report
said.

The caravan is travelling 1800km and stopping at 18 locations
around NSW in just over two weeks. It is an initiative of the
Asbestos Diseases Research Institute and the Asbestos Education
Committee, the report added.

Organisers of the campaign say home renovators will be the third
wave of people affected by mesothelioma or other asbestos-related
diseases; following on from those involved in mining it and those
involved in installing it.

There are regulations in NSW that if you want to remove more than
10sq m of asbestos you must use a licensed tradesperson, but for
smaller amounts the home handy can remove it, as long as they have
the proper protective clothing and masks, and that they dispose of
it properly.

Karen said people have brought in broken pieces to be identified
but once the material has been broken or cracked it becomes
"friable" and that makes it dangerous.

Play it safe

Geoff and Karen Wicks urge homeowners and DIYers to play it safe
and not play renovation roulette.

If asbestos is in your home, don't cut it, don't drill it, don't
drop it, don't sand it, don't saw it, don't scrape it, don't scrub
it, don't dismantle it, don't tip it, don't water blast it, don't
demolish it, don't dump it," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed at Auto Plaza Ford
-------------------------------------------------
Doug Miner, writing for Maplewood-Brentwood Patch, reported that
there is progress to transform the former Auto Plaza Ford
dealership at Manchester Road and Big Bend Boulevard into a
QuikTrip.

Asbestos abatement is taking place, according to property owner
Daniel Lesseg, the report related.  He said the demolition could
begin after the abatement, but is not scheduled yet.

Previously, QuikTrip hoped to have the demolition completed before
school starts, the report said.  That date is August 13.

In the April election, Maplewood voters passed Proposition Q,
which approved the QuikTrip move from its current location on S.
Big Bend to the intersection.

The more than 16,000 square-foot building was built in 1940,
according to St. Louis County real estate records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Dumps Records in Baw Baw Shire Not Kept
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Kulich, writing for The Warragul Citizen, reported that
records of the locations of illegal roadside asbestos dumps in the
Baw Baw Shire were not kept until a new waste contract came into
place late last year.

According to the report, a Baw Baw Shire spokesperson told The
Warragul Citizen the council began keeping records in October last
year when it entered a new waste contract.

Baw Baw CEO Helen Anstis confirmed the unavailability of records
has made it difficult to measure the impact of the closure of the
asbestos-accepting Trafalgar Landfill on the rate of illegal
dumping, the report said.

"Unlike past years all illegal dumping, including asbestos, is
administered exclusively by the Waste Management team in the
Community Assets Directorate," Ms Anstis said.

"The scale of illegal dumping of asbestos, since the Trafalgar
Landfill was closed in November 2011, is not clearly evident from
the limited data currently available.

CEO of asbestos advocacy group Asbestoswise Josh Fergus told The
Warragul Citizen not keeping records on where the potentially
deadly material was dumped was "really short sighted."

"To not be taking records at all really leaves situations wide
open for not being able to assist people with their health
concerns into the future," Mr Fergus said.

But Municipal Association of Victoria President Bill McArthur said
councils should not be expected to manage more than a minimum of
the asbestos disposal process.

"The State Government has primary responsibility for asbestos
management in Victoria. . . they push enough stuff onto us without
pushing this onto us."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waikato Hospital Fibro Scare Seals Transfer Area
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elton Smallman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that a patient
transfer corridor was cordoned off and four people put through
decontamination after an asbestos scare at Waikato Hospital.

According to the report, emergency services were called and
Hamilton senior station officer Dave Gunn said two trucks --
including the hazardous materials unit -- arrived to an area of
the hospital where contractors had been working.

"A whole lot fell" after an electrician had pulled down a light
fitting, Mr Gunn said, the report related.

Three contractors and a hospital staff member were put through the
hospital's decontamination unit before the fire service handed the
site back to hospital management, the report said.

Waikato District Health Board communications director Mary Anne
Gill said contractors had been working in the stairwell that led
to the cafeteria in the Waiora Waikato Centre, the report further
related.

"We believe the risk is extremely low and we are taking maximum
precautions," she said.

Tests would be carried out overnight to check for particles in the
air and the cordon would remain in place until the area was
confirmed safe.

She said the cafeteria would be unaffected and visitors to the
hospital could access it through a second entrance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis School Staff & Children Exposed to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Rochelle Talk reported that the New York State Department of
Labor Asbestos Control Bureau is investigating an asbestos
exposure incident at the George M. Davis Elementary School which
occurred late July.  The New York State Education Department has
confirmed they are aware of the incident and investigating as
well.

According to the report, the twin investigations were initiated
based on reporting by Talk of the Sound which received information
from several sources that asbestos tiles and material may have
been improperly handled and disposed of illegally.

Asbestos exposure can be fatal, causing serious lung damage, the
report said.

According to Asbestos.com, schools have been a special focus of
asbestos regulation.

   Approximately half of all schools in the United States were
   built between 1950 and 1969 -- peak years for asbestos use in
   construction. Exposure to airborne asbestos dust can lead to
   fatal illnesses, including mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung
   cancer.

   There are a growing number of cases of teachers and adult
   school workers who have asbestos-related diseases because of
   exposure in their schools. One study from the National Center
   for Health Statistics listed elementary school teachers as a
   high risk occupation for developing mesothelioma, attributing
   2.1 percent of all elementary school teacher deaths to the
   cancer.

For that reason, asbestos is heavily-regulated:

   In 1982, a mandatory program was instituted by the EPA,
   requiring educational agencies to:

      * inspect schools for all friable materials which might
        contain asbestos

      * identify found samples using the technology of polarized
        light microscopy (PLM)

      * notify teachers, parents and other locally affected groups
        of potential exposure

   In 1984, Congress passed the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement
   Act, which created a program to provide schools with the
   necessary expertise, technical assistance and financial
   resources to "ascertain the extent of danger to the health of
   students and staff from asbestos materials in schools."

   In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
   Act (AHERA) as part of the Toxic Substances Control Act, to
   protect school children and school employees from exposure to
   asbestos in school buildings.

Administration officials, speaking on background, have confirmed
that teachers, parents and visitors were not notified of potential
exposure.

Erik Lutzer of the New York State Department of Labor Asbestos
Control Bureau, the state official responsible for asbestos issues
in Westchester and New York City explained what was supposed to
happen when a school is dealing with a possible asbestos issue.

"Many schools have a licensed asbestos consultant available," said
Lutzer. "They are called in to conduct testing."

Lutzer explained then if asbestos is found, the first step is to
close off the area and bring in a licensed asbestos contractor to
seal off or "tent" the area. Air samples are taken. The area is
decontaminated and abated by licensed asbestos contractors wearing
hazardous material suits operating with exhaust hoses. Air
monitoring is done during and after work is completed.

According to sources familiar with the incident at Davis School,
this did not happen.

Employees of George Wood Plumbing, a school district contractor
well-known to Talk of the Sound readers, were hired to replace
flooring in two school offices starting with the office of
incoming Principal Michael Galland.

The plan was to remove the carpeting, clean the floor and prepare
the floor to lay tiles in Galland's office on Tuesday July 16th.
The tiles were to be laid on Wednesday July 17th and the carpeting
removed in a nearby office and that office prepped to lay tiles.
Galland was to be moved back into his office and the tile work
completed in the other office.

After some unrelated delays, the workers from George Wood Plumbing
pulled back the carpeting in Galland's office and discovered what
they believed to be asbestos tiles stuck to the carpeting and on
the floor. The work stopped and George Wood Plumbing called John
Gallagher Director of Buildings & Grounds for the City School
District of New Rochelle.

Despite the title, Gallagher is not a school district employee but
rather a consultant who works for Aramark a multi-billion dollar
services company based in Philadelphia with revenues of over $13
billion.

Gallagher instructed George Wood Plumbing to proceed with the work
despite the possible presence of asbestos, sources say.

Once removed, the carpeting, tiles and debris was rolled up,
placed in heavy plastic bags, removed from the office. Some
material was loaded onto a district garbage truck and illegally
dumped. The rest was hidden in a closet.

The building was not evacuated while the work was done, the
effected area was not not properly sealed before work began and
air monitoring was not done while the work was in progress.

Sources differ on the exact day but in the days after the work was
done on Galland's office, an asbestos abatement company was
contacted to properly abate the second office after a school
district employee complained. The second office was sealed off and
the asbestos removal done in accordance with state and federal
law.

This is where things get a bit tricky.

According to the New York State Department of Education, New
Rochelle school officials have since claimed to have done all of
the work by the book from the beginning.

"School officials have informed us that they had proper manifests
on the removal and appropriate air monitoring was performed by an
independent third party," said Antonia Valentine, a spokesperson
for the New York State Department of Education.

This appears not to be the case.

Sources tell Talk of the Sound that in order to mask the disposal
of the asbestos material from the first office that had been
stored in a closet the material was co-mingled with the asbestos
material from the second office.

All sources agree that three air monitoring units were installed
on Saturday July 20th, four days after the asbestos was removed
from the first office.

One school official, speaking on background, told Talk of the
Sound the air monitoring tests came back "clean".

The tiles were sent out to be tested to confirm they are made from
asbestos.

State Education officials plan to review paperwork provided by the
district.

"SED has been in contact with the school and we have requested
documentation," said Valentine. "We are currently working with the
school and the NYS Department of Labor which oversees asbestos
projects to determine that the asbestos removal was done
properly."

Contacted later that day, the head of the New York City Region
Asbestos Control Bureau, Mr. Lutzer disputed the SED's account.

"I don't know who they (SED) are dealing with but we have no
record of this," said Lutzer. Based on our call to Lutzer, the
Asbestos Control Bureau opened an investigation on July 31st.
Lutzer was at Davis, according to one knowledgeable source.

One school district employee, concerned that he was exposed to
asbestos, reportedly took photographs documenting the improper
removal and disposal of the asbestos and carpeting with asbestos
tiles stuck to the carpet.

Gallagher and Wood are both said to be aware that photographs
exist and are deeply concerned about the implications for them if
they are determined by New York State officials to have violated
state and federal law and recklessly exposed students, staff and
visitors at a public school to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Painter Dies of Fibro-related Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reported that a retired painter
and decorator died of an asbestos-related industrial disease, an
inquest heard.

According to the report, while Brian Eastwood, 79, didn't handle
asbestos it was around where he worked, the Huddersfield hearing
was told.  Mr Eastwood worked for several companies which were not
named in court, the report said.

The inquest was told Mr Eastwood, of Leeds Road, Huddersfield, was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma last September, the report
related.  He died at the Kirkwood Hospice ward at Huddersfield
Royal Infirmary on November 24 last year after contracting
pneumonia.

Assistant deputy coroner Mr Neil Cameron recorded a natural causes
verdict.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Art Showing Rochdale's Fibro Legacy Unveiled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online reported that Rochdale's MP, Simon Danczuk, has
welcomed a major new piece of art recently unveiled in Westminster
that addresses the town's painful asbestos legacy.

According to the report, the digital artwork by Colombian artist
Guillermo Villamizar is called 'the female face of Britain's
asbestos catastrophe' and features two women who were Rochdale
Turner Brothers Asbestos (TBA) workers.

They are Nellie Kershaw, the world's first recognised asbestosis
victim who died in 1924, and Nora Dockerty, Britain's first
asbestos disease victim to successfully sue an asbestos company
for causing asbestos disease, the report said.

Mr Danczuk said he would be writing to the artist to congratulate
him for his powerful tribute to local people who were killed by
asbestos.

"Local women like Nellie and Nora should never be forgotten," he
said.

"Our town has paid a heavy price for asbestos related disease and
it is right that a human face is put to this tragedy.

"Nellie was a factory worker in Rochdale who died in poverty from
asbestos poisoning. Her employers TBA repeatedly refused to help
her and she left behind a grieving widower and young son.

"Local women paid with their lives for TBA profits and we should
never forget that."

Local asbestos campaigner Jason Addy from Save Spodden Valley also
welcomed the work.

"The faces of those brave women connected with Rochdale in
Guillermo Villamizar's artwork are testament to past injustices
that must be recognised and remedied," he said.

"We have a chance to create a final masterpiece in the Spodden
Valley -- a safe and permanent solution to the legacy of disease,
death and pollution caused by asbestos and profiteers. A 'Green-
lung' as a peoples' park would be a living memorial to the misery
and damage that is still being caused by this killer dust. 150
years of wrong may not be righted but it does give Rochdale the
opportunity to be put on the map for positive reasons- an exemplar
for community focused de-contamination."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Closed Testimony Continues at Garlock Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the closed
testimony of a former Garlock Sealing Technologies attorney
resumed with the judge excluding members of the public and media
who did not sign confidentiality agreements for all but 20 minutes
of his nearly five hours on the stand in the company's ongoing
bankruptcy trial.

According to the report, Judge George Hodges first publicly closed
the testimony of John Turlik, a partner in the firm Segal,
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney as he spoke under oath about legal
strategies and his experience dealing with plaintiffs and their
attorneys in asbestos-related tort suits that led to the gasket-
manufacturer filing for bankruptcy protection.

The bankruptcy trial will determine the estimated liability of the
company for current and future asbestos claims. 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.

To try and limit the company's liability, its attorneys are
asserting that some plaintiffs, taking advantage of
confidentiality provisions enacted for special trusts established
to pay claimants who came into contact with asbestos, are using
the provisions to allow them to sue multiple defendants while
using the same argument that each respectively was the cause of
their illness. Turlik was expected to testify about the issue. In
the brief portions of his testimony open to the public, attorneys
representing the claimants questioned him about his knowledge of
asbestos cases.

Hodges denied a Legal Newsline motion to keep the entire trial
open to the public and to unseal closed portions of testimony by a
law professor.  In a written order explaining his decision, Hodges
stated several factors including the circumstances of certain
asbestos plaintiffs' cases, plaintiffs' particular exposures, "how
the law firms responded to discovery, the questions they asked
their clients in so responding, and how the law firms approached
settlement negotiations," amounted to "trade secrets, confidential
business information, and attorney-client privileged information
about which the parties involved have significant privacy rights.
The court has concluded that those rights outweigh the public's
interest in those matters."

In the decision, the judge stated that the fact that the hearing
"is not a dispositive proceeding," was a consideration.

"The closing of the proceedings has been narrowly drawn and has
resulted in the 'public' being excluded only for a very small
portion of the proceedings. The proceedings have otherwise been
open to the public."

Legal Newsline's attorneys challenged Hodges' decision to close
his courtroom under a First Amendment claim. In its motion,
attorneys requested that the rest of the remaining trial stay open
to the public and that transcripts of the entire closed portion be
made publicly available.

Legal Newsline filed its motion following the judge's decision to
close off portions of a law professor's testimony.  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.

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 approximately three
more hours. Following Brickman's testimony, the judge reopened the
courtroom to the public and media.

Following Turlik's testimony, Garlock attorneys called Richard
Magee, another lawyer who represented Garlock, to the witness
stand. Magee, the senior vice president for EnPro, Garlock's
parent company was the former general counsel for EnPro and
oversaw much of the Garlock asbestos tort litigation. Magee spoke
about how Garlock had been mostly successful in asbestos suits
that went to trial in the 1990s because they were often being sued
along with asbestos insulation manufacturers. As the plaintiffs
presented evidence at trial about their exposure to asbestos
products from either Garlock or the asbestos insulation
manufacturers, juries would return a verdict in favor of Garlock
92 percent of the time.

Magee said when juries compared the different likely exposures of
the claimants to each of the defendants' respective products; they
almost always attributed the cause of mesothelioma to the
insulation exposure by virtue of it being more prevalent. The only
reason why they settled cases instead of taking them all to trial
was because of cost considerations, he said. Settling was just
cheaper.

But in the early 2000s, many of the insulation manufacturers that
were being sued along with Garlock began filing for bankruptcy.
Garlock's success rate at trial began decreasing to 64 percent.
The cause of the dip was mostly because plaintiffs were now just
suing Garlock and were no longer presenting evidence of exposure
to the insulation manufacturers' asbestos products.

The evidence Garlock relied on of other sources of asbestos
exposure in the 1990s began disappearing with the shrinking pool
of defendants, he said. The "ocean shrunk," he said.  "Jurors
needed to know what products caused the disease," he said.

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: Cleaver-Brooks to Appeal Judgment in PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., on Aug. 2 issued the following statement
regarding asbestos-related litigation to which it is a party.

"Since the mid-1980's, Cleaver-Brooks and hundreds of other
companies have, from time to time, been named as defendants in
lawsuits involving claims alleging asbestos-related injuries from
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured many years
ago. In a recent multi-plaintiff, multi-defendant asbestos-related
trial in New York City, Cleaver-Brooks was one of the defendants
against which a substantial verdict was rendered. Although
Cleaver-Brooks is disappointed with this initial result, this
verdict is not the final resolution of the matter. The Company
intends to pursue all available relief through the appeals process
and other sources. Cleaver-Brooks continues to operate its
business in the usual manner. The Company will continue to take
seriously health and safety issues and remains committed to the
highest levels of product innovation and customer service for
which Cleaver-Brooks has become known."

Cleaver-Brooks, a world-renowned provider of boiler room products
and systems, is committed to providing efficient solutions that
help its customers and the industry reduce energy usage, cost and
environmental impact. As the pioneer of packaged firetube and
watertube boilers, Cleaver-Brooks is the only manufacturer in the
world to offer an entirely integrated boiler room solution for any
size application. Its products are backed by a world-class
representative network offering superior aftermarket service and
solutions. Visit cleaverbrooks.com for more information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Fine for Violations in Worcester
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Silverberg, writing for JamaicaPlain Patch, reported that
during a state inspection in 2012, employees of a Jamaica Plain
contractor were observed mishandling the removal of asbestos-
containing shingles from a residence in Worcester. The contractor
now faces a financial penalty.

EnviroGreen, LLC, located at 81 Chestnut Ave., faces a penalty of
$18,312 for failing to follow Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection asbestos removal procedures, the report
said, citing a department press statement. Due to a settlement,
EnviroGreen must pay $10,000 of the penalty; the rest has been
suspended pending no new violations in a one-year period.

During an inspection in September 2012, officials observed
EnviroGreen personnel removing shingles from a home on Reeves
Street in Worcester "without any attempt to minimize breakage or
to carefully lower them to the ground," according to the
statement, the report further related.

Department officials also observed numerous dry, shattered
asbestos-containing shingles un-contained on the ground, the
statement says.

"MassDEP regulations require that contractors remove asbestos-
containing siding shingles wet, take adequate precautions to
minimize breakage, carefully lower them to the ground and seal the
asbestos waste while wet into leak-tight containers that have
appropriate asbestos warning labels affixed to them," the
statement says.

EnviroGreen has been a Better Business Bureau accredited business
since May 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Contractor Fined for Handling Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that though
strict guidelines for asbestos use in the U.S. have been in place
since the late 1970s, millions of structures in the country still
contain building products that were manufactured using asbestos.
America's power plants, where machinery and other equipment
operate at high temperatures, are among the jobsites where
asbestos is still most often found. So when a Haverhill, Mass.-
based contractor was hired to perform work at a power plant in
Fitchburg, they should have been ready to face the inevitable.

However, according to an article in the Sentinel and Enterprise,
Absolute Environmental Contractors, licensed by the state
Department of Labor Standards to be an asbestos contractor, didn't
follow proper procedures while working at Fitchburg Gas and
Electric and the company is now being fined for asbestos
violations.

The report said at the Fitchburg site last summer, inspectors from
the state Department of Environmental Protection observed workers
from Absolute Environmental Contractors failing to engage in
proper removal and handling of asbestos at the power plant. In
particular, investigators reported that employees of the company
had removed asbestos-insulated pipes without first wetting them
and then placed them in an open-top roll-off container. According
to law, they should have been disposed of in a sealed, leak proof
container, which should have then been labeled as hazardous.

Due to shoddy workmanship, anyone working in the area where pipes
were being removed could have inhaled airborne asbestos fibers
released during the operations. Asbestos inhalation can result in
a host of lung-related diseases, including aggressive mesothelioma
cancer, which is difficult to diagnose and carries a grim
prognosis.

"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: Three Loads of Fibro Dumped in Hereford County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Johnson, writing for Hereford Times, reported that three
loads of asbestos has been dumped in rural areas of the county
over the past six weeks.

According to the report, Herefordshire Council's community
protection team is asking for information from members of the
public about those responsible for dumping the hazardous material,
which, when its fibres are inhaled, can cause fatal diseases.

The first fly tipping incident -- dumping waste illegally -- took
place on July 8 at the electrical substation between Whitchurch
and Llangrove Village.

The second happened on July 29 at Durlow Common, Tarrington,
between Hereford and Ledbury, with the third also happening near
Hereford.

More than 100 tyres were also dumped at Dinedor Camp on July 30.

Keith Eyles, community protection team enforcement officer, called
this a 'serious fly tipping situation'.

"These are not isolated incidents as there have also been reported
cases in neighbouring Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean. It
is important to identify those responsible before we have any more
incidents," he said.

"There are correct and legal ways to dispose of asbestos and we
need to ensure that people adhere to these for their own safety
and the safety of others."

Contact 01432 261982 or info@herefordshire.gov.uk with any
information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thurrock Pair to Pay GBP13,000 for Fibro Dumping
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thurrock Gazette reported that two men have been ordered to pay
thousands of pounds for dumping asbestos in part of Thurrock.

According to the report, David Tuffen and Nigel Hickman were part
of an illegal asbestos dumping scam, leaving the deadly material
in car parks.

Waste was dumped at a car park at the Glade Business Centre, in
Eastern Avenue, Grays, Clipper Park, Tilbury, Jodrell Way, Dolphin
Quarry, London Road, and near the Argos store at Lakeside, the
report said.

Asbestos was also left at the highways depot off the A13 at
Stanford-le-Hope and in Swanscombe, Kent, the report added.

An Environment Agency investigation traced the asbestos back to a
firm run by Hickman and Tuffen in Benfleet. The firm did not have
a permit for asbestos.

At a court hearing in February, Tuffen was jailed for two years,
suspended for two years, while Hickman was jailed for 18 months,
suspended for two years.

Ruffen and Hickman were back at Chelmsford Crown Court for a
confiscation hearing.

Tuffen was said to have earned GBP669,050 from the enterprise and
Hickman GBP115,232, the court heard. Both men also agreed to pay
GBP13,841 compensation to pay for cleaning up the mess.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Plaintiff Seeks $1.75MM in Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reported that
not that anyone is keeping score, but sometimes with an asbestos
lawsuit, the more, the merrier. In this case, no fewer than 23
potential defendants in a lawsuit that seeks $1.75 million in
damages. That's the degree of injustice a plaintiff who claims he
was exposed to asbestos over a 32-year period feels is involved in
the case.

According to the report, Rex Hill was recently diagnosed with
asbestosis. The problem remains, then, at which point of exposure
sounded the death knell for the plaintiff? For asbestosis or
asbestos mesothelioma can lay dormant in the body for 30 years or
more before rearing its head. By then, many plaintiffs may have
lost track of work performed within close proximity to asbestos.

For virtually every plaintiff stricken with asbestos cancer, the
prognosis is dire. There is no cure. The clock cannot be turned
back. It's only a matter of time.

Hill worked as an insulator for a variety of employers over a 32-
year career. Until recently, asbestos was used as insulation, in
construction as well as the ship-building industry, as a wrapping
around pipes. According to the Jacksonville Journal-Courier
(7/28/13), the multi-count lawsuit was filed last month in Morgan
County Circuit Court and names various defendants either in the
business of manufacturing or selling products containing asbestos
fibers, or having owned holdings in that sector.

According to the report, two of the five counts in the civil
action Hill is bringing name Sprinkmann Sons, Union Carbide,
Georgia-Pacific, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Brand
Insulations, Mechanical Insulation Co., Trane US, Weil McLain,
General Electric and CBS Corp. Also named are Ameren Illinois,
Archer-Daniels-Midland, Bridgestone Americas, Caterpillar,
Commonwealth Edison, Dynegy Power, Exelon, NiSource and Tate &
Lyle Ingredients.

In his asbestos lawsuit, Hill contends that he was made to work in
and around job sites owned or controlled by the defendants, and
compelled to work with materials containing asbestos without the
prerequisite safety equipment, or even the knowledge that asbestos
was harmful.

To that end, in Hill's asbestos claims, defendants Pneumo Abex,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Owens-Illinois and Honeywell
International are alleged to have conspired to keep their
employees in the dark with regard to the dangers of working with
asbestos. Further, the asbestos lawsuit contends that educational
pamphlets outlining so-called safe practices of handling asbestos
omitted details as to the potential for serious asbestos disease.
The lawsuit further contends that the various products produced
and purchased with the named defendants omitted warnings in kind.

The Jacksonville, Illinois plaintiff has his diagnosis of
asbestosis. Now comes the waiting game for his lawsuit to
percolate through the courts. It is naturally hoped that his
lawsuit would conclude with relative quickness, given the
plaintiff's diagnosis and prognosis. Some plaintiffs do not live
to see their day in court, all thanks to asbestos and the asbestos
cancer that shows up to sound the death knell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still not Removed from Gary Sheraton Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Dolan, writing for NWI Times, reported that once an emblem of
Gary's economic prowess, the 14-story tower at Fifth Avenue and
Broadway now symbolizes a past city leaders would just as soon
forget.

According to the report, Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson announced last
spring she aimed to demolish the old Sheraton Hotel to prompt a
rebirth of Gary's once-thriving downtown.  But the project faces a
major roadblock.

"They can't do that because of all this asbestos. They need to fix
this first," said Dan Goldblatt, a spokesman for the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management.

The situation raises questions about the hundreds of thousands in
federal grant money the city spent five years ago to remove the
crumbling, carcinogenic insulation.

At the time, IDEM inspected the work and declared that 98 percent
of the asbestos had been removed.

But that figure is now at variance with a recent inspection by
James Harless, a vice president and principal of the Soil and
Material Engineers Inc. office in Plymouth, Mich., which the city
hired provide a new perspective on the derelict structure.

Harless said more than 60,000 square feet of asbestos remains
embedded in concrete ceiling seams, textured paint on exterior
walls, floor tiles, electric fixtures, window frames and the
boiler fireproofing.

It could cost as much as $1.3 million to remove or sheathe the
crumbling material, preventing it from becoming airborne and
inhaled, Harless said. Creative techniques could reduce that cost.

Opened 45 years ago as a Holiday Inn, the building was
rechristened several years later as the Sheraton. As Gary's
population and business capital moved out of the city, the hotel
failed. Its last guest departed in 1985.

Former Mayor Rudy Clay proposed converting it into senior housing.
His administration negotiated with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to provide about $750,000 in grants to strip out
the asbestos in 2008 before any work could be done. J & K
Environmental, of East Chicago, got the contract.

"They started from the top down," IDEM's Goldblatt said. "They
cleared out all the top floors where people used to stay. They
took out the asbestos, the walls and the bathrooms down to the
structural supports at least to the second floor, when they ran
out of money."

He said IDEM inspected the work to ensure it was done according to
plan.

"Our guy was there several times and checked it out," Goldblatt
said. "When IDEM signed off on its inspection, the building and
contractor were in compliance.

"I know that 98 percent was quoted around. That may have been the
case for the top floors, but likely not the amount cleared from
the whole building. Whether they knew at the time there was more
asbestos than money to remove it, I don't know. IDEM was just
there to make sure it was done properly," Goldblatt said.

Harless said the contractor and IDEM assumed the asbestos problem
was primarily confined to the building's interior.

"They did take out as much asbestos as they could for that amount
of money," Harless said.

He said the contractor purposely left an asbestos coating on the
hotel's exterior and the five-level parking garage, because it was
deemed to be stable at the time. But that isn't the case anymore
on the building's exterior, he said.

"We found it's too friable to leave on," Harless said. "That's got
to come off."

Harless said the contractor properly removed the asbestos coating
on the surface of the precast concrete floors but uncovered a
previously unsuspected filler material -- laced with asbestos --
inside the seams of the concrete floor sections.

"That they never tested, because they didn't know it was there,"
he said.

Meanwhile, the city has asked federal officials for help, city
spokeswoman Chelsea Whittington said.

"The (Environmental Protection Agency) emergency response team is
reviewing a proposal to assist with the (asbestos) abatement," she
said. "The city is awaiting their response."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Shocks Bay of Plenty Engineers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Snow, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that a
work site has been shut down after a shock discovery of asbestos,
and workers have been sent for medical tests.

According to the report, a group of engineers in the Bay of Plenty
were ordered off the job after a "dust-filled" site tested
positive for the hazardous substance.

Page Macrae Engineering workers were replacing a boiler at Dominon
Salt at Mt Maunganui last month when the job was suddenly shut
down on the sixth day. A specialist contractor was brought in to
clean the site and nearby vehicles. The men's overalls and
clothing were destroyed.

Dominion Salt chief executive Shane Dufaur insisted it was safety
conscious. "There's no major incident here," he said. "We've done
everything we can for a potential incident that's gone no
further."

But the concerned father of one worker fears the matter is being
played down. He said his son and others worked 10-hour days in the
boiler room and were worried about thick dust levels - but they
were assured there was no asbestos. "The job started on the
Thursday. It was said there was no asbestos on the job. The
question was asked and the response was that there wasn't any."

The boiler was shut down and the engineers worked through the
weekend to remove it.

"There was so much dust around. It was questioned again on Sunday
and it was shrugged off, so one of the engineers asked a mate who
said asbestos was commonly used in older fire-retardant paper," he
said.

"By Tuesday morning, Page Macrae staff were concerned again and
demanded a test. Dominion Salt apparently sent the sample away to
a lab in Auckland and the test came back that afternoon confirming
brown asbestos."

He said the men had chest X-rays and a baseline lung-capacity test
-- and will now have annual X-rays to watch for any decline in
their health.

The father, who does not wish to be identified, is concerned for
his son's future: Asbestos exposure can lead to breathing
difficulties or cancer but symptoms may not become apparent for
decades.

"How is this going to change how my son spends the rest of his
life, always having to wait and see? I'm pretty pissed off, to be
honest."

Page Macrae general manager Mike Lehan did not want to discuss the
situation. "We are dealing with it internally and as far as I'm
concerned, that's as far as it needs to go -- so I've got no
concerns."

Rob Campbell, of Letts Buildings, had two builders working on the
job for a day and was impressed with Dominion Salt's response.

"We just had to pull an end off the building so asbestos wasn't a
major problem - but apparently inside, the paper under the
existing ceiling contained asbestos," he said.

"It wasn't on any plans and nobody knew anything about it."

He said he was aware there was asbestos in the roof but had never
heard of it being in paper.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment said the department was making preliminary inquiries.

Retired builder John Beamish, 72, suffered asbestos-related
illness and said he found it incredible that any work site these
days might expose workers to contamination.

In another incident, four people were put through decontamination
after an asbestos scare at Waikato Hospital.

It's believed asbestos lining was dislodged after an electrician
had pulled down a light fitting.

Three contractors and a hospital staff member were put through the
hospital decontamination unit before the fire service handed the
site back to hospital management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO President to Testify Before Senate
--------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that Linda
Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (ADAO), will testify in Washington, D.C., hoping to
help convince members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works that the proposed Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) is flawed.

According to a press release from ADAO, Reinstein will join a
panel of other toxic substance experts at a full committee hearing
entitled "Strengthening Public Health Protections by Addressing
Toxic Chemical Threats." She plans to discuss how the proposed
reform that's currently under consideration for the TSCA is flawed
and how it puts both public health and the environment at risk.

"Her testimony will examine the need to expedite action to
prohibit imports, and ban the manufacture, sale and export of
asbestos-containing products, while protecting each state's
ability to maintain or pass stronger laws to regulate chemicals,"
notes the press release, stressing that Reinstein will discuss
specific facts about the continued use of asbestos in the U.S.,
one of the few world powers where the toxic mineral is not banned.

Reinstein says she'll also point out the fact that ports in
Louisiana, Texas, California and New Jersey are still actively
receiving and unloading asbestos shipments on a regular basis and
that asbestos consumption has actually increased in the U.S. even
though safer and affordable substitutes exist.

"Most Americans trust that their air, soil and water are safe from
toxic contaminants; however, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) has failed to protect public health and our environment,"
Reinstein will tell the Senate committee. "Asbestos fibers are
odorless, tasteless, indestructible, and can be nearly 700 times
smaller than a human hair. All forms of asbestos can cause cancer
and respiratory diseases. Americans have lost confidence in the
chemical industries' ability to protect us from toxins. Congress
should draft and pass meaningful TSCA reform legislation that
truly strengthens protections for our families and environment by
preventing the further use of asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found Inside Luzerne County Apartment
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wadell, writing for WNEP.com, reported that officials at an
apartment high-rise in Luzerne County said elderly and disabled
residents were forced to stay in motel rooms or other apartments
in the building, as crews worked to remove asbestos.

According to the report, Joe Grady told Newswatch 16 that six
residents on the sixth floor of Lee Park Towers near Wilkes-Barre
have been relocated, and that six more tenants must move.

According to Grady, vibrations from contractors working outside on
the roof, caused dust particles in the ceiling of sixth floor
apartments to fall.

"The air samples came back good, and then the actual samples that
we took out of the material came back with a low level of asbestos
in the material," said Grady. "They're in there cleaning up all
the tenants' belongings and moving it into the lower floor."
Catherine Weidow said she was quickly escorted out of her
apartment when the test results returned.

"Oh it's full of dust," said Weidow. "I'm having a rough time. I
got a headache from all the pounding."

The Luzerne County Housing Authority said that tenants will be
temporarily moved out of their apartments, before work on the roof
expands to the other two wings of the building.

Officials said that they are following all safety precautions, and
that the health of tenants and employees at Lee Park Towers is not
at risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Testimony Switches to Financial Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that attorneys
transitioned from days of expert testimony on the carcinogenic
effects of asbestos and the work practices of attorneys
representing asbestos plaintiffs to arguments about how much
financial liability Garlock Sealing Technologies should face in
the company's ongoing bankruptcy trial.

According to the report, Garlock attorneys called on economists to
give the court estimates for how much money the company should
place in a trust for future mesothelioma victims who might sue the
company over exposure to asbestos from their products. Doing so
will allow the company to escape bankruptcy.

Charles Bates, chairman of the economic consulting firm Bates
White LLC and former assistant professor in the economics
department at Johns Hopkins University testified about an
estimation report his firm created to assess how much Garlock
should put in the trust to compensate valid claimants, the report
said.

Bates estimated $25 million was the net present value enough to
sufficiently cover payouts for pending asbestos claims with $100
million being the net present value to cover claims by future
mesothelioma victims, the report related.  He said he arrived at
that figure by taking into account factors such as the estimated
number of future claimants. He said he used an epidemiological
model to estimate how many more mesothelioma claims are likely to
arise. Bates said Garlock's proposal to fund the trust with $270
million would be sufficient to satisfy all of the future and
pending claims.

Bates' testimony followed two days of mostly closed testimony by
former Garlock attorney John Turlik, currently a partner in the
firm Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney. Turlik spoke about legal
strategies and the practices of some plaintiffs' lawyers.

Judge George Hodges denied a Legal Newsline motion to keep
Turlik's testimony open and to unseal closed portions of testimony
given by a law professor.  In a written order explaining his
decision, Hodges stated several factors including the
circumstances of certain asbestos plaintiffs' cases, plaintiffs'
particular exposures, "how the law firms responded to discovery,
the questions they asked their clients in so responding, and how
the law firms approached settlement negotiations," amounted to
"trade secrets, confidential business information, and attorney-
client privileged information about which the parties involved
have significant privacy rights. The court has concluded that
those rights outweigh the public's interest in those matters."

Attorneys for Legal Newsline are preparing to seek review of the
judge's decision.

The bankruptcy trial will determine the estimated liability of the
company for current and future asbestos claims. 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.

To try and limit the company's liability, its attorneys are
asserting that some plaintiffs, taking advantage of
confidentiality provisions enacted for special trusts established
to pay claimants who came into contact with asbestos, are using
the provisions to allow them to sue multiple defendants while
using the same argument that each respectively was the cause of
their illness.

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: Wollongong Council Dismisses Safety Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Spillet, writing for Illawarra Mercury, reported that
Wollongong City Council has dismissed suggestion that asbestos
clearing work on the former Quattro site could pose a risk to the
public, given the block's proximity to pedestrians.

According to the report, contractors engaged by the council, which
purchased the Flinders Street site in 2011, were spotted in
protective overalls and face masks, raising questions about the
presence of asbestos.

The council's project delivery manager, Glenn Whittaker, confirmed
asbestos had been located in concrete slabs during demolition work
but said the find did not pose a risk to public safety, the report
said.

He told the Mercury the contaminated area had been fenced off from
pedestrians and traffic, and air quality was being monitored
regularly by the contractor, Demolition Environmental Civil
Contractors, the report added.

Environmental consultant Coffey is also monitoring the project.

Mr Whittaker said the council had flagged the possibility of
discovering asbestos on the site.

"A large number of sites throughout the city have some level of
asbestos," he said.

"It's something people working on developments have to deal with
fairly often; we identified it as a possibility and engaged a
licensed asbestos removal contractor; it's much more common than
people think."

In August last year, the council entered into an option agreement
to sell the CBD site to Gateway Wollongong.

Part of the agreement required the council to perform remediation
work to make it suitable for future development.

Work including demolishing buildings and removing contaminated
material is set to continue.

"The contractors have already done a lot of work but it will keep
going," Mr Whittaker said.

"The site is something like 9000 square metres so it's quite
large, there is a large amount of work to be done to remediate it.

"The site's history as a car yard and service station meant the
contractors [also] had to remove underground storage tanks as part
of the environmental clean-up."

The council has allocated $1.3 million for the work, on top of the
$5.2 million it paid for the site.

Mr Whittaker said the work was on track to meet its budget but the
council would continue to monitor costs. Further environmental
testing would be conducted once the remediation work finished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Fibro After 2-3 Days Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Welwyn Hatfield Times reported that a man died after being exposed
to lethal asbestos dust for just "two to three days" 46 years ago,
an inquest heard.

According to the report, coroner Edward Thomas recorded a verdict
of industrial disease as the cause of death of Welwyn resident
Roger Beale.

The inquest, at the Old Courthouse, in Hatfield, heard Mr Beale,
of Ayot St Peter, began complaining of breathlessness while
climbing up the stairs and a chest X-ray was taken, the report
related.

Initially his condition was put down to a chest infection, the
report said.

In January 2010, Mr Beale again sought medical attention as
symptoms persisted and he was referred to the chest clinic at the
QE2 Hospital, in Welwyn Garden City, the report further related.

It was there that the link between his condition and asbestos dust
was established, and he was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a rare
form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, the report added.

By November 2010 Mr Beale suffered increasing bouts of
breathlessness and he was being "regularly monitored".

Mr Thomas told how the deceased 67-year-old worked with asbestos,
very briefly, in 1967.  He said: "For a short period of time,
about two to three days, he was working in a factory in 1967 and
was required to cut asbestos with a circular saw, and it was no
doubt from that that would have involved inhaling asbestos dust.

"He had no mask, and no protection, it was on his clothes when he
went home.  I am satisfied that he had a quite substantial
exposure to asbestos."

He added: "The onset of symptoms is entirely compatible with what
we know about ?the disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmania Not a Priority in Telstra's Repair Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Heath and David Ramli, writing for The Australian Financial
Review, reported that Telstra will restart its controversial
repair of asbestos-lined pits and pipes for NBN Co from this month
but will not prioritise Tasmania, where the biggest delays have
been felt.

According to the report, Telstra announced it would recommence
work in the affected pits from August 19 with increased safety
measures in place.

Under an $11 billion contract with NBN Co, Telstra must repair or
replace the ageing pits and pipes used to house its copper phone
network so that they can be reused for the national broadband
network's fibre optic cabling, the report said.

The project was stopped after media reports of contractors
mishandling the materials, exposing workers and residents to
potentially dangerous asbestos fibres, the report related.

The Australian Financial Review revealed in July that the move had
brought the NBN's Tasmanian construction to a near-stand still.

The independent member for Bass in Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie, said
Telstra was treating contractors in the state as "second-class
workers".

"Tasmania missing out for now would be a dreadful betrayal of the
public interest by Telstra," he said. "Tasmania was always
intended to have a first mover advantage on the NBN and that is
now at risk."

He accused the federal government of prioritising the mainland
state for NBN work in the lead-up to the federal election as a
means of gaining more votes.

"The fact remains that the NBN work was suspended nearly 10 weeks
ago which is more than enough time to have put in place a plan to
deal with the asbestos pits and have got all contractors back to
work," he said.

Around 125 staff have been trained by Telstra to supervise pit
repairs while procedures were updated to boost the level of
oversight, the company said in a statement. Eventually the unit
will have 200 workers who travel around Australia working
inspecting every site where asbestos needs to be removed.

The asbestos management taskforce established to oversee
resumption of work will also hire 14 of its own ?inspectors.

While any contractor with a Class B licence can resume work on
August 19, a Telstra spokeswoman said contractors in Queensland
and Victoria were the most prepared for the changes and would
resume pit repairs and replacements first.

"We expect the workforce to steadily ramp up as more contractors
meet these stringent requirements," Telstra chief operations
officer Brendon Riley said.

Councils and residents will now be warned one week in advance
about work being done in their neighbourhood.

With the government officially in caretaker mode, NBN Co is no
longer able to sign any new contracts, or appoint a new chief
executive before the election.

"Guidance on the caretaker conventions, which is provided by PM&C,
includes avoidance of decisions while in caretaker mode that would
bind an incoming government, such as significant appointments," an
NBN Co spokesman said."Successive governments have accepted that
these conventions apply to government departments and agencies."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 34 Companies Named in Jefferson County PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported
that a Houston man has filed an asbestos suit against 34 defendant
corporations, claiming the asbestos-related disease with which he
was diagnosed was wrongfully caused.

According to the report, Lonnie D. Martin claims he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma after being exposed to large amounts of asbestos
in products manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed,
mined, milled, relabeled, resold, processed, applied or installed
by the defendant companies.

Martin alleges his disease was caused because he inhaled, ingested
or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers while at work. Martin claims
he did not know of the hazards of asbestos exposure, according to
the complaint, the report related.

Defending companies named in the complaint include American
Standard, Aqua-Chem, Aurora Pump Company, A.W. Chesterton,
Babacock Borsig Power, Baker Hughes, Bryan Steam Corporation,
Buffalo Pumps, Certain-Teed Corporation, Crane, Dover Corporation,
Dow Chemical Company, ExxonMobile Oil Corporation, Flowserve
Corporation, FMC Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation,
General Electric Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Goulds
Pumps, Guard-Line, Ingersoll-Rand, Lawrence Pumps, Leslie
Controls, Lucey Boiler Company, Peerless Pump Company, Sihi Pumps,
Spx Corporation, Sta-Rite Industries, Sulzer Pumps, Union Carbide
Corporation, Viacom, Viking Pump, Weir Minerals North America,
Yarway Corporation and Zurn Industries.

Martin states the defendants failed to adequately warn him of the
serious health hazards related to asbestos exposure and failed to
provide him with what would be considered adequate and safe
working apparel.

In addition, the defending companies failed to provide Martin with
a safe workplace, allowed a dangerous condition to exist, failed
to warn Martin of the hazardous condition and to warn him that
asbestos particles could lead to disease and failed to market
asbestos products that were safe to use, according to the
complaint.

The defendants negligently failed to test their products before
they were released into the stream of commerce; failed to place
warning labels on the asbestos products; failed to warn Warren on
the proper way to handle asbestos products; failed to enforce a
safety plan; and failed to follow government regulations, the suit
states.

Because of his disease, Martin experienced physical pain,
suffering and mental anguish; lost wages; lost his earning
capacity; suffered disfigurement and physical impairment and
incurred medical costs.

In the lawsuit, Martin is seeking general, punitive, special and
exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and
other relief to which he may be entitled.

He will be represented by James C. Ferrell and Bradlyn J. Cole of
Houston.

The case has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District
Court, Case No. E194-556.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis School Lab Test Confirms Presence of Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Rochelle Talk reported that samples of floor tiles from the
George M. Davis Elementary School, sent out for analysis by the
City School District of New Rochelle, tested "positive" for
asbestos, setting off a flurry of activity at City Hall, sources
say. School district officials have declined repeated requests to
comment.

As Talk of the Sound has previously reported, investigations by
the New York State Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau and
the New York State Education Department were initiated based on
reporting by Talk of the Sound.

Talk of the Sound had received information that asbestos tiles and
material may have been improperly handled and disposed of
illegally. The test results confirm this to have been the case.

By failing to stop work and seal off the area when workers found
what they believed to be asbestos in the office of Principal
Michael Galland on July 16th, a number of New York State and
Federal laws were violated.

The asbestos material was confirmed in tiles, dust and pieces of
tile and dust stuck to a carpet ripped up by employees of district
contractor George Wood Plumbing working at the direction of John
Gallagher, Director of Buildings and Grounds. Gallagher is a
contractor, employed by Aramark.

Asbestos in schools is heavily regulated by New York State and the
federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Staff and students in the building from July 16th to July 20th,
may have been exposed to the cancer-causing material. School
officials did confirm that students were in the building that week
until noon each day along with staff and visitors.

By law, staff and students at a school must be notified
immediately of possible exposure to asbestos. That has yet to
happen.

Talk of the Sound has reported for years on problems within the
Buildings and Grounds Department including kickbacks, no-show jobs
and shady contractors. This is just the latest example.

Assistant Superintendent John Quinn, the New Rochelle Board of
Education cabinet official responsible for Buildings and Grounds,
first became aware of the asbestos incident at Davis from an email
from Talk of the Sound seeking comment on the incident.

Quinn held series of meetings.

Sources tell Talk of the Sound that Quinn met with Gallagher for
several hours on Thursday, late into the evening. During the
meeting, a call was placed to George Wood, the plumbing contractor
who did the work. With Gallagher listening on speakerphone, Quinn
questioned Wood who confirmed the details of the incident as
reported by Talk of the Sound.

Quinn held a meeting with John Gallagher, Sal Poretta, the driver
of the garbage truck used to remove the contaminated carpet and
material from the building, Anthony Sinkfield, the head custodian
at the school, William Coleman, the union representative for
Buildings & Grounds employees within F.U.S.E., and Scott Impera,
the school district employee who runs an asbestos team with the
school district. Impera is a licensed asbestos tester who works
with two other employees licensed for asbestos, Victor Christiani
and Anthony Minieri. Christiani is also a member of the district's
Health and Safety Committee and the recently-formed District-Wide
Safety Committee.

After the meeting, those attending went outside to the parking lot
where Poretta and Sinkfield had tiles samples in their cars. The
files were broken into pieces, bagged, tagged and sent by
overnight courier to an asbestos testing lab by Impara.

With asbestos contamination at the school now confirmed, the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation will now be
called in to track the disposal of the asbestos material.

The tiles and contaminated carpet was carried from the principal's
office, through the hallway, to the school lobby and out the front
doors of the school, according to one source. The material was
then transported in an open garbage truck to the district yard at
51 Cliff Street, co-mingled with other district trash and
delivered to a waste transfer station in Mount Vernon.

By contrast, asbestos material taken from a second that was
properly abated after Poretta and Sinkfield complained about
asbestos exposure from the Principal's office, was sealed and
removed in a special vehicle and carted to a special asbestos dump
site in Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blackwood Man Sues Newport Council Over PI Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that a widower is suing for more than
GBP300,000 over the death of his wife.

According to the report, Brian Butcher, of Woodfieldside,
Blackwood, is claiming more than GBP300,000 and a personal injury
claim of more than GBP1,000 from Newport council, which took over
responsibility for administering claims against the now defunct
Gwent County Council.

Mr Butcher has issued a form at the High Court which claims his
wife, Brenda, 65, was exposed to and inhaled "injurious quantities
of asbestos dust and fibre" during the course of her employment
with the council's corporate predecessors, Gwent Council, between
1980 and 1988, the report said.

Mrs Butcher, who died on April 28, 2011, of mesothelioma, worked
as a cleaner then as a caretaker at Pengam Primary School,
Commercial Street, Pengam, where she was responsible for the
heating, which at the time existed as two sites, the report
related.

His claim form says that on one site sat Pengam Welsh School where
it is alleged the gas fire boiler and surrounding pipes were,
"lagged with asbestos," the report further related.

The other site was the primary school, where the surrounding
pipework of the coal fired boiler was also allegedly lagged with
asbestos, the report added.

The form states the majority of Mrs Butcher's time, who was
described as a "very proud and efficient cleaner," was spent
cleaning which included the cleaning of both boiler rooms and
pipes.

The form says Mrs Butcher's boiler rooms were "hot and dusty" and
her cleaning and sweeping up of asbestos dust and debris, which
would be left on the floor after maintenance works were carried
out, would have, "raised substantial amounts of asbestos dust and
fibre in the confined spaces of the boiler room."

It states Mrs Butcher was "not warned" about the dangers of
exposure to asbestos dust and fibre.

Mr Butcher's form claims his wife should have been "protected"
against the inhalation of the substance and says her exposure was
caused by the "negligence and, or breach of statutory duty of the
defendants, their servants or agents."

His form says the employer, "failed" to provide his wife with a
"safe place of work" and failed to provide equipment which would
produce an exhaust draught preventing the entry into the air of
any workplace of asbestos dust and failing to ensure all loose
asbestos when not in use was kept in "suitable closed" containers.

A spokesman for Newport council said: "Following local government
reorganisation in 1996, Newport City Council has administered all
insurance claims for the former Gwent County Council.

"This is why it is the named defendant in this particular case. It
played no part in the running of the school."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Remove Fibro From Homes Damaged by Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Marden, writing for Basildon Recorder, reported that a
delicate operation is underway to remove dangerous asbestos from
homes damaged in the latest Felmores fire.

According to the report, as the estate, which is largely built
from timber, was constructed in the Seventies, many of the homes
contain asbestos within the structure.

While work gets underway to assess and repair damage at the seven
homes affected by the blaze, abestos experts have been seen at the
estate assessing how best to remove the dangerous substance, the
report said.

A Basildon Council spokesman, said: "The fire damaged properties
in Bockingham Green contain asbestos, which is not unusual for
buildings of that era.

"Because some of the materials being removed contain asbestos,
Health and Safety Executive requirements direct us on how they
should be removed."

Fire investigators and police are still probing how the fire
started.

In the meantime, residents at the seven worst affected homes have
not yet been able to return.

Flat number six, where the fire began, is expected to have to
undergo a complete rebuild after the fire left it gutted.

Flats seven, eight, nine, ten and 11 and house number 23 all
suffered less serious damage but their occupants have not yet been
able to return.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Die of Fibro-Related Diseases in US
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reported
that each year, an estimated 10,000 Americans die from asbestos-
related disease: 3,000 from mesothelioma, 5,000 from lung cancer,
and 2,000 from other cancers or respiratory diseases. Between 2000
and 2010, 43,464 Americans died from mesothelioma and asbestosis
-- just two of the leading asbestos-caused diseases.

"One life lost to a preventable asbestos-caused disease is
tragic," President and Co-Founder of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization, Linda Reinstein said in a statement, the
report related. "Hundreds of thousands of lives lost is
unconscionable."

Recently, Reinstein testified before a US Senate Committee
convened to hear expert testimony on asbestos use in the US.
Despite the ever increasing number of deaths attributable to
asbestos disease, the steady stream of asbestos lawsuits, and
increased public awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure,
the deadly carcinogen continues to be used in the US, the report
said.

In her speech, Reinstein discussed how the specific Toxic
Substances Control Act reform under consideration through the
"Safe Chemicals Act of 2013" (S. 696) is critically flawed and
jeopardizes public health and the environment, the report further
related.  Her testimony examined the need to expedite action to
prohibit imports, and ban the manufacture, sale and export of
asbestos-containing products, while protecting each state's
ability to maintain or pass stronger laws to regulate chemicals.

Reinstein also discussed the facts about the continued use of
lethal asbestos in the US, with ports in the states of Louisiana,
Texas, California and New Jersey still actively receiving and
unloading asbestos shipments. Reinstein referenced the US
Geological Survey's report that states that US asbestos
consumption in 2012 was estimated to be 1,060 tons. In the past
two years, the nation has seen an increase in asbestos consumption
in the chlor-alkali industry specifically, even though viable and
affordable asbestos substitutes exist.

"Most Americans trust that their air, soil and water are safe from
toxic contaminants; however, the Toxic Substances Control Act has
failed to protect public health and our environment," according to
Ms. Reinstein's testimony. "Asbestos fibers are odorless,
tasteless, indestructible, and can be nearly 700 times smaller
than a human hair. All forms of asbestos can cause cancer and
respiratory diseases. Americans have lost confidence in the
chemical industries' ability to protect us from toxins. Congress
should draft and pass meaningful TSCA reform legislation that
truly strengthens protections for our families and environment by
preventing the further use of asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Could Kill Gogebic's Iron Ore Mine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Hansen, writing for Indian County Today Media Network,
reported that a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
letter to Gogebic Taconite regarding their proposed open pit iron
ore mine sampling activities has raised the specter of a
particularly nasty form of asbestos.

According to the report, the WDNR July 2 letter cited the
documented occurrence of asbestiform minerals (amphiboles of the
cummingtonite-grunerite) series in similar ore bodies in
Minnesota, and reports of similar minerals near Gogebic's proposed
bulk sampling activity.

It will be necessary to evaluate the bulk sampling activity to
determine whether regulation pertaining to control of asbestos
emissions under Chapters NR 445 or NR 447, Wis. Adm. Code, is
required, the WDNR said, the report related.  Furthermore, if
minerals in an asbestiform habit are present or potentially
present in the excavated material some of the total emissions
would likely be asbestos emissions.

The National Academy of Sciences cites grunerite as one of the
most toxic forms of asbestos.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
exposure to amphibole asbestos is primarily associated with
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs that has
occurred after exposure at quite low concentrations.

In their July 27 response to the WDNR letter, Gogebic stated, "NR
445 does not apply to the proposed bulk sampling activities
because asbestiform minerals are not likely to be present in the
Gogebic Iron Range near Mellen, Wisconsin. There are documented
occurrences of amphibole minerals in the geology of this area but
not all amphibole minerals are asbestiform minerals or asbestos.

"NR 447 does not apply to the Bulk Sampling Plan," Gogebic wrote.
"Asbestosis defined in NR 447.02 as "Asbestos" means the
asbestiform varieties of serpentinite (chrysotile), riebeckite
(crocidolite), cummingtonite?grunerite (amosite), anthophyllite
and actinolite?tremolite . . . asbestiform minerals are not likely
to be present in the Gogebic Iron Range near Mellen, Wisconsin
based on similar geology in Minnesota where studies have been
conducted and asbestiform minerals have not been found. Therefore,
NR 447 does not apply to the Bulk Sampling Plan."

Yet according to the Wisconsin Geological Survey, grunerite is a
widespread contact metamorphic mineral in the Ironwood Iron
Formation around mafic (a silicate mineral) intrusions.

"They claim there is no asbestos," said Wisconsin resident Joseph
Skulan, Ph.D., a geochemist until last May with UW-Geology Museum
and now an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. "Their
response is a lie or it indicates scientific incompetence. This
should kill the mine."

Bob Seitz, GTAC's Manager of External Affairs did not return
Indian Country Today Media Networks' call. GTAC's website is also
unavailable.

Seitz told the Wisconsin State-Journal July 31 they might not need
explosives to obtain rock samples when rock conducting sampling.
The company hopes to gather rock debris from four previously
blasted sites using heavy equipment. If that doesn't produce
enough rock, the company plans to blast those sites and another by
igniting a volatile mixture of fertilizer and diesel fuel in
hundreds of 4-inch by 10-foot holes, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Appeal Estimation Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that it
took months for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to
determine the present and future asbestos liabilities of certain
bankrupt companies that formerly dealt in products containing the
fiber.  But then came Fitzgerald's 50-page May 20 memorandum
opinion in which the Delaware-based jurist estimated the
liabilities of Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex
International to be in the neighborhood of $1.1 billion, many
millions of dollars higher than what the debtors contended the
true figure to be.

An expert working for the bankrupt companies -- they are referred
to as 'debtors' in bankruptcy proceedings as opposed to
'defendants' in the tort system -- had estimated total future
liabilities at between $465 million to $700 million nominal or
$300 million to $575 million net present value.

In the end, Fitzgerald, who retired from the bench shortly after
rendering her decision in the case, estimated the liabilities to
be closer to the figures thrown out by attorneys representing the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Future Claimants' Representative, numbers that were in the
billion-dollar range.

Appropriate estimate

In her May decision, Fitzgerald wrote that after considering all
of the evidence in the case, exhibits and arguments presented to
the court during a weeklong estimation hearing in Pittsburgh
earlier this year and during subsequent briefs and other legal
filings, she considered an appropriate estimate for mesothelioma
claims, pending and future, to be $1.1 billion net present value.

The judge also determined that an additional six percent, or $66
million, would have to be added pursuant to the parties' agreement
to cover non-mesothelioma asbestos personal injury claims,
bringing the total estimate to $1.166 billion.

"This estimate considers, inter alia, Debtors' small market share,
claiming rates against Debtors, and the percentage of claims paid
versus the percent dismissed or unpaid," Fitzgerald wrote at the
time.

Fitzgerald noted that the estimation process dealt with claims
that are likely to be filed in the future and what the debtors'
would need to pay to address those claims, one component of which
is the merits of the claims themselves.

The settlement values can vary throughout the years depending
whether the claims that are settled for a dollar amount but not
yet documented or paid are included in the consideration value,
Fitzgerald wrote.

The debtors in this case, Specialty Products Holding Corp. and
Bondex International, had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in the spring of 2010.

When the companies were solvent, they specialized in the
manufacture of joint compound designed for do-it-yourself home
use.

During the January estimation proceeding in a federal courtroom in
Pittsburgh ? Fitzgerald had split her time between there and the
federal courthouse in Delaware -- lawyers representing the
bankrupt companies and attorneys representing claimants sparred
over the disputed future asbestos liabilities, with each side
calling witnesses to support their respective positions.

The debtors had been defendants in the tort system prior to filing
for bankruptcy, which puts the brakes on civil litigation and
requires the formerly solvent companies to fund a trust designed
to compensate victims of asbestos related disease.

Natalie Ramsey, an attorney from the Philadelphia office of
Montgomery McCracken Walker and Rhoads who represented the
claimants' committee during the estimation proceedings, told a
reporter back in early May that she and her team would hold off on
taking any new action in the matter before Fitzgerald issued her
ruling.

But in early July, after the judge's ruling came down, the docket
in the case once again became active.

Opposing debtors' appeal

The record shows that the claimants' attorneys for the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Future
Claimants Representative filed a joint motion in the District of
Delaware objecting to an earlier debtors' motion for certification
of the estimation decision for immediate appeal to the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The claimants' lawyers contend that the debtors have not met the
statutory requirements for direct appeal to the Third Circuit,
despite contentions by the debtors' attorneys to the contrary.

"First, the appeal does not involve a question of law to which
there is no controlling decision," the claimants' attorneys wrote.
"There is valid and binding Third Circuit authority addressing the
issue at heart of this appeal: the methodology bankruptcy courts
apply when estimating claims pursuant to . . . the Bankruptcy
Code."

The motion says that the debtors have attempted to manipulate
"uncontroverted case law" as well as the estimation decision "so
as to present a legal question of first impression, when that
actually does not exist.

The claimants' attorneys also wrote that the appeal does not
involve matters of public importance.

"Though the Debtors are clearly dissatisfied with the Court's
utter rejection of their novel and untested estimation methodology
that they advanced, they fail to explain how the Third Circuit's
consideration of their novel methodology would benefit the public
at large," the motion states.

Finally, the motion states, immediate consideration of the appeal
by the Third Circuit would not materially advance the progress of
the cases.

"On the contrary, certifying this appeal directly to the Third
Circuit will only prevent the parties from moving forward and may
create yet another road block to confirmation," the petition
states. "Further, as the Debtors have made clear that they intend
to object to a multitude of issues surrounding confirmation that
the parties have not yet even begun to address, the Third
Circuit's consideration of the estimation issues in this case now
will in no way determine the result of future litigation."

The debtors' attorneys had filed their appeal in early July; the
claimants' attorneys filed their opposition motion mere days
later.

Among the appeals issues are whether Fitzgerald erred by
estimating the total amount of payments the debtors might
potentially make to settle current and future asbestos claims in
state courts, rather than estimating the debtors' actual liability
for those claims based on applicable state law; whether the
bankruptcy court erroneously interpreted the Bankruptcy Code by
estimating the amount the debtors might potentially pay to settle
asbestos claims in state courts rather than estimating their
liability on the merits of the claims; and whether the court erred
by refusing to take into account the extent of the debtors'
liability for their several shares of the estimated claims, which
were or would be brought against multiple defendants and submitted
to multiple asbestos trusts.

The claimants' attorneys maintain that the debtors' issues don't
warrant direct appeal to the Third Circuit.

"The Debtors do not raise any pure legal issues of first
impression," the motion states. "At best they raise a mixed
question of law and fact regarding the appropriate methodology to
be used in applying well-settled and unambiguous law."

And the Third Circuit, the filing states, has already ruled on the
methodology to be used in bankruptcy estimation proceedings.

"The Debtors' presentation of the issues in this appeal as ones of
first impression is nothing more than an attempt to obtain an
appellate court ruling on the validity of their novel estimation
methodology," the motion reads. "That this case involves creative
and untested legal theories, however, does not transform the legal
issue at the heart of the appeal into one of first impression."

The debtors had also argued that the estimation decision raises
issues that affect the public interest in asbestos litigation
transparency because the court refused to allow the debtors to
pursue discovery of payments received by claimants from co-
defendants and asbestos trusts established in bankruptcy cases
involving former co-defendants.

'Another year to the process'

One attorney with extensive knowledge of asbestos bankruptcy
litigation, who spoke with a reporter only on condition of
anonymity because of his ties to players in the Bondex case, said
that while estimation hearing results were in the past appealable
only to the District Court, statutes have since been amended to
allow for appeal directly to a federal appeals bench, the idea
being that any District Court ruling would likely be appealed
further, adding "another year to the process."

The claimants' committee, the attorney said, is clearly opposing
the appeal of the estimation hearing "for the simple reason that
they like the ruling."

Because bankruptcy cases, unlike civil cases in the tort system,
are solely about money and little else, the parties are often able
to come to a compromise as far as dollar figures are concerned.

And if the debtors are able to "squeeze [another] year out of the
process, and they like their chances of winning on appeal, "that's
an important thing to do," the attorney said.

Asbestos bankruptcy cases such as these all end up with a
reorganization plan, the lawyer said, and they "almost always end
up in a plan that is agreed to by the debtors and the asbestos
claimants."

The Bondex case has since been assigned to another bankruptcy
judge following Fitzgerald's retirement.

                     About Specialty Products

Cleveland, Ohio-based Specialty Products Holdings Corp., aka RPM,
Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc.  The
Company is the holding company parent of Bondex International,
Inc., and the direct or indirect parent of certain additional
domestic and foreign subsidiaries.  The Company claims to be a
leading manufacturer, distributor and seller of various specialty
chemical product lines, including exterior insulating finishing
systems, powder coatings, fluorescent colorants and pigments,
cleaning and protection products, fuel additives, wood treatments
and coatings and sealants, in both the industrial and consumer
markets.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 10-11780) on May 31, 2010.  Gregory M. Gordon, Esq.,
Dan B. Prieto, Esq., and Robert J. Jud, Esq., at Jones Day, serve
as bankruptcy counsel.  Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., and Zachary
I. Shapiro, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger, serve as co-
counsel.  Logan and Company is the Company's claims and notice
agent.  The Company estimated its assets and debts at $100 million
to $500 million.

The Company's affiliate, Bondex International, Inc., filed a
separate Chapter 11 petition on May 31, 2010 (Case No. 10-11779),
estimating its assets and debts at $100 million to $500 million.

On May 20, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order estimating
the amount of the Debtors' asbestos liabilities, and a related
memorandum opinion in support of the estimation order.  The
Bankruptcy Court estimated the current and future asbestos claims
associated with Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty Products
Holding at approximately $1.17 billion.  The estimation hearing
represents one step in the legal process in helping to determine
the amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waste Sparks Fibro Fear at Jack Vanny Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Van den Broeke, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported
that AN asbestos scare triggered the sudden closure of a popular
beachside park after illegally dumped building waste was found.

According to the report, visitors to Jack Vanny Reserve in
Maroubra were stunned to see workers in contamination suits -- and
a sign that read: "Danger Asbestos".

The men, who worked for building company PCB, spent several hours
picking up the potentially hazardous material from the ground and
sealing it into plastic bags marked "Caution Asbestos. Do Not
Inhale."

The area is known for the Mahon Pool where locals including
Foreign Minister Bob Carr swim laps and others walk their dogs or
fish from the rocks.Three bags filled with the suspect materials
were removed from the area and put in the boot of a car driven by
a PCB employee.

Throughout the clean-up operation residents continued to walk
along the reserve's path within metres of the contaminated area.

Randwick City Council would not confirm the substance was asbestos
and said the suspect material was still being tested.

"Council workers recently identified some material in the Jack
Vanny Reserve at Maroubra that may contain asbestos," a Randwick
City Council spokesman said.

"(The) council has strict procedures in place that meant council
officers promptly informed the NSW Environment Protection
Authority, arranged for an investigation and subsequent removal of
the material."

Randwick City Council will inspect the area again.

The council is yet to determine where the material came from, but
a worker at the reserve said the material was dumped and over time
had come to the surface.

The EPA said the council informed it of the potentially hazardous
material, however it was not assisting the clean-up.

The roped-off area was reopened to the public about 1pm.

Resident John Talifero, 82, has lived in Maroubra for 41 years and
walks his dog, Daisy, in Jack Vanny Reserve.

He said this was the first time he had seen a clean-up like this
and he was concerned that many people may have walked across
dangerous material without realising.

"(I saw the workers) as soon as I came down this morning," Mr
Talifero said.

"(It's) most unusual.

"That's where the fishermen go," he said. "Down there on the
rocks."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Warns More Fibro Legal Action Possible
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a lawyer specialising in asbestos cases
says authorities can expect legal action if they do not act
immediately to reduce the risk of exposure in Aboriginal
communities.

According  to the report, in recent months, community leaders at
several Kimberley communities have expressed concern about
buildings decaying close to where children play.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has confirmed at least two of
the buildings in question, in Beagle Bay and Baylu, contain
asbestos, the report said.

Slater & Gordon's Tricia Wong has acted for an Aboriginal woman
who contracted mesothelioma from the toxic material in the Baylu
community.

Ms Wong says at this rate it is likely more people will fall sick
and launch legal cases.

"That is the real concern, I was absolutely horrified to think
that this situation that my client found herself in might be
repeated and affect future generations in those communities," she
said.

"Well I think that it's now well known that these dilapidated
buildings exist and if the Government or the relevant Government
agency fail to take reasonable steps to remove that risk from the
community, then quite clearly they are failing in their duty of
care to the residents of these communities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Claimants' Expert Testifies on Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that attorneys
representing the claimants in Garlock Sealing Technologies ongoing
bankruptcy trial presented their own expert witness who happened
to also be a former asbestos attorney after days of testimony by
former Garlock asbestos lawyers.

According to the report, Paul Hanly Jr., a partner with the firm
Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher Hayes who previously
represented the former asbestos manufacturing company Turner and
Newall, testified that companies such as Garlock that were sued
along with other asbestos manufacturers for years up until around
2000 were forced to the forefront of litigation after lingering on
the periphery. Plaintiffs in the 1980s and 1990s used to focus on
"low hanging fruit" defendants such as asbestos insulation
manufacturers, he testified.

The periphery defendants got a "free ride" by downplaying any of
their own potential liability and pointing the finger at the much
easier to target insulation companies, he said, the report
related.  Many of these asbestos companies happily adopted the
label as a periphery defendant. "It's a self-serving
characterization," he said, admitting he adopted the same strategy
as well.

The bankruptcy trial, which is expected to last three weeks, will
determine the estimated liability of the company for current and
future asbestos claims. 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.

To try and limit the company's liability, its attorneys are
asserting that some plaintiffs, taking advantage of
confidentiality provisions enacted for special trusts established
to pay claimants who came into contact with asbestos, are using
the provisions to allow them to sue multiple defendants while
using the same argument that each respectively was the cause of
their illness.

Around the year 2000, however, companies that once remained on the
periphery were forced to defend themselves directly more and more
as the insulation companies that once bore the brunt of the
litigation filed for bankruptcy, Hanly testified.

Hanly's testimony followed hours of closed cross examination of a
lawyer who previously represented Garlock testifying about the
legal strategies the company adopted in dealing with asbestos-
related litigation.

Richard Magee, the senior vice president for EnPro, Garlock's
parent company, was the former general counsel for EnPro and
oversaw much of the Garlock asbestos tort litigation. After
offering testimony about the company's strategy handling an
onslaught of litigation it faced dating back decades, attorneys
for the claimants questioned Magee over the reasons why the
company settled the majority of its cases instead of taking them
to trial.

Magee said previously that Garlock decided to take a cost-saving
approach instead to deal with lawsuits from claimants who came
into contact with Garlock products, predominantly Garlock gaskets
that contained asbestos. Following about an hour of cross
examination, Judge George Hodges closed his courtroom to members
of the public and media who had not signed confidentiality forms.

Hodges denied a Legal Newsline motion to keep all of the witnesses
testifying in this case open including the testimony of former
Garlock attorney John Turlik, currently a partner in the firm
Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney. Legal Newsline is also
seeking to unseal closed portions of testimony given by a law
professor the week prior.

In a written order explaining his decision, Hodges stated several
factors including the circumstances of certain asbestos
plaintiffs' cases, plaintiffs' particular exposures, "how the law
firms responded to discovery, the questions they asked their
clients in so responding, and how the law firms approached
settlement negotiations," amounted to "trade secrets, confidential
business information, and attorney-client privileged information
about which the parties involved have significant privacy rights.
The court has concluded that those rights outweigh the public's
interest in those matters."

Attorneys for Legal Newsline are preparing to seek review of the
judge's decision.

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: M'bah Maccas Work Halted After Fibro Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Gardiner, writing for My Daily News, reported that an asbestos
and other contaminants scare has caused work to ground to a halt
on a 24-hour McDonald's fast-food outlet and IGA supermarket
development at Murwillumbah.

According to the report, work would not re-commence on the $3
million Tweed Valley Way development until a "satisfactory" Work
Health and Safety Plan had been completed, Tweed Shire Council
Director Planning and Regulation Vince Connell said.

On July 25 council identified a potential occupational health and
safety risk on the site involving asbestos and other contaminants
and requested that the site owner cease all work until the
concerns had been addressed, Mr Connell said, the report related.

A Workcover NSW officer met with representatives from council, the
site owner and the development proponents on the site with the aim
of ensuring that appropriate health and safety measures were put
in place, the report said.

All parties at the on site meeting agreed that the next step was
for the site principal to consult with the various construction
consultants and contractors, with a view to documenting the
construction works carried out to date, and producing an Work
Health and Safety Plan and other project management measures for
all future construction on the site, also with input from
Workcover NSW and Council.

The council will continue to work with Workcover NSW, the site
owners, the development proponents, and all relevant construction
representatives to facilitate a safe work site, he said.

The McDonald's restaurant was approved early last year under 124
special conditions with some residents opposed to the fast food
outlet.

McDonald's and NSW Work Cover have been contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Duplessis" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a July 29, 2013, decision and order denied defendant Crane
Co.'s motion to dismiss an asbestos personal injury action as
duplicative of a prior multi-plaintiff action and for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  The Defendant also moved for summary
judgment on the ground that plaintiff James Duplessis failed to
establish that he was exposed to asbestos from any product
manufactured, supplied or distributed by Crane.

According to Judge Heitler, although the prior action appears to
be still active in respect of certain plaintiffs, that action
bears no relation to the within action, which was severed
thereform in 2003 and which has been maintained as a separate
action by the Plaintiff ever since.  Moreover, Judge Heitler ruled
that Mr. Duplessis' testimony that he worked directly with and in
the vicinity of Crane products is sufficient evidence from which a
jury may reasonably infer Crane's liability even though he may
have offered conflicting testimony on cross-examination.

The case is JAMES JOSEPH DUPLESSIS, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendant, DOCKET NO. 105959/03, MOTION SEQ.
NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/UOkSzefrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Wins in Impairment Rating Spat v. Liberty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, Petitioner Raymond Johnson was diagnosed with asbestos-
related disease (ARD).  Since a claimant diagnosed with ARD is
considered to be at maximum medical improvement (MMI) on the date
of diagnosis, Johnson achieved MMI.  In August 2001, Johnson
ceased working for his time-of-injury employer.  In December 2003,
Alan C. Whitehouse, M.D., issued a 25% impairment rating
calculated using the 5th Edition of the American Medical
Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.  In
February 2009, the Workers' Compensation Court of Montana found
Respondent Liberty NW Ins. Corp. liable for Johnson's occupational
disease.  In August 2009, Liberty paid Johnson a 25% impairment
award.

In December 2012, Dr. Whitehouse issued a 50% impairment rating
calculated using the 5th Edition.  Liberty denied payment of this
impairment award, relying on Sec. 39-71-711, MCA (2011).  In June
2013, Dr. Whitehouse conducted a new independent medical
examination (IME) of Johnson, and based on the results of the June
2013 IME and new medical information, Dr. Whitehouse issued
Johnson a 98% impairment rating using the 5th Edition.

Johnson and Liberty filed simultaneous motions for summary
judgment and briefs in support on the issue of whether the 5th or
6th edition applies to a determination of Johnson's impairment
rating.

In an order dated Aug. 5, 2013, Judge James Jeremiah Shea of the
Workers' Compensation Court of Montana granted the Petitioner's
motion and denied the Respondent's motion, explaining that Section
39-71-711(1)(b), MCA (1999), states that an impairment rating must
be based on the current edition of the Guides to Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment published by the American medical
association.  Although the legislature amended Section 39-71-711,
MCA, in other ways, Section 39-71-711(1)(b), MCA, remained
unchanged until 2011, when the legislature amended the provision
to state that an impairment rating must be based on the 6th
Edition, Judge Shea pointed out.

Consistent with his previous holdings in Drake v. Montana State
Fund and Hilbert v. Montana State Fund, 2011 MTWCC 2, and the
longstanding rule of Grenz v. Fire & Cas. of Conn., 278 Mont. 268,
271, 924 P.2d 264, 266 (1996), Judge Shea concluded that under the
1999 version of the WCA, the correct edition of the AMA Guides to
apply to Johnson's impairment rating is the 5th Edition, as that
was the "current edition" on the date Johnson reached MMI.

The case is RAYMOND JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY NW INS. CORP.,
Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-3164 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy
of Judge Shea's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wsk7BMfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Suit Dismissed for Lack of Diligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, Ernest Kalb commenced an action against several
defendants, claiming injury and damages caused by exposure to
asbestos, and his wife, Marianna, alleged loss of consortium.  In
2007, a trial court dismissed the action for lack of diligence
pursuant to Practice Book Section 14-3 but vacated that dismissal
a month later.  The trial court dismissed the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the fiduciary of Ernest's
estate had not been substituted as a party plaintiff.

Marianna, individually and as administratix of the estate of her
husband who died in April 2008, appealed from the trial court's
ruling, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying her motion to open the judgment of dismissal because good
cause existed to grant the motion.

A three-judge panel of the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed
the judgment of the trial court, holding that they cannot conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion given that there were
three and one-half years during which the Plaintiff took no action
on the case.  Moreover, the Appellate Court disagreed with the
Plaintiff's contention that the trial court's finding that she
presented no good and compelling reason to justify opening the
judgment was improper.  According to the Appellate Court, the
denial of the Plaintiff's motion was based on the prejudice the
Defendants suffered due to the Plaintiff's lack of negligence.

The case is ERNEST KALB ET AL. v. AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE, USA, INC.,
ET AL., (AC 34384) (Conn. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Appellate Court's Opinion, which was officially released on
Aug. 6, is available at http://is.gd/Z5a1Nnfrom Leagle.com.

Ryan A. O'Neill, Esq., with whom, on the brief, was Mark Sherman,
Esq., for the Appellants.

Corey M. Dennis, Esq., for Appellee Eck el Industries, Inc.

Jonathan F. Tabasky, Esq., for Appellee Georgia-Pacific, LLC.

Charles K. Mone, Esq., for Appellee Warren Pumps, LLC.

David Makarewicz, Esq., for Appellee IMO Industries, Inc.

John H. Van Lenten, Esq., for Appellee CBS Corporation.

James A. Hall, Esq., for Appellee Bayer Cropscience, Inc., et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Granting Widow's Anti-SLAPP Motion Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2012, Shirley Alderete filed a lawsuit against Barney
Klinger and approximately 40 other defendants stating claims for
asbestos-related injuries arising from her exposure to the harmful
dust brought by her husband from work.  The following month, after
Klinger answered the complaint, Alderete filed a request for
dismissal of Klinger, without prejudice, and the dismissal of
Klinger was entered by the clerk.  Alderete's attorneys, however,
forgot to serve Klinger's attorney with a copy of the request for
dismissal and Klinger's attorney did not learn of the dismissal
until June.

Two weeks after learning of the dismissal, Klinger sued Alderete
as well as her attorneys, Alan Brayton, David Donadio and John
Goldstein, and their firm Brayton Purcel, LLP, for
malicious prosecution.  The Respondents filed a special (anti
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion to strike
Klinger's complaint.  According to Alderete's counsel, Klinger was
dismissed from the asbestos lawsuit because they learned that
Alderete was suffering from lung cancer and not mesothelioma.

The trial court granted the Respondents' anti-SLAPP motion.
Klinger appeals from that order, arguing that the motion should
have been denied.

In a decision dated Aug. 6, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Two, determined that the
action arose from protected activity and that the Appellant failed
to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits.
The Court of Appeals further found that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in awarding the Respondents' attorney fees
and costs.

The case is BETSY KLINGER, as successor in interest to Barney
Klinger, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CRAIG ALDERETE, as successor
in interest to Shirley Alderete, et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. B245403 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/vU5NRHfrom Leagle.com.

Hillel Chodos, Esq., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Andre E. Jardini, Esq. -- aej@kpclegal.com -- Maria A. Grover,
Esq. -- mag@kpclegal.com -- and Hilary M. Goldberg, Esq. --
hmg@kpclegal.com -- at Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, for Defendants
and Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sturgis" Suit Consolidated With Inmates' NY Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered the consolidation of the case
captioned JEMMY LEE STURGIS, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY, SHERIFF
VINCENT F. DEMARCO, WARDEN CHARLES EWALD, UNDERSHERIFF JOHN P.
MYERRICKS, UNDERSHERIFF JOSEPH T. CARAPPA, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-
3230 (JS) (GRB)(E.D.N.Y.) with the Consolidated Action, Butler, et
al. v. DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB).

The consolidated action is composed of separate actions filed by
inmates detained in the Suffolk County Correctional Facilities.
The action alleges, among other things, that the men were at risk
of exposure to asbestos from leaking pipes, which are lined with
insulation believed to contain asbestos.

A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's Decision dated Aug. 2, 2013,
is available at http://is.gd/MjqHMbfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

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

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *