CAR_Public/130830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 30, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 172

                             Headlines


7-ELEVEN INC: Suit Alleging Food Products Misbranding Dismissed
APPLE INC: Judge Won't Overdo E-Book Price-Fixing Remedies
AT&T MOBILITY: Ninth Circuit Removes Class Action to Federal Court
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Questions Remain After Settlement Meeting
BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internship

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Retirees' 401(K) Class Action
BERJAC OF OREGON: Ponzi Scheme Class Action Seeks $10MM in Damages
BEST BUY: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Earnings Report
BITECH INC: Allowed to Settle Credit Card-Related Class Suit
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

CALPERS: Grossly Underfunded Insurance Program, Suit Says
CANADA POST: Settles Parcel Shipping Class Action for C$5 Mil.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Coal Plant Pollution
FOUNDERS PAVILION: EEOC Mulls Settlement of GINA Class Action
FULL SCOPE: Illegally Filed Oil Spill Claims, Class Suit Says

GERBER PRODUCTS: N.J. Judge Tosses Probiotic False Ad Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accused of Conspiring to Raise Aluminum Prices
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Google Voice" Defect
HANSEN MEDICAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for November 21
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ex-Counsel Wants Out of 401(K) Class Action

HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Suit in California Over OT and Minimum Wages
HURONIA REGIONAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for Abuse Class Action
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Suit Demands Pay for FanFest Volunteers
McKESSON CORP: Court Stays Proceedings in "Brock" Suit
MOULTON NIGUEL: Chloramine Corroded Copper Pipes, Suit Claims

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Major Ruling on Scholarships Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Fan Can Fight NFL, Reebok Over Pricey Gear
OCWEN LOAN: Sued Over "Trojan Horse"-Like Mortgage Rebates
OMNICOM GROUP: Being Sold to Publicis for Too Little, Suit Says
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: "Hines" Class Action Dismissed

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: To Pay Shareholders $8.1-Mil. to Settle Suit
PARAGON: Class Action Defendants Named in Frankfort Civil Suit
PEPSICO INC: Settles Naked Juice False Labeling Class Action
QUESTAR CAPITAL: Negligence Claims Related to Ponzi Scheme Tossed
RICHARD MANCUSO: Child Pornography Victim Files Class Action

SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Certified Class of California Borrowers
SCHNUCK MARKETS: JPML Set to Hear Transfer Arguments on Sept. 26
SLM CORP: Calif. Court Refused to Dismiss Overcharges Claims
SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Accused of Defrauding Seniors in New Jersey
STORA ENSO: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $8 Million

STRYKER CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Illegal Fax Class Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies Drivers' Class Action
TANGOE INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed as Lead Counsel in Stein Suit
TEXAS BRINE: Louisianans Claim Radioactive Sinkhole Is Growing
UNITED STATES: $2.7-Mil. Deal to Settle Overcharges Claims Okayed

UNITED STATES: Bishop Class Suit Accord Wins Court Approval
VELTI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
VERIZON: Files Notice of Removal of Discrimination Class Action
WENDY'S INT'L: Sued by General Managers Over OT Pay
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denies Approval of Securities Suit Settlement


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Needs More Time for Another Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Has 45,320 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 358 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $973MM Reserves as of June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Has 5,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has 2,500 Exposure Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Records $27-Mil Liability for Aero Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 256 Lawsuits as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,295 Claims as of July 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Had 7,815 Claims as of July 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Continues to Defend Mount Vernon Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Had 11,500 Cases as of June 28

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Had 32 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 268 Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Energy Unit Had 7 Lawsuits as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. High Court Affirms "Pounders" Suit Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Widow's Reconsideration Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling in TKK Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion for Summary Judgment v. Crane Co. Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for More Evidence in "Monroe" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Torgerson" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Inmates' Suits in Illinois Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Work Starts in Ohio Grand Theater
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tainted Debris Dumped in Santa Rosa Landfill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. College Board Approves Fibro Abatement Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celebrated Trial Lawyer, Ron Motley, Dies at 68

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Wyckoff School Is Annual Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Issues Surface in Port Macquarie Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Hit With $5.95MM Cancer Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Bankruptcy Trial Concludes in N.C.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Died of Cancer 50 Years After Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire Team Offers Hope in Fight v. Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Took Dad, 47, in Most "Barbaric" Way
ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Changing Face of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: People Screened From Lung Problems Post-Sandy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Island Investigating Fibro Disposal Ways

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Camouflaged Security Cameras to Catch Dumpers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: China Rethinks Australian Deals for Resources
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Find Shuts GIB Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Fears in Parliament Square Eased
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Winston Wallboards Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert in Cessford Farm Fire Near Morebattle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Finally Back on Fibro-Hit Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Toxic Dust Left on Roadside in Blacktown
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Working With Fibro for 27 Yrs. Killed Rail Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Lincoln University

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glimmer of Hope in Cancer Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Ban Slow to Impact Mesothelioma Rates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Universities Mum on Dorm Fibro to Students
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Big Fine for Mandurah Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willow Grove Man Indicted for Illegal Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statin Drugs as Potential Mesothelioma Treatment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found During Hinsdale Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Removed From Malmsbury Mechanics Institute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Forces Firms From Tour Montparnasse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheeting Found Dumped at Bucca

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Blackdog Site


                             *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Suit Alleging Food Products Misbranding Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action filed against
convenience store chain 7-Eleven Inc. for allegedly mislabeling
its food products.

Judge Edward Davila for the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California San Jose Division said in his Aug. 5 order
that the plaintiffs were not specific enough in their allegations.

Plaintiff Scott Bishop, who filed the putative class action
against 7-Eleven in 2012, alleged that the labeling on several of
the company's food products, as well as websites related to the
products, contain statements amounting to "misbranding" and
"deception" in violation of California and federal laws.

In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that 7-Eleven did not comply
with state and federal regulations when: making nutrient content
claims; making "all natural" and "fresh" claims; failing to
disclose the presence of artificial colors and flavors; and using
allegedly "slack-filled" containers to deceive consumers into
believing they are receiving more than they actually are.

The plaintiffs argued that the labeling on the products at issue
constitutes an express warranty.

Judge Davila rejected the argument, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for a violation of the act.

"This Court finds that the Amended Complaint does not provide a
clear and particular account of the allegedly fraudulent,
deceptive, misrepresentative, or otherwise unlawful statements,"
the judge wrote in his 11-page order.

"The Amended Complaint fails to unambiguously specify the
particular products that have violated particular labeling
requirements, the allegedly unlawful representations that were on
the products, and the particular statements Plaintiff allegedly
relied on when making his purchases."

However, Judge Davila permitted Mr. Bishop to further amend his
complaint.

Mr. Bishop, through attorney Ben F. Pierce Gore of San Jose law
firm Pratt & Associates, submitted his second amended complaint on
Aug. 27.

The case is Scott Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-02621 EJD,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


APPLE INC: Judge Won't Overdo E-Book Price-Fixing Remedies
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
judge who ruled that Apple Inc. colluded with publishers to fix
e-book prices promised on Aug. 27 not to intrude much on how it
runs its business.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote made the observation as she
revised the remedies that government lawyers proposed after their
antitrust victory last month.

The judge concluded that the maker of iPods, iPads and iPhones had
conspired with publishers in 2010 to eliminate Amazon's $9.99
e-book price.  Apple has steadfastly denied it did anything wrong,
even as the book publishers involved in the case settled to avoid
going to trial.

Judge Cote noted competition must be restored but the court isn't
authorized to punish Apple.

"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how
Apple runs its business," she said as she made suggested
revisions.  She left it to lawyers on both sides to make further
revisions before she approves remedies next week.

Her suggestions offered relief for Apple from some of the
government's recommendations.  For instance, the government
suggested provisions that would affect Apple's App store, but
Judge Cote said she thinks they are unnecessary.

"The App store was only an incidental part of this trial,"
Judge Cote said.

The judge also said she was inclined to limit the authority of an
outside monitor as he or she reviews the company's internal
compliance program and training policies to ensure there is no
antitrust behavior.

The judge said she remained skeptical about Apple's interest in
changing its behavior, but she seemed pleased with comments
Tuesday from Apple's attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr.

He said the company continues to disagree with her antitrust
finding and will pursue its appeal.  But he added that the
Cupertino, Calif.-based company will closely follow her rulings if
it loses its appeal.

"We think the court's changes make a lot of sense," Mr. Boutrous
said.  "We're going to try to be a model citizen if this
injunction remains in place."


AT&T MOBILITY: Ninth Circuit Removes Class Action to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that following new
guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has made
it harder for plaintiffs to stop putative class actions from being
removed to federal court.

Ruling unanimously on Aug. 27, the three-judge panel held that
plaintiffs can no longer act as "masters of the complaint," free
to forego some amount of damages to avoid federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, or CAFA.

The decision authored by Judge Richard Clifton overruled the Ninth
Circuit's 2007 ruling in Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National
Association, finding it "clearly irreconcilable" with the Supreme
Court's 2013 decision in Standard Fire v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct.
1345, which deemed it improper for plaintiffs to evade federal
jurisdiction by waiving some portion of damages.

"I think the panel got it exactly right," said Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
who argued Standard Fire in front of the Supreme Court.  "I think
it's very significant."

The ruling is a victory for AT&T Mobility and its lawyers at Paul
Hastings, making it almost certain that the suit over alleged
unpaid wages and overtime will remain in federal court.  It also
has ramifications for at least two cases that raise similar issues
and are now pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff Robert Rodriguez, a retail sales manager, sued AT&T
Mobility in 2012 on behalf of himself and other managers in
Southern California seeking unpaid wages, overtime compensation
and statutory damages.  The suit was originally brought in Los
Angeles Superior Court.  However, AT&T's lawyers at Paul Hastings
moved to have the action heard in federal court under CAFA, which
triggers federal jurisdiction in cases involving alleged damages
of at least $5 million.

Mr. Rodriguez, represented by Michael Morrison of Alexander Krakow
& Glick as well as lawyers from the Law Offices of Thomas Flavey
and Wucetich & Korovilas, moved to remand the case to California
state court and waived damages in excess of $5 million.  U.S.
District Judge George Wu agreed to remand the case, citing the
Lowdermilk decision, which required defendants demonstrate to a
"legal certainty" that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million.

The decision on Aug. 27 in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services,
13-56149, reevaluated that standard in light of the Supreme
Court's March decision in Standard Fire.  That case, deemed one of
the term's most business-friendly decisions, held that the lead
plaintiff in a class action cannot agree to waive damages in
excess of $5 million on behalf of a not-yet-certified class.

As a result of Standard Fire, Judge Clifton wrote, defendants need
now satisfy a lighter burden -- a preponderance of the evidence
standard -- to bump class actions out of state courts.

"We hold that Lowdermilk has been effectively overruled, and that
the proper burden of proof imposed upon a defendant to establish
the amount in controversy is the preponderance of the evidence
standard," Judge Clifton wrote.

Judges Richard Tallman and Consuelo Callahan joined Judge
Clifton's opinion.

"We're pleased with the Court's decision," AT&T spokesman Marty
Richter wrote in a statement to The Recorder.  "AT&T is committed
to full compliance with all federal and state laws, including the
wage and hour laws, and has received numerous awards for being an
employer of choice."

Paul Hastings partner George Abele -- georgeabele@paulhastings.com
-- who argued the case for AT&T, did not respond to a request for
comment.

In their appeal brief, Mr. Rodriguez's attorneys argued that the
Supreme Court's decision invalidated the waiver but should not
change the legal burden on defendants seeking removal of class
actions.

"Standard Fire did not alter the well-settled law in this Circuit
that where the plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy is
less than $5 million, the defendant must prove to a legal
certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,"
wrote Mr. Morrison, lead plaintiffs attorney.  Mr. Morrison did
not respond to a request for comment.

Court watchers called the Aug. 27 decision important but
unsurprising.

"It brings the Ninth Circuit in line with what most other circuits
had been doing on this standard," said Mr. Boutrous, who also
argued for Wal-Mart in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a case that dramatically
changed the landscape for class action litigation.

Lowering the evidentiary hurdles for defendants to remove cases
"takes another step farther that's very important," he added.

Joshua Davis, a dean and professor at University of San Francisco
School of Law, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.

"This is just one more way of lightening the burden on the
defense," Mr. Davis said.  "Many defendants see federal court as
more favorable.  This makes it easier for defendants to move to
federal court."


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Questions Remain After Settlement Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Trout, writing for Reno Gazette-Journal, reports that
although the crowd size and mood of the crowd had diminished from
a prior meeting, before the latest amended settlement offer, many
questions were still raised from more than 60 Mason Valley
residents who attended a meeting Aug. 8 with class counsel in the
lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield regarding impacts of the
Yerington/Anaconda mine.

Conducting the meeting at the Boys & Girls Club gym was Joel
Rubenstein -- JRubenstein@germanrubenstein.com -- a class counsel
with German Rubenstein LLP of New York, while joining him to
answer questions was Allison Shipp of Kenner & Whiteley of New
Orleans, LA, also one of class counsel. Also in attendance to
address questions were two Nevada Division of Water Resources
(NDWR) officials, Tim Wilson, manager of the well drilling and
adjudication section, and Lynette Johnson, a water resource
specialist with NDWR for the Walker River Basin.

Also present were two representatives of Rust Consulting of
Minnesota, the settlement claims administrator in this Roeder, et
al, vs. Atlantic Richfield Corp., et al. They were available for
appointments through last week to help with filling out claims
paperwork at an office at Weed Heights.

The latest amended settlement offer was crafted to cover the
biggest concerns of resident who live in the area covered by the
lawsuit north of the historic Anaconda mine, but many residents
still expressed concerns during last week's meeting, as several
seemed unclear of what future ramifications might be.  No decision
has been made on the this settlement offer by the federal court,
but a hearing is scheduled in October.

The concern with the prior settlement offer was that residents
covered under the property damage settlement class didn't want to
give up use of their domestic wells, especially for watering their
gardens and animals, when they connected to the City of Yerington
water system as part of the settlement.  So, the parties involved
worked out with state officials so residents could obtain water
rights to continue use of their wells for outdoor use.

Mr. Rubenstein said since those concerns arose from residents
earlier this year, the class counsel and defendants' counsel have
worked with NDWR to come up with a solution to allow continued use
of wells.  Now in the amended settlement offer, those who choose
to abandon their well will receive $22,000, an increase over the
prior number, while those with wells who choose to continue use of
the well will receive $17,000, as part of the "Settlement Water
Right Application Process."

Other questions raised including about impacts of a lawsuit by the
tribes, which sought Sunset Hills water, the questioner said;
about lots without residences now and why they didn't receive more
money in the settlement; what happens if property sells (water
right for well stays with property, can't be sold separately) and
about if someone opts out.

Mr. Rubenstein said if someone opts out and keeps their well, they
could be limited in repair or re-drilling of the well, due to no
water rights on the well.

Other parts of the settlement offer will remain the same, such as
$1,000 per developed lot in Penrose Estates and Grand Estates
subdivisions, which are on municipal water systems, and $500 per
undeveloped lots in those subdivisions.  The medical monitoring
settlement class payments remain the same also, for those who
live(d) in the determined area between Feb. 14, 2011 and June 10,
2013.

Under the draft agreement, the defendants (ARC/BP) would pay for
the costs of the well abandonment if done during the time of the
city water system expansion.  In addition, for those who wish to
continue use of their wells (as an "exempt" well), the defendants
have committed to purchase or acquire water rights that are
acceptable to and determined to be sufficient by NDWR to support
the individual water right permit application for those wells.

The defendants also will pay other expenses of the water right
application, costs of meters, NDWR application fees and
engineering fees.

The permit would be for "Quasi-Municipal Use," or limited to
exterior demands of a domestic use, and they wouldn't be
"agricultural" wells.  Each well to receive a permit to continue
outdoor use must have a totalizing meter installed for monitoring
by the NDWR, through annual reports submitted by the property
owner.

Those retaining their wells under this settlement would have their
usage limited by the NDWR, largely based on historical use of the
well, minus an estimate of indoor water usage.  Mr. Rubenstein
explained that a person thus couldn't significantly increase their
outside water use after the city system is installed.  The draft
settlement water use would be based on calculated annual historic
outdoor use and capped at statutory maximum amount for an exempt
domestic use well, which is two acre-feet per year, minus the
typical indoor use.

The draft agreement says the nature and estimation of the amount
of historic domestic use for each individual application would be
made consistent with state practice by a water rights engineer
under the oversight of the class counsel on behalf of property
damage settlement class members.


BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internship
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schram and Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, report
that "It's All About the Benjamins" for Sean "Diddy" Combs -- but
now a former intern for the rap mogul's record label Bad Boy
Entertainment also wants some of his cash money.

Rashida Salaam, 26, of Brownsville, Brooklyn filed a class-action
lawsuit on Aug. 20 in Manhattan federal court accusing the company
of violating minimum-wage laws by not paying interns for work
performed.

"I know that I was taken advantage of," the unemployed City
College graduate told the Post.  "I basically wanted to take a
stand for all interns who work there . . . You are supposed to get
paid for labor that you do."

Among the tasks that Bad Boy honchos assign to interns are getting
lunch and coffee for paid staffers, answering phones, gift
wrapping presents, and decorating the firm's Broadway offices
during the holidays, the suit says.

Sources said company CEO Combs, who founded Bad Boy in 1993, even
had the gall to require interns -- although Ms. Salaam wasn't one
of them -- wrap holiday and birthday presents for his kids.

"Past interns told me that they wrapped gifts for Diddy and his
kids," Ms. Salaam confided. ". . . They wrapped gifts for Diddy
and decorated his tree at his office.  Basically, they are happy
to be there.  It's a big company."

"No one is complaining about doing the work.  They think it's
going to catapult their career."  Ms. Salaam worked as an unpaid
intern from January 2012 to June 2012, typically three or four
days each week until 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m., the suit says.

Her duties "primarily" included answering phones, filing and
copying documents, running errands and preparing expense reports.

"You have the right to make a claim for unpaid wages even if you
agreed to be classified as an unpaid intern or trainee," said
Ms. Salaam's lawyer Jeffrey Brown.

"If the employer would have hired additional employees or required
existing staff to work additional hours had the interns not
performed the services, then the interns will be treated as
employees and are entitled to pay."

The suit estimates that under federal law more than 500 ex-interns
who began working at Bad Boy after August 2007 are eligible to
join the class-action claim.

Ms. Salaam said the company did shell out $40 weekly to pay for
her transportation.  She also said she and the other interns had
little contact with Mr. Combs.

"I've seen [Combs] once or twice," she said.  "He was several feet
away.  They didn't want interns on the floor with him.  I'm not
sure why."

Bay Boy did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the
suit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Retirees' 401(K) Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft and Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360,
report that a North Carolina federal judge on Aug. 19 tossed a
proposed class action alleging Bank of America Corp. denied its
retirees a separate retirement account for 401(k) assets, finding
that the claims were moot because the bank had already fixed the
problem.

U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen granted summary judgment to
BofA in the suit filed by bank retirees, finding that since BofA's
restoration of the feature eradicated any negative effects of the
bank's alleged Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
Internal Revenue Code violations, the retirees could not claim any
injury aside from the temporary loss of the separate account
feature.

"After spending millions to restore the separate account feature,
it is unreasonable to expect that defendant would risk another
high-profile [Internal Revenue Service] audit, which would require
defendant to once again spend millions to restore the separate
account feature," the opinion said.

"This court can no longer serve its harm-preventing function in
regard to plaintiffs' claim for loss of the separate account
feature because that feature has been restored and it is
absolutely clear that the violation cannot be reasonably expected
to recur," it added.

In 1998, NationBank, which later merged with BankAmerica to form
BofA, amended its retirement plan to allow employees to transfer
their individual 401(k) assets to a general pension plan trust.
These changes were made known to employees via company
publications.

For employees that chose to do so, the bank created a transferred
savings account equivalent to the amount of the initial transfer,
adding the 401(k) assets to the general trust.  The bank then
invested the money in this trust and periodically transferred
returns to the individual accounts.

The returns were hypothetical and based on the performance of
options chosen by each participant, and the bank guaranteed the
contributions to the plan against investment loss.

In 2000, the IRS opened its audit of BofA's retirement plan and
found that the plan's hypothetical investment credits failed to
preserve the separate account feature required by the Internal
Revenue Code for any employee 401(k) plan.

BofA then spent $10 million to move the retirees' 401(k) assets
into separate accounts in order to restore the separate account
feature, pursuant to an agreement with the IRS after the audit.

The class action dates back to 2004, when a group of BofA retirees
first lodged a complaint alleging that the bank's pension formula
ran afoul of an ERISA provision preventing employers from "back-
loading" their pension plans by giving employees who spend more
time at the company a higher rate of accrual.

The pension plan participants were granted class certification in
August 2010, but the same day, the presiding judge dismissed their
unlawful back-loading claims.

The retirees appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which in July 2012
affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the back-loading
allegations, and in September, the retirees' request for an en
banc rehearing was turned down.  The case was unsuccessfully
petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court in December.

In 2011, however, the retirees filed an fourth amended complaint
with the district court, alleging that BofA's conduct violated
their right to a separate account for their their 401(k) assets
under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.  The complaint is
sealed by the court.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed all remaining allegations
in this lawsuit and pleased to finally put this matter behind us,"
a Bank of America representative told Law360 on Aug. 20.

An attorney for the retirees did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The retirees are represented by Eli Gottesdiener --
eli@gottesdienerlaw.com -- of Gottesdiener Law Firm PLLC and
Thomas D. Garlitz of Thomas D. Garlitz PLLC.

BofA is represented by Anne E. Rea -- area@sidley.com -- William
F. Conlon -- wconlon@sidley.com -- Jeffrey R. Tone and Erin E.
Kelly -- ekelly@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP and Irving
Brenner and Peter Covington of Helms Mulliss & Wicker PLLC.

The case is Pender et al v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case
number 3:05-cv-00238, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.


BERJAC OF OREGON: Ponzi Scheme Class Action Seeks $10MM in Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Buri McDonald, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that
victims in the bankruptcy of Eugene-based Berjac have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the financial firm's founder, its
accounting firm and two of Oregon's biggest banks, which they say
enabled Berjac to carry out a Ponzi scheme that harmed hundreds of
investors.

The 11 investors who filed the lawsuit on Aug. 23 in Multnomah
County Circuit Court include individual residents of Eugene,
Portland and Sisters, as well as Wildish Standard Paving Co. in
Eugene.  They are seeking a jury trial and $10 million in damages.

They filed the lawsuit against Eugene based Pacific Continental
Bank, Portland-based Umpqua Bank and Jones & Roth, a Eugene
accounting firm.  They also named as defendants Berjac founder
Fred "Jack" Holcomb, of Eugene, the Holcomb Family Limited
Partnership and the Holcomb Family Trust.

The defendants are expected to file an answer by late September.

This is the first time that Holcomb, 93, a well-known Eugene
businessman and banker, has been personally implicated in Berjac's
recent legal troubles.

He founded Berjac with his brother Robert Holcomb in 1963.  In
1972, Jack Holcomb helped found Pacific Continental Bank.  He
served as chairman of its board of directors for many years and
was inducted into the Oregon Bankers Hall of Fame in 1998.  His
son, Michael, served on Pacific Continental's board from 1996
until he resigned on Aug. 31, 2012 -- the day the state shut down
Berjac's investment operation and fined the company $900,000.

Michael and his brother Gary operated Berjac for at least a decade
before taking the company into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,
also on Aug. 31, 2012. Each of the brothers entered involuntary
bankruptcy earlier this year.

Portland attorney Michael Esler said his clients filed the lawsuit
against Jack Holcomb, the banks and the accounting firm "because
we couldn't file it against Michael and Gary Holcomb.

"Otherwise we would have added them to the list," he said,
explaining that people in bankruptcy are automatically exempted
from lawsuits.

The Mutlnomah County lawsuit claims that Jack and his sons
operated a Ponzi scheme through their Berjac businesses in Eugene
and Portland from about the 1980s until Berjac filed for
bankruptcy.

Jack Holcomb "supposedly retired in the early 1990s, but he
remained in direct or indirect control of the Berjac Enterprise
with Michael and Gary," the lawsuit alleged.

Jack Holcomb's attorney, Laura Walker of Portland, did not return
a call from The Register-Guard.

Investors were told by Berjac that the firm was running a "safe
and secure business," helping to finance the insurance premiums of
businesses, and that they could deposit or withdraw money from
their investment accounts at any time, the lawsuit said.  Berjac
generally paid investors annual interest of 5 percent to 7
percent, compounded quarterly, the lawsuit said.

However the insurance premium financing business "was just a
front," according to the lawsuit.

The Holcomb family "used virtually none of the funds for the
insurance financing business," the lawsuit alleged.

Instead, they used most of the investors' money to pay off other
investors, to pay down loans, to pay themselves and other Holcomb
family members, to buy real estate to benefit family members and
to speculate in real estate development projects, the lawsuit
alleged.

By the time the Berjac businesses declared bankruptcy, the firm
was owed $1.3 million by clients of the insurance premium finance
business, owed banks more than $3 million on lines of credit, and
owed investors more than $43 million, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleged that Jones & Roth helped Berjac maintain its
front of being "a legitimate, trustworthy, and financially
responsible business," and that Umpqua Bank and Pacific
Continental Bank provided the credit lines to perpetuate Berjac's
scheme.

Jones & Roth did not respond on Aug. 26 to a request for comment.

Umpqua provided lines of credit to Berjac from 1992 until mid-
2009, the lawsuit said.

In response to the lawsuit's claim that Umpqua knew Berjac was
operating a Ponzi scheme, Umpqua's general counsel Steven Philpott
said, "Nonsense!"

"This is just another class action shakedown," he said on Aug. 26.
"Our banking relationship with Berjac ended more than four years
ago.  They had a checking account with us and a secured line of
credit.  On the other hand, the plaintiffs made unsecured loans to
Berjac, and the plaintiffs say that Berjac was paying 5 to 7
percent interest . . . which was a pretty high yield.  Our loans
were repaid.  Their loans weren't repaid and now they're looking
for someone to cover their losses."

After Umpqua stopped providing a line of credit in 2009, Berjac
turned to Pacific Continental Bank and Eugene-based Century Bank,
which Pacific Continental Bank acquired last year.  Those banks
helped Berjac continue its Ponzi scheme by providing lines of
credit from mid 2009 until Aug. 31, 2012, when Berjac filed for
bankruptcy protection, the lawsuit said.

In a statement, Pacific Continental CEO Hal Brown said, "although
we can't discuss this matter in detail due to its legal nature, be
assured we take this matter very seriously."

"While we intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit, we
remain unwavering in our 40-year-plus commitment to our clients,
employees, shareholders and community partners," he said.

The 11 investors who filed the class-action lawsuit include
Charlene Cox of Eugene; Rose Hutchinson of Beaverton; Timothy,
Leslie and Nicolas Hutchinson of Portland; George and Melissa Rex
of Portland; Robert and Edith Shelton (individually and as a
custodian for Amy Shelton) of Sisters, and Wildish Standard Paving
Co. of Eugene.

The entire "class" would include more than 400 Berjac investors.


BEST BUY: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Earnings Report
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Best Buy shareholders can advance claims that the retailer
misrepresented its earnings as "in line" with expectations, a
Minnesota federal judge ruled.

A class of consumers led by the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund had
sued the consumer electronics giant in 2011, claiming Best Buy
executives lied about the state of the company and inflated stock
prices before a 14 percent decline over two days the previous
December.

The complaint in Minneapolis revolves around four allegedly false
statements, three of which were made on September 14, 2010.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank summarized those three September
statements on Monday, August 5, 2013, as the "(1) Best Buy's
Fiscal Year 2011 earnings per share (EPS) guidance of $3.55-$3.70
per share; (2) that Best Buy was 'on track to deliver and exceed
[the] annual EPS guidance'; and (3) that Best Buy's earnings were
'essentially in line with [Best Buy's] original expectations for
the year.'"

The fourth statement came in November 2010 from Mike Vitelli, Best
Buy's enterprise executive vice president and president of Best
Buy for the Americas.  He said: "Flat-screens are doing well at
different levels . . . We are doing really well at Magnolia at the
high end with 3-D.  And the entry-level pieces are going really
strong."

Best Buy moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing
that the safe-harbor clause of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA) protects all of the statements.

Judge Frank defined the clause as stating that, "in any private
action that is based on an untrue statement of material fact or
omission of a material fact, a defendant will not be liable for
making a 'forward-looking statement' that is: (1) 'identified as a
forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those in the
forward-looking statement'; (2) immaterial; or (3) made without
actual knowledge that the statement was false or misleading."

It does not cover Best Buy for making "on track" and "in line"
statements despite known negative trends, Frank found.

The judge did agree, however, that Best Buy's statement regarding
EPS guidance qualifies for safe harbor.

"In the report, defendants describe risks, including: economic
conditions in the U.S. and key international markets; a decline in
consumer discretionary spending; changing consumer preferences;
failure to attract, develop and retain qualified employees; . . .
failure to control costs; . . . [and] statutory, regulatory and
legal developments," Frank wrote.

"The cautionary statements that accompanied the forward-looking
projected increase of 'FY 2011 diluted EPS guidance . . . to
$3.55-$3.70' are sufficient to bring defendants' statements under
the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA," he added.  "In
particular, the risk factors explained in the cautionary
statements . . . mirror Best Buy's failures in accurately
predicting demand and consumer preferences that precipitated the
lowering of the forecast."

The claim against Vitelli's statement -- made during an interview
with Neil Cavuto of Fox News -- also cannot stand, according to
the ruling.

"Vitelli's statements are not material enough so as to be
actionable . . . [as the] November 24, 2010 interview was given
before the Black Friday weekend and is hyperbole," Frank wrote.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: Halunen@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
                     (800) 449-4900
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
                  shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: vjvanderweide@locklaw.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: skaskela@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota St.
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amelia N. Jadoo, Esq.
          David W. Beehler, Esq.
          Michael V. Ciresi, Esq.
          Sara A. Poulos, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: anjadoo@rkmc.com
                  dwbeehler@rkmc.com
                  mvciresi@rkmc.com
                  sapoulos@rkmc.com

The case is IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, Marian Haynes, and Rene
LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc.; Brian J. Dunn; Jim Muehlbauer; and
Mike Vitelli, Case No. 11-429 (DWF/FLN), U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.


BITECH INC: Allowed to Settle Credit Card-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bitech, Inc., doing business
as Performance Bicycle Shop, can settle claims over personal
identification information customers must provide to use credit
cards, a California federal judge ruled.

The Plaintiff commenced this action in San Francisco Superior
Court, Jordan Lamb v. Bitech, Inc., dba Performance Bicycle Shop,
Case No. CGC-11-515148, on October 17, 2011.  On behalf of himself
and a proposed class, the Plaintiff's complaint asserted a cause
of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971, California Civil Code Section 1747.08 and he sought various
remedies related to alleged violations of the Act.  On
November 17, 2011, Performance filed an answer denying Plaintiff's
allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses, and
Performance timely removed the case to this Court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act and principles of diversity
jurisdiction.  The parties thereafter conducted formal and
informal discovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul S. Rosenlund, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3178
          Facsimile: (415) 520-5479
          E-mail: PSRosenlund@duanemorris.com


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Grimaldi, writing for Providence Journal, reports that a
federal judge has approved a settlement in a three-year-old
lawsuit against Massachusetts-based BJ's Wholesale Club.

The class-action lawsuit shepherded by Providence lawyer
Peter Wasylyk contended that the retailer, which charges people
membership fees to shop in its stores, shortchanges customers by
failing to renew their memberships for a full 12 months as the
company indicates in its application materials.

U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith approved a $2.5-million
settlement in the case on Aug. 15.  As a result, qualified BJ's
customers will receive vouchers they can use to purchase goods at
the retailer's outlets.  In Rhode Island, BJ's has stores in
Johnston, Coventry and Middletown.  It also has stores nearby in
Massachusetts, in Seekonk, Attleboro and North Dartmouth.


CALPERS: Grossly Underfunded Insurance Program, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the California Public
Employees' Retirement System "grossly underfunded" its long-term
care insurance program, a class action claims in California
Superior Court.


CANADA POST: Settles Parcel Shipping Class Action for C$5 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Lu, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Canada Post has
agreed to pay more than C$5 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit filed by Lee Valley Tools on behalf of large businesses
who contend they were overcharged for parcel shipping.

The C$5.05 million settlement will be split among commercial
customers of Canada Post who had agreements to ship items within
Canada during the period 2003 and 2007.  In addition, Canada Post
has agreed to pay C$1.3 million toward legal costs incurred by the
plaintiffs.  The class action could potentially involve as many as
54,000 Canada Post customers.

However, Canada Post says it does not acknowledge any liability in
the matter.  The proposed settlement still needs approval from a
judge who will consider the matter in October.

For Canada Post, parcel shipping is the only part of its business
that is experiencing significant growth as consumers choose to buy
more items online and have them shipped directly to their homes.

The lawsuit was driven by Leonard Lee, founder of Lee Valley
Tools, a large mail-order business that ships everything from
woodworking tools to gardening supplies.

For years, Mr. Lee complained directly to Canada Post executives
as well as politicians and even took out newspaper ads and started
a website to air his grievances.

Eventually, in 2006 he filed the class-action lawsuit.  The
complaint centered on two issues: how Canada Post calculated
weight and volume to set prices, and when customers made a mistake
in calculating the weight, Canada Post would not correct it, if it
favored the post office.

Canada Post has since ceased the practice of keeping overpayments
from customers' errors, and credits are now estimated at $1
million a year.

It also promises that no later than two years from the date of the
tentative settlement, being approved by a court, it will end the
practice of charging based on volumetric weights.

That refers to a complicated formula, taking into account both
volume and weight, to charge for shipping parcels.  Delivery
companies have complained that shipping a box of feathers still
takes up as much space as a box of books on a truck, but the price
difference can be substantial if they charge only by weight.

But Lee Valley argued that Canada Post's method, measuring three
sides, can greatly overstate the volume of parcel when it is
irregularly shaped such as a triangular box -- doubling the price
in some cases because it assumes it is a long rectangular box.

"The litigation was motivated by principle.  It was primarily
directed at changing two practices at Canada Post," said Rod
Winsor, partner at Blaney McMurtry, who was the lead counsel for
the plaintiffs.

Since the lawsuit was filed in 2006, Canada Post has ended its
previous practice where if a shipper under-calculated the weight,
it was corrected, but if the shipper over-calculated the weight,
it was not corrected.

"They have already changed one practice, and as part of the
proposed settlement, they will change the second one within two
years," Mr. Winsor said.

The class-action only applies to large commercial shippers so the
potential impact on ordinary consumers is unclear.

"My belief is that Canada Post will want to have uniform
practices, and therefore, all customers will benefit from this.
But I don't know," Mr. Winsor said.

Canada Post spokesman Jon Hamilton said officials decided a
settlement was the best approach in this case.  "We evaluated our
options and felt a settlement was the best option," he added.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Coal Plant Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that three
Masontown residents, seeking to represent 1,004 area families, on
Aug. 27 sued FirstEnergy Corp. citing pollution from its
threatened Hatfield's Ferry coal-fired power plant.

Julius and Francine Jesso, along with Sheilah Novasky, claim in
the lawsuit that they face arsenic-laced fly ash, odors and gases
from the nearby plant, which interferes with their ability to use
their property.  Their complaint alleges that "a very heavy, black
particulate" from the plant rains down on their properties,
constituting a nuisance, negligence and trespassing.

"They're constantly cleaning everything in their homes," said
Peter Macuga -- PMacuga@mldclassaction.com -- a Detroit-based
attorney representing the residents along with Downtown-based
James E. DePasquale.  "In the permit that every one of these
polluters operate under it says right on its face: You cannot
damage private property through your industrial operation and your
emissions."

The lawsuit claims that FirstEnergy has not used the best
available pollution-preventing technology at Hatfield's Ferry.

The lawsuit comes two weeks after FirstEnergy said it may have to
postpone the planned Oct. 9 closure of the Hatfield's Ferry plant
because of concern that it could affect the reliability of
regional energy supplies.

A FirstEnergy spokesman could not be immediately reached.

A judge would have to certify the 1,004 families as a class before
the case could go forward as a class action.


FOUNDERS PAVILION: EEOC Mulls Settlement of GINA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the nursing home
targeted in the agency's first class action under the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act informed a New York federal
court on Aug. 16 that they are attempting to negotiate a
settlement resolving the case.

The judge overseeing the suit, in which the EEOC is accusing
skilled nursing center Founders Pavilion Inc. of violating GINA by
requesting family medical histories as part of health exams before
and after workers accept jobs, agreed to push back the deadline
for the company's response to the allegations because of the
ongoing negotiations toward a consent judgment that would dispose
of the case.

If the parties do reach a deal, it will give them a quick
resolution, but it will also deprive employers of a chance to see
how the EEOC's GINA claims will play out in court, since the case
stands as the first class action and only the second lawsuit that
the EEOC has filed under the 2008 law barring discrimination
against employees or job applicants because of genetic
information.

The agency's first GINA suit, which accused Fabricut Inc., one of
the world's largest distributors of decorative fabrics, of
unlawfully asking a job applicant for her family medical history
in a post-job offer medical examination, was filed alongside a
consent decree resolving the suit for $50,000, so the claims were
not tested in court.

The suit against Founders Pavilion, filed just one week after the
Fabricut suit, contains similar allegations under GINA.

The EEOC claims that Founders Pavilion conducted post-offer, pre-
employment medical exams of applicants, which were repeated
annually if the person was hired that as part of the exam, the
company requested family medical history, which GINA forbids.

The case against Founders Pavilion marks one of the agency's first
lawsuits under GINA, and it is unlikely to be one of the agency's
last. One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC's
strategic enforcement plan is for the agency to address emerging
and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes
genetic discrimination.

In addition to the GINA claims, the EEOC's suit asserts that
Founders Pavilion ran afoul of both the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Title VII.

The agency maintains that Founders Pavilion violated the ADA by
firing workers because of conditions such as inconsequential back
injuries and a learning impairment.

And the nursing facility flouted Title VII by terminating,
refusing to hire or withdrawing offers of employment from
certified nursing assistants who were pregnant, the suit alleges.

A representative for the EEOC and an attorney for Founders
Pavilion were not immediately available for comment on Aug. 19.

Founders Pavilion is represented by Daniel J. Moore --
dmoore@harrisbeach.com -- of Harris Beach PLLC.

The case is U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Founders Pavilion Inc., case number 6:13-cv-06250, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.


FULL SCOPE: Illegally Filed Oil Spill Claims, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Georgia company operating out of New Orleans is illegally
handling BP oil spill claims -- and placing liens against
recoveries -- though it does not have any licensed attorneys, a
class action claims in Alabama Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Beaufort Engineering Services sued Full Scope
Services LLC, claiming it's been targeting people and businesses
in Alabama who were hurt by the oil spill, even after the Alabama
Bar Association issued an ethics opinion last year that oil spill
claim representation by consulting firms is illegal.

Beaufort Engineering Services (BES) seeks to represent plaintiffs
"who have suffered economic harm as a result of defendant Full
Scope Services LLC's unlicensed practice of law with respect to
filing and prosecuting of claims before the former Gulf Coast
Claims Facility (herein 'GCCF') and/or the Deepwater Horizon
Claims Center Economic & Property Damage Claims, MDL 2179 In Re:
Oil Spill by the Oil Rig 'Deepwater Horizon' in Gulf of Mexico on
April 20, 2010 (sometimes herein after 'Claims Facility')."

Beaufort Engineering says it "contracted with the defendant Full
Scope Services LLC to file and prosecute a claim for economic
losses resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Full Scope
Services' unlicensed practice of law as described herein has
directly and proximately caused economic damage to the plaintiff.
BES terminated the contract by letter dated January 11, 2012.  The
defendant proceeded to place a lien on the plaintiff's claim
before the claims facility.  Despite being enforced by the claims
facility, this lien is invalid as described herein and has
directly and proximately caused economic damage to the plaintiff."

Plaintiff Kelly Builders Inc. claims it terminated its contract
with Full Scope "and hired legal representation in 2012.  The
defendant proceeded to send an itemized bill to the plaintiff, and
to place a lien on the plaintiff's claim before the claims
facility.  Plaintiff satisfied the lien.  Despite being enforced
by the claims facility, this lien is invalid as described herein
and has directly and proximately caused economic damage to the
plaintiff."

Class members have filed claims before the GCCF or Claims Facility
by contracting with Full Scope Services.

"All plaintiffs accordingly have been economically harmed by Full
Scope Service LLC's unlicensed practice of law," the lawsuit
states.

"According to Full Scope's website, they hold themselves out to be
a disaster recovery entity that helps businesses through the GCCF
and the claims facility's claims process. . . .  By their own
admission, they do not employ lawyers: 'Our team includes
certified property adjusters and appraisers, certified public
accountants, and forensic accountants, as well as economic,
financial and legal consultants.' . . .   Full Scope purposefully
availed itself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court by
soliciting the business of Alabama claimants and filing their
claims before the GCCF and/or claims facility.  Defendant Full
Scope does not employ individuals authorized to practice law in
Alabama, or upon information and belief, in any state.
Additionally, on August 1, 2013, a Writ for Quo Warranto was
issued in Baldwin County, Alabama against the defendant enjoining
the defendant from the unauthorized practice of law," according to
the complaint.

"In 2013 the Alabama State Bar Association Office of General
Counsel issued Ethics Opinion 2013-01 which clearly established
that prosecuting an Alabama claimant's BP claim before the claims
facility by accounting or consulting firms such as Full Scope is
illegal as it is the unlicensed practice of law. . . .

"Upon information and belief, at the time of the filing of this
class action complaint, Full Scope Services continues to solicit
claimants (including Alabama individuals and businesses),
continues to file claims before the claims facility on their
behalf, continues to prosecute already filed claims, and is
attempting to force any liens for services performed on claims."
(Citations omitted.)

Plaintiffs estimate the class in the thousands of Alabama people
and entities.

It seeks cancellation of any claims brought to the claims facility
by Full Scope Services, and damages for conversion and unjust
enrichment.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq.
          KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES LLC
          23937 US Highway 98
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 928-4008


GERBER PRODUCTS: N.J. Judge Tosses Probiotic False Ad Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a New
Jersey federal judge on Aug. 23 tossed a consolidated proposed
class action accusing Gerber Products Co. of falsely advertising
its baby probiotics products, finding the plaintiffs only have
standing to challenge the labeling but made much broader claims.

The five consolidated suits alleged Gerber's Good Start Protect
Infant Formula, Good Start Protect Formula for 9 through 24 months
and DHA & Probiotic Cereal Single Grain Oatmeal and Rice varieties
do not provide the advertised immune system benefits and are not
equal to breast milk in nutritional value.

But U.S. District Judge Jose Linares found that because none of
the plaintiffs alleged the general type or medium of advertising
to which they were allegedly exposed, or how the alleged
advertising misrepresentations caused their injuries, they did not
have standing to base claims on any of Gerber's representations
other than those on the products' labels.

"Separate and apart from the product labeling, the [complaint]
references a number of different types of representative
'advertisements,' including television commercials, press
releases, and excerpts from Gerber's website.  Indeed . . .
plaintiffs premise their claims on Gerber's overall marketing
campaign in connection with the products.  However, no plaintiff
provides facts sufficient to allege causation in connection with
those aspects of defendant's marketing campaign," Judge Linares
said in an order granting Gerber's motion to dismiss.

The judge further whittled the suit by dismissing all claims of
lack of substantiation -- where a plaintiff argues that there is
no competent evidence to support a claim made in defendant's
advertising or labeling -- because, he said, the plaintiffs
distinguish their claims as being premised upon allegations that
competent scientific evidence demonstrates that claims made by a
defendant are objectively false.

And while Judge Linares declined to hold that Gerber's
representations regarding purported immune system benefits are not
false, deceptive, nor misleading, he said of the remaining claims
that could be based on the labeling, none was specific enough
about the actual labels.

"For example, throughout plaintiffs' brief, they point to concrete
examples of misleading statements from press releases and the
website in the [complaint].  Plaintiffs also refer to defendant's
'misrepresentations' without specifying the source.  Also, they
allege that a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the
products but for the alleged misrepresentations and that
plaintiffs have paid a premium for doing so," the judge said.

He said that in light of the fact that the plaintiffs' claims are
premised on Gerber's overall marketing campaign, he could not
determine whether the plaintiffs state a plausible right to relief
based on the representations contained on the products' labels
alone, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The suits generally claim that New Jersey-based Gerber made claims
as to the helpful nature of probiotics when, in fact, probiotics
may harm babies.  They alleged that the company markets its infant
products containing probiotics, prebiotics, and docosahexaenoic
acid and arachidonic acid -- which are synthetic versions of
essential fatty acids found in breast milk -- as healthier than
other baby food, but that no reliable scientific data backs up
those claims.

Gerber attorney Carmine R. Zarlenga -- czarlenga@mayerbrown.com --
of Mayer Brown LLP said the company is pleased with the ruling and
believes that all claims on its products are accurate and lawful.

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Aug. 26.

The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP,
Bursor & Fisher PA, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Scott & Scott
LLP, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Gerber is represented by Carmine R. Zarlenga, Adam Hudes --
ahudes@mayerbrown.com -- and Dale J. Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP and Scott A. Ohnegian
-- sohnegian@riker.com -- of Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland &
Perretti LLP.

The case is In re: Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation,
case number 2:12-cv-00835, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accused of Conspiring to Raise Aluminum Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs, GS Power Holdings, and Metro International Trade
Services conspired to raise aluminum prices by withholding
supplies from the market, a contractor claims in a federal
antitrust class action.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Google Voice" Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, along with Himmelstein Law
Network, on Aug. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Google, Inc. over an alleged defect in its "Google Voice"
application for Android-based smartphones and iPhones which caused
users to be billed by their cell phone carriers for international
calls that were supposed to go through the Google Voice system at
much cheaper international rates.  The complaint alleges that
users have reported incurring as much as $700 in excess cell phone
charges as a result.

On August 5, 2013, Google removed the case, Rabbi Allan Greene v.
Google, Inc., Northern District of California case number
5:13-cv-03613-PSG, to federal court, stating that the complaint
seeks damages which "far exceed" the $5 million requirement for
federal jurisdiction.

The Google Voice application has been installed on over 10 million
Android devices, and millions of iPhones.  It allows users to make
inexpensive international calls, by routing the call over the
Google Voice system.  When the user dials an international number,
the application calls a US-based Google Voice access number, and
the call is carried from there to its destination over the Google
Voice system.  Low per minute international charges are deducted
from the credit balance in the user's Google Voice account.

The class action complaint alleges that since its launch, the
application has suffered from software defects, or "bugs," which
caused international calls that should have been routed through
the Google Voice system to be routed instead through the cell
phone carrier's international calling system.  The complaint
alleges that as a result, users were billed for these
international calls by their cell phone carriers at the carrier's
tariff rates, instead of having the per-minute charges deducted
from their Google Voice accounts at Google's lower international
rates.

Users who paid cell phone charges for international calls that
should have gone through Google Voice may visit
http://www.ramolson.comfor more information.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for November 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Aug. 19 issued a statement
regarding the Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc. Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

ROBERT CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HANSEN MEDICAL, INC., FREDERIC H. MOLL,
STEVEN M. VAN DICK, GARY C. RESTANI, and CHRISTOPHER SELLS,
Defendants.

Lead Case No. 4:09-cv-05094-CW

SUMMARY NOTICE

This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED HANSEN
MEDICAL, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 19, 2008 AND OCTOBER
18, 2009, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on November 21, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., before
The Honorable Claudia Wilken, at the United States District Court
-- Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 2 -- 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of
$4.25 million in cash and $4.25 million in stock should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to Members
of the Class; (2) whether to certify the Settlement Class; (3)
whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated May 9, 2013; (4) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (5) whether the application of Lead Counsel and
Lead Plaintiffs for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in connection with this Litigation should be approved.
If you purchased or acquired Hansen Medical, Inc. common stock
between February 19, 2008 and October 18, 2009, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this Settlement.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Settlement Fairness Hearing and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain copies by writing to Curry v. Hansen
Medical, Inc., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 35067, Seattle, WA 98124-3508, or
you can download a copy at
http://www.HansenMedicalSecuritiesLitigation.comor by calling the
Claims Administrator toll-free at 1 (888) 985-9896.  If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
postmarked no later than October 25, 2013, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed below:

          Lionel Z. Glancy Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 1 (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: settlements@glancylaw.com

          or go to the following website:

          http://www.HansenMedicalSecuritiesLitigation.com

DATED: July 25, 2013


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Ex-Counsel Wants Out of 401(K) Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub and Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, report that a
former general counsel for Hewlett-Packard Co. on Aug. 16 urged a
California federal judge to release him from a putative class
action accusing the company of failing to inform 401(k) plan
participants of HP's plummeting stock value, saying that the
alleged conduct occurred after he left.

Michael Holston, HP's former general counsel and member of the
Plan Committee and Investment Review Committee, argued in the
motion to dismiss that he left the company in December 2011 and
cannot be held liable for alleged fiduciary breaches that occurred
after his departure.  He also denied the allegation that he had
been aware of accounting fraud "red flags."

"Mr. Holston cannot, as a matter of law, be held liable for any
alleged fiduciary breaches occurring after he left the company and
the plan committees," the motion says.

Lead plaintiff Mike Laffen filed the suit in December 2012 on
behalf of participants whose individual accounts transacted in or
held HP stock at any time between Feb. 12, 2011, and Nov. 22,
2012.  The complaint was filed in response to major losses related
to poor acquisition decisions, including the $8.8 billion HP lost
through its October 2011 purchase of British software firm
Autonomy Corp. PLC.

The suit claims that HP's alleged breach of fiduciary duty
violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Mr. Holston
was named, along with six other members of the Investment Review
Committee, as defendants in the suit.

According to the motion to dismiss, Mr. Holston left HP five
months before the company received whistleblower allegations in
May 2012 about Autonomy's accounting and began investigating them.
But Mr. Holston claims he could not have had any authority over
HP's 401(k) plan and therefore could not have had any fiduciary
duties regarding subsequent events.

Holston further disputes the suit's claims that his role on HP's
legal due diligence team, his unspecified involvement in
evaluating HP's legal rights, and his alleged knowledge of a wage
claim cited in the suit show that he was aware of accounting fraud
"red flags" at the company.

The complaint alleges that the committees not only continued to
offer HP stock, but also failed to provide complete and accurate
information to plan participants about the risk of investing in
the stock in light of the major losses and allowed transactions in
HP common stock, which was artificially inflated, the complaint
says.

"We believe that the motion is without merit and should be denied
by the court," Jacob Zamansky, attorney for Laffen, told Law360 on
Aug. 19.

In addition to HP's $8.8 billion loss following its $10.3 billion
acquisition of Autonomy, the suit points to its August $8 billion
write-off resulting from its May 2008 $13.9 billion purchase of
Electronic Data Systems Corp.

The suit also notes HP's July 2010 acquisition of Palm Inc. for
$1.2 billion for the purpose of obtaining webOS, a proprietary
mobile operating system. The suit says that in August 2011, HP
suddenly abandoned its webOS strategy.

Representatives for Hewlett-Packard did not respond to a request
for comment by Law360 on Aug. 19.

Laffen is represented by Francis M. Gregorek -- gregorek@whafh.com
-- Betsy C. Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Fred Taylor Isquith
-- isquith@whafh.com -- Rachele R. Rickert and Marisa C. Livesay
-- livesay@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP and Jacob H. Zamansky, Edward H. Glenn Jr. and Kevin D.
Galbraith of Zamansky & Associates LLC.

Hewlett-Packard Company 401(K) Plan and Hewlett-Packard Company,
Plan Committee Investment Review Committee are represented by
Nicole A. Diller -- ndiller@morganlewis.com -- Charles C. Jackson
-- charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- Andrew Scroggins --
andrew.scroggins@morganlewis.com -- and Sacha Marie Steenhoek --
ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Laffen v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., case number
5:12-cv-06199, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Suit in California Over OT and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hobby Lobby stiffed workers
for overtime and minimum wages and violated other labor laws, a
class action claims in California Federal Court.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for Abuse Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that on
Sept. 16, Justice Carolyn Horkins of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice will commence hearing a case in which she will be called
on to determine whether the aggregate damages provisions found in
s. 24 of the Class Proceedings Act can be applied in fiduciary
duty and institutional abuse cases.

Dolmage v. The Queen is a class action against the Province of
Ontario in respect of the Huronia Regional Centre, which provided
a residential program for mentally challenged and disabled
persons.  For the most part, the class is comprised of all persons
who resided at Huronia between 1945 and 2009.

The Plaintiffs, represented by Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky, allege
that members of the class were emotionally, physically, and
psychologically traumatized by their experiences at Huronia
because, among other allegations, the Crown breached its
fiduciary, statutory and common law duties to the class through
the establishment, operation, and supervision of Huronia, which
closed in March 2009.

The class is seeking an award of C$2-billion in general and
punitive damages, as well as interest and costs.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Suit Demands Pay for FanFest Volunteers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that Major
League Baseball staffed its "lucrative, for-profit" 2013 All-Star
FanFest with thousands of unpaid volunteers in violation of state
and federal law, according to a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff John Chen says he and about 2,000 other volunteers
worked FanFest, an interactive baseball theme park described as
"baseball heaven on earth."  They allegedly helped with
hospitality, event logistics, community events and transportation
for the 40 attractions included with admission, such as the Home
Run Derby and the All-Star Legends & Celebrity Softball Game.  The
main event was an All-Star Game at Citi Field on July 16.

"Instead of paying them for their work, MLB, the world's
preeminent professional baseball league with annual revenue of
more than $7 billion, provided volunteers with 'a shirt, a cap and
a cinch drawstring backpack,' free admission for the volunteer and
one guest to FanFest, a water bottle and a baseball," the
volunteers claim in Manhattan Federal Court.

By relying on unpaid volunteers, they say, the Major Leagues
deprived federal, state and local governments of "significant tax
revenue" and denied volunteers "the ability to earn a fair day's
wage for a fair day's work."

The volunteers say the labor arrangement "also excluded New
Yorkers and many others who could not afford to work for free."

Entrance to the All-Star FanFest at the Javits Center in Manhattan
cost $35 for adults and $30 for children over 2, according to the
lawsuit.  Once inside, "paying customers could purchase a small
bag of potato chips for $5 and a cup of lemonade for $7.50,"
volunteers claim.

They say the event had several large corporate sponsors and drew
thousands of customers, who "spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars there."

"MLB could have easily afforded to pay its FanFest workers," the
volunteers say.

FanFest infused the city's economy with $191.5 million, by the
Major Leagues' own estimate, the lawsuit states.

"None of these millions of dollars, however, ended up in the
pockets of the New Yorkers whom MLB recruited to provide the labor
necessary to prepare and run FanFest and other All-Star Game
events," volunteers say.

They sued Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball Properties
Inc., the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Major League
Baseball Enterprises Inc. for back pay and an order barring the
defendants from "soliciting and accepting work from unpaid
volunteers."

The class is represented by:

          Justin Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


McKESSON CORP: Court Stays Proceedings in "Brock" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
BROCK v. McKESSON CORP. is one of many cases involving the
prescription diabetes drugs Avandia(R), Avandamet(R), and
Avandaryl(R) currently pending in federal court.  Plaintiffs
originally filed this case in the Superior Court for the County of
San Francisco against McKesson Corporation, Smithkline Beecham
Corporation d/b/a/Glaxosmithkline and numerous Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges that plaintiffs were prescribed Avandia(R), and
that they have suffered serious cardiovascular events such as
heart attacks and congestive heart failure as a result of their
use of that drug.  On July 9, 2013, defendant Glaxosmithkline
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, asserting diversity jurisdiction as well
as jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11). The Notice of Removal asserts that
McKesson was fraudulently joined for a number of reasons,
including that plaintiffs' state law claims against McKesson are
preempted under PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011).

On July 18, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring
this case to the MDL proceeding pending before Judge Cynthia Rufe,
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Avandia Marketing,
Sales Practices and Products Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1871.
Plaintiffs filed notices of oppositions to the Conditional
Transfer Order.

Presently before the California Court are Glaxosmithkline's motion
to stay the action until the JPML resolves any dispute about
transferability, and plaintiffs' motion for remand to state court.

The Defendant's motion to stay is scheduled for a hearing on
August 30, 2013, and plaintiffs' motion for remand is scheduled
for a hearing on September 6, 2013.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), District Judge Susan Illston
determined that these matters are appropriate for resolution
without oral argument, and vacated the hearings.

Judge Illston granted the Defendants' motion to stay all
proceedings in this case pending a final decision on transfer by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In the event the
Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on
plaintiffs' motion for remand.

Judge Illston said a stay will not prejudice the plaintiffs
because the JPML's final decision on transfer is likely to be
issued shortly.

The case is STEVEN BROCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORP.,
et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3149 SI,(N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/84FnGTfrom Leagle.com.

Steven Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee --
PNapoli@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik &
Associates LLP.

Latanya Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Rosa Buchanan, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Rickey Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Vera Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Theresa Ceballos, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Robert Chechile, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Vito Accardi, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Russell Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Cedric Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Bobby Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jerry Addelston, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Sam Aldridge, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Ann Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Pedro Alvarado Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Charles Arnold, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Phyllis Arrington, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Robert Arsenault, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Victor Atofau, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Robert Avery, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Anu Awan, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

James Badger, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Margaret Bagwell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Willie Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Stacy Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Barbara Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Derek Bankston, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Cheryl Barnett, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Calvin Barnum, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

James Baugh, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Robert Beavers, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Trudy Beavis, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Richard Becker, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Judith Beckham, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

John Beirne, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lionel Betancourt, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Amerson Bigelow, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Paul Bilbrew, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jessie Blaylock, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Eric Blocker, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gregory Bowers, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

John Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Barbara Boykins, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Daniel Brillhart, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Marilyn Brinkley, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

John Broadus, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Nathan Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Erica Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Cotimea Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jennings Burkhart, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Louis Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Ronald Burwell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Paulette Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jeffery Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lula Cain, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Tammy Caldwell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Donald Callais, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Bernard Campaniolo, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Zenna Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gerald Cantwell, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Emma Carlton, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Elmer Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Donna Caskie, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Joseph Cavalier, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Thomas Chamberlain, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Derick Chestnut, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Anthony Cianci, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Harold Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Mechelli Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Brenda Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin
Brown, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Kevin Brown -- mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, Sonja
S. Weissman -- sweissman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP &
Steven J. Boranian -- sboranian@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith
LLP.


MOULTON NIGUEL: Chloramine Corroded Copper Pipes, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions claim in
Orange County Court that Moulton Niguel Water District and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California added the
disinfectant chloramine to drinking water, which corroded copper
pipes in homes.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Major Ruling on Scholarships Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Aug. 19 disclosed that U.S.
District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the Southern District
of Indiana issued a ruling on Aug. 16 flatly rejecting the
National Collegiate Athletic Association's bid to dismiss a
lawsuit filed by Hagens Berman alleging that NCAA scholarship
rules violate federal antitrust laws.

The suit, filed July 25, 2012, claims that the NCAA's prohibition
of multi-year guaranteed scholarships and limits on the number and
amount of scholarships at NCAA institutions is an illegal
restraint of the labor market, in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

The Court had twice dismissed cases with similar claims, ruling
that the plaintiffs failed to identify a relevant market, a
requirement for claims under the antitrust laws.  In each case,
the judge pointed out technical issues with the plaintiffs'
complaint.

The attorneys have now fixed those issues and the judge has
rejected the NCAA's third bid to dismiss the suit.

"We were confident that once we addressed the Court's specific
issues with our complaint, it would affirm that the case should
move forward," said Steve Berman, attorney for the plaintiffs and
managing partner of Hagens Berman.

"We contend that the NCAA's limits on scholarships artificially
decrease the supply of scholarships and therefore artificially
increases the relative demand for them by student-athletes,"
Mr. Berman continued.  "As a result, student-athletes who in a
free market would command a high price from top institutions
receive no scholarships or vastly reduced ones."

The lawsuit asks for the Court to award damages resulting from the
NCAA's alleged violations, including trebled or tripled damages
for claims under the antitrust laws.  It also asks the court to
enjoin the NCAA from artificially reducing the supply of
scholarships available in the future.

To contact an attorney regarding this case, call (206) 623-7292 or
e-mail ncaa_antitrust@hbsslwa.com

You can learn more about this case by visiting http://is.gd/yd6q4v

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (HBSS) -- http://www.hbsslaw.com
-- represents consumers, whistleblowers, investors, workers and
others in complex and class-action litigation.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Fan Can Fight NFL, Reebok Over Pricey Gear
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the NFL and Reebok cannot sack claims that they conspired to fix
the prices of team apparel sold to consumers, a federal judge
ruled.

In an October 2012 federal complaint, Patrick Dang sued the
National Football League (NFL), its licensing company, Reebok
International, 26 teams and three other companies.

The putative class action allegedly that the NFL reached a
merchandising agreement with Reebok in 2010 that violates two
Californian trade laws, the Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition
Law, and the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.

"Plaintiff bases his suit on an agreement that took place in
December 2000," U.S. District Judge Edward Davila explained.
"During that time, the individual NFL teams, the NFL, and the NFLP
[NFL Properties] jointly agreed to grant Reebok an exclusive
license to manufacture NFL-branded apparel.  The agreement,
Plaintiff argues, marked a shift in the NFL's licensing landscape.
Before December 2000, he argues, NFL-related licensees had to
compete against one another in order to obtain an NFLP license for
the NFL or a particular NFL team.  He also contends that the
individual NFL teams competed against each other for the licensing
of their own intellectual property.  This arena of competition
among both the individual NFL teams and the prospective licensees,
Plaintiff argues, 'ensured that the market for such apparel was
subject to free market forces that served to provide the ultimate
consumer of such apparel with superior product selection and
competitive prices.'

"Plaintiff alleges that in November 2011, he purchased an item of
apparel bearing an NFL team's logo and other intellectual property
from a sports merchandise retailer.  Plaintiff asserts that he was
an 'indirect purchaser' of this apparel product bearing the NFL
team's intellectual property.  He argues that due to the allegedly
anticompetitive and unlawful agreement among the Defendants, he
paid an "anticompetitive overcharge for his purchase."

The NFL and other defendants moved to dismiss, but Davila denied
such relief Friday, August 2, 2013.

Part of the ruling hinged on finding that Dang met the requirement
for stating a valid antitrust claim: "alleging that the defendant
has market power within a legally cognizable relevant market."

Dang's alleged markets consist "solely of NFL-related brands to
the exclusion of other sports and clothing brands could consist of
a unique market unto itself," according to the ruling.

It meets the standard because apparel products that bear NFL-
related logos and trademarks "may be deemed valuable and relevant
to consumers," Davila wrote.

Davila similarly found no issue with Dang's failure to include the
team apparel of other sports leagues, colleges, entertainment
providers and fashion brands.

"Plaintiff has established that NFL-logo-bearing apparel is
'uniquely attractive' enough so as to constitute its own relevant
submarket sufficient to withstand defendants' motion to dismiss,"
the 21-page decision states.  "The rationale for this lies in the
notion that the reason why many consumers purchase a piece of NFL-
logo-bearing apparel is precisely because that item bears the logo
of the NFL team.  Other, similar products without an NFL-related
logo would not have relevance to them."

Dang additionally has antitrust standing as an indirect purchaser
in that he has bought NFL apparel from retailers and was allegedly
injured by the high prices that incorporate the supracompetitive
royalty rates, according to the ruling.

The case is Patrick Dang, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. San Francisco Forty Niners, et al., Case No.
5:12-CV-5481 EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


OCWEN LOAN: Sued Over "Trojan Horse"-Like Mortgage Rebates
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick DiVito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Ocwen, the nation's largest subprime loan servicer, uses a check
for $2.50 to automatically enroll unsuspecting customers in bogus
home-warranty and service plans, a class claims in Federal Court.

Margarita Delgado and William Sheppard, a married couple from
Brooklyn, filed the suit in Eastern District New York against
Ocwen Loan Servicing; Ocwen Mortgage Servicing; Ocwen Financial
Corp.; Ronald Faris; Scott W. Anderson; Cross Country Home
Services Inc.; Homesure of America Inc.; Homesure Services Inc.;
Homesure Protection of California Inc.; Homesure of Virginia Inc.;
Joseph Incandela; and Sandra Finn.

The couple says the scheme starts by sending Ocwen customers
checks for $2.50 "that a reasonable consumer thinks is a refund or
rebate on their mortgage."

Enclosed in the letters is a pitch inviting customers to cash the
checks "so they can start saving money right away!" the lawsuit
states.

The solicitations highlight the "savings" and so-called "benefits"
in large print, but hide the "costs" and "exclusions" with small
print and confusing descriptions, "and omit other downsides
entirely," according to the complaint.

"Defendants' check solicitation scheme fails to make clear that by
cashing the check customers will be enrolled in home warranty and
service plan[s] that substantially increase their monthly mortgage
payments," the lawsuit states.

Ocwen did not immediately return an e-mail Wednesday, August 7,
2013, seeking comment.  A spokeswoman for Cross Country on
Wednesday, August 7, said she was unaware of the lawsuit but said
she would get back to Courthouse News later to comment.

Delgao and Sheppard's complaint says that once customers cash the
check, they are then locked into $500-a-year home-warranty and
service plans that offer "services customers never use because
they don't know they are buying them."

"Defendants also don't provide customers with an agreement or
contract to review before 'enrolling' them in a plan," the lawsuit
states.

Cross Country -- which the plaintiffs describe as a self-styled
consumer-oriented financial company and "architect" of the
"scheme," allegedly approaches companies like Ocwen "with the
promise of a new joint enterprise that can enhance the bottom
line."

"Ocwen was a perfect candidate, as it has more than 600,000
customers in its high-risk loan portfolio worth more than $125
million," the lawsuit states.  "Having found a willing partner,
Cross Country engineered a Trojan Horse stratagem for Ocwen to
mail out the solicitation checks to homeowners."

Once a customer cashes the $2.50 check, Cross Country tacks on an
additional line item to a homeowner's mortgage that the Cross
Country and Ocwen split, according to the complaint.

Delgado and Sheppard say Ocwen does not disclose to customers how
it is sharing the new "plan" fees with an outside company, and
that the company banks "on the fact that most of Ocwen's customers
-- comprised of homeowners who may already be teetering on the
edge of financial disaster from their subprime loans -- don't
realize what's happening."

Because the plan charges are relatively small compared to the
higher cost a single customer would incur in trying to challenge
defendants' alleged conduct, "it makes no financial sense for an
individual customer to bring legal action," the complaint states.
"With this class action, Ocwen's customers seek to level the
playing field and make sure the companies like Cross Country and
Ocwen engage in fair and upright business practices."

The class seeks at least $100 million in damages for violating
federal anti-racketeering law and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, as well as other claims.  They also want their
money back.


OMNICOM GROUP: Being Sold to Publicis for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Omnicom Group Inc. is selling
itself to Publicis Groupe SA too cheaply through an unfair
process, in a cash and stock deal that will create a combined
company worth $35 billion, shareholders claim in New York County
Supreme Court.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: "Hines" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr., dismissed the case captioned
CYNTHIA HINES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., Defendant, NO. 09 CV 991 (SJ),
(E.D.N.Y.).

Ms. Hines initiated this putative class action pursuant to the
Court's diversity jurisdiction, alleging that defendant
Overstock.com, Inc.'s decision to impose a "restocking fee"
amounted to consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and a violation of
various state consumer protection statutes.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
arguing that the Plaintiff lacks class standing and that the
Complaint fails to state a claim on the merits.

Judge Johnson granted the Defendant's motion.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/CcW6Btfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Plaintiff are Victoria L. Weinman --
victoriaweinman@yahoo.com -- Peta Gordon --
peta.gordon@kayescholer.com -- Myron Kirschbaum --
myron.kirschbaum@kayescholer.com -- Angela R. Vicari --
angela.vicari@kayescholer.com -- at KAYE SCHOLER LLP, New York,
NY, and:

   Harry I. Katz, Esq.
   HARRY I. KATZ, P.C.,
   6125 Utopia Parkway
   Fresh Meadows, NY 11365-2155
   Tel: (718) 463-3700

Attorneys for Defendant are Jonathan D. Their -- jthier@cahill.com
-- Krista Friedrich -- kfriedrich@cahill.com -- Jason M. Hall --
jhall@cahill.com -- Guillaume Buell -- gbuell@cahill.com -- at
CAHILL GODRON & REINDEL LLP, New York, NY.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: To Pay Shareholders $8.1-Mil. to Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Par
Pharmaceutical will pay shareholders $8.1 million to settle claims
that it understated its finances by about $93 million, according
to a deal approved late last month.

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas approved the settlement of a
federal class action accusing the New Jersey-based drug company of
lying about its financial performance and prospects for years.

In July 2006, Par said it would be restating its financial
statements for 2004, 2005, and part of 2006 to correct "an
understatement of accounts receivable reserves which resulted
primarily from delays in recognizing customer credit cards and
uncollectible customer deductions."

The announcement caused Par common stock to drop from $18.25 to
$13.47 per share, according to investors.  Months later, the drug
developer announced plans to restate its pre-2004 financial
statements, and in 2007 it filed restatements for 2001 to 2006.

In doing so, Par admitted that it had understated its accounts
receivable reserves by more than $83.5 million and had overvalued
its inventories by more than $9.9 million, according to the
complaint.

Investors, led by the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement
System (LAMPERS), sued Par and two former executives in New Jersey
Federal Court for alleged securities fraud.

Par later agreed to settle the case for $8.1 million -- about
7 percent of total class-wide damages, according to the ruling.

Salas approved the settlement on July 29, holding that it met all
nine factors identified by the 3rd Circuit in Girsh v. Jepson.

"This matter has been pending for seven years, and even if lead
plaintiff were to succeed at trial, 'necessary delay through a
trial, post-trial motions, and the appellate process would likely
deny the class any recovery for years, an unfavorable result for
all parties,'" Salas wrote.

None of the 8,186 potential class members objected to the
settlement, and no exclusion requests were received after lead
counsel Berman DeValerio sent 76,386 notice packets on behalf of
banks, brokers and other nominees, the unpublished opinion states.

The settlement was reached only after "extensive factual
investigation and comprehensive legal briefing," Salas wrote.

She also granted DeValerio's request for $2.43 million -- or
30 percent of the settlement fund -- in attorney's fees and nearly
$600,000 in litigation costs, and approved an $18,000 compensatory
award to LAMPERS.

"Lead counsel 'received, reviewed, and analyzed hundreds of
thousands of pages of relevant documents,'" Salas wrote.  "Lead
counsel engaged in highly-involved factual and legal
investigations, which included interviewing former Par employees
and retaining an experienced economist to assess likely damages."

Par had a market capitalization of about $1.2 billion and reported
$162.5 million of cash equivalents at the end of 2011, according
to the ruling.

The case is In re Par Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation, Case
No. 06-3226 (ES), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.


PARAGON: Class Action Defendants Named in Frankfort Civil Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Warren, writing for Kentucky.com, reports that two women who
are defendants in a federal class-action lawsuit in Lexington also
are among defendants in a civil lawsuit in Frankfort.

The civil lawsuit was filed in Franklin Circuit Court by
Louisville-based PBI Bank in late July.  An amended complaint was
filed Aug. 20.

The defendants are Ann Giles and Lu Anne Wallace, and several
health care firms with which they are associated.

Ms. Wallace and Ms. Giles also are defendants in the federal
class-action suit in Lexington, along with Paragon Family Practice
and several associated health care businesses.

Plaintiffs in the federal case, who are employees of some of those
businesses, claim that their company health insurance lapsed
because Ms. Giles, Ms. Wallace and the other defendants didn't pay
the premiums.

Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants have continued to
deduct retirement contributions from their paychecks but haven't
been moving the money into their 401(k) accounts.

The Franklin County lawsuit lists Ms. Giles and Ms. Wallace as
defendants with Franklin Medical Ventures Inc.; Medical Property
Ventures LLC; Primary Care Express, doing business as Anderson
Primary Care LLC; and Associates in Cardiology.  The firms all
have offices in Lexington, according to the Frankfort lawsuit.

PBI says in the lawsuit that Giles and Franklin Medical Ventures
executed a promissory note with the bank for $1,018,000 in
September 2009, and that Ms. Wallace secured it with a commercial
guaranty in which "she absolutely and unconditionally guaranteed
full repayment of the note."

The note is now in default, the bank says.

PBI is seeking to recover more than $926,000 from the defendants.
The bank also wants a declaration that it has a first lien on real
estate on Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort that the defendants put
up to secure the note.

Meanwhile, a Frankfort development firm, C. Michael Davenport
Inc., has filed a counterclaim, saying that Franklin Medical
Ventures also executed a promissory note for $279,500 and that
Lu Anne Wallace secured the note with a personal guaranty.  That
note also is in default, Davenport alleges.

Davenport is seeking to recover the amount owed, and it wants the
court to declare that it has a valid mortgage lien against the
same Chamberlain Avenue property cited in PBI's suit.


PEPSICO INC: Settles Naked Juice False Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Kim, writing for ABC News, reports that Naked Juice fans
who bought bottles of the beverage in the last six years could get
up to $75 in payments from a $9 million class action settlement
fund after plaintiffs questioned the company's claims of "100
percent juice," "all natural" and other labeling.

Individuals who purchased eligible Naked Juice flavors like Green
Machine, and other products listed on NakedJuiceClass.com, between
Sept. 27, 2007 and Aug. 19, 2013 can send in a claim form
electronically or through mail by Dec. 17, 2013.  People who
bought Naked Juice and still have a proof of purchase are entitled
to a cash payment of up to $75 while those without proof are
eligible for up to $45, depending on how much you spent on Naked
Juice.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, was consolidated from five class action complaints
filed against Naked Juice, which is owned by PepsiCo.  The lawsuit
alleged the company violated state and federal laws and consumer
protection statutes related to advertising, labeling and marketing
of certain products.

"The lawsuit claims that the eligible products contain ingredients
that are not 'All Natural' and contain GMOs (or Genetically
Modified Organisms).  Naked Juice denies all these claims," the
settlement website says.

The settlement website launched last week after Naked Juice and
the plaintiffs announced a settlement last month.

A spokeswoman for Naked Juice said the company is "pleased to have
reached this agreement."

"Our juices and smoothies are made with all-natural fruits and
vegetables -- with no added sugar and no preservatives," the
company spokeswoman said in a statement.  "In some products, we
also include an added boost of vitamins.  Naked juice and
smoothies will continue to be labeled 'non-GMO,' and until there
is more detailed regulatory guidance around the word 'natural' --
we've chosen not to use 'All Natural' on our packaging."

The company said it plans "to enlist an independent, third-party
to confirm our non-GMO status across the entire Naked brand
portfolio".

Naked Juice, calls itself "a leader in the super-premium juice
category," according to the company website.  It was founded in
Santa Monica, Calif., in 1983.


QUESTAR CAPITAL: Negligence Claims Related to Ponzi Scheme Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Kevin Koeninger reports that
an investment firm should not face negligence claims after
allegedly buying more than $20 million in worthless securities
from a now-defunct Ponzi scheme, a federal judge ruled.

James Smith Jr. had led the putative class action against Questar
Capital Corp., Yorktown Financial Companies and Allianz Life
Insurance Companies of North America.  The October 2012 complaint
alleged that the companies should have discovered Diversified
Business Services and Investments (DBSI) was a Ponzi scheme by
performing due diligence on the investments.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson concluded Friday,
August 2, 2013, in Minneapolis that "the complaint pleads with
considerable specificity the circumstances of DBSI's fraud, but
not that of Questar."

Nelson dismissed all seven counts of the complaint, five of which
alleged violations of the Minnesota Securities Act.  Smith can
amend those claims as well as a sixth claim for negligent
misrepresentation, but the court dismissed the common-law
negligence count with prejudice.

Smith's evidence against Questar for fraud was severely lacking,
according to the ruling.

"First, regarding Questar's alleged failure to heed due diligence
advisors or adequately perform due diligence, Smith does not
specify the contents of any due diligence reports, or when and
where they were compiled," Nelson wrote.  "At most, Smith alleges
that Mick and Associates, PC and Buttonwood Investment Services
LLC, 'among others,' prepared these reports.  Smith does not
sufficiently allege that these reports contained red flags of a
Ponzi scheme, or that Questar ignored any such indications.

"Second, with respect to Questar allegedly distributing, offering,
and selling DBSI-issued securities through materially misleading
PPMs and marketing materials, Smith does not allege when, where,
or by whom the PPM and other materials were transmitted to Smith
or putative class members.

"Third, with respect to Questar's alleged assurances to Smith and
the putative class members about the soundness of DBSI's
securities, Smith's general allegations do not identify the time,
place, or contents of the assurances, or by whom they were made."

As to the secondary liability against Questar, Nelson found that
the claim was filed under the wrong subsection of the Minnesota
Securities Act, a "scrivener's error."

Questar claimed the statute of limitations had already run out on
Smith's Minnesota Securities Act claims, but the Judge Nelson
sided with Smith who argued that "the first public documents
accusing Questar of wrongdoing were filed less than two years
before he began this litigation."

Nelson concluded that "the statute of limitations runs from the
time that he reasonably should have understood that he had a claim
against Questar, because this case names Questar and not DBSI as a
defendant.

"Thus, Smith's receipt of DBSI's PPM and the public documents
alleging DBSI's impropriety in 2008 does not time-bar his claims
under the Minnesota Securities Act," she added.

In dismissing Smith's putative class claims, Nelson agreed with
Questar that "the fraud allegations of the putative class do not
meet the heightened pleading standard."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PPLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Gordon, Esq.
          Scott L. Adkins, Esq.
          Stephen McGuinness, Esq.
          GORDON & DONER, PA
          4114 Northlake Boulevard
          Palm Beach, FL 33410

               - and -

          Charles E. Scarlett, Esq.
          Bradford M. Gucciardo, Esq.
          Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
          SCARLETT GUCCIARDO & HIRSCH, PA
          25 Seabreeze Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Delray Beach, FL 33483
          Telephone: (561) 278-6707
          Facsimile: (561) 278-6244
          E-mail: cscarlett@sghlawyers.com
                  bgucciardo@sghlawyers.com
                  shirsch@sghlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony N. Cicchetti, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          175 Powder Forest Drive, Suite 301
          Simsbury, CT 06089
          Telephone: (860) 392-5040
          Facsimile: (860) 392-5058
          E-mail: anc@jordenusa.com

               - and -

          Roland C. Goss, Esq.
          James F. Jorden, Esq.
          JORDEN BURT LLP
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 400 East
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8148
          Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
          E-mail: rcg@jordenusa.com
                  jfj@jordenusa.com

               - and -

          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-7759
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com

The case is James W. Smith, Jr., on his own behalf and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Questar Capital Corporation,
Yorktown Financial Companies, Inc., and Allianz Life Insurance
Companies of North America, Case No. 12-cv-2669 (SRN/TNL), in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.


RICHARD MANCUSO: Child Pornography Victim Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
United Press International reports that Masha Allen, adopted
daughter of a Pittsburgh businessman who sexually abused her
online, has begun suing those who viewed her Internet image, a
lawsuit states.

Ms. Allen, now 20, was a Russian orphan when she was adopted at
age 5 by Richard Mancuso, 55.  Her widely circulated images came
to personify the dark side of the Internet, and the U.S. Congress
passed a law in her name, giving child pornography victims the
opportunity to recover damages from anyone caught with their
images.

In a federal class-action lawsuit filed on Aug. 23 Ms. Allen names
Mr. Mancuso and 13 other men convicted of transmitting or
possessing her photo, and seeks at least $150,000 from each, the
minimum payout under Masha's Law, The Philadelphia Inquirer
reported on Aug. 27.

It is a class-action suit that keeps growing, the newspaper noted.
Like all child pornography victims, the U.S. Justice Department
notifies Allen every time it charges someone with illegally
possessing her photo, a group now "well over 2,000" in number, the
lawsuit states.

Collecting on the claim is a dubious matter, though.  Men
convicted of possessing pornography tend to be defendants whose
lives are in ruins by the time their criminal cases finish, the
newspaper said.

"These are the types of people who aren't motivated to settle, or
even defend, a lawsuit," said Stephen Kelley, a Baltimore lawyer
who filed a Masha's Law claim in May against 80 men on behalf of
two sisters, 7 and 9.

Mr. Mancuso pleaded guilty to child pornography charges and is in
federal prison.  The others named in Ms. Allen's suit are all in
prison on child pornography charges as well.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Certified Class of California Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Marie Gaudin can represent a
class of California borrowers, who did not receive loan
modifications pursuant to the federal Homeowners Affordable
Modification Program when they entered into trial period plans
with Saxon Mortgage Services, a California federal judge ruled.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Mulligan, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 982-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 982-8515
          E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com

               - and -

          Peter Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
          125 University Avenue, Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

The case is Marie Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-01663-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: JPML Set to Hear Transfer Arguments on Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) will consider dozens of transfer-related requests next
month, including two that could affect a pair of lawsuits pending
in southern Illinois' federal court.

The JPML will meet Sept. 26 in Philadelphia, where they will hear
arguments in 11 matters in which requests to transfer and create
multidistrict litigation have been made.  The panel will also
consider various requests in about two dozen other matters without
hearing arguments.

Out of the 11 matters designated for oral argument next month, two
involve issues at the crux of a pair of class action lawsuits
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

One deals with class action suits over a security breach to
Schnuck Markets Inc.'s electronic payment system and the other
focuses on claims brought against H&R Block over delayed tax
returns.

The transfer request in the matter against Schnucks involves four
cases, one each from the Eastern District of Missouri, the Central
District of Illinois, the Northern District of Illinois and the
Southern District of Illinois, according to the JPML hearing
schedule.

The class action suit pending in the Southern District of Illinois
was brought in May by Laverne Rippy.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan in July granted Ms. Rippy's
request to stay briefing on Schnucks' motion to transfer the suit
until the JPML issues a ruling on the pending transfer request
before it.

Ms. Rippy's suit is one of a handful of federal lawsuits brought
against Schnucks in connection with a security breach that the
plaintiffs claim may have compromised the credit and debit card
information of millions of customers between December 2012 and
March 2013.

The grocery store chain has said that only card numbers and
expiration dates were stolen, not cardholders' names, addresses or
anything else.

Ms. Rippy claims in her suit that the breach not only compromised
her information, but also forced her and other members of her
proposed class to spend hours canceling their compromised cards,
activating replacement cards and re-establishing automatic
withdrawal payment authorizations

Although the JPML only lists four cases on its hearing schedule
for this matter, court documents show Schnucks has been with five
similar suits over the security breach, as well as a class action
complaint in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis in
Missouri.

In June, the plaintiff in one of two federal suits filed in
Missouri asked the JPML to consolidate the five suits in the
Eastern District of Missouri.

Schnucks in late June filed a motion to transfer Ms. Rippy's suit
to the Eastern District of Missouri, which is where the first of
the five federal suits was filed.

The grocery store chain asserted in its motion that the Eastern
District of Missouri would be "the most logical and convenient
forum for this litigation" as it "best promotes the convenience of
the parties and the interests of justice."

St. Louis attorney Jeffrey A. Millar and Wood River attorneys
Thomas and Peter Maag represent Ms. Rippy and the proposed class.

Belleville attorney Russell K. Scott, Colorado attorney Paul G.
Karlsgodt and Ohio attorney Daniel R. Warren represent Schnucks in
Rippy's suit.

Also next month, the JPML will hear arguments over HRB Tax Group
Inc.'s motion to transfer several suits that claim it erroneously
prepared certain tax forms to the Western District of Missouri.

This matter, according to the JPML hearing schedule, involves 13
suits, including one from the Southern District of Illinois. The
other suits were brought in federal courts in California, Florida,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.

The Southern District of Illinois suit was filed in May by Ursula
Millett and Jeanine Sanlorenzo.  It names HRB Tax Group and HRB
Technology LLC as defendants.

The two women, as well as the plaintiffs in the other suits, claim
that the defendants' erroneously prepared tax returns that
included forms for education credits.

They assert that H&R Block admitted that it failed to enter
certain information in Form 8863 to claim their education credits,
which they assert delayed refunds for about 600,000 tax returns
for at least six weeks.

The lines determining eligibility for these credits previously
could be left blank and still indicate qualification, but the suit
states that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) started to require
that certain information be entered into these lines at the start
of the 2012 tax season.

H&R Block's tax software, however, "continued to permit the lines
to be left blank, which has resulted in the delay of thousands of
refunds," according to the suit that goes on to note that the
provider's CEO issued a public statement that acknowledged the
mistake and apologized.

The H&R Block defendants in June filed a motion to compel
Sanlorenzo to arbitration, asserting that her claims are required
to be heard in arbitration because she signed a Client Service
Agreement providing so.

In July, Chief Judge David Herndon dismissed Sanlorenzo's claims
without prejudice and earlier this month, granted the defendants'
motion to stay the case pending the JPML's decision on their
transfer motion.

Edward Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Kenneth Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com
-- of Wexler Wallace LLP in Chicago represent Ms. Millett.
Sherrie Savett -- ssavett@bm.net -- and Eric Lechtzin --
elechtzin@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague in Philadelphia
represented Sanlorenzo.

W. Jason Rankin, an attorney with HeplerBroom in Edwardsville,
represents the defendants in Ms. Millett's suit.

For a full list of the matters set to be heard at the JPML hearing
next month, go to jpml.uscourts.gov


SLM CORP: Calif. Court Refused to Dismiss Overcharges Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Philip A. Janquart reports
that federal judges left Sallie Mae reeling on August 5, 2013, by
refusing to dismiss claims that it overcharged on student loans
and approving a settlement of similar claims.

In one San Francisco case, Tina Ubaldi and Chanee Thurston hope to
represent a class against Sallie Mae, SLM Corp. and SLM PC Student
Loan Trust 2004-A.

The third amended complaint accuses Sallie Mae of charging
excessive late fees and interest rates on private education loans.
Ubaldi and Thurston say they thought the loans were made with
Stillwater National Bank in Oklahoma, but the U.S. Department of
the Treasury has since confirmed that Sallie Mae is the actual
lender.

Sallie Mae and its co-defendants had claimed that the claims under
California law fail because the loans fall under Oklahoma law
under the choice-of-law provisions.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte disagreed, citing
the plaintiffs' allegations that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
and services the loans.

"Plaintiffs' primary theory in this case is that despite the terms
of the loan documents, Sallie Mae is the de facto lender of the
student loans at issue, and banks such as Stillwater simply rent
their charters to Sallie Mae so it can avoid California law," the
August 5, 2013 decision states.

"If plaintiffs' de facto lender allegations are true, then
Oklahoma does not have a substantial relationship to Sallie Mae or
plaintiffs or the loans," Laporte added.  "There is a factual
dispute regarding the identity of the actual lender.  In light of
this dispute, the court cannot find on a motion to dismiss that
there is a substantial relationship between Oklahoma and the
parties and loans."

This ruling came on the heels of another San Francisco magistrate
granting preliminary approval of a settlement for a class that
Sallie Mae allegedly charged collection fees of 25 percent on
student loans.

Angelo Bottoni, Paul Roberts, Tracie Serrano and Shawnee Silva
took out private loans to attend the California Culinary Academy
in San Francisco between 2002 and 2004.  Each ended up defaulting
on their loans, which were sent to third-party collection
agencies.  They allege that Sallie Mae added a 25 percent
collection charge based on their loan balances, then turned around
and attempted to collect the principles, the interest and the 25
percent charge, according to their complaint.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in private mediation
sessions under the guidance of retired federal judge Layne
Phillips.

Under the proposed settlement, Sallie Mae is limited to charging
class members 8.75 percent collection costs.  All amounts that
have already been allocated to collections costs in excess of 8.7
percent will be reallocated to the principle, interest or other
fees under the terms of the promissory notes, according to the
order signed Friday, August 2, 2013, by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler.  Those who have already paid their debt entirely
will receive refund checks.

"In sum, the court finds that viewed as a whole, the proposed
settlement is sufficiently fair, adequate and reasonable such that
preliminary approval of the settlement is warranted," the 12-page
decision states.

The first case is Tina M. Ubaldi and Chanee Thurston v. SLM
Corporation, Sallie Mae, Inc., and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-
A, Case No. C 11-01320-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Accused of Defrauding Seniors in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Iulia Filip reports that a
chain of old folks homes defrauded people of hundreds of thousands
of dollars by refusing to refund 90 percent of its pricey
"entrance fees," as promised, after the residents die, a survivor
claims in a class action.

William DeSimone sued Springpoint Senior Living, six of its
subsidiaries, and its president Gary Puma, in Middlesex County
Court.

On behalf of his mother's estate, DeSimone seeks to represent all
residents and families who were deceived about refundable fees.

Springpoint, based in Princeton, N.J., owns and operates five
full-service retirement communities, 18 affordable housing
communities, and several senior citizen communities.  It is a
multimillion-dollar enterprise with 3,500 residents and 1,500
employees, according to the lawsuit.

"This class action arises out of a consumer fraud scheme directed
at one of New Jersey's most vulnerable populations, its senior
citizens," the complaint states.  "Since 2007, and perhaps even
earlier, defendant Springpoint Senior Living, Inc.
('Springpoint'), formerly known as 'Presbyterian Homes & Services,
Inc.', targeted and took advantage of people residing in five New
Jersey elderly-only 'continuing care communities' that Springpoint
operates through five subsidiary companies it wholly owns and
controls.  Many of Springpoint's victims were in their seventies
and older.  At a time in their lives when these men and women
should be respected, taken care of and protected, they were
instead preyed upon and were taken advantage of by a benevolent
appearing, sharply operated non-profit corporation that works with
a Wall Street bank and an international real estate conglomerate
to victimize susceptible seniors and their families.

"As set out below, Springpoint conceived, and through its
operating subsidiaries executed, a classic 'bait-and-switch'
scheme that deceives senior citizens and their loved ones out of
tens of thousands of dollars per family.  The scheme worked like
this: senior citizens such as the late Evelyn DeSimone
(plaintiff's mother), often assisted by family members (such as
the plaintiff and his siblings), after deciding to move from a
home or apartment into one of Springpoint's attractively appearing
elderly-only continuing care communities and after passing
requisite health and psychological entrance exams, were required
to pay Springpoint a large 'entrance fee' that ranged from $84,000
to over $700,000 depending on the facility and apartment (called a
living accommodation unit) selected.  Prior to making that payment
senior citizens and their families were told by Springpoint
orally, in marketing materials, and, most importantly, in a
statutory required disclosure statement that the entrance fee was
'90 percent refundable' to the resident's estate or family at the
time that the resident either died or moved out of the community.
The fraud and unconscionable business practice is that families do
not receive a 90 percent refund; instead they get a fraction of
that amount.  That is because Springpoint's continuing care
communities' contracts made the computational basis for the 90
percent refund not what the resident paid as 'entrance fee' upon
entering the community, but rather upon the lesser of the entrance
fee paid by the resident or the entrance fee paid by the new
occupant(s) of the departing resident's living unit.
Additionally, Springpoint and its operating subsidiaries also
routinely failed to disclose at the time they were collecting
these 90 percent refundable entrance fees that they, in order to
attract residents, respond to competition and/or respond to
adverse real estate market conditions, could and would offer
discounts on the entrance fees, lower the unit prices and/or offer
other incentives, including lengthy payment deferrals, which could
affect the amount and timing of refunds to residents departing
from Springpoint's continuing care communities.

"Springpoint's entrance fee discounts and incentives affected
adversely the amount of refund plaintiff and others similarly
situated received as well as the timing of the payment of the
refund that was received.  Thus many Springpoint continuing care
community residents and/or their families, such as plaintiff and
his deceased mother, did not or will not get back 90 percent of
the entrance fee as represented.  They also were (or may or will
be in the future) forced to wait longer to receive their partial
90 percent entrance fee refund back, which is, pursuant to
Springpoint's terms, paid without any interest.  In Mrs.
DeSimone's case, her family received back 20 percent less than
they were led to believe they would due to a 20 percent sale
Springpoint was running at the time her residential unit was relet
in 2009."

DeSimone, of Jamesburg, N.J., says that Springpoint's 90 percent
refundable plan played a major role in his decision to move his
mother to one of its communities in 2009.

The family paid a $159,000 entrance fee and DeSimone's mother
moved into the community, where she lived until she died in April
2010.

After she died, DeSimone received an $80,136.00 refund: 50 percent
of the entrance fee he had paid, according to the complaint.

DeSimone says he has not received the rest of the money due under
the 90 percent refundable plan.

He claims Springpoint markets its facilities "in a misleading and
aggressive manner" and deceives senior citizens about the
purported refund of the fees.

Some Springpoint facilities even offer to help sell the residents'
homes to have them move to their communities, according to the
lawsuit.

DeSimone claims that despite Springpoint's nonprofit status, its
officers received more than $11.3 million in compensation between
2009 and 2011.

He seeks class certification, an injunction and compensatory
damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, and violation of state laws.

Named as defendants are Springpoint Senior Living, Springpoint at
Monroe, Springpoint at Stonebridge at Montgomery, Springpoint at
Crestwood, Springpoint at Meadow Lakes, Springpoint at Monroe
Village, Springpoint at Navesink Harbor, and Gary T. Puma.

Springpoint and Puma did not immediately return requests for
comment.

Mr. DeSimone is represented by:

          Michael Coren, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH PC
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003
          Facsimile: (732) 747-9004
          E-mail: mcoren@cprlaw.com


STORA ENSO: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $8 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman, Scott Flaherty, Shannon Henson and Anne Urda,
writing for Law360, report that Finnish paper company Stora Enso
Oyj has agreed to pay $8 million to resolve a class action
claiming that its former North American subsidiary, now a unit of
the recently reorganized NewPage Holding Corp., conspired with a
rival paper producer to fix prices, the plaintiffs said on Aug.
19.

A group of companies that bought publication paper, which is used
in magazines and other printed materials, moved on Aug. 19 for
preliminary approval of the settlement inked in July, saying the
$8 million payment was a good result given the fact that Stora
Enso's former unit had recently gone through bankruptcy with its
current owner, NewPage.

Because both the Connecticut district court and the Second Circuit
had refused to allow the plaintiffs to pursue Stora Enso itself,
only the former Stora Enso North America Corp., without the
Finnish company agreeing to the settlement the plaintiffs would
have had to win a sizeable judgment against the subsidiary to get
the same $8 million as unsecured creditors under NewPage's
reorganization plan, according to the motion.

"To actually receive $8 million from SENA, plaintiffs would have
needed to enter a settlement with, or obtain a final judgment
against, SENA for as much as $155 million," the motion said.
"[Stora Enso's] agreement to fund the settlement thus allows the
class to receive a substantial amount of cash without a reduction
in the amount, and the attendant delays, that would have resulted
from processing the settlement through the bankruptcy court."

Antitrust watchdogs in the U.S. and European Union both pursued
the alleged cartel between Stora Enso and fellow Finnish paper
maker UPM Kymmene OYJ in the early 2000s.  Although the European
Commission ultimately abandoned its probe of Stora Enso, the U.S.
Department of Justice indicted the company only to see it
acquitted in 2007.

UPM, which cooperated with the government's probe, was granted
immunity and settled with the direct paper purchasers for $9
million in 2007.

Though the direct purchasers won class certification in mid-2009,
the judge overseeing the case ended up granting both Stora Enso
and its subsidiary summary judgment in late 2010.

Two years later, the Second Circuit agreed that there was not
enough evidence presented to show that the Finnish company "had
any direct involvement in decisions regarding SENA's marketing,
sale or pricing of publication paper in the United States."

The appeals court did, however, renew the claims against SENA,
which NewPage had acquired in 2007.  NewPage later filed for
bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court ultimately agreed to allow
the antitrust case to proceed to trial and let the plaintiffs seek
to collect on any judgment as unsecured creditors, according to a
recent order.

In January, the plaintiffs tried to have Stora Enso substituted in
for SENA, claiming that under the 2007 sale agreement, the Finnish
company remained on the hook for its former unit's liability.

U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill rejected that request in
late June, ruling that while the stock purchase agreement required
Stora Enso to indemnify NewPage for any losses linked to the
antitrust suit, it did not mean that Stora Enso had directly
assumed its former subsidiary's antitrust liability.

The plaintiffs said on Aug. 19 that under the current conditions,
the settlement was a good result that offered "significant
compensation" to the class.  Under the terms of the agreement,
Stora Enso has already put $8 million into an escrow account,
though it stands to receive some of that amount back if class
members opt out of the deal.

The settlement calls for the class to return 75 percent of the pro
rata payment for each class member that declines the deal,
according to the motion.

Stora Enso and SENA attorney David Marx Jr. of McDermott Will &
Emery LLP told Law360 on Aug. 19 that the settlement didn't
indicate that the company thought it "would not have been
completely vindicated at trial."

"The company's confident that had the trial gone forward it would
have prevailed," Marx said.

The settlement resolves the direct purchasers' claims in the
multidistrict litigation.  There are still some indirect purchaser
claims that were voluntarily dismissed while the direct purchasers
pursued their case, which could be renewed.

Brenner Saltzman & Wallman LLP is liaison counsel for the
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs' executive committee includes
attorneys from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Heins Mills & Olson PLC, Lite DePalma Greenberg
LLC and Barrack Rodos & Bacine.

Stora Enso and its U.S. subsidiary are represented by McDermott
Will & Emery LLP.

The case, part of the In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation
MDL, is Parliament Paper Inc. et al. v. Stora Enso Oyj et al.,
case No. 3:04-md-01631, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.


STRYKER CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Illegal Fax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that Stryker Corp. on
Aug. 19 slammed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case over
faxes touting orthopedics seminars, calling the suit a money grab
that will harm the primary care practices it purports to
represent.

The medical device maker urged U.S. District Judge Robert J.
Jonker to refuse a class certification bid from Physicians
Healthsource Inc., a litigious Cincinnati medical practice
accusing Stryker of sending illegal fax blasts promoting
orthopedic technology seminars to more than 8,000 numbers stored
by the American Medical Association.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies Drivers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Truckinfo reports that more than nine years after a suit was first
filed against the carrier Swift Transportation, over claims it
cheated drivers out of compensation, it has been certified as a
class action.

The move by an Arizona judge means litigation should proceed,
involving potentially tens of thousands of truckers.  It claims
Swift used the Household Mover's Guide, which on average produced
mileage figures that are less than actual miles driven, to
calculate mileage driven compensation, and did so without
disclosing the practice.  The result, the suit claims, is shorting
driver compensation up to 10% at times.

The Arizona Superior Court has conditionally ruled the lawsuit is
on behalf of one class consisting of owner operators who were
given mileage-based compensation by Swift from March 2, 2001
onward.  The second involves employee drivers of Swift who were
paid by the mile from April 9, 2009 onward.

The case was earlier granted class action status in 2010, but
Swift appealed, and that led to more legal wrangling by both
sides, delaying the case.

Drivers that do not want to be a part of the lawsuit have until
September 13 to ask to be excluded.

There is no indication when the case will go to trial.

Swift has denied in court any wrongdoing.


TANGOE INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed as Lead Counsel in Stein Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant appointed The Rosen Law Firm and
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as co-lead
counsel and Elstein and Elstein, P.C. as liaison counsel in the
case captioned LEWIS STEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. TANGOE, INC., ALBERT R.
SUBBLOIE, JR., and GARY R. MARTINO, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-00286 (VLB), (D. Conn.).

The Court further appointed Lewis Stein as Lead Plaintiff
initially for the purpose of proposing lead counsel, thereafter
pursuing class certification and if a class is certified
representing the interests of the class.

The Court concluded that Lewis Stein satisfies the criteria of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) in that he has established that he would
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class
and vigorously litigate the case fairly and adequately on behalf
of all class members.

This action was filed on March 1, 2013 by Lewis Stein purporting
to represent himself and a class of similarly situated individuals
all of whom purchased common stock of Tangoe, Inc. between
December 20, 2011 and September 5, 2012. Two separate actions
based on the same nucleus of operative facts were filed on March
15 and April 12, 2012. All three actions were consolidated on the
present docket.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/o0fs0Vfrom Leagle.com.

Lewis Stein, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce L. Elstein --
belstein@elstein-law.com -- at Elstein and Elstein, P.C., Henry
Elstein -- helstein@elstein-law.com -- at Elstein and Elstein,
P.C., Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- at
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP & Lesley F
Portnoy -- lfportnoy@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

Calvin Rector, Consol Plaintiff, represented by:

  Jonathan J. Kelson, Esq.
  Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
  Timothy P Moylan, Esq.
  DISERIO, MARTIN, O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI, LLP
  1 Atlantic St.
  Stamford, CT 06901
  Tel: 203-358-0800

Timothy S. Kelley, Consol Plaintiff, represented by:

  Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
  DISERIO, MARTIN, O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI
  1 Atlantic St.
  Stamford, CT 06901
  Tel: 203-358-0800

Tangoe, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Hornstine --
adam.hornstine@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr, Glenn M. Cunningham -- gcunningham@goodwin.com -- at Shipman
& Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd, Katherine Romel Husband --
khusband@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd,
Kerry C. Tipper -- kerry.tipper@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr & William H Paine --
william.paine@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr.

Albert R. Subbloie, Jr, Defendant, represented by Adam Hornstine,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Glenn M. Cunningham, Shipman
& Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd, Katherine Romel Husband, Shipman &
Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd, Kerry C. Tipper, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr-MA & William H Paine, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr.

Gary R. Martino, Defendant, represented by Adam Hornstine, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Glenn M. Cunningham, Shipman &
Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd, Katherine Romel Husband, Shipman &
Goodwin -ConstPlza-Htfd, Kerry C. Tipper, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr & William H Paine, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr.

Lewis Stein, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP & Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm.

James Gibson, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

Tangoe Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.


TEXAS BRINE: Louisianans Claim Radioactive Sinkhole Is Growing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that an
enormous, radioactive, foul-smelling sinkhole swallowed an acre of
cypress trees and forced people to evacuate their homes,
Louisianans say in a federal class action against Texas Brine Co.
and Occidental Chemical Corp.

This is not the first class action involving the giant sinkhole,
which the class claims was caused by gas and oil drillers dumping
radioactive materials into salt caverns.  They claim the sinkhole
is still growing.

The first lawsuit was filed a year ago.  It listed only Texas
Brine Co. as a defendant.

Lead plaintiff Dianne Sanchez says in the new complaint: "On
Friday, August 3, 2012, a sinkhole, 422 feet deep and 372 feet
wide emerged in the wooded swampland area of Bayou Corne,
releasing a foul diesel odor, collapsing trees and created salt-
water slurry, which contained diesel fuel.  This incident, event
or occurrence happened entirely within the State of Louisiana and
resulted in injuries entirely in the State of Louisiana."

"On or about August 3, 2012, a mandatory evacuation was declared
by Assumption Parish for all residents of Bayou Corne resulting
from this incident.  The mandatory evacuation has been in effect
through the date of this filing.

"Upon information and belief, the sinkhole, which continues to
expand, and the resulting contamination is the result of the
failure of salt caverns, owned and/ or operated by the
defendants."

The class claims the defendants "had used the cavern as a deposit
area for naturally occurring radioactive material arising from
drilling into two defendant-owned salt caverns, including the one
breached in the Bayou Corne area. . . .

"In early September 2010, defendants began reworking the cavern
well, milling a section of salt higher than the existing cavern
roof, at 3,400 feet deep, to see if the upper strata could be
mined. This area extends for about 100 feet through the well
casing above the cavern roof.

"On January 21, 2011, Mark J. Cartwright, president of Texas Brine
Co. Saltville informed the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR), via letter, about a failed integrity test of the
cavern and suspicion that the cavern may have breached the
Napoleonville Dome's outer wall.  These problems with the cavern
led to the cavern being plugged in June 2011.  The area milled in
September 2010 may be the source of the salt dome breach.

"LDNR records show that defendant had been examining the cavern's
wall at least since June 2010.

"On information and belief, the public was not warned in January
2011, or at any time thereafter or at any time prior to the
appearance of the sinkhole, of the potential danger resulting from
the failure of this cavern and the general public had no knowledge
of the storage of the radioactive material in the cavern."

Naturally occurring radioactive material is a designation given to
materials, usually industrial wastes or byproducts enriched with
radioactive elements, that are naturally found in the environment
in trace amounts -- in soil and rocks, for instance -- and which
are brought to the surface through human activities such as oil
and gas production.  Through the human activities the material,
most of whose radioactivity comes from radium, becomes
concentrated and therefore toxic.  Radium, like virtually all
radioactive materials, can be carcinogenic.

The plaintiffs seek civil penalties and damages for negligence,
nuisance and trespass, economic damages, attorneys' fees and
medical monitoring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Calvin C. Fayard Jr., Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT APC
          519 Florida Ave. SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726-3917
          Telephone: (225) 664-0304

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Centola III, Esq.
          MARTZELL & BICKFORD
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130

               - and -

          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM LLC
          106 West Seventh Street
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
                     (985) 536-7904
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
          E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Perque, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD PERQUE LLC
          700 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-3306
          Facsimile: (504) 529-4179
          E-mail: richard@perquelaw.com


UNITED STATES: $2.7-Mil. Deal to Settle Overcharges Claims Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Uncle Sam can
pay $2.7 million to settle claims that its military credit card
swindled 63,000 soldiers and veterans on bogus interest charges, a
federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Taylor Russell had sued the U.S. government in 2009
over the inflated interest rates that came with credit cards
issued by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).

Russell allegedly opened an AAFES account in 1997 and went
delinquent in 2000.  Through 2005, AAFES allegedly "applied an
annual percentage rate on his account of 14.25 percent even though
the allegedly maximum annual interest rate allowed pursuant to his
credit card agreement was never more than 12.25 percent and for
most months was 12 percent," according to an earlier ruling in the
case.

That 2012 decision had said Russell could bring a class claim --
that AAFES overcharged on deferred payment plan (DDP) debt -- even
though he received a full, $150 refund for his individual injury.

"AAFES's credit card agreements have undergone various
modifications over the years," U.S. District Judge William Alsup
wrote.  "Between 1992 and now, the AAFES has modified their
standardized agreements at least twenty times.'"

"The AAFES allegedly violated these agreements through a common
practice of calculating interest charges on delinquent accounts on
a fixed rate basis using the prime rate at the time the account
became delinquent, instead of periodic adjusting the interest
rate," Alsup added.

Last week, Alsup approved a proposed settlement in the case and
ordered AAFES to pay more than $2.7 million into a settlement
fund.

Though AAFES voluntarily corrected delinquent accounts and issued
$1.9 million in refund checks following Russell's initial filing,
it "inadvertently excluded" 35 individuals that should have
received refund checks, Alsup said.

Additionally, "approximately 21,000 checks were returned as
undeliverable and another 40,000 checks remain uncashed,"
according to the ruling.

"That is, approximately 60 percent of persons the AAFES determined
were owed refunds have not been paid.  This amounts to
approximately $2 of the $5 million dollars in total refunds the
AAFES determined was due."

AAFES failed to resend 60,557 uncashed or returned checks, Alsup
added.

The parties calculated the total settlement by adding the value of
refund checks issued in 2010 and 2012 -- $1,971,074.02 and
$306,232.55, minus $3,815 in checks issued to those opting out --
plus an additional $500,000, for a total amount of $2,773,491.57.

The settlement class includes about 63,000 members, the ruling
states.

No class objections were received, nine members opted out, and 10
more were deemed to have opted out because they cashed original
refund checks after notice of the settlement, Alsup added.

Alsup granted Russell a $200 incentive award, though the
settlement provided for $5,000 maximum.

"Incentive awards are discretionary and, when allowed, 'are
intended to compensate class representatives for work done on
behalf of the class,'" Alsup said, citing a 9th Circuit ruling
from 2003, Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp.

"For many decades, class actions got along very well without any
'incentive fees,'" Alsup wrote.  "The advent of such requests in
recent years raises the danger that the class settlement is too
low and the class representative is being placated with a special
payment no one else gets.  If the settlement is not good enough
for the class representative, then it is not good enough for the
class.

"On average, class members stand to recover roughly $36.00 per
refund check.  Upon review of the list of refund checks issued it
becomes clear that checks for a higher amount than $100.00 are
outliers.  Given the large disproportion of the requested
incentive awards to the amount recovered by the individual class
members, a downward adjustment of the awards is warranted."

Alsup also "tentatively granted" $786,473.75 in attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid from the fund.

"Counsel must pay attention to how the administrator is managing
the fund and keep track of how AAFES resolves the second round of
mailings," Alsup said.  "Mistakes may lead to shortfalls and those
shortfalls may have to be paid out of the reserved attorney's
fees."

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, founded in 1895, operates
3,100 facilities in 30 countries, five U.S. territories and 50
states. These facilities include convenience and specialty stores,
movie theaters and 2,000 fast food restaurants.  Its sales totaled
$9.9 billion in 2010, according to shopmyexchange.com.

The case is Taylor Russell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. United States of America, Case No. C 09-
03239 WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UNITED STATES: Bishop Class Suit Accord Wins Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy B. Firestone of the United States Court of Federal
Claims approved a settlement agreement resolving the case
captioned BISHOP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, NO. 10-594L.

The case is an opt-in class action Rails-to-Trails case, arising
from the creation of a recreational trail along a 10.6-mile long
former railroad corridor running across plaintiffs' land between
the towns of Augusta, Kansas and Andover, Kansas. Plaintiffs
alleged that the government "took" their property interests
without just compensation when it authorized the conversion of the
rail corridor to a recreational trail.

The settlement of the class action, including the attorneys' fees
and costs agreed to as authorized by the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, is
approved, and class counsel's contingency fee arrangement is also
approved, says Judge Firestone.

As part of the proposed settlement, the government has agreed to
pay the plaintiffs and class members the fair market value of the
property which they alleged had been taken, based on the parties'
agreed-upon appraisal of the properties. The fair market value of
the plaintiffs' and class members' combined property interests
amount to $1,028,735. The United States has also agreed to pay the
pre-judgment interest on this amount for an additional $558,497,
which has been calculated from September 14, 2004 (the date of the
taking) through September 30, 2013 (the estimated date of payment
of settlement). Thus, the total amount of just compensation under
the proposed settlement is $1,587,232.

The United States has further agreed to pay plaintiffs $270,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs as part of the settlement. These fees
and costs are authorized under the "fee-shifting" provision of the
URA. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 4654(c).

The Court also approved the class counsel's contingency fee
agreement. The fee agreement provides for a contingency fee of 33%
of the total settlement award, defined to include principal and
interest.  Given the total amount of the principal and interest of
the settlement of $1,587,232, the contingency fee amounts to
$523,786.56.  The statutory fee of $270,000 will be applied to the
contingency fee, meaning that the class will be responsible for
payment of attorneys' fees of $253,786.56 in addition to the
statutory fee award. This fee responsibility is to be divided
among the plaintiffs and class members on a pro rata basis, based
on each plaintiff's or class member's percentage of the total just
compensation.

A copy of the Court's August 19, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/otESU6from Leagle.com.

SCOTT BISHOP, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II
-- thor@arentfox.com -- at Arent Fox, LLP.

JAN BISHOP, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

LARRY JR. CARNEY, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

FRANK EDWARDS, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

SHIRLEY EDWARDS, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

CLIFTON HESSMAN, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

DENISE HESSMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

JOHN GILLILAND, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

COLLEEN GILLILAND, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

GREGORY GORDON, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

JUDY GORDON, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

WILLIAM LUTHER, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

HELEN LUTHER, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

FRANK MILLER, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

WILLIAM C. PHILLIPS, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

HERBERT L. PHILLIPS, III, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

GLENN A. RAKESTRAW, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

MONTE W. RAKESTRAW, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

TY SMITH, and, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

CATHI SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne, II,
Arent Fox, LLP.

FLOYD J. STOTLER, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund Hearne,
II, Arent Fox, LLP.

CLARISSA R. STOTLER, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Fernlund
Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

SUMMERFIELD INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC., Plaintiff, represented by
Mark Fernlund Hearne, II, Arent Fox, LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff, U. S.
Department of Justice.


VELTI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 26
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Velti
Plc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Northern District of California, and
docketed under 13-cv-03954, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Velti between January 27, 2011 and August 20, 2013
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder with purchased Velti securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was overstating its revenue; (2) the Company had
difficulties collecting its receivables from certain customers;
(3) the Company lacked a reasonable basis for assuming that its
receivables would be paid by certain customers; (4) the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 20, 2013, the Company reported its 2013 fiscal second
quarter financial results and disclosed that for the quarter
revenue had decreased 46.84% to $31.2 million from the same period
the prior year and that adjusted earnings per share had decreased
to $-0.25 in the quarter versus earnings per share of $-0.01 in
the same period a year ago.  Moreover, the Company announced a
"major restructuring" of its business.  On this news, shares of
Velti declined $0.66 per share, more than 66%, to close on August
21, 2013, at $0.34 per share.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


VERIZON: Files Notice of Removal of Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
attorneys for Verizon say the answers given by plaintiffs in a
class action prove their case should be heard in federal court.

On Aug. 14, Verizon and its co-defendants filed a notice of
removal of a West Virginia Human Rights Act lawsuit filed in
July 2011 in Harrison County Circuit Court.  It was removed to
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

After it was filed, the defendants sought to have the firm Steptoe
& Johnson disqualified from representing the plaintiffs, who are
former employees who worked in call centers in Charleston and
Clarksburg.  They allege Verizon engaged in employment
discrimination based on disabilities or perceived disabilities.

Verizon has been subsequently sold and renamed Frontier West
Virginia, though the Verizon call center in Clarksburg was not
part of that transaction.

"As employees of Verizon West Virginia, and then Verizon Services,
Plaintiffs were members of a collective bargaining unit
represented by the Communications Workers of America and the terms
and conditions of employment of their employment were governed by
a collective bargaining agreement between the CWA and Verizon,
implement on May 12, 1997, and revised on October 9, 1998," the
removal notice says.

Because the workers were subject to the CBA, the case should be
heard in federal court, the defendants argue.

It is the second time the company has sought to remove the lawsuit
to federal court, with the first coming a month after it was
filed.

An amended complaint sought to disavow any reliance upon Verizon's
Medically Restricted Employees (MRST) Policy that covered
employees who were represented by the CWA.

On March 30, 2012, U.S. District Judge Irene Keeley granted a
motion to remand the case to Harrison Circuit Court.

"Importantly, the right to be free from employment discrimination
is a substantive right granted by the state of West Virginia, and
is thus independent of any duty under an employment agreement,"
she wrote.

In response to Verizon's first set of interrogatories, the
plaintiffs responded that they believed Verizon's MRST Policy
resulted in disparate treatment of themselves and other class
members.

That admission, the defendants say, "demonstrates that Plaintiffs'
claims require the interpretation of, and that their claims are
'inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms' of, an
agreement governed by the LMRA," the removal notice says.

"For the first time, through their Interrogatory Answers,
Plaintiffs have expressly identified a collectively bargained
agreement that predicates their alleged injury in this action."

Richard W. Gallagher -- rwg@ramlaw.com -- of Robinson & McElwee in
Clarksburg is representing Verizon.

The case was before the state Supreme Court earlier this year.  On
March 7, the court ruled Steptoe & Johnson and attorney Larry
Rector could continue with their representation of the class.

Verizon had argued that Mr. Rector's previous representation of
two plaintiffs and his intent to use evidence filed under seal
during their lawsuits on subsequent lawsuits presented a conflict
of interest.

In 2009, Steptoe filed a lawsuit on behalf of a former Verizon
employee alleging wrongful termination and violation of the state
Human Rights Act in Harrison County Circuit Court.  During the
course of the litigation, the two sides agreed on a protective
order to secure the confidentiality of certain documents disclosed
in discovery.

A subsequent lawsuit filed in 2010 also featured a similar order
that allowed Steptoe to use the confidential documents obtained
during the first lawsuit.

Both lawsuits eventually settled.  Steptoe then filed lawsuits on
behalf of nine other former Verizon employees and two class action
lawsuits.

Mr. Rector indicated that he might use some of the confidential
documents from the first case for his current cases in an attempt
to avoid duplicative discovery costs.

On Sept. 28, 2011, Verizon moved to disqualify the firm from
representing the plaintiffs based upon that intention and an
indication that he might call his former clients as witnesses in
the current cases.

Mr. Rector responded by saying he would only use information
obtained in the first two cases unless it was produced in the
current cases.


WENDY'S INT'L: Sued by General Managers Over OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wendy's stiffs its outlets'
general managers for overtime, a class action claims in Sacramento
Superior Court.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denies Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil denied a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in STAN BETTER and YRC
INVESTORS GROUP, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YRC WORLDWIDE INC., WILLIAM D.
ZOLLARS, MICHAEL SMID, TIMOTHY A. WICKS and STEPHEN L. BRUFFET,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2072-KHV, (D. Kan.).

Stan Better and the YRC Investors Group brought the securities
class action on behalf of all who purchased common stock of YRC
Worldwide Inc. between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009. They
brought suit against YRC and four former YRC executives -- William
D. Zollars, Michael Smid, Timothy A. Wicks and Stephen L. Bruffet,
for disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts, and participating in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud
or deceit on purchasers of YRC common stock.

Judge Vratil ruled that the plaintiffs have not satisfied their
burden of showing that the class satisfies Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ.
P., or that the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The Court further denied the Plaintiffs' request for preliminary
class certification.  As a result, it is unable to appoint lead
counsel for the class or direct issuance of notice.

A copy of the District Court's August 19, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/Kd7TNdfrom Leagle.com.

Stan Better, Plaintiff, represented by:

    Ashley L. Baird, Esq.
    DOLLAR, BURNS & BECKER, LC
    1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
    Kansas City, MO 64105
    Tel: 816-876-2600
         877-816-2600
    Fax: 816-221-8763

Lynn R. Johnson -- ljohnson@sjblaw.com -- at Shamberg, Johnson &
Bergman, Chtd., Frank J. Johnson -- frankj@johnsonandweaver.com --
at Johnson & Weaver, LLP & Shawn E. Fields --
shawnf@johnsonandweaver.com -- at Johnson & Weaver, LLP.

YRC Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce W. Dona --
bruce.dona@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Lynn R.
Johnson, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Kim E. Miller --
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC & Lewis S.
Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

YRC Worldwide Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan --
elogan@stinson.com -- at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kristin L.
Farnen -- kfarnen@stinson.com -- at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP,
Jill M. Baisinger -- jbaisinger@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann --
kpohlmann@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Marc J. Sonnenfeld -- msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

William D. Zollars, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Morrison
Hecker LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Michael Smid, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan, Stinson
Morrison Hecker LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Morrison Hecker
LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Timothy A. Wicks, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Morrison
Hecker LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Stephen L. Bruffet, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Morrison
Hecker LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Needs More Time for Another Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Metex Manufacturing Corp., named Kentile Floors Inc.
during the first bankruptcy reorganization, is seeking a second
enlargement of the exclusive right to propose another Chapter 11
plan dealing with asbestos claims.

Metex filed for Chapter 11 protection in November and was given a
prior extension of so-called exclusivity. If the second request is
granted by the court at a Sept. 12 hearing, the deadline will be
pushed out by four months to Jan. 21.

The report discloses that the company, as it said in the first
exclusivity motion, again recited how it has been providing
information to the official creditors' committee and the official
representative of future asbestos claimants.

                           About Metex

Great Neck, New York-based Metex Mfg. Corporation, formerly known
as Kentile Floors, Inc., started business in the late 1800's as a
manufacturer of cork tile, and thereafter progressed to making
composite tile for commercial and residential use.

Metex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Case No. 12-14554) on Nov. 9, 2012.  The petition was signed by
Anthony J. Miceli, president.  The Debtor estimated its assets and
debts at $100 million to $500 million.  Judge Burton R. Lifland
presides over the case.

Affiliate Kentile Floors, Inc., filed a separate Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 92-46466) on Nov. 20, 1992.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

At June 30, 2013, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 15,033
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 48 claims from those
previously reported. In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 41,325
of those claims were dismissed, 20 were tried to defense verdicts,
seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 627 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding
power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages,
fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The
Company's product offering also includes computer numeric
controlled (CNC) plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and
regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and
brazing. The Company operates in five segments: North America
Welding, Europe Welding, Asia Pacific Welding, South America
Welding and The Harris Products Group. In March 2012, the Company
acquired Weartech International, Inc. In May 2012, the Company
acquired Wayne Trail Technologies, Inc. In November 2012, ITT Corp
sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and
Kaliburn brands to the Company. In January 2013, the Company
acquired Tennessee Rand, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Has 45,320 Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending approximately 45,320 asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of June 30, 2013, the Company had pending
approximately 45,320 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,900 as of December 31, 2012 and 46,020 as of June
30, 2012. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company received
approximately 910 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 1,660 claims. The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the
basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims
and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2012
and 2011 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately
$21 million and $33 million, respectively. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has
operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the
year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's
consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%,
Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and
Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its
total revenues from international regions. During 2011,
approximately 59% and 17% of total international revenues were
generated in Europe and Canada, respectively. Effective March 26,
2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network
from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company
acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com
and TV Guide Mobile properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 358 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has 358 pending asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

                             Claims

We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of June 30, 2013, there were 358
pending claims compared to 319 pending claims at December 31,
2012. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in
personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 358 claims
pending as of  June 30, 2013,  76 claims do not specify the amount
of damages sought,  281 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and
only one (1) claim (less than 1.0% of the total pending claims)
specifies the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional
requirements. This one (1) claim, which names 21 defendants,
alleges compensatory and punitive damages of $20 million each.
However, we do not believe that this data allows for an accurate
assessment of the relation that the amount of alleged damages
claimed might bear to the ultimate disposition of these cases.

We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase
in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in
Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by
plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the
law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of
asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005
and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and
increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011 and 2012 was significantly higher than in 2010.
No meaningful trend for 2013 is available at this time. The higher
number of recent lawsuits is reflected in the National Economic
Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) and Marsh USA, Inc. (Marsh)
reports.

                     Dismissals and Settlements

Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although some
cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833 defendants. We
have obtained dismissals of many of these claims. For the six
months ended June 30, 2013, we were able to have 45 claims
dismissed and settled three (3) claims. For the year ended
December 31, 2012, 93 claims were dismissed and sixteen (16) were
settled. The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled. Such settlements totaled
approximately $0.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2013,
compared to $6.3 million for the year ended 2012. Although these
figures provide some insight into our experience with asbestos
litigation, no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and
settlement rates that we will experience in the future.
Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number. The majority of settled claims were settled for
immaterial amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid
by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

                       Potential Liability

NERA, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
mass tort litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has
historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future
asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to
pending claims and future unasserted claims. Projecting future
asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty
as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, the  variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that 10 years is the
most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future costs,
and that costs that might be incurred after that period are not
reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also believe
that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability (i.e., our
indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related legal
fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.

                         Insurance Coverage

Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both resolution
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
insurance coverage and the likelihood of recovery for asbestos-
related claims, has historically been engaged to work with us to
project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.
Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our
coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the
allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices,
an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports.

                     Cost Sharing Agreement

To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all of
the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This four
year agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older
agreement that had expired.

During 2012 and 2013, the primary layer insurance policies
providing coverage for the January 1, 1966 to June 30, 1969 period
exhausted. The cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess
carrier providing insurance coverage over exhausted primary layer
carriers will become a party to the cost sharing agreement,
replacing the coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies
if the carrier providing such excess coverage is not already a
party to the cost sharing agreement. The excess umbrella carrier
providing coverage for the 42-month period is not already a party
to the cost sharing agreement. Such umbrella excess carrier was
notified of the aforementioned exhaustion and is currently
providing applicable insurance coverage, even though not yet a
party to the cost sharing agreement.

               Impact on Financial Statements

The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related
insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models
contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results
generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are
reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty
based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation.
Historically, due to the inherent uncertainties of the forecast
process and our limited amount of settlement and claims history,
we utilized a forecast period of five years, which we concluded
was the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for
projected asbestos liabilities, and that costs that might be
incurred after that period were not reasonably estimable at that
time. In the fourth quarter of 2012, we reviewed this assumption
and determined that it was appropriate to extend the forecast
period from 5 years to 10 years . We reached this conclusion due
to the fact that we now have considerably more experience in
addressing asbestos related lawsuits and have a longer history of
activity to use as a baseline to more accurately project the
liability over a longer period than previously disclosed. Further,
settlement trends have become more meaningful in recent years and
we believe that we now have a more meaningful history of data on
which to base projections. Further, we determined that a 10 year
projection period is now appropriate as, although we have a longer
and more consistent history of data over the last few years, we do
not believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection
period at this time. As of December 31, 2012, the estimated
liability and estimated insurance recovery for the 10 year period
through 2022 was $51.4 million and $48.3 million, resulting in an
additional charge of $2.9 million recognized in the fourth quarter
of 2012 ($0.2 million was previously recognized throughout 2012).
There were no changes to these projections during the first half
of 2013. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually in the
fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances
materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze
these forecasts.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this matter."

Rogers Corporation (Rogers) is the supplier of a range of
specialty materials and components for the portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean
technology. The Company operates in two business segments: Core
Strategic and Other. Core Strategic segment includes High
Performance Foams, Printed Circuit Materials, Power Electronics
Solutions, Curamik Electronics Solutions and Power Distribution
Systems. Its other segment consists of elastomer rollers, floats
and non-woven composite materials products, as well as its
inverter distribution activities. On January 4, 2011, the Company
acquired Curamik Electronics GmbH (Curamik), a manufacturer of
power electronic substrate products. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, the Company discontinued its Thermal Management
Solutions operating segment. .


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $973MM Reserves as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $973
million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $973 million and
$1.03 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $478 million and
$496 million, as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $189 million
and $193 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $47 million
and $48 million, as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Approximately 52% and 58% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of June 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated
losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. It conducts its business primarily in the United
States. Allstate has four business segments: Allstate Protection,
Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages and Corporate
and Other. In October 2011, the Company acquired Esurance and
Answer Financial from White Mountains Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself from
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the
drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive
complete defense and indemnity with respect to a majority of the
lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to
the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar
Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar appealed the trial
court's decision, and the appellate court has remanded the case to
trial. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any,
to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

Various other claims have been filed against us in the ordinary
course of business. In the opinion of our management, no pending
or known threatened claims, actions or proceedings against us are
expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We intend to defend these matters vigorously; however, we cannot
predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any litigation
matters or any other pending litigation or claims. There can be no
assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction. The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan. The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star. Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean Baroness,
and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships include Ocean
BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and Ocean Clipper.
Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner, Ocean Quest,
Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington, and Ocean
Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) (collectively,
"Utilities"), and many other defendants, wherein a large number of
plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive
damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have
been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however,
the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2010, CECONY
estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for
these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next
15 years is $10 million. The estimate was based upon a combination
of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Actual experience may be materially different. In addition,
certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming
workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from
exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, CECONY is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers' compensation claims. The accrued liability for asbestos
suits and workers' compensation proceedings (including those
related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as
regulatory assets for the Companies at June 30, 2013, were as
follows:

       Con Edison      CECONY
                            ----------    ----------
Accrued liability--asbestos suits        $10million    $10million
Regulatory assets--asbestos suits        $10million    $10million
Accrued liability--workers' compensation    $93million    $88million
Regulatory assets--workers' compensation    $18million  $18million

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Has 5,000 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation had 5,000 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

Maremont Corporation ("Maremont"), a subsidiary of Meritor,
manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953
through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin
Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont
in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had
approximately 5,000 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30,
2013 and September 30, 2012. Although Maremont has been named in
these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused
their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even
hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining its asbestos-related liability.

As of June 20, 2013, Maremont's asbestos-related reserves and
corresponding asbestos-related recoveries are summarized as
follows (in millions):

  Pending and future claims                     $75
  Asbestos-related insurance recoveries          67

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution ("CCR") and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos
claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since
the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos-
related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a
more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the
merits of each asbestos-related claim. Although the company
expects legal defense costs to continue at higher levels than when
it participated in the CCR, the company believes its litigation
strategy has reduced the average indemnity cost per claim.

                 Pending and Future Liability

Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm
with extensive experience estimating costs associated with
asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost
of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have
been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
Maremont. Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in
September. Although it is not possible to estimate the full range
of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised
Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a
reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and
defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related
claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.

Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $72 million to $88 million. Maremont
recognized a liability of $75 million at June 30, 2013 and
September 30, 2012. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Maremont.

Assumptions: The following assumptions were made by Maremont after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2022. The ten-year assumption is considered
appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms and filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in
an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a
longer time period;

* Maremont believes that the litigation environment will change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims filed
outside of Madison County, Illinois will be at the level
consistent with Maremont's prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

                             Recoveries

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The
coverage also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on those
claims. The coverage is provided by several insurance carriers
based on insurance agreements in place. Incorporating historical
information with respect to buy-outs and settlements of coverage,
and excluding any policies in dispute, the insurance receivable
related to asbestos-related liabilities is $67 million as of June
30, 2013 and September 30, 2012. The difference between the
estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related
to proceeds received from settled insurance policies. Certain
insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate
settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received
from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance
receivables. Receivables for policies in dispute are not recorded.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business
segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket &
Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its
Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest,
France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has 2,500 Exposure Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s ArvinMeritor, Inc., had 2,500 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many
other companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used
in certain components of Rockwell International products many
years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred at the time
of the spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997.
At June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, there were approximately
2,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM,
together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant
portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell's products
or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past experience
has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely
never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has
been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in
the past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do
show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management
nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of
any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. For
these reasons, the company does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining asbestos-related liabilities. The company defends
these cases vigorously.

As June 30, 2013, Rockwell's asbestos-related reserves and
corresponding asbestos-related recoveries are summarized as
follows (in millions):

    Pending and future claims                    $36
    Asbestos-related insurance recoveries          7

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As
of September 30, 2012, Bates White provided an estimate of the
reasonably possible range of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos
personal injury claims over the next ten years of $37 million to
$45 million. The company recognized a liability of $36 million and
$37 million at June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, respectively.
The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is
estimated based on the history of claims and expenses for
plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Rockwell.

The following assumptions were made by the company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2022. The ten year assumption is considered
appropriate as Rockwell has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms. In addition, filings of mesothelioma
claims have been relatively stable over the last few years
resulting in an improvement in the reliability of future
projections over a longer time period;

* The company believes that the litigation environment will change
significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will
be at the level consistent with the company's longer-term
experience and will not have the significant volatility
experienced in the recent years;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

In addition to the probable liability for pending and future
claims, the company also recognized a liability of approximately
$7 million in fiscal year 2012 associated with a previously
disclosed asbestos-related claim (Gordon Bankhead) which was
settled during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012. The payment
required by this settlement agreement was made in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2013.

Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for most of these claims. The company has initiated
claims against certain of these carriers to enforce the insurance
policies, which are currently being disputed. The company expects
to recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
Based on consultation with advisors and underlying analysis
performed by management, the company has recorded an insurance
receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of $7 million at June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business
segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket &
Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its
Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest,
France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury arising from exposure to, among other
things, asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,130 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,060 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2012.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company
expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the
future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past.
Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a
greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company
has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of
the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth
case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict. The plaintiffs appealed, but in February 2012 the
California Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal of the appeal.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company
and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in
the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's
compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with
occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages.
While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007,
the court held a case management conference in March 2011, but no
further activity has occurred in the case since that conference.
No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this
time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss given the minimal activity in this case and
the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other
manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on
the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault
a jury allocates to each defendant if a case is ultimately tried.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons with more serious
injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the
Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2013 for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $24 million, $11 million
of which occurred in the second quarter of 2013. In the first six
months of 2013, the Company made payments for fees and settlements
of $20 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation,
$13 million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2013. As of
June 30, 2013, the Company had accruals for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities of $130 million (excluding Aearo
accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted,
particularly with respect to the Company's respiratory products
that themselves did not contain any harmful materials, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$78 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions,
pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its
experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of
each claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has
concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect
the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including
(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent
to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)
the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings
with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance
coverage.

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served
with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. --
both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, seeks declaratory
judgment regarding coverage provided by the policies and the
allocation of covered costs among the policies issued by the
various insurers. The action named, in addition to the Company,
over 60 of the Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental
Casualty and Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant
number of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint
have been dismissed because of settlements they have reached with
the Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July
2013, the Company reached agreements in principle with the
remaining insurers in the lawsuit. The Company and the insurers
are in the process of negotiating settlement agreements. After the
settlement agreements have been executed, the Company will file
dismissals with the Court at a hearing scheduled in early August
2013 at which time this matter will be concluded. During the first
six months of 2013, the Company received payments of $10 million
from settlements with insurers, $2 million of which occurred in
the second quarter of 2013.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. Once the claims-made insurance coverage is
resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its
remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask claims.

3M Company is a diversified global manufacturer, technology
innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services.
3M manages its operations in five operating business segments:
Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health
Care; and Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references
to EMEA refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined
basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Records $27-Mil Liability for Aero Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company recorded $27 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of June 30, 2013, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
has recorded $27 million as the best estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements
and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement
among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary
of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group").
Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"
brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further
limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on
July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays
to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by
its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able
to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than
the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company is a diversified global manufacturer, technology
innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services.
3M manages its operations in five operating business segments:
Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Electronics and Energy; Health
Care; and Consumer. From a geographic perspective, any references
to EMEA refer to Europe, Middle East and Africa on a combined
basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 256 Lawsuits as of June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., was named a defendant in approximately 256
asbestos-related person injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that MRC purportedly distributed. As
of June 30, 2013, we are named a defendant in approximately 256
lawsuits involving approximately 908 claims. No asbestos lawsuit
has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority
being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-
party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and
insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of
existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have
recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable. While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based upon our historical
experience with these types of claims and analysis of pending
claims, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of potential losses arising from these claims that would have a
material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

MRC Global Inc. is a holding company headquartered in Houston,
Texas. Our wholly owned subsidiaries, McJunkin Red Man Corporation
and its subsidiaries, are global distributors of pipe, valves,
fittings ("PVF") and related products and services to the energy
and industrial sectors, across each of the upstream (exploration,
production and extraction of underground oil and gas), midstream
(gathering and transmission of oil and gas, gas utilities and the
storage and distribution of oil and gas) and downstream (crude oil
refining, petrochemical processing and general industrials)
sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits asserting exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 29, 2013.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims. The
indemnity obligations relating to the matters are subject,
together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to
an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an
amount in excess of $900 million.

* In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief sought by the
USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant. All previously pending property
damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to
the Site have been settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity
obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known
matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

* Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

In connection with the Falk Corporation ("Falk") acquisition,
Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification
against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities.
The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations,
Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with
respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not
subject to any time or dollar limitations.

* Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
approximately 250 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 600
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation. As of June 29, 2013, Zurn and an average of
approximately 80 other unrelated companies were defendants in
approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing
approximately 26,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal
injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in
industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn.
Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead,
Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled
pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of June 29, 2013, the Company estimates the potential liability
for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be
approximately $35.0 million of which Zurn expects to pay
approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $35.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next 10 years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, Zurn's actual
liability could differ from the estimate.  Further, while this
current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims
through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond
that time frame, and such liability could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of June 29, 2013, is approximately
$253.9 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by this insurance. However, principally as a result of the past
insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain
coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers
have paid the first $177.9 million of aggregate liabilities.

As of June 29, 2013, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $253.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $253.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC, were named as defendants in a number of individual and class
action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in
these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is
designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently. The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which was paid
in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the proceedings. The Company, however,
reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the
insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of
future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded a reserve related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord), formerly Rexnord Holdings, Inc., is
a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management.
Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes
gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and
seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment,
and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including
Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform
operates in the commercial construction market for water
management products and the municipal water and wastewater
treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes
drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow
prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered
valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets.
On October 10, 2011, Rexnord acquired VAG Holding GmbH. On
April 2, 2011, it acquired Autogard Holdings Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against numerous
personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington
Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF), and is the principal operating
subsidiary of BNSF. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is a
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, BNSF is engaged
primarily in the freight rail transportation business. BNSF
Railway Company's (BNSF Railway) rail operations consist, which is
the principal operating subsidiary, of the railroad systems in
North America. BNSF Railway transports a range of products and
commodities, including the transportation of consumer products,
coal, industrial products and agricultural products, derived from
manufacturing, agricultural and natural resource industries. As of
December 31, 2012, BNSF Railway operated railroad networks in
North America with approximately 32,500 route miles of track,
excluding multiple main tracks, yard tracks and sidings in 28
states, approximately 23,000 miles of which are owned route miles,
including easements, in 28 states and two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,295 Claims as of July 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., was defending 4,295 asbestos claims as
of July 19, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

We were defending 4,295 claims as of July 19, 2013.

We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of July 19, 2013, we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,585 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $8.6 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company
has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should
be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims,
as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to
access."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Had 7,815 Claims as of July 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending 7,815 asbestos claims as of July 19, 2013,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2013.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), a subsidiary of Geschmay
Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate
defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named
as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,815 claims as of
July 19, 2013.

We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the
assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among
other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its
parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer
fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none
of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not
manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not
believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of July 19, 2013,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,787
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Continues to Defend Mount Vernon Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits arising from products
sold by Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the
"successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon").
The Company states, "We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon
in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-
containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many
years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually
obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising
out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by
Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.
Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount
Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we
have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

Although we do not believe, based on currently available
information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible
loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our
understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement
amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement
experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or
Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and
the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any
material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits. Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on
currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of
the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect
on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Continues to Defend PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

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

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, there were 8,100 asbestos
claimants.

Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which updated our last study prepared in the third quarter of
2009. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and
nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the
incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments
for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of
$2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for
indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims
and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for
probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims.
The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim
filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement
value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of
the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future
claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48.0%
of our future indemnity costs. We have completed coverage in place
agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers.

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

Cytec Industries Inc. (Cytec) is a specialty chemicals and
materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. Its products serve a diverse range of end
markets, including aerospace and industrial materials, mining and
plastics. Cytec has four business segments: Engineered Materials,
Umeco, In-Process Separation and Additive Technologies. Engineered
Materials segment principally includes advanced composites, carbon
fiber, and structural film adhesives. The Umeco segment includes
composite and process materials, primarily for the aerospace and
defense, wind energy, automotive, recreation and other industrial
segments. The In Process Separation segment includes mining
chemicals and phosphines. The Additive Technologies segment
includes polymer additives, specialty additives and formulated
resins. On July 20, 2012, the Company acquired Umeco plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Had 11,500 Cases as of June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending
against Mallinckrodt plc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2013.

Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is also
named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases
involve product liability claims based principally on allegations
of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited
number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that
individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's
involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not
mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's
experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however,
amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been
immaterial. As of June 28, 2013, there were approximately 11,500
asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported, as well as insurance recoveries. The
Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims
is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers
claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the
next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate
amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not
possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes that the final outcome of all known and anticipated
future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued
and insurance coverage, will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

Mallinckrodt plc, and its subsidiaries (collectively,
"Mallinckrodt" or "the Company"), is a global company that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and
generic specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical
ingredients ("API") and diagnostic imaging agents. These products
are found in almost every hospital, standalone diagnostic imaging
center or pharmacy in the United States ("U.S.") and the Company
has a direct sales presence in approximately 50 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Had 32 Pending Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated had approximately 32 unresolved
asbestos-related cases as of March 25, 2013, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

Since September 1998, the Company has been named as an additional
defendant in approximately 234 cases pending in state court in
Massachusetts and 1 in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in
each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and
furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the
period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to
such products. The assets of this division were sold by the
Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of
these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have
been produced which indicate that the Company appears to have been
included in the chain of title for certain wall panels which
contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts
shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the
Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.
Settlement agreements have been entered in approximately 35 cases
with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance
carrier. Further, over 167 cases have been terminated as to the
Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts
procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases
against the Company as of March 25, 2013, the most recent date
information is available, is approximately 32 cases.

While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict
what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be
because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete,
based upon the Company's experience to date with similar cases, as
well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be
provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the
Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have
a significant adverse impact on the Company's operations or
financial condition.

American Locker Group Incorporated is a manufacturer of lockers,
locks and keys with a range of applications for use in numerous
industries. The Company serves customers in a range of industries
in all 50 states and in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia and South
America. The Company's products can be categorized as either
mailboxes or lockers. Mailboxes are used for the delivery of mail,
packages and other parcels to multi-tenant facilities. Lockers are
used for applications other than mail delivery, and its lockers
are key-controlled checking lockers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 268 Cases as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in approximately 268
cases asserting alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are subject to various pending and
threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are
asserted in the ordinary course of business. While any litigation
involves an element of uncertainty, in the opinion of management,
liabilities, if any, arising from currently pending or threatened
litigation are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

In addition to the routine lawsuits and asserted claims, we were a
party to the lawsuits and legal proceedings.

We were a co-defendant in approximately 268 cases asserting claims
on behalf of approximately 615 plaintiffs alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases
generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three separate causes
of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the remaining
two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

Ajax Tocco Magnethermic ("ATM") is the defendant in a lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas. The plaintiff is IPSCO Tubulars Inc. d/b/a
TMK IPSCO. The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract,
gross negligence and constructive fraud. TMK IPSCO is seeking
approximately $6.0 million in direct and $4.0 million in
consequential damages as well as an unspecified amount of punitive
damages. ATM denies the allegations against it, believes it has a
number of meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending the
lawsuit. A motion for partial summary judgment filed by ATM that,
among other things, denied the plaintiff's fraud claims was
granted by the district court. The remaining claims were the
subject of a bench trial in May 2013. At the close of TMK IPSCO's
case, the court entered partial judgment in favor of ATM,
dismissing the gross negligence claim, dismissing a portion of the
breach of contract claim, and dismissing any claim for punitive
damages. The trial proceeded with respect to the remainder of TMK
IPSCO's claim for damages. Post-trial briefing was submitted to
the court in July 2013 and closing arguments are scheduled to be
heard in August 2013."

Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Park-
Ohio Holdings Corp., which is an industrial supply chain logistics
and diversified manufacturing business operating in three
segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured
Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's customers
with Total Supply Management services for a range of specialty
production components. Its Aluminum Products business manufactures
cast and machined aluminum components, and the Company's
Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. The Company's businesses serve industrial
original equipment manufacturers in a variety of industrial
sectors. On March 26, 2012, it acquired Fluid Routing Solutions
Inc. In April 2013, the Company Fluid Routing Solutions (FRS)
business acquired all of the assets of Bates Acquisition LLC and
Bates Real Estate Acquisition, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCOM Group Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CCOM Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2013.

Universal Supply Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, is a New York corporation ("Universal"). On June 25,
1999, Universal acquired substantially all of the assets of
Universal Supply Group, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, including
its name, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement. The
Company filed a copy of the purchase agreement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1999, and the Company filed a
copy of an amendment to the purchase agreement on July 9, 1999.
Subsequent to the acquisition, Universal Supply Group, Inc. (the
selling corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering Co.,
Inc., changed its name to Hilco, Inc. Hilco, Inc. acquired the
assets of Amber Supply Co., Inc., formerly known as Amber Oil
Burner Supply Co., Inc., in 1998, prior to Hilco's sale of assets
to Universal. Hilco, Inc. is referred to as the "Universal
Predecessor."  The majority shareholders of Hilco, Inc. were John
A. Hildebrandt and Paul H. Hildebrandt.

The Company understands that the Universal Predecessor and many
other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey
(Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury
due to asbestos. As of June 30, 2013, there existed 7 plaintiffs
in these lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products,
or products containing asbestos, by the Universal Predecessor.
Subsequent to June 30, 2013, 1 action was dismissed, leaving 6
remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits. The Company never sold any
asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2013, 1 filed an action
in 2013, 2 filed actions in 2012, 3 filed actions in 2011 and 1
filed an action in 2010. There are 212 other plaintiffs that have
had their actions dismissed and 17 other plaintiffs that have
settled as of June 30, 2013 for a total of $3,364,500 paid by
defendants other than Universal. There has been no judgment
against the Universal Predecessor.

The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 38 plaintiffs; of
these, 1 filed an action in 2012, 1 filed an action in 2010, 11
filed actions in 2007, 6 filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions
in 2005, 5 filed actions in 2001, 1 filed an action in 2000, and 2
filed actions in 1999. Thirty-five plaintiffs naming Universal
have had their actions dismissed and, of the total $3,364,500 of
settled actions, 3 plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for
$27,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any
settlement. Following these dismissed and settled actions no
plaintiffs named Universal as of June 30, 2013.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Universal Predecessor and the Company in these cases.

Based on advice of counsel, the Company believes that none of the
litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal
subsidiary through June 30, 2013 is material, and that the only
material litigation that was brought against the Universal
Predecessor through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith
Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-
04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
$3,250,000 ("Settlement") under an agreement reached in connection
with a $10,000,000 jury verdict that was rendered on August 5,
2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

The Company believes that Rhodes differed from the other lawsuits
in that plaintiff established that he contracted mesothelioma as a
result of his occupational exposure to asbestos dust and fibers
and that a predecessor of the Company was a major supplier of the
asbestos containing products that allegedly caused his disease.

John A. Hildebrandt, Paul H. Hildebrandt and the Universal
Predecessor have jointly and severally agreed to indemnify the
Company's Universal subsidiary from and against any and all
damages, liabilities and claims due to exposure to asbestos at any
time prior to the June 25, 1999 closing of the purchase agreement.
These agreements are in the purchase agreement. Paul H.
Hildebrandt, one of the indemnitors, was a Director of the Company
from September 29, 2004 to January 28, 2005.

The indemnitors may use their own counsel to defend these claims.
The indemnitors are not liable for any settlement effected without
their consent. The indemnitors may settle and pay money claims
without the consent of the Company. There is no indemnification
unless claims aggregate $50,000; once this trigger point is
reached, indemnification is required for all claims, including the
first $50,000, but excluding claims of less than $10,000. The
indemnification requirement survives at least until 30 days after
the running of any relevant statutes of limitation.

The obligation of the indemnitors is joint and several, so that
the Company can have recourse against any one or more of these
indemnitors, whether or not any other indemnitor has previously
defaulted on its obligation to us. There are no other limitations
to the Company's rights to indemnification. The Company cannot be
certain that the indemnitors have the financial wherewithal to
meet their obligations to indemnify the Company.

The assets that the Universal Predecessor sold to the Company
included its insurance policies and other agreements and
contracts. The policies provide coverage for liability accruing
during the periods for which premiums were paid. The Universal
Predecessor was formed in 1940. Copies of policies are available
for each year beginning in 1970 and ending with the closing under
the purchase agreement in 1999. Copies of policies for the period
from 1940 to 1969 are not available.

Insurance companies acknowledge coverage for potential asbestos
claims under certain of these policies. Insurance companies under
additional policies have reserved their right to deny coverage but
have continued to defend and indemnify the Universal Predecessor
and the Company under the contested policies.

There are periods during the years from 1940 to 1999 in which the
Universal Predecessor did not have coverage for potential asbestos
claims. Subject to litigation, insurance companies may maintain
that the existence of these periods' results in coverage for only
a portion of a particular injury that varies with the period
during which there was asbestos coverage relating to the injury,
and that the balance of any settlement or judgment is to be paid
by the insured. As of June 30, 2013, no insurance company has
claimed any contribution for a gap in coverage except for a claim
for $160 made by one insurance company to the Universal
Predecessor in 1995. The Universal Predecessor asserted that it
had no obligation to pay this amount and did not make any payment.

Insurance companies have, as of June 30, 2013, defended the
Company and the Universal Predecessor, and have paid all
settlement amounts and defense costs. The insurance companies have
not requested any payments from the Company or from the Universal
Predecessor.

The Company's Universal subsidiary has not engaged in the sale of
asbestos products since its formation in 1997. Its product
liability policies for all years since 1998 exclude asbestos
claims.

The RAL Supply Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, is a New York corporation ("RAL"), formerly known as RAL
Purchasing Corp. On September 30, 2003, RAL acquired substantially
all of the assets of The RAL Supply Group, Inc., formerly known as
The LAR Acquisition Corp., also a New York corporation, including
its name, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement. The
Company filed a copy of the purchase agreement ("RAL APA") with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2003.
Subsequent to the acquisition, The RAL Supply Group, Inc. (the
selling corporation) changed its name to RSG, Inc. RSG, Inc. is
referred to as the "RAL Predecessor."

The RAL Predecessor acquired certain assets from Dyson-Kissner-
Moran Corporation ("RSG Predecessor") in 1993, prior to the RAL
Predecessor's sale of assets to RAL.

The Company, our RAL subsidiary and other companies have been sued
in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County) by a plaintiff
alleging injury due to asbestos. The original Complaint was filed
on April 19, 2013 and an Amended Complaint naming RAL and the
Company was filed on or about June 3, 2013.

The RAL Predecessor agreed in the RAL APA to indemnify and hold
harmless our RAL subsidiary from and against, among other things,
damages that relate to products sold or manufactured or services
performed or other actions taken or omitted by the RAL Predecessor
prior to the closing of the acquisition. The Company cannot be
certain that the indemnitor has the financial wherewithal to meet
its obligations to indemnify the Company.

The lawsuit alleged injury due to asbestos between 1960 and 1979,
prior to RAL Predecessor's acquisition of assets from the RSG
Predecessor and RAL's acquisition of assets from the RAL
Predecessor. The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Regardless of indemnification and insurance coverage, management
does not in any event consider the Company to be liable for the
asbestos-based lawsuits that name the Company or for any other
claim that arises as a result of actions or omissions by the
Universal Predecessor or RAL Predecessor companies. The Company
expressly disclaimed the assumption of any liabilities when the
Company purchased the assets of the Universal Predecessor and RAL
Predecessor. It is the opinion of management that the existing
asbestos litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company. Nevertheless, the Company could be materially and
adversely affected if it is held liable for substantial asbestos
claims or if it incurs substantial legal or settlement costs. This
material and adverse effect would occur if indemnitors fail to
honor their indemnification agreements and insurance is not
available either because policy limits are exceeded, or because
insurance companies successfully deny coverage or claim
limitations on their liabilities by reason of gaps in coverage or
otherwise.

Since management regards as remote the potential payment of any
asbestos-based claim, no amounts have been accrued for any period
relating to asbestos claims, and no amounts have been recorded for
asbestos claims for any period in the condensed consolidated
financial statements.

CCOM Group, Inc., formerly Colonial Commercial Corp., operations
are conducted through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Universal
Supply Group, Inc. (Universal), The RAL Supply Group, Inc. (RAL),
and S&A Supply, Inc (S&A). The Company distributes heating,
ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and
accessories, climate controls systems, appliances, and plumbing
and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New
York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania,
Connecticut and Vermont. The Company supplies the Amana air
conditioning and heating equipment line in New Jersey, of New York
State, and Western Massachusetts. It also supplies the Goodman
line of heating and air conditioning equipment, Fraser-Johnston
commercial air conditioning equipment, and Johnson Controls'
Source 1 HVAC Service Parts. The Company distributes these
products through seven sales locations in New Jersey, nine in New
York State, and two in Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Energy Unit Had 7 Lawsuits as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against Ameren Energy
Generating Company's subsidiary, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "Currently, we own the former CIPS energy
centers. As a condition to the transfer of ownership of the CIPS
energy centers, CIPS, now Ameren Illinois, contractually agreed to
indemnify us for liabilities associated with asbestos-related
claims arising or existing from activities prior to the transfer
in May 2000. The plant transfer agreement between us and CIPS, now
Ameren Illinois, will be amended pursuant to the transaction
agreement in which Ameren agrees to divest New AER to IPH. The
amended plant transfer agreement will provide that Ameren Illinois
will continue to retain asbestos exposure-related liabilities for
claims arising or existing from activities prior to the transfer
of the ownership of the CIPS energy centers to us. IPH will be
responsible for any asbestos-related claims arising from
activities that occur after IPH takes ownership of New AER. Any
asbestos-related claims arising solely from activities post
transfer of the energy centers from CIPS to us but prior to IPH
taking ownership of New AER, of which there are currently none,
will be retained by Ameren.

EEI was not a party to the plant transfer agreement with Ameren
Illinois. As of June 30, 2013, seven asbestos-related lawsuits
were pending against EEI. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims."

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) utility holding company. The Company's
principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company (Ameren
Missouri), Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois) and Ameren
Energy Resources Company, LLC (AER). The Company operates in three
segments: Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, and Merchant
Generation. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. High Court Affirms "Pounders" Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Pounders, a New Mexico resident, worked as a welder for
Arizona Public Service at the Four Corners Power Plant in New
Mexico from approximately 1969 to 1974 and again from 1979 to
1983.  While performing repair and maintenance work on valves and
other equipment at the Plant, he inhaled asbestos fibers.

Mr. Pounders moved to Arizona in the late 1980s.  In May 2008, he
was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  The following month, Mr. and
Mrs. Pounders filed suit in Arizona against Enserch E&C, Inc., the
successor-in-interest to the architect and construction manager
for three units at the Plant; BW/IP, Inc., a parent company to the
manufacturer, designer, and supplier of ten of the pumps used at
the Plant; and Riley Power, Inc., the designer and manufacturer of
industrial boilers used at the Plant.  After Mr. Pounders died in
August 2008, Mrs. Pounders amended the complaint to assert claims
for wrongful death.

The trial court granted Enserch's motion to apply New Mexico
substantive law to Mrs. Pounders' claims, including New Mexico's
statute of repose.  Based on that statute, which bars actions
arising from improvements to real property filed more than ten
years after their completion, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of Enserch.  The court of appeals affirmed.

Now before the Supreme Court of Arizona, Justice Brutinel, joined
by four other justices, agreed with the trial court and the court
of appeals that New Mexico substantive law applies to Mrs.
Pounders' wrongful death claim and thus affirmed the trial court's
summary judgment and the decision of the court of appeals.

The case is VICKI L. POUNDERS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING WIFE
OF DUDLEY W. POUNDERS, DECEASED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ENSERCH
E&C, INC. NKA EECI, INC.; RILEY POWER, INC. FNA RILEY STOKER
CORPORATION; BW/IP, INC., AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES,
Defendants/Appellees, NO. CV-12-0173-PR (Ariz.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated Aug. 21, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/xyzSfJfrom Leagle.com.

Vicki L. and Dudley W. Pounders are represented by:

         Steven I. Leshner, Esq.
         STEVEN I. LESHNER, P.C.
         1440 E. Missouri Ave., Suite 265
         Phoenix, AZ 85014
         Tel: 602-266-9000

              - and -

         Charles S. Siegel, Esq.
         Mark A. Linder, Esq.
         WATERS & KRAUS, L.L.P.
         3219 McKinney Avenue
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Tel: 214-357-6244
         Fax: 214-357-7252

Edward M. Slaughter, Esq. -- eslaughter@hptylaw.com -- and Robert
Brooks Gilbreath, Esq. -- rgilbreath@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young LLP; and Larry J. Wulkan, Esq. --
lwulkan@stinson.com -- at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, for Enserch
E&C, Inc., nka EECI, Inc.

Larry J. Crown, Esq. -- LJC@jhc-law.com -- and Hillary P. Gagnon,
Esq. -- HPG@jhc-law.com -- at Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P.,
in Phoenix, for BW/IP, Inc.

David P. Herrick, Esq. -- DHerrick@HerrickAssociates.com -- at
Herrick & Associates, P.C., in Dallas, Texas; and Larry J. Crown,
Esq., and Travis A. Pacheco, Esq. -- TAP@jhc-law.com -- at
Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P., in Phoenix, for Riley Power,
Inc., fna Riley Stoker Corporation

Stanley G. Feldman, Esq. -- sfeldman@hmpmlaw.com -- at Haralson,
Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C., in Tucson; and David L.
Abney, Esq., at Knapp & Roberts, P.C., in Scottsdale, for Amici
Curiae Arizona Association for Justice and Arizona Trial Lawyers
Association

Mr. Abney may be reached at:

         David L. Abney, Esq.
         KNAPP & ROBERTS, P.C.
         8777 North Gainey Center Drive, Suite 165
         Scottsdale, AZ 85258
         Tel: 480-991-7677
         Fax: 602-850-4449

J. Michael Low, Esq. -- mlow@lowcohen.com -- at Low & Cohen, PLLC,
in Phoenix; and Mark A. Behrens, Esq. -- mbehrens@shb.com -- at
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., in Washington, D.C., for Amici
Curiae Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., et al.

Charles M. Callahan, Esq. -- ccallahan@hcdslaw.com -- at Christian
Dichter & Sluga PC, in Phoenix; and Andrew J. Petersen, Esq., at
Humphrey & Petersen, P.C., Tucson, for Amicus Curiae Arizona
Association of Defense Counsel.

Mr. Petersen may be reached at:

         Andrew J. Petersen, Esq.
         HUMPHREY & PETERSEN, P.C.
         3861 East 3rd Street
         Tucson, AZ 85716
         Phone: 520-795-1900
         Fax: 520-795-1904


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Widow's Reconsideration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
James and Leota Farrall filed suit against various defendants
alleging Mr. Farrall's exposure to asbestos from their products
caused him to develop mesothelioma, from which he died in 2012.
Defendant Ford Motor Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,
which the Plaintiff partially opposes.  At oral argument in June,
the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted Ford's
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff's claims for strict
liability, negligent design, punitive damages and failure to warn
of asbestos-containing replacement parts.  Presently before the
Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration
of the court's ruling as to the Plaintiff's failure to warn claim.

Superior Court Judge John A. Parkins, Jr., in an order dated
Aug. 19, 2013, denied the Plaintiff's Motion, finding that, in her
Motion for Reargument, the Plaintiff is merely rehashing the
argument previously heard by the Court, where the Court has
already decided the issue and the Plaintiff failed to point to any
area where the court misapprehended the law or overlooked
controlling precedent.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JAMES FARRALL, and his
wife, LEOTA FARRALL, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, C.A. NO. N11C-05-257 ASB (Del. Super.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Parkins' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0l9bIqfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling in TKK Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-appellant Safety National Casualty Corporation sold an
excess liability insurance coverage policy to plaintiff-appellee
TKK USA, Inc., which was formerly known as The Thermos Company.
The policy covered excess losses resulting from liability imposed
on TKK "by the Workers' Compensation or Employers' Liability Laws"
of Illinois.  Appeals were filed.  The central issue in these
appeals is whether the policy covers TKK's costs to defend and
settle a lawsuit brought under Illinois common law by the widow of
a former TKK employee.  The lawsuit alleged that TKK's negligence
caused the employee to become ill with and eventually die from
mesothelioma.  The common law negligence claim was subject to a
rock-solid affirmative defense.  The Illinois Workers'
Occupational Diseases Act bars common law claims by or on behalf
of an employee against a covered employer "on account of damage,
disability or death caused or contributed to by any disease
contracted or sustained in the course of the employment."

After Safety National denied TKK's claim for coverage of losses
above the policy floor, TKK filed the suit.  The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of TKK for its costs in
defending and settling the widow's suit.  The district court found
that the policy's reference to "Employers' Liability Laws"
included the widow's common law claim against the employer for
negligence even if the claim ultimately could not prevail because
of the statutory bar.  The policy applies to claims under
"Employers' Liability Laws" even if the claims are "wholly
groundless, false, or fraudulent."  The district court denied,
however, TKK's claim for attorney fees and costs in the coverage
lawsuit itself, with the exception of a modest fee award for what
the district court considered a vexatious motion to reconsider the
merits of its decision. Both sides have appealed.

In a decision dated Aug. 21, 2013, a three-judge panel in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's decisions in all respects.  According to the
Seventh Circuit, the key policy term -- "Employers' Liability
Laws" -- is broad enough to include claims brought under the
common law, even "groundless" claims for which the employer
appears to have a solid affirmative defense.  The Seventh Circuit
also found no error in the district court's treatment of the fee
claims.

The case is TKK USA, INC., formerly known as THE THERMOS COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY
CORP., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, NOS. 12-1988 AND
12-2091 (7th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/DbAlF6from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion for Summary Judgment v. Crane Co. Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie K. Sweredoski, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Douglas A. Sweredoski, and Individually Recognized as Surviving
Spouse, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Crane Co.  The
Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has failed to produce any
evidence showing that it is entitled to assert the government
contractor defense as an affirmative defense.  The Defendant
opposes the Motion on two grounds: (1) the Defendant contends that
the Motion should be denied because discovery is still ongoing and
the Plaintiff has not yet deposed several experts who will testify
regarding the government contractor defense; and (2) the Defendant
argues that even absent those depositions, it has already
proffered evidence supporting all three prongs of the defense.

After reviewing the evidence presented by the Defendant, in a
decision dated Aug. 22, 2013, the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, SC, found that the government contractor defense
survives summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff's design
defect and failure-to-warn claims.  The Defendant has shown that
the Navy exercised substantial discretion in creating design and
warning specifications for the steam valves it procured for its
vessels, and engaged in thorough reviews of the valves and related
operational manuals throughout the design and production phases,
the Superior Court pointed out.  The Defendant has demonstrated
that the Navy would not have accepted the steam valves or their
manuals had the Defendant failed to conform to the Navy's precise
design and warnings specifications in all respects, the Superior
Court added.  The Defendant has shown that the Navy had knowledge
of the dangers of asbestos exposure equal to or greater than the
knowledge of the Defendant at the time of the Independence's
construction, the Superior Court further held.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Superior Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion.

The case is ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and Individually Recognized as
Surviving Spouse v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., C.A. NO. PC 2011-
1544 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision, penned by
Justice Gibney, is available at http://is.gd/q7z2fLfrom
Leagle.com.

Robert J. Sweeney, Esq., for Plaintiff.  David A. Goldman, Esq.,
and Kendra A. Christensen, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for More Evidence in "Monroe" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated Aug. 26, 2013, Judge James Jeremiah Shea of the
Workers' Compensation Court of Montana denied MACO Workers Comp
Trust's motion to allow additional evidence in an asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit, holding that the motion is essentially a
motion to reopen the record after the close of evidence and
supplement the record with evidence MACO maintains is relevant to
the issue.

In its motion, MACO alleged that after reviewing Petitioner Karen
Monroe received a "significant financial amount" on her 2001
occupational disease claim against W.R. Grace & Co.  MACO further
alleged that during discovery, information regarding the
settlement of the Grace claim was intentionally withheld from MACO
and that MACO was mislead by Monroe and her counsel into believing
that no benefits had been paid in relation to the W. R. Grace
claim.

Monroe responded to MACO's motion by arguing that she provided a
copy of the claim form on the Grace claim to MACO's attorney, but
objected to providing information regarding amounts received on
that and other claims "on the grounds of confidentiality and not
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

"Based on the history of this case as it pertains to the discovery
of the Grace claim, I cannot conclude that there was any concerted
effort on Monroe's part to conceal information from MACO," Judge
Shea stated in his ruling.  "Five weeks before her deposition,
Monroe responded to MACO's written discovery by specifically
identifying her claim with Grace in response to MACO's
interrogatories, and producing the Grace claim form in response to
MACO's requests for production.  Although Monroe objected to
disclosing the specific amount of any settlements, MACO had
several avenues available to it in ascertaining whether the Grace
claim was settled and, if so, for how much.  MACO could have moved
to compel the information from Monroe, called [the Employment
Relations Division of the Department of Labor and Industry] for
the information, or -- as MACO acknowledged during oral argument
-- the settlement information was published and available in
Montana Law Week.  At her deposition, Monroe testified that she
had received settlements from multiple entities and apologized for
her inability to recall specifics regarding the entities from whom
she received those settlements.  When considered in the context of
the information that was provided to MACO regarding the Grace
claim, it is far more plausible that Monroe's inability to recall
receiving a specific settlement from Grace was just that -- an
inability to recall -- rather than an effort to mislead."

The case is KAREN MONROE, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Dwane Monroe Petitioner, v. MACO
WORKERS COMP TRUST, Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2012-3054 (MTWCC).
A full-text copy of Judge Shea's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QpbRcpfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Torgerson" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Ins. Co. moved the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana for summary judgment in its favor with respect to Marlene
Torgerson's claim for payment of a 45% impairment award to the
Estate of Richard Torgerson.  Torgerson allegedly sustained an
asbestos-related disease while employed by Burns International
Security Services Corp. and was diagnosed with asbestos-related
disease on March 8, 2001.  Transportation argued that Torgerson's
estate is not entitled to payment of this impairment award because
the award had not accrued at the time of Torgerson's death.

In an order dated Aug. 26, 2013, Judge James Jeremiah Shea denied
Transportation's motion for summary judgment, holding that, under
Monroy, 246 Mont. 365, 805 P.2d 1343 (1990), Torgerson's estate is
entitled to payment of the impairment award.

The case is MARLENE TORGERSON, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Richard Torgerson Petitioner, v. TRANSPORTATION INS. CO.
Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-3151 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy
of Judge Shea's Decision is available at http://is.gd/J6fOiKfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Inmates' Suits in Illinois Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
dismissed five separate lawsuits filed by inmates incarcerated at
the Vienna Correctional Center alleging, among other things,
exposure to asbestos.  The District Court ruled that each of the
inmates failed to assert a plausible claim against Vienna.

The cases are:

   * TYRONE HARRIS, # R-59263, Plaintiff, v. WAL MART (Urbana,
Illinois), MICHAEL Q. JONES, SCOTT M. BENNETT, ISBA, ILLINOIS
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OFFICE, JAMES PRESTON, STATEVILLE, URBANA
POLICE, and VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants, ASE NO. 13-
499-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Aug. 22, 2013,
Decision penned by Judge G. Patrick Murphy is available at
http://is.gd/fKGrXffrom Leagle.com.

* ANDRE E. JONES, # R-61348, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-692-MJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of the Aug. 22, 2013, Decision penned by Judge Michael
J. Reagan is available at http://is.gd/RwSIj6from Leagle.com.

* NASIN BORDEAU, No. M25923, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-695-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of the Aug. 22, 2013, Decision penned by Judge G. Patrick
Murphy is available at http://is.gd/9xmhkHfrom Leagle.com.

* SHAWN R. MOORE, # K-70822, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00691-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of the Aug. 23, 2013, Decision penned by Judge G.
Patrick Murphy is available at http://is.gd/XyZmgtfrom
Leagle.com.

* LLOYD WESTBROOK, No. R44929, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00751-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of the Aug. 23, 2013, Decision penned by Judge G.
Patrick Murphy is available at http://is.gd/c458EAfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Work Starts in Ohio Grand Theater
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Gossett, writing for Herald Star Online, reported that a
Zanesville company has started to remove asbestos-covered pipes in
the Grand Theater as part of a 10-year rehabilitation project.

According to the report, Lepi Enterprises erected scaffolding and
was starting to remove the pipe work covered in asbestos for
disposal at an approved landfill.  Lepi was the sole company to
bid on the project.

The $49,748 contract is being paid through the Clean Ohio
Revitalization Fund grant received by the city last year, the
report related.

Representatives from the Ohio Department of Development Services
and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency toured the theater
earlier this summer, the report said.

Scott Dressel, president of Grand Theater for the Performing Arts
Restoration Committee, said the asbestos-covered pipes were part
of the theater's old heating system.

"The project should last about six weeks, and all of the asbestos
will be completely removed from the building. I am very glad we
were able to receive the state grant to do this project and
appreciate the efforts by the city and the Jefferson County
Regional Planning Commission," said Dressel.

Steubenville Urban Projects Director Chris Petrossi said the total
cost of the project is $129,000.

After walking from the theater into the front lobby, Dressel said
the seating and stage area will be completely sealed during the
asbestos removal.

"No one will be allowed in the theater until the work is done,"
stated Dressel.

That means Dressel and his team of volunteers are now looking at
exterior projects for the fall.

"We have several possible work projects, but have not yet decided
on what we will be doing outside," Dressel said.

Earlier this year, the Grand board of directors chose Shaeffer &
Madama of Wheeling as the official architectural firm for the
restoration of the South Fourth Street structure.

"Shaeffer & Madama, along with the engineering firm previously
selected -- Whitney Bailey Cox and Magnani of Pittsburgh -- will
be doing all the architectural and engineering work to meet the
code requirements of the city of Steubenville and state of Ohio,
as well as the design changes desired by the Grand Theater for the
Performing Arts Restoration Project Design Committee," Dressel
said.

"Our board of directors took a lot of time researching and
discussing the architectural firms. And, Dennis Madama of Shaeffer
& Madama is very excited about this project. We have also had the
interior of the building laser scanned by the All Point firm of
Pittsburgh," said Dressel.

"At this point, we anticipate starting the $1 million restoration
of the front of the theater in the summer of 2014. And, we are now
planning to create an historical memory lane concept on the
stairway leading to the second and third ballroom areas as well as
murals throughout those two rooms," Dressel explained.

Dressel has been leading the grassroots efforts to preserve and
restore the theater since 2010.

The last remaining downtown theater was once in danger of falling
victim to a wrecking ball after years of neglect and lack of
repairs.

Steubenville housing officials began to investigate the structural
conditions after a neighboring property owner filed a complaint on
Oct. 6, 2008.

Since assuming ownership of the theater, Dressel has coordinated
the sealing of the leaking roof, removal of the main floor
auditorium seats and cleaning the interior of the building.

Volunteers have restored the lobby of the theater with paint and
new carpeting.

"Sometimes we are too quick to tear down the old historical
buildings because of their poor conditions. It will be nice to
save a piece of Steubenville's history for a change. I have never
lost a project once I started a restoration. I don't want to start
now," Dressel stated.

Visitors to the theater in 2010 saw broken seats, a water-soaked
stage and falling plaster.

But, Dressel said he could look past the aging interior and see a
theater once again filled with movie and stage patrons and, "the
glory of the past years."

"When I stand on the stage I actually see the theater finished in
my head. In my head it is all done. I do that all the time. When I
work on my restoration projects I always envision and think about
everything for a long time before I actually do anything because
it is art, not just structure so you really have to think your way
through," explained Dressel.

Dressel has estimated the theater restoration project will last at
least 10 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tainted Debris Dumped in Santa Rosa Landfill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Bush, writing for Mountain View Telegraph, reported that tons
of debris from a violent hailstorm in Santa Rosa with a "high
probability" that some of it contains asbestos is being disposed
of in the Estancia Valley landfill, a few miles east of Moriarty,
even though the dump site is not licensed to handle asbestos.

According to the report, in late July, a few weeks after golf-
ball-size hail and flooding hit Santa Rosa and surrounding
Guadalupe County, and badly damaged hundreds of structures, the
New Mexico Environment Department issued an emergency declaration
waiving the usual requirements for disposing of asbestos-laden
material. The declaration is seen as temporary and expires on
March 31, 2014.

The authorization to dispose of up to 12,000 tons of demolition
and construction material at $47 per ton was granted on July 29 in
a letter sent to Joseph Ellis, manager of the Estancia Valley
Solid Waste Authority, by Butch Tongate, deputy secretary of the
state Environment Department, for secretary-designate Ryan Flynn.
If 12,000 tons are accepted, it could mean the EVSWA would receive
$564,000 -- in addition to the tainted debris.

Art DuCharme, a vocal critic of the agency, said that by
participating in this latest deal, EVSWA is once again "using the
landfill as an ATM."

He met with Auralie Ashley-Marx, head of the Environment
Department's Solid Waste Bureau, in Santa Fe and said she conceded
that the emergency declaration was tantamount to "bending the
rules." She also told him that the Estancia Valley landfill was
chosen because of its proximity to Santa Rosa and because "'Joseph
(Ellis) needs the money,'" he said.

Other landfills, such as one in Otero County and another about 12
miles southwest of Mountainair, were rejected, even though they
are licensed for asbestos. The Otero County facility was deemed
too far from Santa Rosa and the Keers Industries' dump near
Mountainair too small to adequately handle such a massive amount
of debris. It is also a different kind of facility, Ashley-Marx
said.

One reason Estancia Valley was chosen over Otero County is
distance and the time it would take to deliver a load of
construction/demolition debris. A fear is that possibly tainted
material would be dumped to avoid hauling it over a long distance.

"It's amazing how many times a contractor will dump alongside a
road," Ashley-Marx said. "Then it becomes a real problem to clean
up."

As of just over a week ago, 10 truckloads had been delivered from
Santa Rosa, Ellis said in an interview.  Most contained about 3
tons of roofing debris.

                Safety procedures being followed

At a Torrance County Commission meeting, he reassured the
governing body that all required safety procedures are being
followed. These include making sure the debris is wet (so dust
particles won't become airborne and then inhaled), keeping the
disposal site for Santa Rosa material separate from the area where
the public brings its debris, and immediately covering each
individual load with a six-inch layer of soil.

Additionally, Ellis said, employees are outfitted in special one-
piece Tyvek suits -- full-body coveralls with masks and hoods --
and steel-tipped boots and hard hats.

Commission Chair LeRoy Candelaria asked if the state would
eventually remove contaminated material from the landfill. Ellis'
brief answer was no, because there is potentially too much of it.
Asbestos aside, perhaps an even greater health problem is mold
lurking in some of the Santa Rosa debris, Ellis said.

Ashley-Marx said the health risk can increase when attempts are
made to separate asbestos-laden material from other
construction/demolition debris. She noted that more than 400
buildings suffered severe damage in the July 3 storm and dealing
with them in a timely manner is vital. She hopes the cleanup is
completed by the end of the year, she said.

"Solid waste rules allow for emergency declarations," she added.
"We don't just grant these (emergency declarations) for anything."
Commissioner Lonnie Freyburger said he was concerned that before
the potentially toxic material is dumped, it is not wetted and may
be dry, especially after a 90-minute freeway trip through the
desert when the temperature hovers above 90 degrees.

Ellis said he would look into obtaining equipment to wet the loads
before they are removed from trucks.

                            Asbestos risks

When inhaled, asbestos fibers are known to cause lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lungs and abdominal cavity lining.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, it is so
dangerous that a medical condition has been named for it,
asbestosis, a permanent scarring of the lung tissue that can be
deadly.

Because of its strength and ability to resist heat, asbestos was
widely used after World War II in construction materials such as
roofing shingles, and ceiling and floor tiles. It was also used as
insulation and a fire retardant. All that, however, was before the
danger of inhaling the dust particles was understood. Its use
began diminishing rapidly in the mid-1980s and soon faded away.

"It must be noted that roofing, ceiling tiles and other debris may
contain asbestos given the age of the housing and businesses in
the City and surrounding area," Tongate's letter about Santa Rosa
states. The department's review of damaged properties in Santa
Rosa found that 87 percent of buildings were constructed before
1988. "Homes built prior to that year have a high probability of
having asbestos present; . . . as a result of the damaged
properties, care must be taken to limit the release and transport
of airborne asbestos fibers during demolition, transportation and
burial, as such waste poses a potentially imminent threat to human
health due to the inhalation hazard of asbestos fibers," the
letter states.

It goes on to list a number of conditions and recommendations for
contractors hauling the debris to the Estancia Valley. However, it
also states that "transportation of this debris may be performed
by the property owner or resident. . . ."

It also lists 12 requirements the Estancia Valley Regional
Landfill is to follow.

Asked if the landfill had the option of not accepting the
emergency declaration, Ashley-Marx said, "We coordinated with them
before." Moreover, there was no requirement for a public meeting
in Torrance County.

When he was initially contacted by Ashley-Marx and asked if the
landfill could receive potentially contaminated debris from Santa
Rosa, Ellis said his first concern was the safety of employees.

"In addition to working with the protocols of the Solid Waste
Bureau, we have also involved OSHA," he said, referring to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The OSHA
representative is "aware of the situation in Santa Rosa and what
our landfill is capable of handling. I have consulted with him
about asbestos in some of these loads, and he told us about
personal protection equipment our employees have to use and when."

Those employees have been advised what they are involved in and
have received special training, the manager said. "We've taken
every precaution," he continued. "I think we're doing a good job.
Santa Rosa had few other options. We responded in a way that's
helping out our neighbors. I think we've done due diligence."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. College Board Approves Fibro Abatement Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bruch, writing for The Journal Star, reported that the The
Illinois Central College Board of Trustees unanimously adopted its
2014 fiscal year budget, but the bulk of the discussion at the
meeting centered on a project at ICC North.

According to the report, the budget was placed on public display
for 30 days after the June board meeting and was not discussed by
anybody in a public hearing before the meeting.

Before major renovation starts at Arbor Hall at ICC North, which
will serve as the new Student Services Center once the ICC
Downtown campus fully moves to the North campus in the fall of
2015, an asbestos abatement project must be completed, the report
related.

Abel Plus Services, from South Elgin, had submitted the lowest bid
to complete the project at $146,900, the report related.  The
board was set to approve the bid in the consent agenda, but
Trustee Gail Thetford requested it be discussed further.

Thetford, along with Trustees James Polk and Diane Lamb, wanted to
know more about the bidding process and whether local labor could
be used on the project.

Ralls Melotte, a Springfield architect, appeared before the
trustees to clarify the asbestos project and answer questions.
Melotte said that bidding situations restricted to local
contractors only work when more than one local contractor exists
to create a competitive bidding environment.

With M&O Environmental representing the sole asbestos abatement
contractor in Peoria, entertaining one bid would significantly
drive up the cost of the project, according to Melotte.

"I don't see any good reason not to give it to the lowest
responsible bid," Melotte said.

After more discussion, Thetford made a motion to defer
consideration of the project to the September board meeting, which
failed on a 5-3 vote. The asbestos contract with Abel Plus
Services was later approved by a 6-2 vote.

"I want to be respectful about the bidding process," Thetford said
before the vote. "But I'd rather be comfortable about this."

ICC Treasurer Bruce Budde said the college supports local labor
and will want local contractors on the larger renovation projects
involved with ICC North. But with a smaller project such as
asbestos abatement, he said the college has "fiduciary
responsibilities" to taxpayers and students to approve the lowest
responsible bidder.

M&O Environmental's bid fell $100 short of the approved bid by
Abel Plus Services.

Board members also were presented the enrollment numbers for the
fall semester at 9,376 students, which President John Erwin said
fell short of last year's numbers but exceeded the college's
target.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celebrated Trial Lawyer, Ron Motley, Dies at 68
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance,
reported that Ron Motley, a titan in the asbestos litigation
world, passed away on Aug. 22 at 68 years old.  A partner at the
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina law firm of Motley Rice, LLC,
Motley was a ferocious advocate for victims of industries that
intentionally put workers and consumers in harm's way. Most
notably, Motley won the first suit against the asbestos industry,
setting a remarkable precedent and establishing a career devoted
to ensuring that major corporations are held accountable.

According to the report, in an email announcing Motley's passing,
Joseph F. Rice, a partner at Motley Rice, calls Motley a "pioneer
for justice," who did not shy away from battling against those who
knowingly wronged another. If a company knowingly put a product
out into the marketplace that was dangerous and did not tell
potential consumers of the harm, Motley saw that as an incredible
injustice.

Perhaps, in part, to Motley's work, asbestos has been classified
as a carcinogen and is now banned from widespread use, the report
related.  Exposure to asbestos -- whether through mining or
manufacturing processes -- is linked to several severe health
conditions including mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer and
asbestosis. In most cases, development of asbestos-related disease
often takes years, upwards of decades to present.

Though Motley was most well-known for his courtroom battles
against the asbestos industry, he became a trailblazer for victims
of the tobacco industry's bid to hide the dangerous additives of
cigarettes, whose victories paved the way to more explicit
cigarette packaging, the report also related.  Motley and his work
saved countless lives, and for those lives inexplicably damaged by
big business, Motley ensured that justice was served.

"Indeed, there is no better way we can celebrate Ron's life and
honor his memory than by redoubling our efforts to put the
powerless on a level playing field with the powerful, to get them
their day in court, and to win justice for all," said Rice.

Motley's extensive career also included cases against lead paint
manufacturers and drug makers.

At this time, the cause of Motley's death has not been released.
Funeral arrangements have not been made public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Wyckoff School Is Annual Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyckoff Suburban News reported that asbestos removal in the boiler
room at Sicomac School in Wyckoff was performed in mid August in
preparation for the installation of new boilers in 2014, according
to Superintendent of Schools Richard Kuder. Signs posted on the
door are required by law.

"No one is allowed to enter the school until the site is cleared
with air sampling," Kuder said in an email, the report related.
"It is common that we do some type of asbestos removal work every
year in the schools."

All work is "properly permitted and approved within strict state
and federal guidelines," Kuder said, the report further related.

Kuder said the school was expected to open "within a day or two."

The asbestos removal cost $32,400 and was performed by Lesco
Services Inc. out of Wallington.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Issues Surface in Port Macquarie Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Port News reported that serious concerns have been
voiced over the safety of two Port Macquarie sites with exposed
asbestos.

According to the report, a WorkCover NSW inspection has found
traces of asbestos on the site of a planned GP super clinic.

Asbestos also remains exposed along the canal walls near
Settlement City, almost a decade after the issue was first raised
with council and centre management, the report said.

Residents are concerned about the possibility of exposure to
deadly friable asbestos particles at these locations, the report
related.

The retaining wall remains a popular spot for children, families
and fishermen. In 2005, Roger Kirby, who has worked with asbestos
for many years, told council he believed lives were being put at
risk.

It's unfathomable, he said, that after all this time nothing had
been done.

"What happens to the young kid that breaks a bit off a wall and
chucks it at his mate, or plays with it and is at risk of
breathing in asbestos dust," Mr Kirby said.

Almost every weekend without fail, Mr Kirby's daughter Madison
would play in the water near the wall opposite their home.

"We used to canoe over and break bits off and throw it into the
water," Madison said.

Now the 20-year-old hates to think of the possibility she could
have unknowingly been exposed to asbestos.

"The scary thing is you don't find out until much further down the
track."

For months, the open-air demolition site on top of Clifton Drive,
the location of a proposed GP super clinic, has been exposed to
the elements with fears there could also be asbestos-containing
material blowing from the site.

Stakeholders have assured the Port News they believe there is no
public health risk at either location.

Anti-asbestos advocates Rod Smith and Karen Banton, however, are
not convinced.

"There's no safe level of exposure to asbestos," said Mr Smith, a
director of the Bernie Banton Foundation. "It is certainly of
concern to those people living and working in the vicinity of
those areas."

The use of asbestos has been widespread in Australia, with almost
every home built or renovated before 1987 likely to contain the
material.  But asbestos-containing material will only become
dangerous once its fibres float free, usually from cutting,
drilling, sanding or breaking it, and it becomes friable.

The real risk is when the dust is inhaled and the particles, some
200 times thinner than a human hair, etches deep into the lungs.

The contracted builder of the super clinic site, Andrew Knox from
Lianda Constructions, said the group had asked for a Work Cover
assessment as a safety precaution.  He said tests would soon
reveal whether the soil and rubble from the demolition of part of
the site's former Lourdes Nursing Home contains any asbestos.

Mr Knox said the builders had been taking precautions to wet the
site.  But after the demolition of the building site in May, the
Port News understands nothing has been done to secure the site.

This is despite the Bridle Group seeing "possible signs of buried
ACM [asbestos-containing materials] within existing ground and
building rubble used as filling."

The Bridle Group's, Gary Bridle, said the principal contractor
Wayne Ellis Architects was notified.

Mr Wayne Ellis said the normal "fibro sheets" on the site posed no
risk to the public or workers.  But bonded-asbestos sheets could
break and become friable, according to Mr Smith.

His first-hand experience with asbestos has seen him advocate for
greater awareness. Greeting her father after a days work would see
Mr Smith's late wife Julie die an horrific death of mesothelioma,
a rare asbestos cancer, some 50 years later.

"I watched her go from a 65kg healthy woman to weighing 28kg and
looking like she had come from a World War II concentration camp,"
he said.

"Living with someone dying like this certainly makes you terrified
of asbestos."

Greg Bell, deputy director of the North Coast Public Health Unit,
said if the building site showed traces of asbestos it should be
made safe.

"It would be prudent to make sure the asbestos can't migrate off
site and the asbestos can't be breathed in by a passersby," Mr
Bell said.  He also said children playing with pieces of broken
dry asbestos would presumably present a health risk.

Council's director of development and environment services Matt
Rogers said the Settlement City revetment wall presented no public
health risk.

"We've encouraged the RSL and Settlement City to upgrade the
infrastructure and they've been responsive to that," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Hit With $5.95MM Cancer Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company was found liable on all counts in a civil
lawsuit filed in Louisiana state court relating to its use of
asbestos and allegedly causing cancer in its workers. The case was
decided by a Plaquemine, Louisiana jury. Dow Chemical's Louisiana
division is headquartered in Plaquemine, LA. The Dow Plaquemine
Plant is the largest chemical plant in the petro-chemical industry
rich state.

The lawsuit alleged that exposures to asbestos at Dow Chemical
caused Sidney Mabile's terminal asbestos cancer, mesothelioma.
Mabile's attorneys alleged in the suit that Dow has exposed
thousands of workers to asbestos, and that Mabile is only one of
hundreds of future asbestos cancer victims also exposed at Dow.

Court documents revealed that Dow has continued to use tons of raw
asbestos in its chemical manufacturing facilities throughout the
world. "Most chemical companies abandoned using asbestos decades
ago. But Dow continues to use the notorious carcinogen in plants
throughout the world because the processing is roughly ten percent
less expensive with asbestos than with asbestos-free
alternatives," said attorney John Langdoc of Baron and Budd.

Internal Dow documents showed that Dow lobbied to oppose the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ban of asbestos. Court
documents suggested that Dow performed a "cost per cancer"
analysis and determined that it would cost Dow over $1.2 billion
to switch all of its plants to non-asbestos processing methods.
Dow was successful in lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency
to allow Dow to continue using raw asbestos in its United States
chemical plants. Dow has continued to fight the ban of asbestos in
other countries. The European Trade Union Confederation explains
that an "[o]pposition to a blanket asbestos ban now seems to come
only from Dow Chemicals."

Baron and Budd, a law firm with a long history of representing
states, cities, and individual environmental and occupational
cancer victims, represented Mabile. Mesothelioma attorney John
Langdoc represented Mabile at trial. Dow was represented at trial
by a team of lawyers lead by Baton Rouge attorney David Bienvenu
of Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC. "Dow fought
this case with all of its legal might, and we are relieved that
the jury was able to see Dow for what it is: a company that chose
to make more money over protecting its workers from carcinogens.
Mr. Mabile holds hope that this verdict will lead to a change at
Dow, and that it will stop using asbestos before even more workers
are diagnosed with cancers," said Langdoc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Bankruptcy Trial Concludes in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that after more
than three weeks of testimony with expert witnesses and lawyers
flown in from across the country, the bankruptcy trial for Garlock
Sealing Technologies concluded on Aug. 22 with one glaring
question left unanswered -- just how much money the company sued
for making asbestos-containing products decades ago will need to
put in a trust to escape bankruptcy.

According to the report, Garlock has proposed a figure of about
$270 million. Lawyers representing asbestos claimants want a
billion dollars more than that. Left to decide is Judge George
Hodges as lawyers for both sides wrapped up their final witness
examinations and rebuttals with the judge closing his courtroom
one final time during the testimony of a Garlock attorney
discussing questionable claims filed by asbestos plaintiffs.

The judge closed the courtroom to anyone who had not signed
confidentiality agreements during the testimony of David Glaspy, a
California lawyer who has defended Garlock on more than 25,000
asbestos claims, the reort said.

To try and limit the company's liability, Garlock 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, the report related.  The trial, which began in July
at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North
Carolina will determine the estimated liability of the company for
current and future asbestos claims.

Attorneys for Legal Newsline have appealed a Hodge's decision to
close off testimony and portions of the record of several
witnesses.

Legal Newsline filed its motion earlier this month. Hodges
previously denied a Garlock motion to remove confidentiality
designations from evidence relating to the trust claim in addition
to a Legal Newsline motion filed shortly after the judge closed
his courtroom during the testimony of a law professor speaking
about fraud and abuse on the part of claimants.

In a written order explaining his decision denying the Legal
Newsline motion, 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 are challenging Hodges' decision under
a First Amendment claim. In its motion, attorneys requested that
the rest of the remaining trial stay open to the public and those
transcripts of the entire closed portion be made publicly
available.

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: Man Died of Cancer 50 Years After Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hemel Today reported that an elderly man who was otherwise in good
health died from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos
around 50 years earlier.

According to the report, William Wade, who passed away at St
Joseph's care home in Tring, was exposed to the toxic material
while working in a laboratory at Willesden Technical College,
London, where asbestos had been used to insulate steam pipes.

Cricket fan Mr Wade, 86, began to feel unwell towards the end of
2011 and tests discovered an aggressive mesothelioma -- a terminal
cancer caused by asbestos exposure, the report said.

At an inquest into his death held on Aug. 22 Herts Coroner Edward
Thomas said: "The exposure from 50 years ago is very compatible
with the later onset of symptoms that occurred at the end of
2011/12."

Mr Wade's condition deteriorated and in February he was admitted
to St Joseph's. He died on March 10 this year.

Mr Thomas said: "He seems to me a lovely man and it must have been
so devastating -- first to see him unwell and then when he died of
mesothelioma."  He recorded that Mr Wade died of the industrial
disease mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yorkshire Team Offers Hope in Fight v. Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yorkshire Post reported that world-leading specialists in
Yorkshire have launched a ground-breaking trial harnessing a
common virus to target an incurable cancer which claims the lives
of thousands of people in the UK every year.

According to the report, experts in Sheffield are among only a
handful of investigators at centres around the globe examining
state-of-the-art viral treatments which could offer hope to
patients diagnosed in the future with the deadly asbestos-related
condition mesothelioma.

Three patients have so far been given infusions of the herpes
simplex virus engineered in the laboratory to kill tumours and
leave normal cells unharmed, the report said.

Once checks to test its safety have been completed, experts hope
to expand the programme to find out if the unique approach can
extend the lives of patients or even cure the disease.

Latest figures show more than 2,300 people die from the condition
each year in the UK, usually many decades after they were exposed
to asbestos.

Average life expectancy is only nine months following diagnosis
and symptoms are often severe. It is estimated another 70,000
people in the UK will develop mesothelioma in coming decades.

Viral treatments are among a new generation of potential therapies
being explored to treat a range of cancers.

Chief investigator Prof Penella Woll, from the Sheffield
Experimental Cancer Medical Centre at Weston Park Hospital, said:
"We are really desperate for new treatments for mesothelioma. For
us it is terrifically exciting and the patients are very engaged
in using this to target tumours rather than the blunderbuss
approach of chemotherapy.

"This is something that is unique. If it does what we hope, then I
think it could be a major step forward.

"For those patients who can get really severe symptoms the
prospect of improving their quality of life will also be really
important."

Co-investigator John Edwards, an internationally-recognised expert
on mesothelioma and thoracic surgeon at the Northern General
Hospital in Sheffield, said only a "select band" of research teams
were looking at the approach around the world.

"It's been a big effort and hence for Sheffield to join the likes
of the other centres world famous for cancer research in this work
is a real landmark," he said.

"The beauty of this treatment it seems is that it is very well
tolerated. We don't know yet if it works but it seems suitable
also for those who cannot tolerate chemotherapy as it doesn't have
the toxicity."

Around 100 patients with the condition are treated in Sheffield
each year, mainly people who have worked in heavy industries
around South Yorkshire and the north Midlands.

"It's a devastating disease -- completely incurable, resistant to
most treatments and it's progressive," Me Edwards added.

"It's frequently extremely painful and it's something that is not
the fault of those that get it. Treatments don't cure the disease
and there is an urgent need for research to develop better
therapies.

"The ultimate end point is to improve length of life as well as
quality of life and find something that makes an incurable disease
a curable disease."

The initial trial involves 12 patients to test the safety of the
therapy in different doses. Researchers want to find out too if
the virus is reproducing in cancer cells and killing them.
Patients are also being scanned to see what impact the therapy has
on tumours.

The virus has been developed by biotechnology firm Virttu
Biologics and has already been used in trials on patients in the
United States with brain and liver cancers, as well as in children
with cancer.

Its chief executive officer Steven Powell said: "This study is an
important step in our efforts to both develop a new treatment
option for mesothelioma and demonstrate the safety of regional
delivery of oncolytic viruses. We are delighted that the first
patients have been treated successfully and we are looking forward
to future data as the study continues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Took Dad, 47, in Most "Barbaric" Way
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a family
has been left heartbroken after a dad died from a "barbaric" form
of cancer, aged 47.

According to the report, Jemma Walker said husband Colin's dying
wish was to see their youngest son, Charlie, make it to secondary
school.  But despite a near two-year battle against mesothelioma,
his wish did not come true as he died when Charlie was 10.

During his fight against the disease, Colin sometimes had to be
bathed and clothed by Charlie while Jemma saw to her 13-year-old
son, George, who has Down's syndrome.

An inquest will take place on the death of Colin, a self-employed
plumber, of Gisbourne Close, Mickleover.

Jemma hopes it will be revealed where her husband inhaled the
deadly asbestos that caused his cancer.

The 39-year-old said: "Mesothelioma is the most barbaric disease I
have ever known. Colin was often in excruciating pain and, towards
the end, it was constant.

"I feel so betrayed and hurt we have had to go through this as a
family. It has been the most terrible 18 months."

Colin started complaining of breathing problems more than two
years ago. He was often breathless and, in July 2011, went for a
biopsy. That September, it was confirmed he had mesothelioma.

Jemma said: "I did not really know what it was then but, having
watched what happened to Colin, I learned how utterly vile it is.

"When we found out the life expectancy was so short and there was
no cure, all Colin kept saying was he wanted to be there when
Charlie went to secondary school but sadly that hasn't happened."

Colin had surgery in October 2011. Tumours were removed from his
lungs and his diaphragm was removed.  He needed chemotherapy and
radiotherapy as his health deteriorated.

Jemma said: "He became so weak. There were even times when I was
having to care for George and Charlie took the responsibility of
looking after Colin. Charlie was absolutely fantastic."

George, 13, attends St Andrew's Special School while Charlie, 10,
goes to Ravensdale Junior School.

Colin died on May 26. Jemma, a theatre medic at the Royal Derby
Hospital, said the family had received support from the charity
Mesothelioma UK and Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team.

To show her appreciation, she has organised a fun day in her
husband's memory to raise funds for the charity.

Jemma said: "I don't think the Government are doing enough to
raise the profile of this barbaric disease, so anything I can do,
however small, I hope will help.

"I love Colin and I will do so for the rest of my life. He was the
most fantastic person in the world and did not deserve what
happened to him.

"No one deserves to go through what he did. I just hope we get
some answers at his inquest."

Liz Darlison, a Macmillan nurse consultant for Mesothelioma UK,
said: "Colin was taken at such a young age and they have been left
devastated. I would like to thank Jemma, her family and friends
for raising funds."

Joanne Gordon, of Derbyshire Asbestos Support Group, said: "For
Jemma and Colin, it was difficult, with such a young family. We
were pleased we could offer financial support, to help with the
burdens of such a devastating diagnosis."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: The Changing Face of Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------
Gary Cohn, writing  for Mesothelioma.com, related that a young
girl growing up in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Heather Von
St. James loved wearing her Daddy's work coat, the type that she
could wrap her whole body inside. It was one of those large
construction jackets and was often covered with white flecks of
dust. There was something about wearing it that made her feel
closer to him, as if he was enveloping her instead of four pounds
of nylon. Whenever she had chores outside -- whether to feed her
rabbits or fetch the mail -- she would slip it on and head out to
brave the bitter northern cold.

Three decades later, that same coat with the white flecks became
much more than a childhood memory, the report said.
Heartbreakingly, at age 36 and just three months after the birth
of her first child, she was diagnosed with malignant pleural
mesothelioma. It turned out that those white flecks were asbestos
dust brought home by her father from his construction job, and she
was exposing herself each time she put the jacket on.

"I believe I was exposed from my father's work clothes," Von St.
James, now 44, said in recent interview with Mesothelioma.com.
"He would come home with a white coat, white shoes and white
pants, all covered with drywall dust containing asbestos," she
remembered. "I would always wear my Daddy's jacket. He hung it in
the utility room -- it was always there. The dusty boots were
always there."

"I'm angry because it could have been prevented, but anger is a
negative emotion," she added. "I've turned my anger into action to
keep people from being exposed to asbestos."

Unfortunately, Von St. James' story is now one that more and more
people are beginning to know. An increasing number of relatively
young women are being diagnosed with mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases. Some of them, like Von St. James, had
no known work-related contact with the substance; they apparently
were exposed to asbestos dust through a family member who
regularly brought it home.

And like Von St. James, many of these women have become advocates
in the fight to raise awareness on the dangers of asbestos-related
diseases. As a result of their shared misfortune, Von St. James
became part of a tightly knit group of women who later became
activists and extremely close friends.

Von St. James, Linda Reinstein, Janelle Bedel, Louise Williams and
Debbie Brewer were drawn together by a terrible fate, but instead
of deciding to simply accept it, they chose to rewrite it. Their
advocacy work has been aimed at not only being a support system
for fellow victims but also serving as that resounding voice
against this preventable disease.

They initially met at conferences and/or through their mutual
advocacy work on behalf of asbestos victims. Close friendships
quickly formed, and starting in 2008, they developed a social
media network on Facebook to provide far-reaching support to
enhance their activism.

Crucially, online social networking enabled the women to expand
their spheres of influence and support to other women on a global
basis. "As a result of technology, I've been able to meet and work
with people from around the world," said Reinstein. "The power of
social media proves there are no boundaries. We can connect and
share with people in a millisecond."

                     "The New Patient Profile"

This ever-growing and progressively interconnected online
community has become even more important as many newly diagnosed
mesothelioma sufferers do not fit the established profile for
victims of the disease.

Mesothelioma and other asbestos-caused diseases have a lengthy
latency period, and most cases of this deadly cancer are diagnosed
30 years or more after the initial exposure. In the past,
mesothelioma has traditionally been considered to be an older
man's disease that primarily affected men who worked around
asbestos long-term, chiefly in shipyards and construction work.

However, advocates believe, and anecdotal evidence indicates, that
an increasing number of women are also being affected, including
many whose primary exposure came from family members.

"Younger women under the age of 50, with no known occupational
exposure, are being diagnosed with mesothelioma and other
asbestos-caused diseases," said Reinstein. "That's the new patient
profile."

Reinstein is president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization (ADAO), which she founded in 2004 after her
husband, Alan, was diagnosed with mesothelioma. She has testified
regularly before U.S. congressional committees and given speeches
to international organizations on issues involving asbestos
exposure and asbestos-related diseases.

"When Alan got sick in 2003, the most common patient was a male
with occupational exposure, ages 68 to 73," Reinstein said. Then,
in 2006, she began noticing an emergent casualty group. "I would
see more women diagnosed than men," she added. "There was
definitely a pattern, but we really didn't know why."

Louise Williams, a wife, mother and grandmother, from Macedon,
Australia, has been a frontline patient advocate ever since her
diagnosis in 2003. Williams' father died of mesothelioma in 1985,
and she was exposed while shaking out his dust-covered work
clothes and later while working in a Melbourne office riddled with
asbestos.

Williams, 58, said in an email interview from Australia that she
too has seen increasing numbers of women diagnosed with asbestos-
related diseases. Some of these women were exposed firsthand while
working in buildings containing asbestos, but she noticed that
"more women are being diagnosed officially with mesothelioma, due
to being exposed through their partners working with it and
bringing fibers unknowingly home."

So far, however, no clear data exists showing the extent of these
escalating diagnoses of women with these type diseases, or the
reasons why.

                    Daughters Of The Dust

Just last month, Reinstein gave eulogies for two of the young
women in her original group, who both died after battling
mesothelioma for years. Janelle Bedel, 37, of Rushville, Indiana,
died June 19 after a six-year battle -- soon after raising support
for a Mesothelioma Awareness Day. Debbie Brewer, 53, of Plymouth,
England, died June 9 after a seven-year fight that started back in
2006. Brewer, who also worked as an advocate for mesothelioma
victims, had said that her only exposure to asbestos came from
hugging her father, a dockyard worker, when she was a child.

                        Wonder Woman

Bedel was 31 and mother to a four-year-old son when she was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007. She passed away on June 19,
and it still remains unclear exactly how or why she came down with
the disease. Her death -- and her work as an advocate to raise
public awareness -- is a vivid reminder of the human face and
suffering behind the asbestos statistics.

She spent the last six years battling for her life, undergoing
surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and other treatments, while at
the same time working relentlessly to raise money for research and
fighting to ban asbestos in the United States and worldwide.

Bedel was nicknamed "Wonder Woman" for her tireless work ethic and
indomitable fighting spirit. Her efforts were even cited in the
Congressional Record, and U.S. Senator, Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana),
wrote her a letter stating, "You have turned your own
heartbreaking situation into a source of inspiration. . . Your
focus on raising public awareness of the dangers of asbestos
exposure, as well as your work to eliminate it, even while
enduring difficult medical treatments and precious time away from
your husband and son, has motivated many to support this important
cause."

At Bedel's funeral, Reinstein, ADAO's president, memorialized
Bedel as a heroic advocate for asbestos victims. "As we grieve, we
must continue our fight for a global asbestos ban in Janelle's
memory," Reinstein said in her eulogy. "Our Wonder Woman will live
forever in our hearts and in our work."

                          Deadly Hugs

Debbie Brewer of Plymouth, England, died of mesothelioma on
June 9, just 10 days before Bedel passed away. In interviews,
Brewer had said that she was exposed as a child from hugging her
father after he came home from work as an asbestos lagger at the
Royal Navy's Devonport Dockport. Lagging is a type of thermal
insulation used on pipes, boilers, and many other items found on
ships. The U.S. and British navies, among others, routinely used
lagging made with asbestos for decades.

Brewer had stated that her father, Philip Northmore, regularly
scrapped asbestos from pipes at work and would come home with his
overalls covered in asbestos dust. Northmore died of asbestos-
related lung cancer in 2006.

That was the same year that Brewer was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. The mother of three children, Brewer steadfastly
continued her advocacy work for other victims up until the time of
her death last month.

              Invisible Particles, Inevitable Results

Louise Williams' father also worked with asbestos on a
longstanding basis. He was a plasterer and was repeatedly exposed
to the carcinogen while working on building sites in Australia
where asbestos was used as an insulator around pipes, in ceilings,
and as filler in plaster boards.

Her father's painful death led Williams to become an advocate
regarding the dangers of asbestos. "I would spread the word that
anyone working with asbestos should be careful and take necessary
precautions, never realizing that one day I would have
mesothelioma," she stated. "Until I was diagnosed, I did not
realize that anyone exposed -- even minimally -- could later be
diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease."

Williams recalled first coming in contact with the deadly material
as a small child when her father made a cubby house for her and
her sister using leftover asbestos fiber sheeting. Later, her dad
would come home from work covered in that same insidious dust, and
she or her mother would shake them out before putting them in the
washing machine. Williams also used a vacuum cleaner to clean out
her father's car, which was blanketed in asbestos dust.

Later, she unknowingly worked at an office in Melbourne that was
full of asbestos. "For three years, I breathed in invisible
asbestos particles dislodged from the suspended ceilings and
insulator cables," she recalled in an email.

"Since being diagnosed, I have been a strong advocate, campaigner
and given support to many people newly diagnosed and living with
an asbestos-related disease," she wrote. "I am a voice -- while
still well enough -- for those who have died, for those who are
living with mesothelioma and are unable to speak out due to health
reasons, and for those who are yet to be diagnosed in the future
-- namely the next generation."

                 The Changing Face Of Mesothelioma

Perhaps no one fits the profile of the new mesothelioma victim
better than Heather Von St. James, a little girl from South Dakota
who just wanted to wear her Daddy's jacket. 2005 marked the year
that was supposed to change Von St. James' life; little did she
know just how much.

Her doctors gave her fifteen months. If she were to do nothing and
simply accept her fate, that was all she would have left. With a
prognosis as dire as hers, it called for a very aggressive
treatment plan, one that most people don't live through. Her
doctors informed her that if she underwent conventional
chemotherapy and radiation therapy, she could expect to live
around 5 years.

Instead, she chose the option that would give her the best chances
of beating her cancer for good. On February 2, 2006, she underwent
an extensive surgical procedure called an extrapleural
pneumonectomy. This operation removed her affected lung, plus the
linings around the lung, her diaphragm, and around her heart. The
operation was performed by Dr. David Sugarbaker at the Brigham &
Women's Hospital in Boston, and in the end, was a success.

Von St. James' battle is now over seven years strong, and she
shows no sign of being anything but a survivor. She serves as a
source of hope for other victims facing this disease by
participating in and creating awareness campaigns and will only
continue speaking at conferences that seek to eliminate health and
treatment issues surrounding asbestos.

Having lost two of her closest friends this year -- both tireless
advocates in this ongoing fight -- she understands more than ever
how much louder her own voice needs to be. Although added safety
measures are being taken in the workplace, family members and
women at home are continually being put at risk. It is them, the
daughters of the dust, that are the changing face of mesothelioma.
It is not only up to resilient women like Von St. James,
Reinstein, and Williams to speak out about this spreading illness.
It is up to all of us to stand up against the misuse of this
deadly carcinogen and become a part of the ever-growing,
interconnected mesothelioma community, because only then will we
have the chance to rewrite this needless fate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: People Screened From Lung Problems Post-Sandy
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBC10 Philadelphia reported that it's been nearly 10 months since
Superstorm Sandy and for some of the people living in the hardest
hit areas, life hasn't quite returned to normal.

Besides concerns over rebuilding and repairing damages, some New
Jersey residents are worried about their health, the report said.

"A few weeks after I had a lung infection," said Denise Hansen, of
Ortley Beach, N.J.

In the weeks and months following the October storm, many people
were exposed to irritants including mold and asbestos, the report
related.

On Aug. 23, dozens of people living in Ocean County, including
first responders, received free respiratory and cardiac screenings
from Deborah Heart and Lung Center.  This is the 9th time the
hospital has offered these free screenings to people in the area.

Laureen Bogdan, of  Lavallette, N.J., tells NBC10's Ted Greenberg
that Sandy left 52 inches of water in her basement. Today, Bodgan
was one of the many people who got screened.

"I figured let me check, just in case because the mold was
growing," said Bogdan.

Depending on the results, some of the people are being urged to
follow up with their own doctor.

"We truly have to wait until all the data collection is in and
then decide whether or not there is some impact from the storm,"
said Donna McArdle of the Deborah Heart & Lung Center.

The hospital has screened about 400 people, and based on the
results, about 14% of them were urged to follow up with their own
doctors.

Deborah plans to expand the screenings to Monmouth County in
October.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Island Investigating Fibro Disposal Ways
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Herron, writing for ABC News, reported that Norfolk Island
is again investigating ways of transporting asbestos to the
mainland for disposal after previous hopes of a new shipping line
servicing the port of Brisbane fell through.

According to the report, about 60 tonnes of the hazardous material
is stored in containers according with proper guidelines at the
town's waste depot, but to ship it to Australia it must go through
quarantine.

The material has been building up since about since about 2004 and
needs to be moved to make space at the depot, the report related.

The Island's Environment Minister, Ron Ward, says a shipping
company completed two voyages from the Island to Brisbane earlier
this year, but has decided the route was not viable, the report
said.

"We shipped out several tonne of batteries, something in the order
of 10-15 tonne of used vehicle batteries," he said.

"There was quite a lot of red tape to get through even to ship
those and it all has to be done in accordance with what's known as
the Basel Convention on importation."

The Island's government now wants to redirect its main ship to a
port in Australia to dispose of the asbestos.

Minister Ward says the main vessel's port is Yamba, but it is not
a quarantine port so a one off transfer to Brisbane or Sydney is
needed.

"We will need to possibly make special arrangements to get the
other ship that does operate to Norfolk island out of Yamba to do
a special run into Brisbane for us at some point," he said.

"It remains to be seen whether that is a viable option and is
subject to negotiation."

He says transferring the material to New Zealand would be much
more difficult as it is a foreign port.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Camouflaged Security Cameras to Catch Dumpers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunshine Coast Daily reported that security cameras at bush dump
sites are being used to crackdown on people illegally tossing out
rubbish which cost ratepayers $50,000 to clean up last year.

According to the report, Councillor Robert Garland said signs
would warn people that cameras were in use to appeal to people's
better judgement and get them to do the right thing.

"They can take photos day and night," he said.

Cr Garland said the council received a State Government grant to
buy the camera.

He said people caught illegally dumping rubbish could be fined
almost $2000 or up to $4000 if the material contained asbestos.

"I'm sure if I asked ratepayers what they would like council to
spend $50,000 on I bet it's not cleaning up illegally dumped
rubbish, Cr Garland said.

"That's money that council could have spent on providing frontline
services."

He said the council recently had to clean up a load of asbestos-
laden builder's waste from a drainage reserve at Eli Waters.

"Last year, council picked up 85 tonnes of rubbish illegally
dumped off bush tracks and in drainage reserves," Cr Garland said.

"Some of it was within 2km of the Nikenbah Transfer Station and
most of it was recyclable and could have been dumped for free.

"Some of the rubbish contains very dangerous material such as
asbestos or oils and chemicals."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: China Rethinks Australian Deals for Resources
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chuin-Wei Yap, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
a dusty $8 billion Australian mine that has yet to export a chunk
of ore is emblematic of why China is rethinking its huge,
multiyear effort to buy up resources abroad.

According to the report, the mine, the Sino Iron project more than
900 miles north of Perth, in Western Australia, was launched in
2006 with an estimated $2.5 billion in development costs.  The
mine was to supply China with iron ore, a crucial steelmaking
ingredient, and help China break into a global mining market
dominated by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale SA.

Instead, Chinese owner Citic Pacific Ltd. has grappled with
everything from high labor costs and naturally occurring asbestos
in the rock to a massive ore-grinding mill that years after its
installation still doesn't work, the report said.

"These mills are the biggest in the world, and it is not
unreasonable to expect that there would be some problems due to
their complexity," said Damian Connelly, director of Perth-based
consultancy Mineral Engineering Technical Services. "Had they used
conventional gearbox pinion-drive mills, these problems wouldn't
have arisen to the same extent."

Analysts say the project's capital expenditure could reach $11
billion. Citic Pacific, an arm of state-owned Citic Group,
declined to respond to requests for comment.

China has plowed $226.1 billion into outbound mergers and
acquisitions to grab a slice of global resources since 1995, about
a quarter of which was in the mining sector, according to data
provider Dealogic. But people inside and outside the government
say Beijing is taking a more careful look at projects.

"The government still encourages 'going out,' " said Jin Bosong,
deputy director of the Ministry of Commerce's International Trade
and Economic Cooperation Research Institute. "But now the emphasis
is to make companies ask questions like: 'Can the project make
money?' " he said.

Mining projects are high on the list. Last December, a senior
official at the government's top economic-planning agency said at
a closed-door conference that while more than $10 billion has been
spent on China's overseas iron-ore mining investments, few of
these projects have begun operation, state-run Xinhua news agency
reported.

"Some of these projects' infrastructure costs are far higher than
the investment cost for the iron ore itself," said Wang Jianjun,
deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission's
overseas investment department, according to Xinhua.

Also in December, state-owned Metallurgical Corp. of China pulled
its $3 billion magnetite project at Cape Lambert in Western
Australia, blaming chronic cost overruns. A year earlier, state-
owned Sinosteel Midwest Corp. shelved its $2 billion Weld Range
project, in the same region, because of a lack of infrastructure
to move the ore.

Wuhan Iron & Steel Group 600005.SH +0.86% last November suspended
a $5 billion joint venture signed in 2009 to build a steel plant
in Brazil, blaming the need to build rail infrastructure for the
greenfield site. "We're not moving on it because it doesn't have
much infrastructure," Chairman Deng Qilin said.

Beijing's barrage of iron-ore asset purchases in the last decade
has yielded little. Ore imports from China-controlled global mines
currently account for just 2.7% of the country's total iron-ore
imports, far below an official target of 40% set in 2011,
according to data from Antaike, a Beijing-based consultancy, in
June.

Mr. Wang as well as officials of the state-backed industry group
China Iron and Steel Association, or CISA, say the problems don't
mean Beijing will stop China's overseas push for global ore
assets, underlining the country's need to "break a global
monopoly." "Citic is a special case, where there was a failure to
properly grasp local laws and practices, and there were a lot of
changes in the investment conditions," said CISA's deputy
secretary-general, Chi Jingdong.

Citic Pacific's Sino Iron project was expected to produce 24
million metric tons of magnetite concentrate a year when
completed. The project, the world's largest magnetite iron-ore
mine according to Citic Pacific, is based in Cape Preston, a rust-
red promontory so remote that the U.S. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration uses the area to simulate the terrain of
Mars.

Citic Pacific in its filings acknowledged the cost blowout and
blamed a variety of causes, including the lack of technicians. The
labor deficit was compounded by Australian laws limiting the
import of Chinese workers. Citic would have faced an additional
$50,000 to $80,000 per overseas worker for visa and relocation,
said Jody Elliott, co-founder of the Resource Channel recruitment
specialists based in Perth.

The company doesn't break out labor costs, but government data
show Australian mining wages increased 40% in the past seven
years, surpassing all other parts of its economy.

Toxic asbestos discovered on the site added to Citic's
environmental worries, said Mick Buchan, secretary of the
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which has
provided services to some workers at the site but doesn't
represent them. Citic said it has a plan to minimize workers'
exposure to the fibrous mineral, which it said is "a concern for
almost all mines in the Pilbara region."

Paul Vogel, chairman of Western Australia's Environmental
Protection Authority, said such asbestos discoveries are "not
uncommon" in the Pilbara and it could cost Citic "in the lower
millions [of dollars]" to clean it up.

Magnetite, the kind of iron ore produced at the project and one
that burns better in steel furnaces, can be almost twice as
expensive to process as hematite blends. "Magnetite projects are
very high in capital costs," Mineral Engineering's Mr. Connelly
said.

Then there is the nonfunctioning mill, a steel cylinder 40 feet in
diameter. One of 12 similar machines, the cylinder was a
centerpiece of the iron-ore mine. The company called them "the
world's largest mills." It attributed the breakdown to a damaged
stationary part of the mill.

Independent engineering experts estimate the mills cost $46
million apiece. Experts say repairs are likely to take three
months.

Citic Pacific Chairman Chang Zhenming said in a statement in
August that these repairs to the second of its six production
lines are "taking longer than anticipated," and didn't specify a
likely end-date. The project's first output line has been
commissioned but "more time and data are required to gain further
insight into (its) production parameters, line stability and
reliability," Mr. Chang said. The other four of Sino Iron's six
production lines are still being developed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Find Shuts GIB Factory
--------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mathewson, writing for The Press, reported that a
Christchurch plasterboard factory has been shut down temporarily
after traces of asbestos were found.

According to the report, the Winstone Wallboards manufacturing
plant in Opawa Rd was closed on Aug. 26 after an external testing
agency found traces of asbestos in the manufacturing building
during preparations for the replacement of the building's roof.

A total of 45 staff work at the Opawa Rd site.

The company, which manufactures GIB products, was notified of the
discovery on Aug. 26.

Winstone Wallboards general manager David Thomas said the entire
site was closed to ensure worker safety while further testing was
carried out.

The company expected to receive the results of the tests this
afternoon.

"It is understood the traces of asbestos originate from the roof
and that those traces are likely to have been contained within the
manufacturing building," Thomas said.

The company was not aware of any health symptoms related to the
discovery, but checks would be available to employees and
contractors as a precaution.

Thomas said the company had been advised by an asbestos-removal
specialist that there should be no concerns over contamination for
neighbouring properties.

All staff and contractors were asked to keep out of the affected
area until further notice, but staff would be kept on full pay
while the plant was closed.

South Island customers could see order delays of 24 to 48 hours,
but it was hoped the Christchurch distribution centre would be
operating again, Thomas said.

In the meantime, the company's Auckland plant would be used to
maintain supply.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Fears in Parliament Square Eased
------------------------------------------------------------
David Killick, writing for The Mercury, reported that the
developers of Parliament Square have reassured there is no danger
to the public from asbestos on the site.

According to the report, a spokesman for Citta Group said small
amounts of asbestos were present in the facade of the old state
PABX building, which is now being dismantled.

"Asbestos inside the building has already been removed in
accordance with the relevant safety procedures," he said.

Workers have in recent days been removing blocks piece by piece
from the building's sandstone facade, wearing masks and other
protective clothing.

"The stones, which mirror the Supreme Court building facade
opposite, are being removed individually so they can be recycled
within the Parliament Square redevelopment," Citta said in a
statement.

"Scissor lifts are being used on the footpath instead of scaffold
so that the area is kept clear for the Salamanca Market.

"The building also contains asbestos cement sheet behind the
fascia panels and, in some cases, asbestos cement spacers have
been used in the mortar joints between the stones.

"All mortar is being treated as contaminated and is being bagged
up for disposal as asbestos contaminated waste."

Asbestos was commonly used as a building material in the post-war
era before being progressively banned from the 1980s. Inhalation
of even small amounts of its tiny fibres can cause the fatal
condition mesothelioma years after exposure.

Asbestos product in good condition -- still within cement for
example -- is considered to pose no risk to health, but the
spokesman said because of footpath closures, pedestrians were
asked to avoid the site.

"Pedestrians have been asked to use the footpath on the St David's
Park side of Salamanca Place between the Supreme Court and Davey
Street," he said.

"The works affecting the footpath are expected to take three to
four weeks."

Once the material is removed an overhead protective structure will
be constructed over the footpath before structural demolition.

". . . work will commence to separate the Parliament House annex
building from Parliament House itself."

The spokesman said extra care was being taken on the site ahead of
each week's Salamanca Markets, which are held in the street
adjacent to the demolition works, with a half-day dedicated to
thorough decontamination.

Asbestos experts predict that the material will continue to kill
Australians for decades to come, as asbestos is still present in
an estimated three million homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Winston Wallboards Plant
------------------------------------------------------------
Auckland Now reported that Fletcher Building-owned Winstone
Wallboards has temporarily closed its Christchurch plasterboard
manufacturing plant after the discovery of asbestos traces.

According to the report, general manager David Thomas said it was
understood the traces of asbestos originated from the roof and
were likely to have been contained within the manufacturing
building.

As a precaution, the entire Opawa Rd site had been closed to
ensure the safety of employees and contractors while testing was
carried out, he said.

An asbestos-removal specialist had advised that there should be no
concerns over contamination to neighbouring properties.

"The company is not aware of any related health symptoms. However,
as a precaution, health checks will be made available to employees
and contractors," Thomas said.

"The health and safety of our work force is our No 1 priority."

Staff will be retained on full pay and kept informed as further
information becomes available.

The company said there could be initial order delays of 24 to 48
hours for South Island customers, and it hoped to have the
Christchurch distribution centre operating again.

The company's Auckland manufacturing plant will help maintain
supply until the Christchurch manufacturing plant is operating.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert in Cessford Farm Fire Near Morebattle
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South Scotland reported that firefighters have been
dealing with a fire at a Borders farm in which 75 tonnes of straw
bales was reported to be well-alight.

The alarm was raised at Cessford Farm near Morebattle at about
01:00 on Aug. 26, the report related.

The fire was treated as a chemical incident due to an asbestos
roof on the building used to store the straw, the report said.

A crew from Galashiels remained at the scene of the fire for much
of the day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Finally Back on Fibro-Hit Sites
--------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepwort and Mitchell Bingemann, writing for The
Australian, reported that Telstra put an end to the asbestos
shutdown on its pits and pipes -- needed for the National
Broadband Network -- on Aug. 26 and the work was confined to
Victoria.

The Australian can reveal that while a number of Telstra's
contractors had met the criteria to return to work, the telco was
waiting on independent verification and this caused further delay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Toxic Dust Left on Roadside in Blacktown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens, writing for Blacktown Sun, reported that Blacktown
counsel will decide whether to lobby the state government to drop
a waste levy on asbestos to ward off a rise in illegal dumping.

According to the report, Councillor Charlie Lowles called last
month for a report into illegal dumping in 2012-13.

The report is on the agenda for council meeting.  The report says
there were 43 incidents of illegal dumping of asbestos on
roadsides and 13 at council-managed open places across the
Blacktown local government area in 2012-13.

This was up from 32 roadside and three open space incidents in
2011-12.

Semi-rural areas such as Marsden Park and Riverstone were among
the hot spots.

No one has been prosecuted, the report says, because the council
relies on the public to notify them about dumping offenders.

It cost the council $130,816.40 to collect and dispose of dumped
asbestos in 2012-13, up from $23,482 in 2011-12.

It costs $300 and $470 a tonne to dispose of asbestos at two
landfills in the Blacktown local government area.

The reports advises the council to lobby the state government to
remove the $107.80 section 88 levy included in the cost.

"The section 88 (waste) levy was introduced as an economic
instrument to increase recycling," the report states.

"As asbestos-containing material cannot be recycled, it is
considered that it should be exempt from the levy."

Liberal councillor Jackie Donaldson is concerned abolishing the
levy would put tip costs up, but Cr Lowles said he hoped
councillors would pass the recommendation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Working With Fibro for 27 Yrs. Killed Rail Worker
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Evans, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
railway worker who spent 27 years working with asbestos has died
of an industrial disease.

According to the report, Harry Roome, of Warwick Avenue, Derby,
died in July aged 83, after a long illness and trouble breathing.
Mr Roome worked at the locomotive works in Litchurch Lane between
1945 to 1948 where he was a coach body builder.

Asbestos was sprayed on all the carriages to protect them from the
weather and Mr Roome told his family that it "covered the whole
place like snow."

There was a short time when Mr Roome was in the navy as a cook
between 1948 and 1955 -- where he was not exposed to the deadly
dust -- but, after leaving, he went back to work at British Rail
until 1966.

After leaving the rail industry, Mr Roome worked in the building
trade in Derby, dealing with the demolishing and redevelopment of
council houses.  He was exposed to asbestos in this line of work,
too, Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's court heard.

Terence, Mr Roome's son, said his dad was very hands-on throughout
is whole career and would have inhaled in the deadly particles on
a daily basis.  He said: "No-one knew then just how dangerous it
was. There were no health and safety rules back then.

"Everyone around will have just been breathing it in day after day
without realising."

Dr Andrew Hitchcock carried out the post-mortem examination on Mr
Roome.  He said: "I could see the particles of asbestos in the
lung tissue of Mr Roome without doing any of the special tests we
normally carry out. There was well-established infection in Mr
Roome's airways and a tumour in his lungs.

"This will have had an incredibly detrimental effect on Mr Roome
and he would he struggled to breath properly."

Deputy coroner Louise Pinder recorded a verdict of death as a
result of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Lincoln University
--------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Bayer, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that a
Lincoln University building has been shut down after a concerned
staff member took a swab of some dust which returned a positive
test for asbestos.

According to the report, the university is now working with
"anxious'' staff after the hazardous substance discovery was made
last month in the 60-year-old Riddolls Building.

The Canterbury District Health Board has been called in and
several more tests, checks, and cleans have been carried out, the
report said.

Murray Dickson, the university's group manager corporate services,
say they now have been cleared of danger, but staff can enter now
only under strict restricted access conditions.

After the devastating earthquakes, several large university
buildings were deemed too unsafe to occupy and staff and students
were moved to other buildings across the campus.

The Riddolls Building was renovated, and Mr Dickson said that
university records showed that there was asbestos in the building,
which was built in 1952.

"It was taken very seriously and all procedures were followed
before we moved in,'' Mr Dickson said.

Science labs and associated work spaces, including chillers, were
moved in.  But he believes that stormy weather which struck the
region last last month caused some asbestos dust to emerge.

A concerned staff member took some dust samples in the building,
which Mr Dickson said they were encouraged to do in such
circumstances.

As a precautionary measure, the building was shut down while they
awaited the results.

Canterbury District Health Board were sent three samples on
July 17.  Two came back positive for Chrysotile (white asbestos)
and one contained both Crysotile and Amosite (brown asbestos).

On July 22 and 23, CDHB community and public health technical
officers visited the site and took two more bulk samples.

One of the two bulk samples are positive for white asbestos.

The university's 'spill response team' carried out clean-up
operations on advice from community and public health.

On August 19, the university sent six samples for testing, and
only one sample contained brown asbestos, a CDHB spokeswoman
confirmed.

"We've done a lot of remedial work and blocked off some gaps
between rooms and ceiling spaces, where dust may have come from,''
Mr Dickson said.

"We've now got full clearance. There hasn't been an airborne
sample that we haven't had a clearance from.''

Staff are entering the building under restricted access, he said.

"It's obviously an emotive topic and one which some staff are
anxious over, and some are not.

"We're working with staff and want to make them happy and
satisfied. We're comfortable with what we've done.''

Asbestos exposure can lead to breathing difficulties or cancer but
symptoms may not become apparent for decades.

Mr Dickson wasn't aware of any staff, or contractors who had been
doing work on the building, as having undergone medical tests to
check if their lungs have been affected by the killer dust.  But
he urged anyone with concerns to notify the university, whose
alumni includes All Blacks captain Richie McCaw, mountaineer Mark
Inglis, and double Victoria Cross winner and war hero, Charles
Upham.

Fletcher Building's Winstone Wallboards unit has temporarily
closed a plasterboard factory in Christchurch after finding traces
of asbestos in the building.

The company was told of the discovery by an external testing
agency and has closed the entire site as a precautionary measure
to allow for more testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glimmer of Hope in Cancer Battle
-------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that Australian
scientists have made a breakthrough that brings a glimmer of hope
to people with a deadly cancer caused by asbestos.

According to the report, the cancer affects a small percentage of
people exposed to asbestos but it is relatively common in
Australia with about 650 new cases a year.

There is no cure for the disease, which takes about 35 years to
develop and most people die within 18 months of diagnosis, the
report said.

So far, treatment developed at the Asbestos Diseases Research
Institute has shown remarkable results in tests on mice with
malignant mesothelioma taken from humans.

Now, institute director Professor Nico van Zandwijk and his team
are preparing to test the TargomiRs treatment on humans.

First stage trials start at the end of 2013 and will determine the
optimal and safe dose.

"Treatment options for this asbestos-related cancer are very
limited and effective new therapies are urgently needed," Prof van
Zandwijk said at the announcement of the trial in Sydney.

Carol Klintfalt, 63, says she is thrilled to be taking part in the
trial.

"Last year they told me the chemo was not working anymore. To me
this is life or death."

Ms Klintfalt was diagnosed at the age of 57 and feels privileged
to have had time with her three grandchildren.

"It is wonderful to still be alive."

She could have been exposed to asbestos in her 20s, when she
worked for an architect in Sydney or later when she refurbished
houses with her engineer husband.

"I remember buying sheets of asbestos and not having any idea it
was deadly.

"No cancer is a good cancer but this is a man-made cancer."

She says her family has become involved in her illness and her son
Mathew, 28, is dedicated to informing people his age about the
dangers of asbestos. He has climbed Mount Aconcagua in the Andes
mountains to raise money for the cause.

"It is his generation buying their first house. They are the
people doing DIY and thinking they are invincible," Ms Klintfalt
said.

Prof van Zandwijk says he does not want to raise false hope but he
is cautiously optimistic the treatment will work.

"I think the whole concept is sound and we feel very reassured.

"While our preclinical research was confined to mesothelioma, we
hope that this new approach to cancer treatment will also inhibit
other tumour types."

Speaking at the launch, Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek
said: "This will allow further research into the most promising
treatment for mesothelioma yet discovered. It means that we might
have a cure in a few years."

Mentioning the sadness of losing a family friend to the disease,
she said: "Anyone who has been touched by mesothelioma, and there
are so many Australians who have been, will be so excited about
this. It's just such a wonderful day."

The trial is made possible by a $1.2 million donation from the
family of Andrew Lloyd, who died of malignant mesothelioma in 2011
after coming into contact with asbestos during building
renovations.

* For information about how to manage the asbestos risk in pre-
1987 homes, go to www.asbestosawareness.com.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Ban Slow to Impact Mesothelioma Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Denmark banned the use of asbestos in insulation in 1972 and
extended the ban to other asbestos-containing products in the late
1980s. It is now one of 55 countries to have banned the product
completely. But according to the new study of mesothelioma in
Denmark, a steady rise in cases of this asbestos-linked cancer
that began in the 1950s is still going on.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of the membranes around
internal organs, most often the lungs or abdomen. It is the
deadliest of the many diseases associated with exposure to the
mineral asbestos. Asbestos' low cost, availability, and resistance
to fire and corrosion made it a popular insulator and component in
building materials worldwide from as early as the 1930s, putting
hundreds of thousands of workers at risk for mesothelioma. Like
Denmark, many countries began to curtail their use of the product
after it was linked to mesothelioma and other health problems in
the 1950s and 1960s.

In the latest study, the Danish research team used mesothelioma
data from the Danish Cancer Registry from 1943 to 2009. They found
that the total incidence of mesothelioma continued to rise
throughout the period and was at its peak of 1.76 cases per
100,000 people in 2008-2009. There were more cases in the Region
of Northern Jutland than there were in Southern Denmark. Although
survival has improved, the researchers note that prognosis for
mesothelioma remains poor, with a median survival of 12.5 months
for men and 13.3 months for women in 2008-2009.

"The national malignant mesothelioma incidence for men continues
to increase, perhaps showing a slight tendency towards
deceleration in the most recent decade," the authors conclude in
the Danish Medical Journal. But they go on to say that "A clear
long-term effect of the Danish asbestos ban has not yet occurred."

The latency period or lag time between exposure and disease
development in mesothelioma can be many decades. It is this
latency that can make the disease difficult to diagnose and to
trace to its source. Once diagnosed, mesothelioma tends to
progress quickly. The World Health Organization estimates that
more than 92,000 people have died of mesothelioma since 1994.

The original Danish study appeared in the Danish Medical Journal.
(Skammeritz, E, et al, "Regional difference in incidence of
malignant mesothelioma in Denmark", March 2013, Danish Medical
Journal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23484611)

For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers
the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes,
diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving
Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer-
reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved
ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more
informed decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Universities Mum on Dorm Fibro to Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
UPI reported that last year, at least 17,000 students in England
slept in university bedrooms that contained asbestos, an
investigation revealed.  According to the report, the substance is
harmless if left undisturbed, but it can be deadly if it is
damaged.

Asbestos is the No. 1 cause of work-related deaths in England, The
Guardian reported.

The universities do have asbestos management procedures, but many
college representatives said they do not tell students that there
is asbestos in their bedrooms.

Students may not report damaged asbestos because they do not know
it is there, The Guardian reported.  Of the 88 universities, 38
confirmed that they are providing rooms for students that contain
asbestos.

Warwick University said 2,313 of its bedrooms contain asbestos.

"The material containing asbestos in these rooms is fully sealed
and completely safe, fully in line with all statutory requirements
and good practice," a spokesman from the college said.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said it is concerned
about the findings.

"ATL has campaigned hard for a national audit to check for the
presence and state of asbestos in all education establishments and
for its safe removal. This discovery shows how necessary and
urgent this is," a spokesman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Big Fine for Mandurah Fibro Dumping
----------------------------------------------------
Mandurah Mail reported that a man was fined almost $8,000 after he
was caught contaminating a Greenfields wetland with asbestos
material.

According to the report, Mark Kirkham, 52, was convicted in his
absence earlier this year but reappeared on August 13 to plead
guilty to the offence.

City of Mandurah prosecutors said Mr Kirkham had permission from
the owners to fill in a lake at a property on Lakes Road and took
20 truckloads of material, including 1.46 tonnes of asbestos to
the site.  But it was argued Mr Kirkham did not have the
permission to fill in the wetland over a period of almost six
months, and as a result, the wetland had now been contaminated by
the dumping.

Mr Kirkham's lawyer argued his client mistook the wetland for a
man-made lake and said that his client did not know that some of
the material dumped was asbestos.

It was put forward that Mr Kirkham had already spent thousands of
dollars on removing the asbestos from the area but the court heard
there was traces of the asbestos at the site.

A City spokesperson said residents needed to be more aware of the
issues with asbestos.

"It is an offence under the Health (Asbestos Regulations) 1992 for
any person who breaks, damages, cuts, repairs, removes or disposes
of any material containing asbestos without taking appropriate
measures to prevent asbestos fibres entering the atmosphere, and
penalties apply," the spokesperson said.

"The City of Mandurah takes an active approach to investigating
the dumping of materials, particularly hazardous substances such
as asbestos.

"People handling asbestos must do so with extreme care, and in
accordance with legal requirements, to minimise risks to
themselves and the rest of the community.

"We would encourage people to report any dumping of this type to
the city for investigation."

Mr Kirkham was fined $5,750 and thousands in court costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willow Grove Man Indicted for Illegal Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Massott, writing for PhillyBurbs.com, reported that a
Willow Grove man is accused of hiring day laborers instead of
licensed contractors to remove asbestos from a property he owns in
Philadelphia.

According to the report, David Mermelstein, 53, was charged with
five counts of illegal removal of asbestos in an indictment on
Aug. 27, according to U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger.

The indictment alleges that, from about September 2009 to about
April 2010, Mermelstein hired the laborers instead of licensed
asbestos contractors to remove asbestos from his property at 10175
Northeast Ave.

The indictment also alleges that Mermelstein did so without the
safeguards required by federal law to protect workers and others
from the release of asbestos fibers into the air. The fibers can
lodge in the lungs and cause lung disease, including mesothelioma,
a fatal lung ailment, according to the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.

"The illegal and unsafe disposal of asbestos seriously threatens
the general public's health and safety," said David G. McLeod,
Jr., special agent in charge of EPA's criminal enforcement program
for the Middle Atlantic States. "We believe the defendant
knowingly directed the illegal removal of demolition debris
containing asbestos. (The) indictment by a federal grand jury
demonstrates that those who try to make money by breaking the law
and damaging the environment will be vigorously prosecuted."

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of
25 years imprisonment and a fine of $1.25 million.

The case was investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency
and Philadelphia's Air Management Services. It is being prosecuted
by assistant U.S. attorney Virgil B. Walker and special assistant
U.S. attorney Patricia Miller.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Statin Drugs as Potential Mesothelioma Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that common statin
drugs used by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol could
become a tool in battling malignant mesothelioma, stemming from
recent research in Japan that studied their potential synergistic
effect on one cancer-fighting compound.

According to the report, a combination of statin drugs and gamma-
tocotrienol (y-T3), an engineered form of vitamin E, showed for
the first time in a laboratory that it can slow the growth of
mesothelioma and induce cancer-cell death.

Previous studies have shown that patients with a history of statin
drug use had a significantly lower risk of dying from cancer.
Statins already are used in combination for the treatment of
breast cancer.

Studies by the National Cancer Institute show that statins also
can help control certain tumor growth and block cellular functions
that can lead to cancer. Low-dose statin use has been shown to
reduce the risk of both liver and ovarian cancers.

Synergistic Effect

The latest research was the first study specifically involving
statins and mesothelioma. It was done by the Department of
Geriatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, within the Graduate
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Chiba University in Japan.
The study was detailed in Cancer Letters. There was a summary on
PubMed.gov, ahead of the print publication.

"Statin + y-T3 combination induced greater cell growth inhibition
more than each single treatment," detailed the study. "(It) could
be useful for malignant mesothelioma therapy and functions in a
complementary style."

The synergistic effect that triggered apoptosis (killing of the
cancer cells) was particularly encouraging. Despite the optimism
surrounding the study, laboratory researchers  emphasized that it
could be years before this combination is approved for use in
mesothelioma treatment.

Japanese researchers used atorvastatin (Lipitor) and simvastatin
(Zocor), two of the most popular statin drugs prescribed. An
estimated 35 million Americans, mostly older than 40, take a
statin drug.

Statin drugs work by blocking the enzyme in the liver that is
responsible for making cholesterol, often lowering the risk of
heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases.

When combined with y-T3, statins appear to activate caspase 3, a
protein that plays a key role in apoptosis. They also inhibit a
metabolic pathway that is used by mesothelioma cells.

Mesothelioma Rates Rising in Japan

Considerable research is being done on mesothelioma in Japan,
particularly important after an alarming study was released
earlier this year by the Hamamatsu University School of Medicine.

The study predicted that there would be 66,000 deaths due to
mesothelioma in the country between 2003 and 2050. The rate of
mesothelioma, which is caused by exposure to asbestos, is expected
to peak in Japan in 2027.

Like the United States, Japan dramatically reduced its use of
asbestos, but has not banned it like many European countries have
done. According to the report, Japan imported more 300,000 tons of
asbestos as late as 1988.

Mesothelioma is expected to peak in the United States by 2020.
Although neither country is using much asbestos today, the latency
period between exposure and diagnosis of mesothelioma can range
from 20 to 50 years.

Research from United Kingdom

In other international news, the Halifax Courier in the United
Kingdom reports that researchers there have begun testing a herpes
simplex virus -- engineered in the laboratory -- to kill
mesothelioma tumors.

Viral treatments are among the many potential therapies being
tried for mesothelioma; they are designed  for patients who cannot
tolerate traditional chemotherapy regimens.

The Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medical Centre in Yorkshire is
conducting the study of 12 patients; no results have been
released. The virus also is being tested with brain and liver
cancers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found During Hinsdale Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Fornek, writing for The Doings Hindale, reported that
Hinsdale High School District 86 officials report asbestos was
found in the concession stand and lobby of the Hinsdale Central
gymnasium.

According to the report, officials said the asbestos has not been
disturbed and is not a hazard to students, the staff or others in
the building. Asbestos removal is scheduled between Sept. 9 and
Sept. 12.

Environmental Hazard Control Industry will abate the asbestos
under the supervision of Environmental Services Inc, an
engineering and testing firm, which has done previous work in the
district, officials reported, the report related.

The abatement will occur in about 35 linear feet of piping and 10
square feet of tile within the existing construction area, that
was barricaded off from student and staff access, the report said.

The district is planning to build a new concession stand and
enlarge the ticket booth for the Hinsdale Central gym.

On Sept. 10, athletic locker room A will be closed for asbestos
removal, though another locker room will remain open and safe for
students, district officials said.

It's not the first time asbestos has been found in the high
school, officials report.

"Students and staff have been on campus for projects of this
nature, always with safety and health factors in mind," officials
said in a statement. "We have and will continue to manage these
projects in a manner that is safe for students, staff and
visitors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Removed From Malmsbury Mechanics Institute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Valente, writing for Sunbury & Macedon Ranges Weekly,
reported that potentially dangerous asbestos sheeting in a wall of
the Malmsbury Mechanics Institute was removed from the building.

According to the report, certified asbestos removalists took out
the rear wall of the hall, where the sheeting was found to have
deteriorated.

Macedon Ranges council assets and environment director Dale
Thornton said the edges of the sheeting had frayed, the report
said.  He said the council conducted asbestos audits every five
years.

"We have an asbestos register, and we've known for a long time
there is asbestos in that building," he said.

"The sheeting at the rear of the hall was deteriorating and we
could either paint it to seal it or have it removed."

The sheeting was removed at a cost of $3500.

Asbestos in the kitchen and toilets at the rear of the building
was deemed to be safe.

The mechanics institute is home to the Malmsbury Historical
Society, which will have to pay $1040 a year for use of the
building until next year, when a lease between the Malmsbury
Advance Association (MAA) and Macedon Ranges council expires.

The mechanics' institute is owned by the council and managed by
the MAA, which has a rental arrangement with the historical
society.

In April, the Weekly reported that rent for the use of the
building had doubled from $520 to $1040 without notice. At the
time the council said the society should not be paying any more
for rent than any other historical society in the shire.

A council spokesperson said the arrangement with the MAA would be
reviewed when the council looks at its leasing and licensing
policy later this year. Once finalised, the policy will apply to
all new and expired leases.

The historical society is a volunteer, non-profit organisation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Forces Firms From Tour Montparnasse
----------------------------------------------------------
The Local reported that the Tour Montparnasse, the most famous
skyscraper in the French capital, has been hit by new asbestos
fears with workers having to be evacuated and companies deserting
its office space.

According to the report, the Tour Montparnasse is said to offer
workers the best views of the French capital, but it appears there
is still a potentially dangerous downside to working in the 210-
metre high skyscraper.

Authorities in Paris have asked the building's owners to launch a
probe after a "significant number of exposures to asbestos dust"
were recorded in recent months, the report related.

The existence of the asbestos dust is caused by the ongoing works
to remove the potentially carcinogenic insulator, the report said.

In all, there have been 72 recorded occasions when the level of
asbestos has exceeded the safety threshold of five fibres per
litre since 2009.

The problem of asbestos in the tower, which dates back to 2005,
has become so acute that certain companies were forced to evacuate
their workers earlier this summer.

Staff from the firm Amundi, a subsidiary of the banks Credit
Agricole and Societe General, were evacuated from the tower due to
levels of asbestos dust exceeding the safe threshold.

AFP reported that Amundi's bosses have decided against returning
to their old offices on the 59th floor of the building and will
seek a new location elsewhere.

Authorities in Paris are keeping a close watch on the situation
and even threatened in August to evacuate all of the building's
offices until the situation was resolved," the newspaper
Liberation reports.

The existence of asbestos in the tower, which houses 5,000 workers
and is visited by 600,000 tourists each year, was revealed in 2005
and made front page headlines.

The building's owners ordered works to remove the asbestos to
begin in 2007 but the painstaking nature of the work as well as
the fact the building remains occupied means they are not expected
to be completed before 2017.

While most of the skyscraper is now believed to be safe, there
have been difficulties in removing asbestos from fire escapes.

Around 4,000 tests are carried out each year to make sure the
levels of asbestos dust do not exceed five fibres per litre of
air.

According to the owners, works to remove the substance, which was
banned back in 1997, will cost EUR250 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheeting Found Dumped at Bucca
-----------------------------------------------------
The Daily Examiner reported that bushwalkers have made a
concerning discovery in bushland near Bucca.

According to the report, a large pile of dumped asbestos sheeting
has been found in the Blackbutt Natural Regrowth area in the
Wedding Bells State Forest off Sherwood Rd.

Local WIRES volunteer Arlene Hope said the waste building products
were found on the afternoon of Tuesday, Aug. 27.

"We could not believe someone could be so criminally
irresponsible," Ms Hope said.

"Dumping asbestos carelessly like that poses all sorts of dangers
to the public and potenitally wildlife.

The culprits responsible for the act have risked fines of up to
$1-million for the illegal dumping of the hazardous material.

It is thought the offending vehicle would have travelled along
Bucca Rd before it dumped the load.

An inspection of the site found the crime happened very recently.

NSW Forestry, the Coffs Harbour City Council and State Member for
Coffs Harbour Andrew Fraser have been notified.

Inquiries are being made into the incident.

Anyone with information should call Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Blackdog Site
---------------------------------------------------
The Ellon Times reported that investigations at the site of a
proposed electricity substation in an Aberdeenshire coastal
community have found low level traces of asbestos.

According to the report, the work at Blackdog, near Balmedie, has
been carried out as part of the European Offshore Wind Deployment
Centre windfarm development.

The site probe has included surveys and exploratory tests related
to an environmental impact assessment, the report related.

Developers have forwarded a detailed report to Aberdeenshire
Council, the report said.

The substation is linked to the multi-million pound offshore
windfarm project in Aberdeen Bay.

More than 60 out of around 80 householders in Blackdog sent
letters of protest to Formartine Area Committee regarding the
substation plans, which are for a former landfill site south of
Hareburn Terrace.

Following a public hearing into the onshore project earlier this
year, the committee asked EOWDC to carry out site investigations.

Iain Todd, project spokesman for the EOWDC, said: "It is not
unusual to find traces of asbestos in brownfield sites such as
this, where there are areas of former industrial workings
including a former landfill, and the site investigation findings
are generally as expected.

"Should the development proceed, we will of course implement all
proper control measures in terms of health and safety,
environmental protection and waste disposal.

"The partners behind the EOWDC have always informed the local
community of their commitment to improving any areas of ground
where contaminants are discovered if consent is granted for the
onshore works in order to render it safe for development.

"Indeed, we believe any such remediation work required would
greatly improve the condition of the site.

"Before the partners behind the EOWDC submitted the planning
application for the onshore works, a detailed environmental
appraisal of the proposed development was carried out to
professional standards even though the planning service deemed
that this was not required.

"The appraisal was conducted to ensure careful and diligent
consideration is given to minimising potential environmental
impacts from the proposed development, throughout its lifetime."

Villagers recently stepped up their opposition to the substation
and launched an online petition.

Edna Booth, who has spearheaded the campaign along with neighbour
Nicola Brown, said they were "disappointed" by the results of the
investigation.  She added: "We had expected to find a lot of
asbestos. We believe they drilled in the wrong place and did not
go far enough into the ground.

"The residents have voiced their concerns but, at the end of the
day, the council will decide if it goes ahead."


                             *********

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  * * *