CAR_Public/130920.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 187

                             Headlines


AGRICO CHEMICAL: Pensacola Law Firm Unveils Settlement Details
BENTON COUNTY, WA: Set to Release Level 1 Offenders Personal Info
CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Carach" Merger-Related Suit in New York
CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Mizani" Merger-Related Suit in New York
CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Tarver" Merger-Related Suit in Maryland

CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Nimely" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Initial OK of $27.5MM "Ross" Suit Deal
CAREER EDUCATION: "Cernohorsky" Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
CAREER EDUCATION: "Cohen" Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration

CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consumer Suits in Calif.
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Student Suits vs. CCA
CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Sumrall" Suit Pending in Florida
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Enea" Class Action Suit in California
CAREER EDUCATION: Proceedings in Consolidated Florida Suit Stayed

CAREER EDUCATION: "Stafford" Class Suit Dismissed in July 2013
CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings in "Surrett" Suit Stayed
CITIGROUP INC: "Raniere" Class Suit Remanded to District Court
CNX GAS: Judge Balks at Arbitration Process in Gas Royalties Suit
COLONIAL BANCGROUP: No 3rd Serving for Pension Funds in Class Suit

COLONIAL PROPERTIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
DES MOINES, IA: Balks at Lawyers' Payout Bid in Franchise Fee Suit
FACEBOOK INC: "Sponsored Stories" Settlement Faces New Setback
GOOGLE INC: Privacy & Tech Advocates Divided Over Wiretap Ruling
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of "Silsby" Shareholder Suit

KELLOGG CO: $4MM Mini-Wheats Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Junk IPO Suit vs. FriendFinder Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Removed Suit Over WEMU Offering to N.D. Cal.
M&G POLYMERS: 6th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Tackett" Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: All-Star FanFest Volunteers File Suit

McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Aleem" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Allen" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Barnes" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Boreni" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Butler" Suit

McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Cruz" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Fortune" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Joshlin" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "West" Suit
McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Zavala" Suit

MERCK SHARP: Settles Class Action Over Vioxx for $23 Million
METLIFE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Haviland" Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in Consolidated TCA-Related Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Canadian Suits Over Sales Practices Remain Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices

METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Westland" Suit in New York
METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Bid to Remand "Birmingham" Suit Ruling
NATIONAL CITY: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling Denying Settlement Approval
NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Class Action Over Retirement Benefits Nixed
PILOT TRAVEL: Class Cert. Bid in FACTA Violation Suit Denied

PURDUE PHARMA: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling
RESERVE MANAGEMENT: SEC Backs Out of Class Action Settlement
SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Cryovac Suits Deal
SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Canadian Settlement to Become Effective
STEC INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Consolidate Merger-Related Suits

STEC INC: Got Final OK of $35.8-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement
STEC INC: Parties to Dismiss Calif. State Court Securities Suit
STEEL DYNAMICS: Expects Additional Briefing in Antitrust Suits
STEINER LEISURE: Settled "Ferrari" Suit for Immaterial Amount
UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Class Reps Want to Fund Foundation

UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid as Moot in "Hill" Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Distribution Plan Approved in Class Suit
WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Defective Dishwashers
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Katten Muchin Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Factory on Daniel Terrace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW School in Partial Lockdown Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Query Sparks Action in Dickson Gov't Office
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated LA Schools May House Charter Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Fibro Dumped at Site Near Kellswater

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phil Hammond Criticizes Fibro Quarry Stance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repair Work on Seattle Building Exposes Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Samoa College Closed for Fibro Tests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Assures Safety of Fibro Pits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Eastside Warehouse Fire Debris

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on Graceville School Oval
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trusts Should Consider Copying Share Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paterson Awards Removal Contract in Office Rehab
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust Cloud Threatens Beagle Bay School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9/11 Survivors Say Worries on Fibro Still Linger

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AWA Concerned With Fibro Disposal in Port Augusta
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Brisbane Schools Face Fibro Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harland and Wolff Disease Claims to Hit GBP150MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Bellevue Hill Playground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richland County Jury Awards $38MM in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Montague Demolition Prompts Precautions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Moves on Huskisson's Fibro Cottages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg.'s Collapse Could Release Fibro Dust Cloud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Tosses $14.5MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Work at Old Bryan Foods Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Dust Still on Many Rwandan Houses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Wants Duty to Warn Expanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules Movie Prop Man Died From Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Majority Owners Get $620MM in Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Seeks Review of Class Precedent

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Over Pilbara Rail Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Receive Update on Fibro Discovery in Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renovators Admit Taking Fibro Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miscommunication Means Fibro Left in Fla. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Not Told of Flats' Fibro Removal Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumpers Add Costly Tab to Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guadalupe County Workers Moved During Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Center Offers Tips for US Navy Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found Outside Skip Hire Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Property in Melbourne's West

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Men Arraigned in Federal Fibro-Removal Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Ex-Navy's Suit Partly Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Recommends Remand of "Mims" PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. High Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mellis" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Hoyt" Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rheem's Bid to Dismiss "Janits" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fund Created to Pay Eagle Inc.'s PI Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Court Allows Appeal in "Andrucki" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enlargement of Record on Appeal Nixed in NY Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Bid to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing Nixed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Ct. Flips Ruling in Improper Disposal Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "DiSalvo" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Brown" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Couple's Bid to Vacate Ruling


                             *********


AGRICO CHEMICAL: Pensacola Law Firm Unveils Settlement Details
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that
after nearly 10 years and two class-action suits, thousands of
Pensacola property owners who had their land contaminated by
polluted groundwater soon will receive compensation.

Earlier this month, Circuit Court Judge Joel Boles approved a
$9.5 million settlement in a class-action suit stemming from a
plume of contaminated groundwater flowing from the former site of
Agrico Chemical Co.  A Pensacola law firm announced the details of
the settlement on Sept. 13.

The Agrico plant was a chemical and fertilizer manufacturing plant
on a 35-acre plot of land near the northwest intersection of
Fairfield Drive and Interstate 110.

The plant operated from 1889 to 1975 and produced an underground
chemical plume that migrated southeast.  The area is now a federal
Superfund site administered by the EPA.

In 2004, about 3,000 property owners between the plant site and
Cross Street reached an out-of-court $70 million settlement with
Agrico and the current owner of the site, ConocoPhillips.

In 2008, the Pensacola law firm of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis &
Overholtz filed another class-action suit on behalf of property
owners south of Cross Street because environmental scientists
thought the contaminated area was still growing.

"The experts were able to look at new data and prove that the
plume had moved south of Cross Street and toward Pensacola Bay,"
Nathan Bess, an attorney at the law firm, said on Sept. 13.

The concentration of contaminants decreased as the distance from
the plant increased, however Mr. Bess said that is little solace
for the thousands of land owners living above polluted water.

"The real danger to property owners is that when you have these
toxic, unapproved groundwaters beneath your property, it comes
with a lot of uncertainty and anxiety," he said.

"If you wanted to install an irrigation well on your property . .
. you lose that right because you have contaminated groundwater."

Approximately 3,600 property owners in and around East Hill opted
to participate in the 2008 suit.  The participants were divided
into two subclasses based on their proximity to the plant site and
the projected path of the pollutants.

The Thomas subclass -- named for plaintiffs Michael and Patricia
Thomas -- consists of properties that experts say either are, or
will be, in the direct path of plumes from the plant site.

The area is bordered on the north by Cross Street, on the west by
Davis Highway, on the south by East Brainerd Street and on the
east by Bayou Texar.

Mr. Bess estimated that these property owners will receive about
$3,200 per land parcel as a result of the settlement.

The property owners in the Rabin subclass, named for plaintiffs
Samuel and Jacqueline Rabin, will receive approximately $200 per
land parcel because there is uncertainty as to when, or if, the
plumes will reach their properties.

Mr. Bess said the owners of about 5,200 properties had the option
to participate in the suit.  He also said he didn't anticipate any
further legal actions revolving around the polluted plumes.

"This is going to be the end of the story," he said. "This new
settlement that's been approved by the court is going to swallow
up all the areas where the plume is going to go."

Ness said in a community like Pensacola, with numerous industrial
plants in the vicinity, it was important to hold big corporations
accountable for their actions.

"I'm a local, born and raised in Pensacola," he said.  "We're all
aware he have some environmental problems, but that fact that we
were able to take a big company like ConocoPhillips to task is
important.

"I've always been impressed by the amount of people who have taken
a stand to help protect our communities and protect our
environment."


BENTON COUNTY, WA: Set to Release Level 1 Offenders Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Richardson, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that
the majority of low-level sex offenders in Benton County could
have their personal information released in the coming weeks.

About 400 offenders who have not hired attorneys were left
unprotected on Sept. 13 when Judge Bruce Spanner ruled against a
class-action lawsuit.  The move would have given the offenders
legal representation and temporarily blocked the release of their
personal information, which includes their names, pictures and
addresses.

Twenty-one Level 1 offenders hired attorneys after Donna Zink of
Mesa requested the offenders' personal information from Benton and
Franklin counties under the state's public records law.

Zink requested the information July 15 and said she plans to post
it on the Internet.

Information about higher-risk offenders, ranked a Level 2 and 3,
is readily available to the public, but not for Level 1 offenders.

Lawsuits have been filed on the offenders' behalf, temporarily
putting the release of their personal information on hold.  A
ruling on whether their information will be released could come in
October.

Benton County is planning on releasing the other offenders'
information within the next three weeks, said Deputy Prosecutor
Ryan Lukson.

Greg Dow, who filed a motion to lead the class-action lawsuit,
believes Judge Spanner's ruling is unfair to offenders and creates
a headache for county officials, he said.

"I don't understand how you protect 20 people with lawyers and
leave 400 people outside the stream of justice," said Mr. Dow, a
Richland attorney.  "It's just so offensive."

Ms. Zink, who declined to comment to the Herald, already has
received similar offender information from Franklin County.

She also has requested a list of all Benton County sex offenders,
letters the county sent to offenders notifying them of her request
and the list of names the county used to send the letters.

Ms. Zink recently requested Special Sex Offender Sentencing
Alternative forms and victim impact statements, Mr. Lukson said.
The forms and statements contain offenders' personal information.

"She is very creative," Mr. Lukson said."  She is just asking for
the same information in different manners as she is entitled to
do.  It has added a complexity to the case that we are having to
address these new records requests even though it is for the same
information."

Mr. Lukson will notify attorneys representing the offenders of
Ms. Zink's request, he said.  The county is not prepared to
release the new information requested by Ms. Zink.

During the Sept. 13 hearing, Dow told Judge Bruce Spanner he was
willing to lead the class-action lawsuit pro bono.  He also stated
he was prepared to donate $10,000 in legal costs if the class-
action lawsuit was allowed.

"I just feel there is something tugging at me on this case," Dow
said.

After listening to objections from Ms. Zink and two other
attorneys representing offenders, Judge Spanner ruled against Dow.

Judge Spanner said he had concerns about whether Dow could
adequately protect the interest of the offenders while working for
free, he said.  He also stated the class-action would take away
the Benton County Sheriff's Office's discretion to release
offender information to the public.

The sheriff's office can release low-level sex offender
information upon request if officials feel it is immediate and
necessary to protect the public.

The county, represented by Mr. Lukson, was in favor of the class-
action case.

"We wanted 400 and some sex offenders to be treated equally,"
Mr. Lukson said.  "We think the (offenders') information is
releasable under the Public Records Act.  Either way Spanner
ruled, we wanted to make sure it applied to everybody.  The way it
currently sits we're going to have to give out the records on the
people who were not in court [Fri]day."

For Mr. Dow to represent the rest of the offenders -- something he
said he is passionate about -- he must try and join them together.
Mr. Dow said he didn't know if he could ethically make an attempt
to contact the offenders.

"How do I contact people who I don't know who they are or that I
don't have any information about?" he said.  "The class was going
to solve that by saying everybody in this particular group of sex
offenders is in."


CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Carach" Merger-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
CapLease, Inc. is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit
titled Carach v. CapLease, Inc., according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2013, CapLease, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including Caplease, LP (the "Operating Partnership"), entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("ARCP"), ARC Operating
Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and the
operating partnership of ARCP (the "ARCP Operating Partnership"),
and Safari Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub").  The Merger
Agreement provides for (i) the merger of CapLease with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of ARCP, and (ii) the merger of the Operating
Partnership with and into ARCP Operating Partnership, with ARCP
Operating Partnership surviving (the "Partnership Merger" and,
together with the Merger, the "Mergers").

CapLease, its directors, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including the Operating Partnership, as well as ARCP, the ARCP
Operating Partnership and Merger Sub, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in
connection with the proposed Merger, styled Carach v. CapLease,
Inc., No. 651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary
duty by CapLease's directors because the Merger does not provide
for full and fair value for CapLease's stockholders, the directors
failed to take steps to maximize the value of CapLease or properly
value CapLease, failed to protect against various alleged
conflicts of interest, and failed to fully disclose material
information concerning the process that led to the Merger.  The
complaint also alleges that the certain subsidiaries of CapLease,
including the Operating Partnership, and ARCP, the ARCP Operating
Partnership and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger.  The Company
believes that the allegations of the complaint are without merit
and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set
forth in the complaint.

Based in New York, CapLease, Inc., is a real estate investment
trust that primarily owns and manages a diversified portfolio of
single tenant commercial real estate properties subject to long-
term leases to high credit quality tenants.  Many of the
properties the Company owns are subject to a net lease, or a lease
that requires the tenant to pay all or substantially all property
operating expenses, such as utilities, real estate taxes,
insurance and routine maintenance.


CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Mizani" Merger-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
CapLease, Inc., is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit
styled Mizani v. CapLease, Inc., according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2013, CapLease, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including Caplease, LP (the "Operating Partnership"), entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("ARCP"), ARC Operating
Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and the
operating partnership of ARCP (the "ARCP Operating Partnership"),
and Safari Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub").  The Merger
Agreement provides for (i) the merger of CapLease with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of ARCP, and (ii) the merger of the Operating
Partnership with and into ARCP Operating Partnership, with ARCP
Operating Partnership surviving (the "Partnership Merger" and,
together with the Merger, the "Mergers").

CapLease, its directors, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including the Operating Partnership, as well as ARCP, the ARCP
Operating Partnership and Merger Sub, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in connection with
the proposed Merger, styled Mizani v. CapLease, Inc., No.
651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by
CapLease's directors because the Merger does not provide for full
and fair value for CapLease's stockholders, the Merger was not the
result of a competitive bidding process, the Merger Agreement
contains coercive deal protection measures, and the Merger
Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result of improper
self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain
alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment
pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  The complaint also alleges that
CapLease, ARCP, the ARCP Operating Partnership and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin
completion of the Merger.  The Company believes that the
allegations of the complaint are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the
complaint.

Based in New York, CapLease, Inc., is a real estate investment
trust that primarily owns and manages a diversified portfolio of
single tenant commercial real estate properties subject to long-
term leases to high credit quality tenants.  Many of the
properties the Company owns are subject to a net lease, or a lease
that requires the tenant to pay all or substantially all property
operating expenses, such as utilities, real estate taxes,
insurance and routine maintenance.


CAPLEASE INC: Faces "Tarver" Merger-Related Suit in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
CapLease, Inc., is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit in
Maryland, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2013, CapLease, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including Caplease, LP (the "Operating Partnership"), entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("ARCP"), ARC Operating
Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and the
operating partnership of ARCP (the "ARCP Operating Partnership"),
and Safari Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and wholly owned subsidiary of ARCP ("Merger Sub").  The Merger
Agreement provides for (i) the merger of CapLease with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of ARCP, and (ii) the merger of the Operating
Partnership with and into ARCP Operating Partnership, with ARCP
Operating Partnership surviving (the "Partnership Merger" and,
together with the Merger, the "Mergers").

CapLease, its directors, and certain of its subsidiaries,
including the Operating Partnership, as well as ARCP, the ARCP
Operating Partnership and Merger Sub, have been named as
defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in
connection with the proposed Merger, styled Tarver v. CapLease,
Inc., No. 24Cl3004176, in the Circuit Court of the State of
Maryland, Baltimore City.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of
fiduciary duty by CapLease's directors because the Merger does not
provide for full and fair value for CapLease's stockholders, the
Merger Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures, the
Merger was not the result of a competitive bidding process, and
the Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result of
improper self-dealing.  The complaint also alleges that CapLease,
certain of its subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership,
ARCP, the ARCP Operating Partnership and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Merger.  The Company believes that the allegations of the
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Based in New York, CapLease, Inc., is a real estate investment
trust that primarily owns and manages a diversified portfolio of
single tenant commercial real estate properties subject to long-
term leases to high credit quality tenants.  Many of the
properties the Company owns are subject to a net lease, or a lease
that requires the tenant to pay all or substantially all property
operating expenses, such as utilities, real estate taxes,
insurance and routine maintenance.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Appellate Court Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting an appellate court
decision in the class action lawsuit titled Wilson, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions
Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The two-
count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising from the Company's decision to terminate its
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation Plan.  In
addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent
a nationwide class of similarly situated Admissions
Representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.
On October 6, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On April 13, 2012, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The Court dismissed this
action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. O n June 11, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial
court.  Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral
argument was held on December 3, 2012.  The Seventh Circuit has
not yet ruled on the appeal.

Because the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, the Company
says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point.  Based on information available to it at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if
any, for this action.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized
any liability associated with this action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Certification Ruling in "Nimely" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit
commenced by April R. Nimely, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-exempt
call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative class and
collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and various
entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company used to
supplement its own staff at some of its call centers.  The lawsuit
is styled Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad
USA, Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education
Corporation.  The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") arising from the alleged
failure to pay wages for work performed before and after shifts
and during breaks. The putative collective class was defined as
"[a]ll persons who worked for Defendants as telephone dedicated
employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in
full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time
between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the
full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them."

On February 27, 2013, the defendants filed their answers to the
complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA Count of the complaint.
On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification.  The Defendants' response was due August 16, 2013,
and the plaintiff's reply was due August 29, 2013.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to it at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among
other things, the Company's potential liability depends on whether
a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any
such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure
of damages, if the Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly,
the Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Initial OK of $27.5MM "Ross" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting preliminary approval of
its $27.5 million settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced
by Ross, et al., according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint, captioned Ross, et
al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the
Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements
in and omitting material information from the Company's public
disclosures concerning its campuses' job placement rates and its
compliance with accreditation standards.  The complaint further
claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons
of the Company.  The Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief.  On
March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the
Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action.
On May 3, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial
complaint, and naming the Company and two former executive
officers as defendants.  The Lead plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 19, 2009, and November 21, 2011 (the "Class").
On October 30, 2012, the Court ruled on defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting it as to one of the former executive officer
defendants and denying it as to the other defendants.  On
January 28, 2013, the defendants filed answers to the consolidated
amended complaint.  The Defendants have denied and continue to
deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by
plaintiffs in the action and all charges of wrongdoing or
liability against them.

On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the litigation,
subject to Court approval and settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions and subsequent related claims ("Proposed
Derivative Settlement").  Pursuant to the terms of the agreement,
the plaintiff class will receive a total of $27.5 million in
consideration of the proposed settlement and for the benefit of
the class members participating in the settlement.  The Company
believes it is probable that the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurers will pay $22.5 million, $10.0 million
of which is to be funded by the terms of the Proposed Derivative
Settlement, and therefore recorded a receivable for this amount in
the second quarter of 2013.  The Company may initially pay the
remaining $5.0 million for the benefit of the Class.  However, the
Company anticipates seeking recovery of the remaining $5.0 million
from one of its insurers but has not recorded a receivable for
this additional amount as of June 30, 2013.  In exchange for the
$27.5 million cash consideration, among other things, the lead
plaintiffs will dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the
parties will release all claims.  A status hearing was scheduled
for September 3, 2013.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Cernohorsky" Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the class action lawsuit filed by Cernohorsky,
et al., are stayed pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings,
according to Career Education Corporation's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough
County, Florida, captioned, Ronald Cernohorsky, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising &
Design, Inc., d/b/a IADT Online.  The Cernohorsky plaintiffs
allege causes of action against CEC and IADT Online under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  They allege
that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them,
relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement
services, the reputation of IADT Online, the value and quality of
the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information.  The putative class is defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
online degree programs during an undetermined time period.  The
Cernohorsky plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive
damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The complaint is similar to the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint previously filed in Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising &
Design, Inc., but focuses on students enrolled in IADT's online
degree programs, rather than at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida
campuses.

On February 11, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages.  On June 28, 2013, the
Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings and directed the Clerk of Court to administratively
close the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to it at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because, among other things, the Company's potential
liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of
damages, if the Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Cohen" Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the class action lawsuit filed by Cohen, et
al., are stayed pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings,
according to Career Education Corporation's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned,
David Cohen, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and
International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc.  The Cohen
plaintiffs allege causes of action under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  They allege
that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them,
relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement
services, the reputation of the International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the
education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information.  The putative class is defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses during
an undetermined time period.  The Cohen plaintiffs seek to recover
compensatory and punitive damages and also seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The complaint is essentially identical to the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint previously filed in Kishia Houck, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation and International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., raising the same claims and
including the same class definition, with the exception that the
Cohen plaintiffs, unlike those in Houck, have not raised a claim
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On February 11, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike
plaintiffs' demand for punitive damages.  On June 28, 2013, the
Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings and directed the Clerk of Court to administratively
close the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to it at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because, among other things, the Company's potential
liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of
damages, if the Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consumer Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging violations of California's consumer laws,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation.  The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.  The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period.  The alleged class is defined as including "all persons
who purchased educational services from California School of
Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action
(including, without limitation, the period following the filing of
the action)."  The Defendants successfully demurred to the
constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.  The
Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based
on alleged violations of California's former Private Postsecondary
and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act").
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied by the
Court on March 6, 2012.

The Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al., v.
California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School
of Culinary Arts.  All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case.  The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.
All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions.  The
Defendants' response to the consolidated complaint was filed on
July 13, 2012.  The Court has lifted the stay on actions that were
consolidated and the parties are now engaged in discovery.

On June 22, 2012, the defendants filed motions to compel
arbitration of plaintiffs' claims.  On August 10, 2012, the Court
granted the motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs.
Nine of those individuals have filed arbitration demands before
the American Arbitration Association to date.  One of those
arbitrations has been tried to a final award, seven have settled
and one was set for hearing on August 15, 2013.

The Defendants issued offers to compromise pursuant to the
California Code of Civil Procedure to 1,478 individual plaintiffs,
345 of which were accepted.  The total amount that has been or
will be paid to eliminate these claims is approximately $2.1
million.  This aggregate amount was recorded in the third quarter
of 2012 and the majority of the payments were made by
September 30, 2012.  Due to the addition of 385 new plaintiffs,
there are currently approximately 1,052 active plaintiffs in the
consolidated action.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to it at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions with respect to the current plaintiffs because the
Company's possible liability depends on an assessment of the
appropriate measure of damages, if the Company were to be found
liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with these actions except as described.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Student Suits vs. CCA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend the remaining
lawsuits brought by students against California Culinary Academy,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.  The
lawsuit is styled Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy
and Career Education Corporation.  The Plaintiffs plead their
original complaint as a putative class action and allege four
causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The Plaintiffs contend that CCA made
a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during
the admissions process.  The alleged misrepresentations relate
generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education,
the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The lawsuit is captioned Adams, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation.  The Adams action also
was styled as a class action and was based on the same allegations
underlying the Amador action and attempted to plead the same four
causes of action pled in the Amador action.  The Adams action was
deemed related to the Amador action and was being handled by the
same judge.

The parties executed a formal settlement agreement as of
November 1, 2010.  On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012,
the Court entered a final judgment on the settlement.

On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals.  On June 15,
2011, the same attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31
individuals.  On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
third action on behalf of five individuals entitled Aprieto, et
al. v. California Culinary Academy.  New counsel has substituted
in to represent 78 of the individuals and the Court has entered
orders allowing class counsel to withdraw from representing the
remaining individuals.

On January 18, 2013, new counsel filed a complaint entitled
Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy on behalf of two
individuals.  All of the plaintiffs in these four lawsuits are opt
outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore,
not subject to the Amador settlement.  None of these four lawsuits
are being prosecuted as a class action.  They each allege the same
claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus
claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed
California Education Code.  The plaintiffs in these cases seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  All of these cases have been deemed related and
transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case.

Claims by individual plaintiffs who are not represented by counsel
have been dismissed.  There are 80 plaintiffs who have not settled
or dismissed their claims.  The Company has filed answers to the
complaints filed by the remaining 80 individual plaintiffs.

The Court has set a trial date on certain test cases (8 to 10
plaintiffs) for February 10, 2014. The test cases will be tried to
the Court and not to a jury. The parties are engaged in discovery
to select the test cases.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as
discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the
Abarca, Andrade, Aprieto and Coleman legal proceedings with
respect to the remaining plaintiffs is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to it at present, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
these actions because these matters are in their early stages and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law.  Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any future liability associated with
these actions.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Defends "Sumrall" Suit Pending in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit
brought by Sumrall and Tavares Vickers, et al., according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On April 25, 2013, a putative collection action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
titled Sumrall and Tavares Vickers, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc., d/b/a International Academy of Design and Technology and
d/b/a IADT-Online.  The Plaintiffs allege a cause of action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime.  The Plaintiffs
now allege they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied
overtime compensation and/or required to work "off the clock."
The putative class is defined as including all admissions
representatives employed by the Company and International Academy
of Merchandising & Design, Inc., who worked in excess of forty
hours per week from April 25, 2010, to the present.  The
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees, as well as
declaratory relief.  On May 30, 2013, the defendants filed their
answer and affirmative defenses, denying the plaintiffs' claims.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on information available to it at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if
any, for this action because, among other things, the Company's
potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and,
if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on
an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if the
Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces "Enea" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
captioned Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California
Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior
Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about
June 27, 2013.  The Plaintiffs allege that California Culinary
Academy ("CCA") materially misrepresented the placement rates of
its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary
school was competitive and that the school had an excellent
reputation among restaurants and other food service providers,
represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded
institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly
hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided
graduates with career placement services for life.  The plaintiffs
or putative class members here co-signed the loans for students to
attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members.  The
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties, and
attorneys' fees.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on information available to it at present, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if
any, for this action because, among other things, the Company's
potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and,
if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on
an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if the Company
were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the Company has not
recognized any liability associated with this action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Proceedings in Consolidated Florida Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that proceedings in the
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Florida are stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration.

On May 23, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County,
Florida, captioned, Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc.  The Houck plaintiffs alleged causes of action under
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.  They alleged that the
defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating
generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor
qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement
services, the reputation of the International Academy of
Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the
education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant
student loan information. The putative class was defined as
including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants'
degree programs at IADT's Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses
during an undetermined time period.  The Houck plaintiffs sought
to recover damages and also sought declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On July 5, 2012, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.  On August 3, 2012, the Houck
plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint.  On
September 7, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the Houck
plaintiffs' claims and to compel arbitration.

On September 11, 2012, a second putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned, Juan Antonio Morales, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc.  The Morales plaintiffs alleged essentially the same factual
bases and causes of action as in Houck, but added a request for
punitive damages.  The definition of the putative class in Morales
was the same as in Houck.

On October 23, 2012, the Morales plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint in which, among other things, they added several
additional plaintiffs, including a proposed class representative,
and a claim for civil conspiracy.  Thus, Morales included causes
of action under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil
conspiracy.  On November 2, 2012, the Court ordered Morales
closed, incorporated it into Houck, and ordered that all further
pleadings shall be filed in Houck.  The Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on November 11, 2012,
which included all plaintiffs from both Houck and Morales and
added a cause of action for violation of the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The Defendants
subsequently, on November 30, 2012, filed a motion to dismiss, a
motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' punitive damages claims.  On June 28, 2013, the Court
granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings and directed the Clerk of Court to administratively
close the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point.  Based on
information available to it at present, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these
actions because, among other things, the Company's potential
liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of
damages, if the Company were to be found liable.  Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with this
action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Stafford" Class Suit Dismissed in July 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Keith Stafford was dismissed
in July 2013, according to Career Education Corporation's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 4, 2012, plaintiff Keith Stafford, on behalf of
himself only, filed an action against American InterContinental
University in the United States District Court, Northern District
of Indiana.  The action is captioned Stafford v. American
Intercontinental University and Does 1-10, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges two claims for negligent and willful violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  In his initial
complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he received automated dialer
calls using a robotic voice in violation of the TCPA.  He also
alleges that he instructed American InterContinental University
("AIU") to cease making the calls but AIU did not do so.  The
Company filed an answer to the plaintiff's complaint on
November 13, 2012.

On February 18, 2013, the plaintiff filed a first amended class
action complaint in which he makes essentially the same
allegations on behalf of a class defined as "[a]ll persons within
the United States who, at any time during the last four years,
received one or more non-emergency telephone calls from [AIU] to a
residential telephone through the use of an artificial or pre-
recorded voice, and who did not provide prior express consent for
such calls."  The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory and
treble damages of $1,500 per call for willful violations of the
TCPA plus attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company filed an answer
to the first amended class action complaint on February 25, 2013.

The Company has conducted an investigation into the claims by the
named plaintiff Keith Stafford and believes that the calls placed
to the plaintiff did not violate the TCPA.  The Company reached an
agreement with the named plaintiff to resolve his claims for a de
minimis amount and this matter was dismissed with prejudice on
July 15, 2013.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings in "Surrett" Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings with the trial court in the class action lawsuit
titled Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and
Career Education Corporation have been stayed pending the outcome
of an appeal, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon, in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah
County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as
defendants.  The Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and
as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable
relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
("UTPA") and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money
damages: fraud and breach of contract.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation.  WCI subsequently
moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's
UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008.  On
February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class
certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims.  The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006, and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

The Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7,
2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan
Surrett.  Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out
period expired on June 20, 2011.  The class consisted of
approximately 2,600 members.  They are seeking tuition refunds,
interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment
at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers.  The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012.  WCI filed an
appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial
court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case.  Thus, all
proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to it at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the
inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of
damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to
recover damages, if the Company were to be found liable.
Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.

Career Education Corporation -- http://www.careered.com/-- owns
colleges, schools and universities.  The Company's more than 90
campuses are located throughout the United States, and in France
and Monaco, and offer doctoral, master's, bachelor's and associate
degrees and diploma and certificate programs.  The Company's
institutions include, American InterContinental University, Brooks
Institute, Colorado Technical University, Harrington College of
Design, INSEEC Group Schools, International University of Monaco,
International Academy of Design & Technology, Le Cordon Bleu North
America, and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges.


CITIGROUP INC: "Raniere" Class Suit Remanded to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed
a November 22, 2011 district court opinion and order denying
defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., in RANIERE v.
CITIGROUP INC.

Tara Raniere, Nichol Bodden, and Mark Vosburgh brought this action
against defendants-appellants Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and
CitiMortgage Inc. to recover allegedly uncompensated "overtime"
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law Section 190 et
seq.

The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for
proceedings consistent with its summary order.

The case is TARA RANIERE, NICHOL BODDEN, and MARK A. VOSBURGH, on
behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITIGROUP INC.,
CITIBANK, N.A., CITIMORTGAGE INC., Defendants-Appellants, NO.
11-5213-CV.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 12, 2013 Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/UfoyOQfrom Leagle.com.

SAM S. SHAULSON -- sshaulson@morganlewis.com --(Howard M. Radzely
-- hradzely@morganlewis.com -- William S.W. Chang --
wchang@morganlewis.com -- on the brief), at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, New York, NY, Washington, DC, and Houston, TX., for
Defendants-Appellants.

DOUGLAS H. WIGDOR -- dwigdor@thompsonwigdor.com -- (David E.
Gottlieb -- dgottlieb@thompsonwigdor.com -- on the brief),
Thompson Wigdor LLP, New York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Evan M. Tager --
etager@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Kevin Ranlett --
kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- Scott M. Noveck --
snoveck@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC;
Robin S. Conrad, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the
United States and Society for Human Resource Management.

Herbert Eisenberg -- heisenberg@eisenbergschnell.com -- at
Eisenberg & Schnell LLP, New York, NY; David Borgen --
DBORGEN@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- Joseph E. Jaramillo --
jjaramillo@gbdhlegal.com -- at Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen
& Dardarian, Oakland, CA; Rebecca M. Hamburg, National Employment
Lawyers Association, 417 Montgomery St., 4th Fl. San Francisco, CA
94104, for Amici Curiae National Employment Lawyers Association,
National Employment Law Project, and the Employee Rights Advocacy
Institute for Law & Policy.


CNX GAS: Judge Balks at Arbitration Process in Gas Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
two hours of legal debate on Virginia's natural gas laws passed on
Sept. 11 when U.S. District Judge James P. Jones suddenly voiced
frustration over the seeming inability of anyone to easily access
an escrow account holding nearly $30 million in gas royalties.

"Are we going to throw up our hands and say 'oh well, that's how
the world works?'" he directed at coal and energy company lawyers
during a hearing.  "All these people don't get their money in
escrow?"

In all, Judge Jones heard three hours of arguments on whether five
cases filed against CNX Gas and EQT Production for the royalties
on natural gas siphoned from beneath Southwest Virginia can move
forward as class-action lawsuits representing more than a thousand
landowners.  The cases might die without his certification for
class action.

A decision will come as soon as possible, the judge said.

Energy company lawyers say the accounts can be accessed only if
landowners battle over each and every deed in local circuit
courts, and not as a handful of cases in federal court.

"It's going to require many trials to ascertain who the [royalty]
owners are," said CNX attorney Jonathan T. Blank.

But landowner attorneys say the solution is as simple as handing a
judicial declaration of ownership to the Virginia Gas and Oil
Board, which oversees the escrow account and can dole out
royalties only under a certain set of legal conditions.

"This is not rocket science, your honor," landowner representative
David S. Stellings said.

In one set of cases, a small group of landowners say they were
shortchanged when leasing out gas because the energy companies
deducted from royalties the post-production costs of moving and
cleaning the product.

The other cases involve a 20-year-old state law allowing energy
companies to siphon gas from coal seams without the owners'
permission, and then dump a percentage of the disputed royalties
into a closed escrow account until ownership can be decided later.

The dispute revolves around the fact that Virginia legislators
never declared whether the natural gas pulled from coal seams --
called coalbed methane -- belongs to the person holding the deed
to the coal or the person holding the deed to the gas estate.

Ownership, and access to the royalties, must be decided either in
court, in out-of-court arbitration, or by an agreement signed to
split the money among the gas and the coal owners.  State
lawmakers added out-of-court arbitration in 2010 in hopes of
speeding along access to royalties. No one has tried that option,
according to the Gas and Oil Board.

On Sept. 12, Judge Jones blasted the arbitration method as a dead
end that, like a court battle, would include lawyers and high fees
for landowners.

"Does anybody really believe that arbitration process is any
quicker than going to court?" he asked.  "It doesn't seem to me
that would cure anything."

Moments later, he noted his frustration because case lawyers and
state lawmakers have yet to come up with a viable solution for
property owners.

"I had hoped that in the three years this case has been going on
there would be some attempt to settle the matter or the Virginia
legislature would attempt to settle the matter," he said.

In June, the case became a hot topic in Virginia's gubernatorial
race after U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent noted shock
that a staffer for the state attorney general's office seemed to
be emailing legal advice to energy company lawyers.  Judge
Sargent, usually the first judge to hear arguments in this case,
pointed out the emails in an 85-page report recommending that
Jones greenlight class-action status for all but one of the cases.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for
governor, argues that his office jumped into the court battle
years ago only to fight the constitutional challenges to the
Virginia Gas Act, which set up the escrow account.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe points to the
more than $110,000 in campaign cash that CNX parent company,
CONSOL, has dropped into Mr. Cuccinelli's campaign coffers since
2012 and questions his motivation in the cases.

In July, CONSOL blasted both candidates in a series of full-page
newspaper advertisements headlined "Virginians want solutions."

"Urge Virginia's candidates for governor to pledge support for a
plan that gets these gas royalty payments to their rightful
owners," the ads stated.

Judge Jones referenced the ads on Sept. 12, when noting that no
one seems to have figured out how to easily access the escrow
account.

"Your client has run ads saying that they want solutions to this
problem," he said to CNX attorney Blank.  "What is your client's
solution?"

State legislators proposed laws that never passed, Blank replied,
and there are the three legal avenues already in place.

"We'd like to see the money get out," he said.

Judge Jones responded: "Again, what is your client's solution?"


COLONIAL BANCGROUP: No 3rd Serving for Pension Funds in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
M.D. Alabama District Judge R. David Proctor denied the request of
pension fund groups, which serve as the lead plaintiffs in In Re
Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. Securities Litigation (M.D. Ala. Case No.
2:09-CV-00104-RDP-WC), for leave to amend their complaint.  The
request is "due to be denied because of undue delay in bringing
the Motion and the undue prejudice which would be caused by
allowing the amendment after the court has already approved a pro
tanto settlement on behalf of the conditionally certified class,"
Judge Proctor said.

Judge Proctor's Sept. 9, 2013 Memorandum Opinion, available at
http://is.gd/snofRGfrom Leagle.com, included an admonition
addressed to the Lead Plaintiffs.  According to Judge Proctor:

"There is an old adage: "measure twice, cut once."  Although it is
generally accepted that this maxim originated in the carpentry
vocation, it nonetheless has a number of applications in other
areas.  For example, it can serve as sound advice in the legal
profession.  Lawyers must train themselves to think carefully
about the consequences (both intended and unintended) of their
tactical decisions.  As it turns out, this age old admonition
would have been instructive in this case because here, rather than
"measur[ing] twice [and] cut[ting] once," Lead Plaintiffs have
measured once and attempted to cut thrice.  But, for the reasons
explained in this opinion, they cannot avail themselves of the
third try."

Public Pension Fund Group, (DESIGNATED AS LEAD PLAINTIFF) class
members Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, State-Boston
Retirement System, Norfolk County Retirement System, and City of
Brockton Retirement System, Plaintiff, are represented by Alan I.
Ellman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Angelina Nguyen, Labaton Sucharow,
Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Craig A. Martin,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Douglas Scott Wilens, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Gerald Clark Brooks, Jr., Brooks Law Group, LLC, Henry
Lewis Gillis, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay PC, Ira M Levee,
Lowenstein Sandler PC, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd,
LLP, James W. Johnson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael Stephen
Dampier, Law Offices of M. Stephen Dampier, P.C., Michael S Etkin,
Lowenstein Sandler PC, Paul J Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Stefanie J. Sundel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Thomas A. Dubbs, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Thomas G Hoffman, Jr., Labaton Sucharow LLP, Timothy N Mathews,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Tyrone Carlton Means, Thomas Means
Gillis & Seay PC, Matthew C Moehlman, Labaton Sucharow LLP &
Nicole M. Zeiss, Labaton Sucharow LLP.

The Horace F. Moyer and Joan M. Moyer Living Trust, Plaintiff, are
represented by Alan I. Ellman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Angelina
Nguyen, Labaton Sucharow, Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Gerald Clark Brooks, Jr., Brooks Law Group, LLC, Henry Lewis
Gillis, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay PC, James W. Johnson, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Jeffrey A. Klafter, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP,
Stefanie J. Sundel, Labaton Sucharow LLP & Tyrone Carlton Means,
Thomas Means Gillis & Seay PC.

City of Worcester, Plaintiff, are represented by Gerald Clark
Brooks, Jr., Brooks Law Group, LLC, Henry Lewis Gillis, Thomas
Means Gillis & Seay PC, James W. Johnson, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Matthew C Moehlman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Thomas A. Dubbs, Labaton
Sucharow LLP & Tyrone Carlton Means, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay
PC.

Robert E. Lowder, Defendant, is represented by Enrique Jose
Gimenez, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, James Fletcher Hughey,
III, Robert David Segall, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, Samuel
Holley Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & Mitchell David
Greggs, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC.

Sarah H. Moore, Defendant, is represented by Enrique Jose Gimenez,
Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, James Fletcher Hughey, III, Robert
David Segall, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, Samuel Holley
Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & Mitchell David Greggs,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC.

T. Brent Hicks, Defendant, is represented by Enrique Jose Gimenez,
Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, James Fletcher Hughey, III, Robert
David Segall, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill & Samuel Holley
Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant, is represented by Edward
Hamilton Wilson, Jr., Ball Ball Matthews & Novak PA, Elizabeth V
Tanis, King & Spalding LLP, Geoffrey Michael Ezgar, King &
Spalding, LLP, Shelby S. Guilbert, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, Tabor
Robert Novak, Jr., Ball Ball Matthews & Novak PA, Thomas Edward
Walker, Johnston Barton Proctor & Rose LLP & Drew David Dropkin,
King & Spalding LLP.

Alan Frederick Enslen, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Armistead
Inge Selden, III, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Carl Stanley
Burkhalter, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Kathryn Dietrich
Perreault, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Richard Jon Davis, Maynard
Cooper & Gale & Steven Lee McPheeters, Maynard, Cooper & Gale,
P.C., represent these defendants: Banc of America Securities LLC;
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.;
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.; Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc.; SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.; UBS
Securities LLC; and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC.

Larry Brittain Childs, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, Walter
Edgar McGowan, Gray Langford Sapp McGowan Gray, Gray & Nathanson
PC & William Charles Athanas, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP,
represent these defendants: Lewis E. Beville; Augustus K.
Clements, III; Robert S. Craft; Patrick F. Dye; Hubert L. Harris,
Jr.; Clinton O. Holdbrooks; Deborah L. Linden; John Ed Mathison;
Milton E. McGregor; Joseph D. Mussafer; William E. Powell, III;
James W. Rane; Simuel Sippial, Jr.; and Edward V. Welch,
Defendant.


COLONIAL PROPERTIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Properties Trust is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a merger-related class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Trust is the sole general partner of Colonial Realty Limited
Partnership ("CRLP"), in which the Trust owned a 92.5% limited
partner interest as of June 30, 2013.  The Trust conducts all of
its business and owns all of its properties through CRLP and
CRLP's various subsidiaries.

On June 3, 2013, Colonial, CRLP, Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Inc. ("MAA"), Mid-America Apartments, L.P. ("MAA LP")
and Martha Merger Sub, LP ("OP Merger Sub"), entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").
The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of the Trust with and
into MAA (the "Parent Merger"), with MAA continuing as the
surviving corporation, and the merger of CRLP with and into OP
Merger Sub (the "Partnership Merger" and together with the Parent
Merger, the "Mergers"), with CRLP continuing as the surviving
entity and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MAA LP after the
Mergers.  The board of trustees of Colonial has unanimously
approved the Merger Agreement, the Mergers and the other
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On June 19, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama,
against and purportedly on behalf of the Trust captioned Williams
v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al.  The complaint names as
defendants the Trust, the members of the Trust's board of
trustees, CRLP, Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. ("MAA"),
Mid-America Apartments, L.P. ("MAA LP") and Martha Merger Sub, LP
("OP Merger Sub") and alleges that the trustees of the Trust
breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process
leading to the Merger Agreement with MAA, failing to secure and
obtain the best price reasonable for the Trust's shareholders,
allowing preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement, and by engaging in conflicted actions.  The complaint
alleges that CRLP, MAA, MAA LP and OP Merger Sub aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger Agreement
is unlawful and unenforceable, an order enjoining the consummation
of the mergers contemplated under the Merger Agreement, direction
of the trustees of the Trust to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the Trust,
rescission of the mergers contemplated under the Merger Agreement
in the event they are consummated, an award of costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees,
and other relief.

On July 2, 2013, the plaintiff moved for expedited fact discovery
and for an expedited schedule for filing and hearing a preliminary
motion to enjoin the Mergers; on July 11, 2013, the defendants
opposed those motions and moved to stay fact discovery.  On
July 13, 2013, the defendants also moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on
the grounds that (1) the claims against the trustees of the Trust
are derivative and not direct, and plaintiff did not comply with
Alabama law on serving notice of the claims on the Trust prior to
filing; and (2) Alabama law does not recognize a cause of action
in aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.  The Court
scheduled a motions hearing on August 14, 2013.

Based in Birmingham, Alabama, Colonial Properties Trust is a
multifamily-focused self-administered equity real estate
investment trust that owns, operates and develops multifamily
apartment communities primarily located in the Sunbelt region of
the United States.  Also, the Company creates additional value for
its shareholders from investments in commercial assets and by
pursuing development opportunities.


DES MOINES, IA: Balks at Lawyers' Payout Bid in Franchise Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Schettler, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that
the amount of money requested by lawyers who fought the city of
Des Moines' franchise fee is described as shocking and excessive
in court papers filed in Polk County District Court.

Attorneys representing Lisa Kragnes, who filed a class-action
lawsuit in 2004 challenging the city's fee on gas and electric
bills, are asking for a nearly $15 million paycheck for the time
they spent on the case.

The city of Des Moines responded to the request late this week.

"This amount claimed clearly shocks the conscience of the average
person and, one would expect, that of the average class member,"
wrote Deputy City attorney Mark Godwin in the response.  "The only
real winners in this scenario are the attorneys for the class."

The issue was set be addressed at a Sept. 16 court hearing at
which both sides was expected to have an opportunity to discuss
that request as well as the appointment of a class administrator.
The administrator will be responsible for issuing the refunds to
ratepayers.

Brad Schroeder, an attorney who represented Ms. Kragnes in her
lawsuit against the city, said the amount requested -- 37 percent
of a nearly $40 million judgment plus out-of-pocket expenses --
falls in line with what is typically awarded in high-risk class
action cases and that its disingenuous for the city to say
otherwise.

Mr. Schroeder and the two other attorneys who fought the nine-year
case, Steve Brick and Bruce Stoltze, have not received any payment
for their work so far.

The attorneys also are asking for reimbursement of nearly $560,600
in out-of-pocket expenses and $7,500 for Ms. Kragnes for her work
as the class representative, which involved attending court
hearings and being questioned by the city during the initial
trial.

The case included a 14-day trial, two Iowa Supreme Court appeals
and a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was
denied.  The city of Des Moines ultimately was ordered to refund
more than $39.9 million that was deemed to have been collected
from the illegal tax between 2004 and 2009, when the Iowa
Legislature made the franchise fee legal.

Mr. Shroeder argued that if the city had stopped collecting the
tax when the lawsuit was filed, there wouldn't be any attorneys
fees to collect.

"All they had to do was stop in 2004," he said.  "Everything that
happened thereafter was unnecessary, but they chose to persist."

Ms. Kragnes' counsel, in their request for attorney fees, cited
several contingency cases (those in which lawyers only get paid if
their side wins) from Iowa and elsewhere to support their request
for 37 percent.  They said the length of the case, multiple
appeals and the risk involved, all contributed to the amount
requested. The city used a study of tax refund cases, which it
said supported lower payouts.

An initial hypothetical plan included in court documents earlier
this summer showed nearly $16 million, or slightly less than 40
percent of the total court judgment, reserved for lawyer fees and
administrative expenses.

The city, in its response, said the payout will cost taxpayers
$1.35 for every $1 refunded, due to the cost of issuing debt and
administering the refund.  That would bring the total expense to
$53.87 million.

City leaders have said they will either have to issue debt or
dramatically cut services to cover the cost.  It's likely that
cost will be covered either by taxpayers, through an increase in
property taxes, or by ratepayers through an increase in the
franchise fee.

The Iowa Legislature this year approved language that would allow
Des Moines to temporarily increase its franchise fee to cover the
cost of the refund as long as voters approve the increase.  That
would spread the cost of paying for the refund across all gas and
electric users, not just those who pay property taxes.


FACEBOOK INC: "Sponsored Stories" Settlement Faces New Setback
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that a
Facebook user is appealing a judge's decision to accept Facebook's
$20 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit about the
sponsored stories program.

Jo Batman of Corpus Christi, Texas filed a notice of appeal with
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  Mr. Batman hasn't yet
made any arguments to the appeals court.  But in May, Mr. Batman
sent a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in the
Northern District of California, unsuccessfully urging him to
reject the deal.

Among other arguments, Mr. Batman said Facebook's promise to make
some revisions to its sponsored stories ads didn't go far enough
to remedy the potential problems with the program.  Mr. Batman
also specifically criticized Facebook's controversial plan to
require teens under 18 to represent that a parent agrees to the
service's terms.

The $20 million settlement, approved several weeks ago by
Judge Seeborg, calls for Facebook to pay $15 to around 600,000
users who were featured in sponsored stories ads.  The deal also
requires Facebook to pay several million dollars to 14 nonprofits
and schools, including the digital rights groups Center for
Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The agreement resolves a class-action lawsuit filed by a group of
consumers who alleged that Facebook's sponsored stories program
violates a California law governing endorsements.  That law
provides that companies must obtain adults' permission before
using their names or images in ads.  When minors' names or images
are used in ads, companies must obtain parental consent.

The settlement also obligates Facebook to change some of the
language in its terms of service to better reflect how the program
operates.  Facebook said in court papers that it would add
language requiring minors to represent that their parents agreed
to the terms of service -- including the use of their children's
names and photos in sponsored stories ads.

The company also said it would clarify that people who "liked"
products or services might have their names and images used in
ads.

Mr. Batman wasn't the only one who objected to the settlement.
Some watchdogs, including Public Citizen and The Children's
Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego's Center for
Public Interest Law, also asked Judge Seeborg to scuttle the deal.

The Children's Advocacy Institute specifically argued that
children aren't likely to ever see the provision in the terms of
use that requires parental permission -- let alone seek their
parents' consent to appear in ads.

Shortly after Judge Seeborg approved the settlement, Facebook
unveiled its new terms of service.  As expected, they require
users under 18 to say their parents consent to the service's
conditions.  Several days later, a coalition of privacy groups --
who weren't involved in the lawsuit settlement -- said that
Facebook's new terms violate its 2012 settlement with the Federal
Trade Commission.  In that matter, Facebook promised to obtain
users' express consent before sharing their information more
broadly than its privacy policy permitted at the time.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also asked the FTC to investigate
Facebook's new terms -- especially the one requiring minors to
represent that their parents consent to the service's conditions.
Sen. Markey said in a letter to the agency that he is
"particularly concerned about how the proposed changes could
impact teenage users."

He has asked the FTC to state whether it views the new terms as
violating its 2012 settlement with Facebook.


GOOGLE INC: Privacy & Tech Advocates Divided Over Wiretap Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Zara, writing for International Business Times,
reports that privacy and tech advocates are divided over a federal
appeals court's refusal to dismiss a privacy lawsuit against
Google Inc.

In a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 11,
Judge Jay Bybee said Wi-Fi communications are not the same as
radio transmissions, and therefore Google was not protected under
the federal Wiretap Act when it scooped up private information
from unsecured wireless networks for its Street View program.

Daniel Castro, a senior analyst with the Information Technology
and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), disagrees.  In a blog post on
Sept. 12, he said the court the court's ruling is based on the
"technically inaccurate" notion that intercepting wireless network
traffic is fundamentally different from intercepting radio
communications.

"The Court's reasoning is flawed," Mr. Castro wrote.  "A user with
a wireless card and a packet sniffer will intercept unencrypted
wireless traffic in the exact same manner that a radio hobbyist
would intercept analog communications.  Packet sniffing is a
common practice in the security field and a basic tool of IT
security professionals."

By treating the two technologies differently under the law, Castro
said the court's decision violates the concept of "technology
neutrality," which he said is one of the core principles fostering
technological innovation.  He said the act of transmitting
information over an unsecured Wi-Fi network is analogous to
screaming loudly from your home -- expect your neighbors to hear
you:

"If Alice and Bob choose to scream loudly at each other, then
their neighbors will hear and they will have no expectation of
privacy (even if the neighbors know that this conversation is not
meant for them to hear).  But if Alice and Bob want to keep their
disagreement private, then they need to keep their voices down."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, sees it
differently.  The group has been among the most vocal critics of
Google's Street View program, posting a map of worldwide
investigations that have taken place since it was revealed that
Street View cars had been collecting Wi-Fi data.  Last year, the
group filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC to
obtain the full report on what EPIC calls "Google's Spy-Fi."

In response to the Sept. 11 court ruling, EPIC's executive
director, Marc Rotenberg, told Reuters that the "landmark decision
. . . affirms the privacy of electronic communications for
wireless networks."  He added that Internet customers who use
unencrypted Wi-Fi in their homes should be able to do so without
the fear of companies collecting their information.

For Street View, Google deploys fleets of camera-equipped vehicles
to map out entire neighborhoods.  In a class-action lawsuit, it
was accused of accessing and storing private data -- including
emails, usernames, passwords and documents -- from 2008 to 2010.
Following the lawsuit, the company apologized, saying that it had
inadvertently collected information from more than 30 countries.
But it also maintained that, because the information came from
unsecure networks, accessing it was lawful under the Wiretap Act.
The court disagreed.

Mr. Castro, meanwhile, called it "disappointing" that the court
chose to interpret the case in the manner that it did.  He added
that, if the ruling is upheld when the lawsuit moves forward,
Congress should intervene and update the Wiretap Act (which was
written in 1968) to reflect 21st century technology.  "A simple
fix would be to update the definition of radio communication to
make clear this includes wireless local area networks," he wrote.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of "Silsby" Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. seeks dismissal of the class action lawsuit
titled Silsby v. Icahn, et al., according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al.
The Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy
Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors.  As initially filed,
the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September
2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings that artificially
inflated the price of Dynegy stock.  The individual defendants are
alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy.  The Plaintiff
is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization.  The Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and
has filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action
on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011, and March 9, 2012.  However, the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed
a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013.  At present, the case is
being held in temporary abeyance pending a decision by the federal
court as to the scope of plaintiff's right to proceed with this
action.

New York-based Icahn Enterprises L.P. is a master limited
partnership formed in Delaware on February 17, 1987.  Icahn
Enterprises owns a 99% limited partner interest in Icahn
Enterprises Holdings L.P.  Icahn Enterprises Holdings and its
subsidiaries own substantially all of the Company's assets and
liabilities and conduct substantially all of its operations.  The
Company is a diversified holding company owning subsidiaries
currently engaged in these continuing operating businesses:
Investment, Automotive, Energy, Metals, Railcar, Gaming, Food
Packaging, Real Estate and Home Fashion.


KELLOGG CO: $4MM Mini-Wheats Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge gave the final nod on Sept. 10 to a $4 million
settlement between Kellogg Co. and a group of consumers who claim
it falsely touted the brain-boosting power of Frosted Mini-Wheats
cereal, overruling the few remaining objections to the revamped
deal.

U.S. District Court Judge Irma E. Gonzalez said that reaction to
the settlement -- which was renegotiated after the Ninth Circuit
rejected a prior $10 million accord -- has been overwhelmingly
positive and garnered only six objections from a class covering
hundreds of thousands of consumers.

"Numerous issues remain in dispute, including, e.g., whether the
contested advertising constitutes puffery, whether the claims are
amenable to classwide proof, whether common issues predominate,
and the measure and extent of damages," Judge Gonzalez said.  "In
addition to being expensive, going forward risks further exposure
and uncertainty for defendant as well as impairment or delay of
relief to the class."

The original October 2010 settlement resolved claims brought in
August 2009 by consumers who asserted that Kellogg could not
substantiate claims made in ads and product labels that its
Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal is clinically proven to improve
children's attentiveness by nearly 20 percent.

In July 2012, the Ninth Circuit determined that the settlement,
which would have sent $5.5 million in food to charities that feed
the indigent, was misguided under the cy pres doctrine governing
the distribution of unclaimed funds.  That doctrine requires a
firmer connection between the beneficiaries and the claims at
issue, according to the appeals court.

The revised deal, which will establish a $4 million cash fund and
send the unclaimed balance to various consumer protection groups,
was met with some skepticism from Judge Gonzalez when she granted
preliminary approval in May.

According to Judge Gonzalez, the fact that the new deal reduced
the total value to consumers by around 75 percent while leaving
the $2 million set aside for attorneys' fees largely untouched
gave the court pause.

On Sept. 10, however, Judge Gonzalez said her reservations about
the deal had been allayed, noting that the plaintiffs had made
clear that the unchanged fee award reflects an increase in the
costs of claims administration.

"With the court's concerns allayed, no aspect of the settlement
suggests collusion," Judge Gonzalez said.  "Rather, the present
settlement was reached through mediation . . . and neither the
requested attorneys' fees nor the requested incentive awards
appear unreasonable."

In approving the deal, Judge Gonzalez rejected a bid by University
of Chicago law professor M. Todd Henderson and his counsel with
the Center for Class Action Fairness seeking attorneys' fees for
the objectors who successfully appealed the previous settlement to
the Ninth Circuit.

Those objectors have since dropped out of the case, however, and
neither Mr. Henderson nor the CCAF participated in the appeal,
Judge Gonzalez said.

The reconfigured settlement approved on Sept. 10 will equally
distribute the balance of class funds to the Consumers Union,
Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Science in the Public
Interest.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission previously brought its own
action against Kellogg over similar allegations, claiming that
only one in nine children in the study on which Kellogg relied
improved their attentiveness by 20 percent.

The agency struck a deal with the cereal maker in April 2009, in
which Kellogg agreed to pull the ad campaign and refrain from
making unsubstantiated claims about the cognitive benefits of its
cereals or other morning snack foods.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Sept. 10.

The plaintiffs are represented by Piscitelli Law Firm, Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC and
Climaco Wilcox Peca Tarantino & Garofoli Co. LPA.

Kellogg is represented by Jenner & Block LLP.

The case is Dennis v. Kellogg Co., case number 3:09-cv-01786, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Junk IPO Suit vs. FriendFinder Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit arising from FriendFinder Networks, Inc.'s
initial public offering remains pending, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In December 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against FriendFinder Networks, Inc. ("FriendFinder"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg, are
liable for violations of federal securities laws.  On June 20,
2013, the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint.  The
defendants' motion to dismiss is currently pending.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. --
http://www.ladenburg.com/-- is engaged in independent brokerage
and advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services and
trust services through its principal subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Removed Suit Over WEMU Offering to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California a class
action lawsuit arising from Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing,
Inc.'s 2010 securities offering, according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In December 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities.  The complaint alleges that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities
laws relating to purported failure to disclose certain agreements;
the amount of damages sought is unspecified.  On April 26, 2013,
Ladenburg filed a demurrer, which is pending.  On July 5, 2013,
WEMU filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in federal bankruptcy court in Colorado.  On
July 9, 2013, Ladenburg removed the purported class action lawsuit
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. --
http://www.ladenburg.com/-- is engaged in independent brokerage
and advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services and
trust services through its principal subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


M&G POLYMERS: 6th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Tackett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling in TACKETT v. M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action suit against the
Defendants after M&G announced that Plaintiffs would be required
to make health care contributions. After a bench trial, the
district court found the Defendants liable for violating both a
labor agreement and an employee welfare benefit plan. The district
court issued a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to
reinstate Plaintiffs to the current versions of the benefits plans
they were enrolled in until 2007 to receive health care for life
without contributions.  M&G Polymers USA, LLC and associated
health plans appealed the permanent injunction

The case is HOBERT FREEL TACKETT, WOODROW K. PYLES, UNITED STEEL,
PAPER AND FORESTRY, R, MUBBER ANUFACTURING ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, and HARLAN B.,
CONLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. M&G POLYMERS
USA, LLC, M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL BENEFITS
PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, M&G CATASTROPHIC
MEDICAL PLAN, M&G MEDICAL NECESSITY BENEFITS PROGRAM OF HOSPITAL,
SURGICAL, MEDICAL, AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, and M&G MAJOR MEDICAL BENEFITS PLAN,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, NOS. 12-3329/3407.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/jkfFFUfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Philip A. Miscimarra -- pmiscimarra@morganlewis.com -- at
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

David M. Cook, COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

ON BRIEF: Philip A. Miscimarra, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
Chicago, Illinois, Christopher A. Weals -- cweals@morganlewis.com
-- at MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

For Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

   David M. Cook, Esq.
   Jennie G. Arnold, Esq.
   Claire W. Bushorn, Esq.
   COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
   22 West Ninth Street
   Cincinnati, OH 45202
   Tel: 513-878-1799
   Toll Free: 888-339-0443
   Fax: 513-721-1178


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: All-Star FanFest Volunteers File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Schmitt Minniti and Mark Goldstein, writing for Forbes,
report that joining unpaid interns, volunteers are the latest
addition to the class of workers to seek unpaid wages -- despite
the fact that they possess no expectation of compensation at the
time that they render services.  A potential class action lawsuit
filed last month by a volunteer against Major League Baseball
("MLB") in New York federal court -- Chen v Major League Baseball
-- sets the stage for this latest battleground.

How Does the FLSA Treat "Volunteers?"

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") exempts individuals
who volunteer to provide services, so long as:  (i) the individual
does not receive, nor expect to receive, any compensation in
consideration for his/her services (although the individual may
collect paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee);
(ii) the individual possesses a civic, charitable, or humanitarian
purpose for providing the services; (iii) the services are
provided without pressure or coercion; and (iv) the services
rendered are not the same type of services rendered by the
individual in his/her capacity as an employee of the same entity.

Although the term's precise parameters remain somewhat blurred,
the Department of Labor ("DOL") has proclaimed that an individual
may not render services on a volunteer basis to a for-profit
institution.  Indeed, according to the DOL's formulation, only
"public agencies" may engage the services of a volunteer.

The Lawsuit Against MLB

For many years, the volunteer-related provisions of the FLSA, at
least insofar as they concerned private, for-profit employers,
have largely evaded the purview of judicial inquiry.  Not any
more.

A complaint filed by named plaintiff John Chen against MLB seeks
minimum wages and overtime compensation for a proposed class of
potentially 2,000 volunteers who rendered services at MLB's
July 2013 All-Star FanFest events in and around New York City.
The volunteers, who were required to submit to a background check
and attend a mandatory orientation session, were simply provided
with event-related paraphernalia in consideration for their
services.  According to Mr. Chen, this arrangement violated both
the FLSA and the New York Labor Law, notwithstanding the parties'
prior mutual understanding that the volunteers would not receive
financial compensation.

What Does This Mean for My Company?

The MLB lawsuit serves as yet another reminder that the recent
groundswell of litigation instigated by unpaid laborers has only
just begun.  And given at least one court's receptiveness to such
claims where unpaid interns are concerned, it is exceedingly
unlikely that unpaid laborers will, at any time in the near
future, be deterred.  Indeed, the only inevitability in an
otherwise uncertain area of wage-and-hour law is that the
plaintiffs' bar will continue to wage a full-scale war against the
sustained use and viability of unpaid labor.  Employers should
thus consult with counsel, if they have not already done so, to
assess their potential exposure and to determine whether the use
of unpaid labor -- be it unpaid interns, volunteers, or some other
iteration thereof -- makes sound business sense.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Aleem" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order granting defendants'
motion to stay proceedings pending a decision on transfer by the
judicial panel on multidistrict litigation in the case captioned
TAUHEEDAH ALEEM, individually and as successor-in-interest on
behalf of the Estate of ARZELMA HAYWARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
McKESSON CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3051 SI, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Ilston said in the event the Panel does not transfer this
action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs' motion for remand.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/aIyoUmfrom Leagle.com.

Tauheedah Aleem, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Evelyn Arnette-Payan, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Clarice Bazile, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Susie Cardona, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Linda Collins, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Tremelda Derks, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Charlene Gibson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Charlene Gibson, Individually and as SuccessPlaintiff, represented
by Mark Burton.

Sigmund Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Helen Hillman, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Irma Hinojosa, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Mary Hinokosa, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Diane Hinson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Bonita Hector, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Kenneth Hodo, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Thomas Hogan, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Anna Hoisington, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

David Hollenbach, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Carolyn Holly, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Irven Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Ronald Honeycutt, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

James Horn, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Kevin Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Marie Hoy, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Katarina Hueston, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Taiyanca Huffman, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Mary Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

William Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Cheryl Hughey, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Spencer Huni, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Lynus Inmon, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Alice Irving Childs, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Derrick Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Lotis Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Tina Jacla, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Charles Jago, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Darla James, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Rodell Jarden, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

John Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Bertha Jenrette, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Paul Jensen, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Michael Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Angie Loggins, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Percy Maddred, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Jim Mahon, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Humberto Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Martha Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Eldonna Potter-Arcolano, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Donna Reese, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Donna Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Daryl Sanford, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Johnnie Seals, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Michael Sharpe, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Laura Smeltzer, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Teresa Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Anna Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Lillie Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

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

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven
J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP, Joshua Marker, Reed Smith LLP,
Michael Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP & Sonja S. Weissman, Reed
Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Allen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order granting defendants'
motion to stay proceedings pending a decision on transfer by the
judicial panel on multidistrict litigation in the case captioned
DONNA ALLEN, individually and as successor-in-interest on behalf
of the Estate of DARREL ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON
CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3063 SI, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Ilston said in the event the Panel does not transfer this
action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs' motion for remand.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/1gLnY0from Leagle.com.

Donna Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu --
sintingmliu@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Eric Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mary Battle, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Darlene Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Carmen Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Jacqueline Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

George Harrison, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Patricia Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Letha Ivery, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Beverly Jacobs, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Janette Johns, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Rosann Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Eileen Kolomer, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Kim Lebaron, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Willie Leblanc, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Pale Lemanua, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mary Louise Leslie, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

James Linear, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Augustine Liserio, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Virginia Lively, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Robert Lombardi, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Craig Lomsky, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Joe Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Michael Love, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Winford Loveday, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Felicita Lozano, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Lewis Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Rosemary Lyons, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Duane Macedo, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Johnny Machacek, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Bertha Mack, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Lynda Maggard, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Lori Mammen, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Josephine Maness, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Jerrold Margolis, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Edana Markus, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Maria Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Laura Mastersheadley, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Wilmitch Maupin, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Johnie Mayo, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Ruenell Mcaboy, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Michael McBride, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Annie McClendon, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Nelson McCloud, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Eula Mcclure, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Shirley McConnell, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Lisa McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Jessie Nolly, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Dorothy Pedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Janet Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Thomas Pride, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

John Rys, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices
of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Cathy Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Lynn Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Jamie Tremble, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Bobbett Wells, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Richard Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin
Brown -- mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

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


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Barnes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order granting defendants'
motion to stay proceedings pending a decision on transfer by the
judicial panel on multidistrict litigation in the case captioned
RENETTA BARNES, individually and as successor-in-interest on
behalf of the Estate of CLARA BURRELL-HARVELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. McKESSON CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3047 SI, (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Ilston said in the event the Panel does not transfer this
action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs' motion for remand.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/sj7zi0from Leagle.com.

Renetta Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Janice Bischoff, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Jimmie Lee Cleveland, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Paulette Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Kenneth Duncan, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

William Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Barbara Gascon, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Christina Hannaford, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Terrence Henry, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Terry Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Linda Kirst, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Patricia Kotsadam, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Sandra Malbrough, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Mary Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Evangeline McCallurn-Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Benwood Minor, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Shawn Minor, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Carol Obershaw, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Columbus Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Josey Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Shirley Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Raymond Varnado, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Albert Vega, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Michael Venable, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

James Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Joseph Wauthier, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

William Webb, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Wilmer Webster, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Paula Wells, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

James Wheatley, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Selva Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Renell White, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Michael White, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Shelia White, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Benjamin Wilcox, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Alfonso Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Earvin Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Florine Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Joann Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Kitasha Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Paulette Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Joseph Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Daniel Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Jackie Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Margaret Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Faye Wingate, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Elaine Winston, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Ricky Woodard, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Crawford Woodruff, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu,
Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Earl Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Howard Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Robert Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Robert Zawrotny, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

Randall Zerr, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu & Mark Burton.

McKesson Corporation, a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven
J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP, Michael Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP &
Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Boreni" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order granting
defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending
a decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned PATRICIA BORENI, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C
13-3152 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Hamilton vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
remand, that was scheduled for September 11, 2013, which the court
will reschedule if necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/goGOoOfrom Leagle.com.

Patricia Boreni, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff -- mlanghoff@napolibern.com -- Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik
& Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik -- hshkolnik@NapoliBern.com
-- Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Vera Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Frank Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Marekus Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Daneyon Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Reginald Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Valencia Massey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Barbara Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Marian Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Michelle Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Nichole Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Carmelo Sgro, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Evelyn Shamberger, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Mildred Simington, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Dorothy Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Marlene Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Anna Stanek, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Paul Stanek, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

David Stanek, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Barbara Culbert, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Patricia Costatino, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Larry Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Larry Stephens, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Walter Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Jonathan Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Cherene Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Linda Vanvlerah, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Cecil Vinson, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

James Walls, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Robert Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Eloise Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Estelle Grote, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Eric Appletoft, as heir of Edward Harold Appletoft, Jr.,
Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Elisha Jastram, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Ebanie Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Janey Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Kane Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Eliott Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Eli Appletoft, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Mary Ann Cipra, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Gabriel Salinas, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Lita Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Charlene Guimont, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Raymond Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Ginger Sedillo, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Crystal Benetiz, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Roger Wingett, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Dixie Berger, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Lee Petersen, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Aldon Leblanc, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, 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, Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP &
Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Butler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order granting Defendant
Glaxosmithkline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending a
decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned BOBBY BUTLER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-03154 JSW,
(N.D. Cal.).

Judge White vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to remand,
scheduled for November 15, 2013, and the case management
conference scheduled for November 8, 2013. The Court will
reschedule these hearings, if necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/eiO0Dwfrom Leagle.com.

Bobby Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP & Marissa Christina Langhoff, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Richard Risner, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP & Marissa Christina Langhoff, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven J.
Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP &
Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Cruz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order granting
defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending
a decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned MARGARITA CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C
13-3150 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Hamilton vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
remand, that was scheduled for September 11, 2013, which the court
will reschedule if necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/zIIPcRfrom Leagle.com.

Margarita Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee --
JLee@NapoliBern.com -- Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates
LLP.

Paula St James-Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica
You Lee, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Audrey Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

David M Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Lelah Baxter, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Diane M Booker, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

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

Russell Andrew Burkhart, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica You
Lee, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

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

Eloise Comer, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Mike Cowan, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Cecil Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

William Dehoyos-Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica
You Lee, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Kathy Donaldson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jean Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Loretta Eblen, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Todd England, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jose Figueroa, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Dale Fontaine, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lorri A Hagwood, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Lawrence E Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Jeannelle Hatfield, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Patricia L Hobbs, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Roy C Huff, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gladys Temple, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Mari Kyanko, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

William Huff, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

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

Rasheeda Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Sondra Kutchek, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Diane Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Clarence Little, III, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J.
Shkolnik, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica
You Lee, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Betty Lunsford, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Betty McClure, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Douglas McClure, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Kareen Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Gwen Smalley, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP & Jessica You Lee, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven J.
Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP &
Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Fortune" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order granting Defendant
Glaxosmithkline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending a
decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned RONALD FORTUNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C
13-03172 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge White vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to remand,
scheduled for November 1, 2013, and the case management conference
scheduled for October 11, 2013, which the court will reschedule if
necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/T8WJdJfrom Leagle.com.

Ronald Fortune, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Michael Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Mary Clayborn, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

John Cochran, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Glen Coffey, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Beverly Coffman, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Michael Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Rocky Corbit, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Susan Corley, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Stanley Cross, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

James Crowe, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Horace Cruthirds, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Rickey Cutler, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Christine Dahl, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Dorothy Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Kenneth Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Mildred Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Cynthia Debnam, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Raymond Deerman, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Theodore Degomar, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Judith Delaney, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Shirley Derosin, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Patricia Dietrich, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Donald Draves, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Ernest Drown, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Velma Dupree, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Ramon Durazo, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Anna Dyment, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Andrew Earley, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Idna Eddington, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Kenneth Edmonds, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Hortense Epps, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Rolando Escobales, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Annie Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Charles Faught, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Loretta F. Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Elizabeth Fillion, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Judy Finch, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Hubert Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Diane Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Salvador Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Hattie Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

William Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Thomas Forgette, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

James Fox, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Monroe Gill, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Elsa Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Vernon Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Chester Grays, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Stanley Green, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Elaine Green, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Joan Green, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Bertha Green, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

James Greer, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Victor Grimes, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Stephen Guarneri, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Mollie Haddock, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Leroy Haddock, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Shirley Haley, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Roger Hallmark, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Judy Hammond, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

James Hardrick, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Marthando Harrell, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Paul Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Janice Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Larry Haughton, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Elmer Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Joseph Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Inez Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC., Defendant, represented by Michael K. Brown,
Reed Smith LLP, Michael Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S.
Weissman, Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven J.
Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Joshlin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston issued an order granting defendants'
motion to stay all proceedings pending a decision on transfer by
the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation in the case
captioned OSEY JOSHLIN, individually and as successor-in-interest
on behalf of the Estate of JANIS JOSHLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
McKESSON CORP., et al., Defendants., NO. C 13-3065 SI, (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Ilston said in the event the Panel does not transfer this
action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs' motion for remand.

A copy of the District Court's August 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/0J3roYfrom Leagle.com.

Osey Joshlin, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley --
bbeasley@salim-beasley.com -- Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr. --
mburton@audetlaw.com --Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Wanda Kelsoe, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Laura Kinkade, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Sandra Lee Kuka, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Robert Lachman, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Sara A. Lane, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Hazel Lattimer, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Sheila Lefavor, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Janyce Legrand, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Judy Lynn Levasseur, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Denise Jacqueline Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett
Beasley, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP &
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Johnna Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Daniel Ligon, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

James Linkous, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Dennis Bruce Macdonald, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Cicely M. MacDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Marilyn Maddox, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

William Malanga, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

David Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Edward Daniel Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Brenda Masoner, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Katherine Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Cindy Mauger, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Norma J. Maxwell, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Angela Denise McAllister, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett
Beasley & Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP.
Angela Denise McAllister, Plaintiff, represented byPlaintiff,
represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary
Liu.

Peggy McClellan, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Ruth Ann McGrady, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Phyllis J. McGrady, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Dawn C. McGuire, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Carrie Meeks, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mary Millstone, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Patricia Marie Moccia, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Sheila O. Monica, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Danielle Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Gwin Mullins, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mary L. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Cynthia Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mary Elizabeth Nesser, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Ruby P. Norman, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Nazmieh Obied, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Joshua O'Quain, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Brenda Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Macy Page, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Rajani Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley, Mark
Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting Mary
Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.


Waneta Maxine Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley,
Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Brown,
Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP & Steven J.
Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
K. Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Michael Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP,
Sonja S. Weissman, Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith
LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "West" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order granting
defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending
a decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned JOANNE WEST, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-3109 PJH,
(N.D. Cal.).

Judge Hamilton vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
remand, which the court will reschedule if necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/j9vo02from Leagle.com.

JoAnne West, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Brenda A. White, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Fedora Whitley, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Jane L Wiener, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Shirley Wilkins, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Annie L Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Priscilla Williams-Cheek, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett
Beasley & Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

James Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Mark Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Eugene Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Darlene Wolfgang, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Gwendolyn L Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley &
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Cindy Annette Woods, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley &
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Georgia Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Donna S Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Olga Zapata, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Coreen Zeller, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley.

Coreen Zeller, Plaintiff, represented by Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law
Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Marguerite Zerbest, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley &
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Obert Pitman, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Robert Linboom, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Olayan Mousa, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Carolyn Hampton, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

James Cenance, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Betty Jacques, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-
Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley & Sin-Ting
Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

Kathlene A Stafford, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Beasley &
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Law Offices of Sin-Ting Mary Liu.

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

GlaxoSmithKline LLC., Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin
Brown, Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


McKESSON CORP: Dist. Court Stays Proceedings in "Zavala" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order granting
defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's motion to stay proceedings pending
a decision on transfer by the judicial panel on multidistrict
litigation in the case captioned MANUEL ZAVALA, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C
13-3163 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Hamilton vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
remand, that was scheduled for September 11, 2013, which the court
will reschedule if necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/nUx62zfrom Leagle.com.

Manuel Zavala, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP and:

   Michael T. Gallagher, Esq.
   The Gallagher Law Firm
   2905 Sackett St.
   Houston, TX 77098
   Tel: (888) 222 - 7052
   Fax: (713) 238 - 7705

Sylvia Casillas, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Rene Zavala, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Mack Allison, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Marlena Bade, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Marlene Bade, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Carolyn Puccini, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Wendell Moulder, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Randall Moulder, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Faye Skelton, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

J.C. Bradford, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Charles Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Gaylena Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Christopher Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Carol Baldwin, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Erica Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Werner Burkat, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Hubert Burkat, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Sharon Diene, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Reader Goodloe, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Jerome Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Ernest Carlson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Andres Dacosta, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Paula Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Corey Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Tiffany Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Amber Blount, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Betty Friemark, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Vincent Friemark, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Valerie Peeters, Plaintiff, represented by Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP, Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith
LLP.

Victoria Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Veronica Koske, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Patricia Galegor, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Janice Gregory, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Herbert Gregory, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

William Gregory, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Mary Ann Farris, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Earlynn Kells, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Earl Kells, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Joyce Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Joy Ann Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Fred Macella, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Bruce Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Gregory Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Kerry Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Michael Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Robert Macella, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Christine Wessell, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina
Langhoff, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Thomas Young, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Myles Dimand, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

Peter Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Michael T.
Gallagher, The Gallagher Law Firm.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Kevin
Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Marissa Christina Langhoff, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith
LLP.

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
Kevin Brown, Reed Smith LLP & Steven J. Boranian, Reed Smith LLP.


MERCK SHARP: Settles Class Action Over Vioxx for $23 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Peck, Editor-in-Chief for MedPage Today, reports that almost
a decade after the maker of rofecoxib (Vioxx) pulled the once-
blockbuster pain killer from the market, the company settled a
class action suit charging it with overselling the benefits of the
Cox-2 inhibitor.

It was Merck that pulled Vioxx from drugstore shelves on Sept. 30,
2004, but it was Merck Sharp & Dohme that settled this latest suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
for $23 million, which will come to about $50 for each patient
included in the class.

That settlement is a pittance compared with the settlement in the
first Vioxx case -- $253 million awarded by a jury to the family
of man who died in his sleep after taking the drug for 8 months.

But the class action suit didn't claim that the drug was
responsible for death or disability, simply that the drugmaker
"falsely advertised Vioxx as having greater benefits than less
expensive medicines contradicting FDA-approved labeling." Although
it agreed to the settlement, the drugmaker denied those claims.

Consumers included in the "class" are those who "paid for all or
part of the cost of Vioxx before Oct. 1, 2004."

Vioxx users who have claimed injury are excluded from the class,
as are those who lived in Missouri when they bought the drug.


METLIFE INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Haviland" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Haviland, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of their
class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The lawsuit captioned Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on
July 22, 2011) was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM")
employees against the Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company ("MLIC"), and the amended complaint includes
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent
insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") claims based upon GM's 2009
reduction of the employees' life insurance coverage under GM's
ERISA-governed plan.  The complaint includes a count seeking class
action status.  MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life insurance
plan and administers claims under the plan.  According to the
complaint, MLIC had previously provided the plaintiffs with a
"written guarantee" that their life insurance benefits under the
GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives.  On
June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss
the complaint.  The Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in Consolidated TCA-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated lawsuit against a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., over its use of retained asset accounts, known as
Total Control Accounts, remains pending, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC"), a Company
subsidiary, is a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit related to
its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control
Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement option for death benefits.

The putative class action lawsuits, captioned Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010, and removed to federal court on September 7,
2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed November 3, 2011), which have been consolidated, raise
breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to
pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group
Life Insurance program.  On March 8, 2013, the court granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs have appealed
that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


METLIFE INC: Canadian Suits Over Sales Practices Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits over sales practices remain pending in
Canada, according to MetLife, Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of the Canadian operations of the
Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
("MLIC"), filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that
MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain
individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been
transferred to Sun Life.  The lawsuit is captioned Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super.
Ct., Ontario, October 2006).  Sun Life had asked that the court
require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to
indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's
Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.  In January
2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its
claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had
not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for
summary judgment.  Both parties appealed.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without
naming MLIC as a party.  On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct.,
British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated
to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these
lawsuits.  The Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, MetLife, Inc. has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.  Some of the current
cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend against the claims in these matters.  The Company believes
adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial
statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for
sales practices matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Westland" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit initiated by City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement
System, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff in the lawsuit titled City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012) filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of
MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,
materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,
Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance
benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated
to the states.  The Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  The defendants intend to defend this
action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Bid to Remand "Birmingham" Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on the motion by
the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System to remand the
City's class action lawsuit to state court, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action, captioned City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to
federal court on August 3, 2012), alleging that MetLife, Inc.,
certain current and former directors and executive officers of
MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of
the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.  The Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  The Defendants
removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to
remand the action to state court.  The defendants intend to defend
this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc., provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  MetLife was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in New York.


NATIONAL CITY: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling Denying Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling in RODRIGUEZ v. NATIONAL CITY BANK.

In this mortgage loan discrimination case, a putative class of
minority borrowers seeks permission under Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to appeal the denial of final
approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania of the parties' proposed settlement and
certification of the settlement class.

The Third Circuit granted the petition for permission to appeal
and affirmed the order of the District Court.

The case is JOHN RODRIGUEZ; JENNIFER WORTHINGTON; BOBBY CROUTHER;
JESUS CONCHAS; ROSE MARIA CONCHAS; LUIS RAMOS; JOANN RAMOS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Petitioners, v. NATIONAL CITY BANK; NATIONAL CITY CORP.; THE PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, NO. 11-8079.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/3xQ0Kyfrom Leagle.com.

Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Joseph H. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Donna S. Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Peter A.
Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- (ARGUED), Amanda R. Trask --
atrask@ktmc.com -- at Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check, 280, King
of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Kevin M. Costello, Roddy Klein
& Ryan, 727, Atlantic Avenue, Second Floor, Boston, MA 02111,
Andrew S. Friedman -- afriedman@bffb.com -- Wendy J. Harrison --
wharrison@bffb.com -- at Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint,
2325, East Camelback Road, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85016, Jeffrey
L. Taren -- jtaren@ktglawyer.com -- at Kinoy Taren & Geraghty,
224, South Michigan Avenue, #300, Chicago, IL 60604, Counsel for
Petitioners.

Sarah R. Breitlander -- sbreitlander@vedderprice.com -- at Hinshaw
& Culbertson, 222, North LaSalle Street, Suite 300, Chicago, IL
60601, Martin C. Bryce, Jr. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- at
Ballard Spahr, 1735, Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Diane M. Kehl -- dkehl@vedderprice.com -- Chad A.
Schiefelbein -- cschiefelbein@vedderprice.com -- at Vedder Price,
222, North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Counsel
for Respondents, National City Bank and National City Corp.

David H. Pittinsky (ARGUED) -- pittinsky@ballardspahr.com --
at Ballard Spahr, 1735, Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia,
PA 19103, Counsel for Respondents, National City Bank, National
City Corp., and The PNC Financial Services, Group, Inc.


NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Class Action Over Retirement Benefits Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appleton Post-Crescent reports that a class action lawsuit filed
by a group of Neenah teachers to recover more than $61 million in
post-retirement benefits was deemed non-compliant with state
statutes on Sept. 13 in Winnebago County court.

Judge Karen L. Seifert said a school district, "is not a court of
record" according to state statutes, which means a class action
suit cannot be filed against it.

The court would only consider claims filed by individuals that
included an itemized list of the relief sought.  Of the 261 people
named in the suit, only two -- Bruce Moriarty and Robert Townsend
-- filed the required paperwork, Judge Seifert said.

As a result, the court dismissed all other claims.  Messrs.
Moriarty and Townsend are seeking $257,025 and $205,620,
respectively, according to documents obtained by Post-Crescent
Media.

In February, the Neenah school board denied claims made by
teachers Moriarty, Townsend, Timothy Hopfensperger,
Jeffrey Martis, Monica Schoen and David McCarthy, who represented
themselves and 255 other teachers in the class action lawsuit.

The teachers said they were promised benefits that were taken away
without notice. In addition, they said officials used the
lucrative retirement package to keep them in the district and to
justify paying them lower salaries.

The district scaled back its retirement plan after Act 10 to avoid
more than $100 million in costs over the next 25 years.  The
change reduced annual stipends and health insurance coverage that
could have totaled more than $300,000 per employee to $99,000 or
less per person.


PILOT TRAVEL: Class Cert. Bid in FACTA Violation Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Karen K. Caldwell denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned RONNIE GIST, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-293-KKC, (E.D.
Ky.).

Mr. Gist brought this putative class action against Defendant
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.  Mr. Gist seeks to represent a
class of all natural persons who were provided with Fleet One
credit or debit card receipts from Pilot that did not comply with
FACTA.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/mDtElzfrom Leagle.com.

Ronnie Gist, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan E. Comer --
bec@cunninghambounds.com -- at Cunningham Bounds LLC, Douglas L.
McSwain -- dmcswain@wyattfirm.com -- at Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
LLP, & Steven L. Nicholas -- sln@cunninghambounds.com -- at
Cunningham Bounds LLC, and:

   Leila O'Carra, Esq.
   Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP
   250 West Main Street, Suite 1600
   Lexington, KY 40507
   Tel: 859-288-7623
   Fax: 859-259-0649

        - and -

   Kevin M. Robson, Esq.
   Robson Law Firm
   PO Box 1704
   Mobile, AL 36633-1704
   Tel: (251) 648-8273

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Margaret
Jane Brannon -- mjbrannon@jacksonkelly.com -- at Jackson Kelly
PLLC and:

   Laurie A. Novion, Esq.
   Rebecca J. Schwartz, Esq.
   Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Esq.
   Zach Chaffee-McClure, Esq.
   Shook, Hardy & Bacon 2555 Grand Blvd.
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: 816-474-6550 (Main)
   Fax: 816-421-5547


PURDUE PHARMA: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stiehl, Esq., and Gina R. Merrill, Esq., at Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, report that the Circuits are split as to what effect an offer
of judgment directed to a named plaintiff has on a putative class
action.  The Seventh Circuit has taken a rigid view, holding that
an unaccepted offer of judgment affording full relief to the named
plaintiff renders a putative class action moot -- unless there is
already a motion for class certification on the docket.  The
Second Circuit has yet to adopt or reject the rule, and, in an
uncertain legal landscape, plaintiffs in putative class actions
are strategizing to avoid the consequences of the Seventh Circuit
holding.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al, No.
3:12-cv-1208 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2013).

                            Background

Plaintiff Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a putative class
action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act based on Purdue Pharma and its affiliates sending marketing
materials by fax which did not contain the required opt-out
notices.  Defendants moved to dismiss the litigation, but their
motion was granted only in part, and the suit proceeded.

After failing to knock out the litigation through a motion to
dismiss, any defendant would surely anticipate a motion seeking
certification of the class in due course.  But Physicians
Healthsource made a surprising move:  it filed a motion to certify
the class before discovery had even begun.  (Slip Op. at 2.)

                   The District Court Opinion

In ruling on the motion for class certification, Judge Underhill
began with a familiar recitation of black letter law.  To decide
whether class certification is appropriate, the court must
determine whether Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy are met, and plaintiff bears
the burden of establishing the prerequisites by a preponderance of
the evidence.  Slip Op. at 2-3.

The Court then explained that it could not fulfill its duty to
rigorously analyze the requirements of Rule 23(a) because
plaintiff filed its motion prior to discovery.  The Court noted
that plaintiff conceded that more discovery was needed, but sought
"leave to submit a memorandum of law . . .  after it obtains
discovery."

Judge Underhill surmised that plaintiff was spooked into action by
the recent Seventh Circuit decision holding that an unaccepted
offer of judgment affording the named plaintiff full relief will
render moot a putative class action unless there is a class
certification motion on the docket.  See id. (citing Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)).   The Court
noted that the Second Circuit has not adopted the rule, and other
circuits have expressly rejected it.  Id.

The Court denied the motion, dismissing it as premature.  It
noted, however, that even if a premature motion for certification
will preserve plaintiff's ability to pursue a putative class
action in the face of an offer of judgment, there is no reason for
the Court to allow an "under-developed motion" to "linger on the
docket."  Judge Underhill explained that orders granting or
denying certification are "inherently tentative," and the Court is
free to modify such an order according to developments in the
litigation.  The Court therefore denied Plaintiff's motion for
class certification without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

                           Implications

The Physicians Healthsource decision does not resolve whether the
Second Circuit will follow the Seventh Circuit in adopting a rule
that an unaccepted offer of judgment affording full relief to the
named plaintiff will render a putative class action moot unless
there is a motion for class certification on the docket.

Until the issue is expressly resolved by the Second Circuit, the
Physicians Healthsource decision will encourage named plaintiffs
to file for class certification at the earliest possible date,
well before discovery allows development of a meaningful record.
If courts follow Judge Underhill's example, there is no harm to
plaintiff in filing a premature motion, and doing so will preserve
their ability to ward off the consequences of the Seventh Circuit
rule while also allowing them to later re-file for class
certification on a full record.


RESERVE MANAGEMENT: SEC Backs Out of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has backed out of
a settlement with the managers of a large money market fund that
"broke the buck" during the 2008 financial crisis, according to
court papers made public on Sept. 13.

Lawyers for defendants including Reserve Management Co said in a
court filing they reached a settlement in principle with the
regulator at the end of August, only to learn on September 5 that
the SEC subsequently rejected it.

The breakdown could derail a separate accord in which the founder
of the fund, Bruce Bent Sr., and others agreed to settle a class-
action lawsuit by the fund's investors.

The case stems from events on September 16, 2008, when the net
asset value of the $62 billion Reserve Primary Fund fell below the
$1 per share it was designed to maintain.

Reserve Primary had held $785 million of debt from Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc., which went bankrupt the day before, and worries
about the Lehman stake had spurred a flood of redemption requests
that the fund could not meet.

Last November, a federal jury in New York cleared Bent and his son
Bruce Bent II of civil fraud charges relating to the collapse,
while finding the son liable for negligence.

The jury also found two corporate entities, Reserve Management and
Resrv Partners Inc., liable on one count of securities fraud, and
Reserve Management for violating a federal law governing
investment advisers.

According to the Sept. 13 filings, the SEC and the Reserve
defendants had negotiated over issues left over from the trial.

But in one of the filings, the SEC said it was "unable to reach a
settlement" with the Bents.  The SEC also asked U.S. District
Judge Paul Gardephe not to approve the related class-action accord
because resolution of its claims might affect the distributions
available for investors.

The class-action settlement called for the Bents and others to,
among other things, pay $10 million and give up $42 million of
legal and other claims against a court-ordered expense fund.

Meanwhile, John Dellaportas, a lawyer for the Bents, complained
that the SEC's "sudden refusal to settle" harmed fund shareholders
with additional delays and costs.

"We were informed that, not only had the Commission rejected the
proposed settlement agreement in principle that had been
negotiated between defendants and the SEC staff, but it was also
unwilling to settle with defendants on any other terms," he wrote,
italicizing the last four words for effect.

Florence Harmon, an SEC spokeswoman, on Sept. 13 said the SEC plan
"would put more money in the pockets of investors, which is why we
have asked the court to decide how best to proceed."

John Browne, a lawyer for shareholders in the class-action case,
in a court filing said the SEC's reasons to delay approval of that
accord lack merit.

A spokesman for the Bents said: "We were disappointed that we were
not able to resolve the remaining issues in that case but in any
event we do not believe the SEC's request for a new trial is
warranted."

It is unclear what may have prompted the SEC's alleged change of
heart.  Terms of the rejected settlement were not disclosed,
though the Bents' spokesman said Bruce Bent Sr. had nothing to
settle because he had prevailed at trial.

Mary Jo White, who became SEC chair this year, has promised to
take a tougher line in resolving higher-profile lawsuits.

Last month, the SEC extracted an admission of wrongdoing and a
five-year industry ban from Philip Falcone over his management at
the hedge fund Harbinger Capital, after the commission rejected an
earlier accord as too lenient.

The cases are SEC v. Reserve Management Co, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 09-04346; and In re: The
Reserve Primary Fund Securities & Derivative Class Action
Litigation in the same court, No. 08-08060.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Effective Date of Cryovac Suits Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to await W. R. Grace & Co.'s
emergence from bankruptcy, when a settlement resolving class
action lawsuits involving a subsidiary of Sealed Air will become
effective, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 30, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction
that brought the packaging business of its subsidiary Cryovac Inc.
and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the common
ownership of the Company.  These businesses operate as
subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acts as a holding
company.  As part of that transaction, the parties separated the
Cryovac packaging business, which previously had been held by
various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company, from the
remaining businesses previously held by the Company.  The parties
then arranged for the contribution of these remaining businesses
to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company
distributed the Grace shares to the Company's stockholders.  As a
result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate publicly owned
company.  The Company recapitalized its outstanding shares of
common stock into a new common stock and a new convertible
preferred stock.  A subsidiary of the Company then merged into the
former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a subsidiary of the
Company and changed its name to Sealed Air Corporation (US).

In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its
subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their
operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or
occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than
liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac's operations.
Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating
to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by
Grace's subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including
its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.,
which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace
since the Cryovac transaction.  The Cryovac transaction agreements
provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any
of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace
or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities,
Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend the Company.

Since the beginning of 2000, the Company has been served with a
number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac
transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged asbestos
liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also
named as co-defendants in some of these actions.  Among these
lawsuits are several purported class actions and a number of
personal injury lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages for
personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.  Neither the former Sealed Air
Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the
asbestos-containing materials that are the subjects of these
cases.  None of these cases has reached resolution through
judgment, settlement or otherwise.  Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding has stayed all of these cases.

While the allegations in these actions directed to the Company
vary, these actions all appear to allege that the transfer of the
Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a
fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability.  Under a
theory of successor liability, the plaintiffs with claims against
Grace and its subsidiaries may attempt to hold the Company liable
for liabilities that arose with respect to activities conducted
prior to the Cryovac transaction by W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. or
other Grace subsidiaries.  A transfer would be a fraudulent
transfer if the transferor received less than reasonably
equivalent value and the transferor was insolvent or was rendered
insolvent by the transfer, was engaged or was about to engage in a
business for which its assets constitute unreasonably small
capital, or intended to incur or believed that it would incur
debts beyond its ability to pay as they mature.  A transfer may
also be fraudulent if it was made with actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud creditors.  If a court found any transfers in
connection with the Cryovac transaction to be fraudulent
transfers, the Company could be required to return the property or
its value to the transferor or could be required to fund
liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their
creditors, including asbestos claimants.  The Company has reached
an agreement in principle and subsequently signed a settlement
agreement that is expected to resolve all these claims.

In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective
stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both
parties to the transaction stated that it was their belief that
Grace and its subsidiaries were adequately capitalized and would
be adequately capitalized after the Cryovac transaction and that
none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac
transaction would be a fraudulent transfer.  They also stated
their belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other
relevant laws.  However, if a court applying the relevant legal
standards had reached conclusions adverse to the Company, these
determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition and results of
operations.

On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court").  Grace stated that the filing
was made in response to a sharply increasing number of asbestos
claims since 1999.

In connection with its Chapter 11 filing, Grace filed an
application with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to stay, among
others, all actions brought against the Company and specified
subsidiaries related to alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and
its subsidiaries or alleging fraudulent transfer claims.  The
court issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on
January 22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or
pending asbestos actions against the Company and, upon filing and
service on the Company, all future asbestos actions.  No further
proceedings involving the Company can occur in the actions that
have been stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy
Court.

Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace's
bankruptcy case received the court's permission to pursue
fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its
subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc.  The claims against Fresenius are based upon a 1996
transaction between Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn.
Fresenius is not affiliated with the Company.  In March 2002, the
court ordered that the issues of the solvency of Grace following
the Cryovac transaction and whether Grace received reasonably
equivalent value in the Cryovac transaction would be tried on
behalf of all of Grace's creditors.  This proceeding was brought
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"District Court") (Adv. No. 02-02210).

In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene
as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the
U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental
remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the
solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac
transaction.  The court also permitted Grace, which asserted that
the Cryovac transaction was not a fraudulent transfer, to
intervene in the proceeding.  In July 2002, the court issued an
interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied in the trial,
holding, among other things, that, subject to specified
limitations, post-1998 claims should be considered in the solvency
analysis of Grace.  The Company believes that only claims and
liabilities that were known, or reasonably should have been known,
at the time of the 1998 Cryovac transaction should be considered
under the applicable standard.

With the fraudulent transfer trial set to commence on December 9,
2002, on November 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the
Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction.  On
the same day, the court entered an order confirming that the
parties had reached an amicable resolution of the disputes among
the parties and that counsel for the Company and the Committees
had agreed and bound the parties to the terms of the agreement in
principle.  The agreement in principle called for payment of nine
million shares of the Company's common stock and $513 million in
cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate
starting on December 21, 2002, and ending on the effective date of
an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy,
when the Company is required to make the payment.  These shares
are subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for
the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events
affecting the Company's common stock, and as a result, the number
of shares of the Company's common stock that the Company will
issue increased to eighteen million shares upon the two-for-one
stock split in March 2007.  On December 3, 2002, the Company's
Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle.  The
Company received notice that both of the Committees had approved
the agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002.  The parties
subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of
November 10, 2003, consistent with the terms of the agreement in
principle.  On November 26, 2003, the parties jointly presented
the definitive Settlement agreement to the District Court for
approval.  On Grace's motion to the District Court, that court
transferred the motion to approve the Settlement agreement to the
Bankruptcy Court for disposition.

On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving
the Settlement agreement.  Although Grace is not a party to the
Settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is
directed to comply with the Settlement agreement subject to
limited exceptions.  The order also provides that the Court will
retain jurisdiction over any dispute involving the interpretation
or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Settlement
agreement.  The Company expects that the Settlement agreement will
become effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy pursuant
to a plan of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of
the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the District
Court, where the fraudulent transfer trial was pending, requesting
that the court vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal
standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer claims
against the Company.  The Company was not challenging the
Settlement agreement.  The motion was filed as a protective
measure in the event that the Settlement agreement is ultimately
not approved or implemented; however, the Company still expects
that the Settlement agreement will become effective upon Grace's
emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization that is
consistent with the terms of the Settlement agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing
the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to
represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding
against the Company without prejudice to its right to reopen the
matter and renew in its sole discretion its motion to vacate the
July 2002 interim ruling on the legal standards to be applied
relating to the fraudulent transfer claims against the Company.
As a condition to the Company's obligation to make the payments
required by the Settlement agreement, any final plan of
reorganization must be consistent with the terms of the Settlement
agreement, including provisions for the trusts and releases and
for an injunction barring the prosecution of any asbestos-related
claims against the Company.  The Settlement agreement provides
that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization
and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future
asbestos-related claims against the Company that arise from
alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates
(including former affiliates that became the Company's affiliates
through the Cryovac transaction) will be channeled to and become
the responsibility of one or more trusts to be established under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of a final plan of
reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy.  The Settlement agreement
will also resolve all fraudulent transfer claims against the
Company arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the
Fresenius claims.  The Settlement agreement provides that the
Company will receive releases of all those claims upon payment.
Under the agreement, the Company cannot seek indemnity from Grace
for the Company's payments required by the Settlement agreement.
The order approving the Settlement agreement also provides that
the stay of proceedings involving the Company will continue
through the effective date of the final plan of reorganization,
after which, upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, the
Company will be released from the liabilities asserted in those
proceedings and their continued prosecution against the Company
will be enjoined.

In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization
(the "Grace Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court.  There were a number
of objections filed.  The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants (the "ACC") and the Asbestos PI Future Claimants'
Representative (the "PI FCR") filed their proposed plan of
reorganization (the "Claimants' Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court
in November 2007.  On April 7, 2008, Grace issued a press release
announcing that Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee") had
reached an agreement in principle to settle all present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace (the "PI
Settlement") and disclosed a term sheet outlining certain terms of
the PI Settlement and for a contemplated plan of reorganization
that would incorporate the PI Settlement (as filed and amended
from time to time, the "PI Settlement Plan").

On September 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the PI FCR, and the Equity
Committee filed, as co-proponents, the PI Settlement Plan and
several exhibits and associated documents, including a disclosure
statement (as filed and amended from time to time, the "PI
Settlement Disclosure Statement"), with the Bankruptcy Court.
Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement
Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court
from time to time.  The PI Settlement Plan, which supersedes each
of the Grace Plan and the Claimants' Plan, remains pending and has
not become effective.  The committee representing general
unsecured creditors and the Official Committee of Asbestos
Property Damage Claimants are not co-proponents of the PI
Settlement Plan.  As filed, the PI Settlement Plan would provide
for the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g)
of the United States Bankruptcy Code to which present and future
asbestos-related claims would be channeled.  The PI Settlement
Plan also contemplates that the terms of the Settlement agreement
will be incorporated into the PI Settlement Plan and that the
Company will pay the amount contemplated by the Settlement
agreement.  On March 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order approving the PI Settlement Disclosure Statement (the "DS
Order") as containing adequate information and authorizing Grace
to solicit votes to accept or reject the PI Settlement Plan, all
as more fully described in the order.  The DS Order did not
constitute the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the PI
Settlement Plan, approval of the merits of the PI Settlement Plan,
or endorsement of the PI Settlement Plan.  In connection with the
plan voting process in the Grace bankruptcy case, the Company
voted in favor of the PI Settlement Plan that was before the
Bankruptcy Court.  The Company will continue to review any
amendments to the PI Settlement Plan on an ongoing basis to verify
compliance with the Settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2009, a senior manager with the voting agent appointed
in the Grace bankruptcy case filed a declaration with the
Bankruptcy Court certifying the voting results with respect to the
PI Settlement Plan.  This declaration was amended on August 5,
2009 (as amended, the "Voting Declaration").  According to the
Voting Declaration, with respect to each class of claims
designated as impaired by Grace, the PI Settlement Plan was
approved by holders of at least two-thirds in amount and more than
one-half in number (or for classes voting for purposes of Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, at least 75% in number) of voted
claims.  The Voting Declaration also discusses the voting results
with respect to holders of general unsecured claims ("GUCs")
against Grace, whose votes were provisionally solicited and
counted subject to a determination by the Bankruptcy Court of
whether GUCs are impaired (and, thus, entitled to vote) or, as
Grace contends, unimpaired (and, thus, not entitled to vote).
According to the Voting Declaration, more than one half of voting
holders of GUCs voted to accept the PI Settlement Plan, but the
provisional vote did not obtain the requisite two-thirds dollar
amount to be deemed an accepting class in the event that GUCs are
determined to be impaired.  To the extent that GUCs are determined
to be an impaired non-accepting class, Grace and the other plan
proponents have indicated that they would nevertheless seek
confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan under the "cram down"
provisions contained in Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum
opinion (as amended, the "Bankruptcy Court Opinion") overruling
certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan and finding, among
other things, that GUCs are not impaired under the PI Settlement
Plan.  On the same date, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
regarding confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan (as amended, the
"Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order").  As entered on January 31,
2011, the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order contained
recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
recommended that the District Court approve the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order, and that the District Court confirm the PI
Settlement Plan and issue a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Thereafter, on February 15, 2011,
the Bankruptcy Court issued an order clarifying the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order (the
"Clarifying Order").  Among other things, the Clarifying Order
provided that any references in the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and
the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order to a recommendation that
the District Court confirm the PI Settlement Plan were thereby
amended to make clear that the PI Settlement Plan was confirmed
and that the Bankruptcy Court was requesting that the District
Court issue and affirm the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order
including the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code.  On March 11, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part a motion to reconsider the
Bankruptcy Court Opinion filed by BNSF Railway Company (the "March
11 Order").  Among other things, the March 11 Order amended the
Bankruptcy Court Opinion to clarify certain matters relating to
objections to the PI Settlement Plan filed by BNSF.

Various parties appealed or otherwise challenged the Bankruptcy
Court Opinion and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order,
including without limitation with respect to issues relating to
releases and injunctions contained in the PI Settlement Plan.  On
June 28, and 29, 2011, the District Court heard oral arguments in
connection with appeals of the Bankruptcy Court Opinion and the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order.

On January 30, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion (the "Original District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Original District Court Confirmation Order")
overruling all objections to the PI Settlement Plan and confirming
the PI Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of
the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).  On
February 3, 2012, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("Garlock")
filed a motion (the "Garlock Reargument Motion") with the District
Court requesting that the District Court grant reargument,
rehearing, or otherwise amend the Original District Court Opinion
and the Original District Court Confirmation Order insofar as they
overruled Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement Plan.  On
February 13, 2012, the Company, Cryovac, and Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc. filed a joint motion (the "Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion") with the District Court.  The Sealed
Air/Fresenius Motion did not seek to disturb confirmation of the
PI Settlement Plan but requested that the District Court amend and
clarify certain matters in the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order.

Also on February 13, 2012, Grace and the other proponents of the
PI Settlement Plan filed a motion (the "Plan Proponents' Motion")
with the District Court requesting certain of the same amendments
and clarifications sought by the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion.  On
February 27, 2012, certain asbestos claimants known as the "Libby
Claimants" filed a response to the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion and
the Plan Proponents' Motion (the "Libby Response").  The Libby
Response did not oppose the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion or the
Plan Proponents' Motion but indicated, among other things, that:
(a) the Libby Claimants had reached a settlement in principle of
their objections to the PI Settlement Plan but that this
settlement had not become effective and (b) the Libby Claimants
reserved their rights with respect to the PI Settlement Plan
pending the effectiveness of the Libby Claimants' settlement.  On
April 20, 2012, as part of a more global settlement, Grace filed a
motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things,
approval of settlements with the Libby Claimants and BNSF.  The
settlements with the Libby Claimants and BNSF were approved by
order of the Bankruptcy Court dated June 6, 2012.  Thereafter, the
appeals of the Libby Claimants and BNSF with respect to the PI
Settlement Plan were dismissed by orders of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court
of Appeals") dated September 24, 2012, and October 4, 2012.  The
District Court held a hearing on May 8, 2012, to consider the
Garlock Reargument Motion.  On May 29, 2012, Anderson Memorial
Hospital ("Anderson Memorial") filed a motion seeking relief from,
and reconsideration of, the Original District Court Opinion and
the Original District Court Confirmation Order (the "Anderson
Relief Motion").  In the Anderson Relief Motion, Anderson Memorial
argued that a May 18, 2012, decision by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in a case called Wright v. Owens-Corning undermined the
District Court's conclusion that (a) the PI Settlement Plan was
feasible and (b) the asbestos property damage injunction and trust
included in the PI Settlement Plan were appropriate.  Objections
to the Anderson Relief Motion were filed by Grace and the other
proponents of the PI Settlement Plan, and by the representative of
future asbestos property damage claimants appointed in the Grace
bankruptcy proceedings.  On June 11, 2012, the District Court
entered a consolidated order (the "Consolidated Order") granting
the Sealed Air/Fresenius Motion, the Plan Proponents' Motion, and
the Garlock Reargument Motion, and providing for amendments to the
Original District Court Opinion and the Original District Court
Confirmation Order.  Although the Consolidated Order granted the
Garlock Reargument Motion, it did not constitute the District
Court's agreement with Garlock's objections to the PI Settlement
Plan, which the District Court continued to overrule.  Also on
June 11, 2012, the District Court entered an amended memorandum
opinion (the "Amended District Court Opinion") and confirmation
order (the "Amended District Court Confirmation Order") overruling
all objections to the PI Settlement Plan, reflecting amendments
described in the Consolidated Order, and confirming the PI
Settlement Plan in its entirety (including the issuance of the
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code).
Thereafter, on July 23, 2012, the District Court issued a
memorandum opinion and an order denying the Anderson Relief
Motion.

Parties have appealed the Amended District Court Opinion and the
Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Parties have filed briefs in connection with
the appeals, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments with respect to the appeals on June 17, 2013.  The Third
Circuit Court of Appeals took these matters under advisement.  On
July 24, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
opinion and a judgment relating to Garlock's appeals (the "Third
Circuit Garlock Opinion & Judgment") affirming the District
Court's decision to overrule Garlock's objections to the PI
Settlement Plan.  The Third Circuit Garlock Opinion & Judgment
does not rule on the appeals of parties other than Garlock.  The
Company does not know when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will
rule on the non-Garlock appeals.  While Grace has in the past
indicated that, with an appeals process before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, its target date to emerge from bankruptcy was
the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company cannot make assurances
that this timing for emergence is or will be correct or that the
target date for Grace's emergence has not been or will not be
revised.

Consistent with its Settlement agreement, the Company is prepared
to pay the Settlement amount directly to the asbestos trusts to be
established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code once the
conditions of the Settlement agreement are fully satisfied.  Among
those conditions is that approval of an appropriate Grace
bankruptcy plan -- containing all releases, injunctions, and
protections required by the Settlement agreement -- be final and
not subject to any appeal.  Given the pending appeals (which
include, without limitation, challenges to injunctions and
releases in the PI Settlement Plan), the condition that approval
of the PI Settlement Plan be final and not subject to any appeal
has not been satisfied at this time.  The Company has not waived
this or any other condition of the Settlement agreement nor can
there be any assurance that each of the parties whose consent or
waiver is required for Grace to emerge from bankruptcy while the
appeals are pending will provide such consent or waiver.  Although
the Company is optimistic that, if it were to become effective,
the PI Settlement Plan would implement the terms of the Settlement
agreement, the Company can give no assurance that this will be the
case notwithstanding the confirmation of the PI Settlement Plan by
the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.  The terms of the PI
Settlement Plan remain subject to amendment.  Moreover, the PI
Settlement Plan is subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions which are more fully set forth in the PI Settlement
Plan and include, without limitation, the availability of exit
financing and the approval of the PI Settlement Plan becoming
final and no longer subject to appeal.  As noted, parties have
appealed the Amended District Court Confirmation Order to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals or have otherwise challenged the
Amended District Court Opinion and the Amended District Court
Confirmation Order.  Matters relating to the PI Settlement Plan,
the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Opinions, and the
Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation Orders may be
subject to further appeal, challenge, and proceedings before the
District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, or other
courts.  Parties have challenged various issues with respect to
the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders, including, without limitation, issues
relating to releases and injunctions contained in the PI
Settlement Plan.

While the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have confirmed
the PI Settlement Plan and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
entered the Third Circuit Garlock Opinion & Judgment, the Company
does not know whether or when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
will affirm the Amended District Court Confirmation Order or the
Amended District Court Opinion with respect to the non-Garlock
appeals, whether or when the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions or the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court Confirmation
Orders will become final and no longer subject to appeal, or
whether or when a final plan of reorganization (whether the PI
Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) will become
effective.  Assuming that a final plan of reorganization (whether
the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization) is
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, and does
become effective, the Company does not know whether the final plan
of reorganization will be consistent with the terms of the
Settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's
obligation to pay the Settlement agreement amount will be met.  If
these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the Company,
it will not be obligated to pay the amount contemplated by the
Settlement agreement.  However, if the Company does not pay the
Settlement agreement amount, the Company will not be released from
the various asbestos related, fraudulent transfer, successor
liability, and indemnification claims made against the Company and
all of these claims would remain pending and would have to be
resolved through other means, such as through agreement on
alternative settlement terms or trials.  In that case, the Company
could face liabilities that are significantly different from the
Company's obligations under the Settlement agreement.  The Company
cannot estimate at this time what those differences or their
magnitude may be.  In the event these liabilities are materially
larger than the current existing obligations, they could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition and results of operations.  The Company will continue to
review and monitor the progress of the Grace bankruptcy
proceedings (including appeals and other proceedings relating to
the PI Settlement Plan, the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions, and the Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Confirmation Orders), as well as any amendments or changes to the
PI Settlement Plan or to Bankruptcy and Amended District Court
Opinions and Confirmation Orders, to verify compliance with the
Settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corporation
-- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a Delaware corporation founded
in 1960.  The Company is a global leader in food safety and
security, facility hygiene and product protection with widely
recognized and inventive brands such as Bubble Wrap(R) brand
cushioning, Cryovac(R) brand food packaging solutions and
Diversey(R) brand cleaning and hygiene solutions.


SEALED AIR: Still Awaits Canadian Settlement to Become Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 1998, Sealed Air Corporation completed a multi-step
transaction that brought the packaging business of its subsidiary
Cryovac Inc. and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business
under the common ownership of the Company.  These businesses
operate as subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acts as a
holding company.  As part of that transaction, the parties
separated the Cryovac packaging business, which previously had
been held by various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the
Company, from the remaining businesses previously held by the
Company.  The parties then arranged for the contribution of these
remaining businesses to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co.,
and the Company distributed the Grace shares to the Company's
stockholders.  As a result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate
publicly owned company.  The Company recapitalized its outstanding
shares of common stock into a new common stock and a new
convertible preferred stock.  A subsidiary of the Company then
merged into the former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a
subsidiary of the Company and changed its name to Sealed Air
Corporation (US).

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. are also named as
defendants.  The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.  A plaintiff
filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as
defendants.  The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right
of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et
al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding.  In October 2005, the Company learned that
six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in
various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery
from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R.
Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries
suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of
employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.  Grace and W.
R. Grace & Co. - Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any
liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these
actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act.  That order has been renewed repeatedly.  In
November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions.  The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government).  That settlement, which has
subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be
entirely funded by Grace.  The Canadian Court issued an Order on
December 13, 2009, approving the Canadian Settlement.  The Company
does not have any positive obligations under the Canadian
Settlement, but the Company is a beneficiary of the release of
claims.  The release in favor of the Grace parties (including the
Company) will become operative upon the effective date of a plan
of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.

As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims
released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to
injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  As
indicated, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court
Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011, and the Clarifying Order
on February 15, 2011, and the District Court entered the Original
District Court Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012, and the
Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012.  The
Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011, recognizing and
giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in
all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI Settlement Plan has not
become effective, and the Company can give no assurance that the
PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of reorganization) will
become effective.  Assuming that a final plan of reorganization
(whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization)
does become effective, if the final plan of reorganization does
not incorporate the terms of the Canadian Settlement or if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then the Company could be required to pay substantial
damages, which the Company cannot estimate at this time and which
could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition and results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, Sealed Air Corporation
-- http://www.sealedair.com/-- is a Delaware corporation founded
in 1960.  The Company is a global leader in food safety and
security, facility hygiene and product protection with widely
recognized and inventive brands such as Bubble Wrap(R) brand
cushioning, Cryovac(R) brand food packaging solutions and
Diversey(R) brand cleaning and hygiene solutions.


STEC INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Consolidate Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sTec, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a motion to
consolidate seven merger-related class action lawsuits in
California, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 23, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Western Digital Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("WDC"), and Lodi Ventures, Inc., a California corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary.  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of WDC.

Between June 26, 2013, and July 11, 2013, seven shareholders filed
purported class action lawsuits, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated sTec shareholders, in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange, against sTec, members of
the Company's board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub challenging
the proposed merger.  The cases include: Vijaya Pilly v. sTec,
Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2013-00659340-CU-SL-CXC; Karl F.
Poehlmann v. sTec, et al., Case No. 30-2013-00659742-CU-SL-CXC;
Tyler Mathewson v. sTec, et al., Case No. 30-2013-00659718-CU-SL-
CXC; Beverly Wilkinson v. sTec, et al., Case No. 30-2013-00660427-
CU-SL-CXC; Faithette Foreman-Sommers v. sTec, et al., Case No. 30-
2013-00660506-CU-SL-CXC; Anthony Palmero v. sTec, et al., Case No.
30-2013-00662459-CU-SL-CXC; and Robert Walpole v. sTec, et al.,
Case No. 30-2013-00662447-CU-SL-CXC.  The lawsuits generally
assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of
the Company's board of directors for approving the proposed merger
at an allegedly inadequate price and for engaging in a flawed
sales process.  The lawsuits also generally assert claims against
WDC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the breaches of
fiduciary duty.  All of the lawsuits seek class certification, to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the proposed merger,
rescission of the proposed merger if it is consummated, damages,
costs and attorneys' and expert fees, and any other relief the
court may deem proper.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiffs Poehlmann and Mathewson filed
amended complaints which contain additional allegations that the
proxy statement filed by the Company on July 25, 2013, fails to
fully and fairly disclose all material information concerning the
proposed merger.  The parties have filed a stipulation and
proposed order to consolidate the seven putative class actions
into one consolidated action.  sTec, its directors, WDC and Merger
Sub believe the allegations in all of the lawsuits are without
merit.

Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, sTec, Inc., is a global
provider of enterprise-class solid-state drives that are designed
specifically for systems and applications that require high input
and output capabilities with low latencies for fast access to
critical user data.  The Company designs and develops SSD
solutions for its customers in a full range of industries and
applications.


STEC INC: Got Final OK of $35.8-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
sTec, Inc. has received final approval of its $35.8 million
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

From November 6, 2009, through March 2, 2010, seven class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
senior officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  The Court consolidated
the complaints and appointed certain plaintiffs as the
representative plaintiffs for the class (the "Lead Plaintiffs").
The Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead
Plaintiff.  The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint that the Court dismissed without prejudice.  Thereafter,
on February 22, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint, on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between June 16, 2009, and
February 23, 2010.  The second amended complaint alleges claims
against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and related claims against several of its senior
officers and directors for violations of the control person
provisions of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, the second amended complaint alleges claims against
the Company, several of its senior officers and directors, and
four of its underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and
related claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The second amended complaint
alleges generally that the Company and the individual defendants
made materially false or misleading public statements and/or
failed to disclose material facts in public statements relating to
the Company and its business, in the case of the Exchange Act
claims, during the period of June 16, 2009, through February 23,
2010, and, in the case of the Securities Act claims, in the
Company's registration statement filed under the Securities Act.
The second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for all
damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged actions
and further seeks reasonable costs and expenses, rescission,
counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss and on June 17, 2011, the
Court entered an order granting the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims without prejudice and denying
the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims.  The
defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011.

On November 21, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.  On
January 12, 2012, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California filed a
motion for leave to intervene.  The defendants opposed both of
these motions.  On March 7, 2012, the Court denied both motions
without prejudice and stayed the action, other than discovery, to
allow the new Lead Plaintiff to cure the issue that resulted in
the order denying its motion for class certification.  On
March 23, 2012, the new Lead Plaintiff sought permission from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal
from the order denying without prejudice its motion for class
certification.  The defendants opposed this request, which the
Ninth Circuit denied on June 14, 2012.  On June 19, 2012, the
Court entered an order granting the new Lead Plaintiff's motion
and certifying a class consisting of all persons and entities
that, between June 16, 2009, and February 23, 2010, inclusive,
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock
of sTec, Inc., and were damaged thereby.

On July 30, 2012, the parties to the federal class action attended
a mediation to explore a potential settlement.  During the July 30
mediation, the parties considered a settlement that would create a
fund for the benefit of the settlement class, with no admission or
concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants,
in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the federal class action,
including claims under both the Exchange Act and the Securities
Act.  On October 5, 2012, the Company entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to settle
the federal class action.  The Settlement Agreement provides for
the resolution of all the pending claims in the federal class
action litigation, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants.  The Company
and the other defendants have entered into the Settlement
Agreement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and
expense of further litigation.  The Settlement Agreement provides
for a fund of $35.8 million in exchange for a full and complete
release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the
federal class action.  During 2012 the Company had recorded an
estimated settlement accrual of $35.8 million and an insurance
claim receivable of $20.6 million, resulting in a net charge of
$15.2 million recorded as a component of other expense.  During
the first quarter of 2013 the Company and its insurance carriers
transferred $15.2 million and $20.6 million, respectively, into an
escrow account in the custody of the Court in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement
remained subject to final court approval and certain other
conditions, including an opportunity for class members to object
to or opt out of the settlement.

On February 11, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting the final approval and
fairness hearing for May 20, 2013.  Following the final approval
and fairness hearing, on May 23, 2013, the Court entered a final
order and judgment, affirming the preliminary approval order and
certification of the class as set forth in the Court's June 16,
2012 Order and for purposes of the Securities Act claims asserted
by persons and entities that, between June 16, 2009, and
February 23, 2010, purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
common stock of sTec, and were damaged thereby, subject to certain
self-exclusions.  The Company has made an assessment of the
probability of incurring any additional losses as remote and
accordingly, no additional accrued liabilities have been recorded
in sTec's consolidated financial statement for this federal class
action.  The Company expects the settlement of the federal class
action will also result in a full release of the class claims
asserted in the previously disclosed class action in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.  The settlement does not
resolve the related federal and state shareholder derivative
litigation.

Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, sTec, Inc., is a global
provider of enterprise-class solid-state drives that are designed
specifically for systems and applications that require high input
and output capabilities with low latencies for fast access to
critical user data.  The Company designs and develops SSD
solutions for its customers in a full range of industries and
applications.


STEC INC: Parties to Dismiss Calif. State Court Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties anticipate filing a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of
a securities class action lawsuit commenced in the Superior Court
of Orange County, California, according to sTec, Inc.'s August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 1, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and several of its senior officers and directors in the
Superior Court of Orange County, California.  The complaint
alleges claims against the Company, several of its senior officers
and directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of
Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and further
alleges claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The complaint, which arises out
of the same underlying factual allegations as the federal court
securities class action, seeks compensatory damages and rescission
or a rescissory measure of damages where applicable, reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and
other relief the Court may deem just and proper.  On August 4,
2011, the defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
plaintiffs moved to remand and on October 7, 2011, the Court
entered an order remanding the case back to the Superior Court of
Orange County, California.  On November 16, 2011, the defendants
moved to stay the case pending the resolution of the class action
lawsuit pending in federal court.  On November 16, 2011, the
defendants also filed a general demurrer to the complaint.  On
February 17, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay and declined to rule on the defendants' general demurrer.
The parties presently anticipate filing a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal of this case.

The Company believes that the contemplated settlement of the
federal class action would result in a release of the class claims
asserted in this Superior Court action.  Accordingly, the Company
has made an assessment of the probability of incurring any
additional losses as remote and accordingly, no accrued
liabilities have been recorded in sTec's consolidated financial
statements for this Superior Court action.

Headquartered in Santa Ana, California, sTec, Inc., is a global
provider of enterprise-class solid-state drives that are designed
specifically for systems and applications that require high input
and output capabilities with low latencies for fast access to
critical user data.  The Company designs and develops SSD
solutions for its customers in a full range of industries and
applications.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Expects Additional Briefing in Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc., said in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that additional briefing is anticipated on
all issues related to pending motions in the antitrust litigation
in Chicago.

The Company is involved, along with eight other steel
manufacturing companies, in a class action antitrust complaint
filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, in September 2008,
which alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
the price at which steel products were sold in the United States
starting in 2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such
steel products.  All but one of the Complaints were brought on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of
steel products between January 1, 2005, and the present.  The
other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the
same time period.  In addition, in December 2010, the Company and
the other co-defendants were served with a substantially similar
complaint in the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee,
purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel
products in Tennessee.  That case has been removed to the federal
court in Chicago that is hearing the main complaint.  All
Complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive
relief.

In January 2009, Steel Dynamics and the other defendants filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss all of the direct purchaser lawsuits, but
this motion was denied in June 2009.  Following a period of
preliminary discovery relating to class certification matters, the
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification in May 2012,
and on February 28, 2013, the Defendants filed their Joint
Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, together with joint motions to exclude the expert
opinions of both of Plaintiffs' two retained experts.  Additional
briefing is anticipated on all issues related to the pending
motions.

Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the Company says it
cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this
litigation.  However, the Company has determined, based on the
information available at this time, that there is not presently a
"reasonable possibility" that the outcome of these legal
proceedings would have a material impact on its financial
condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. -- http://www.steeldynamics.com/-- is a
steel producer and metals recycler.  The Company was incorporated
in Indiana in August 1993 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


STEINER LEISURE: Settled "Ferrari" Suit for Immaterial Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steiner Leisure Limited settled in July 2013 the class action
lawsuit initiated by Yvette Ferrari for an amount that was not
material to the Company's financial condition, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In April 2011, a Complaint was filed in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles Central Division, against Bliss World LLC and related
entities (Yvette Ferrari v. Bliss World LLC, et al), seeking
damages on behalf of an employee of Bliss claiming violations of
various California requirements relating to the payment of wages.
The action was presented as a class action.  In July 2013, the
parties to this action settled the matter for an amount that was
not material to the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Incorporated as a Bahamian international business company in 1995,
Steiner Leisure Limited is a worldwide provider and innovator in
the fields of beauty, wellness and education.  The Company's
services include traditional and alternative massage, body and
skin treatment options, fitness, acupuncture, medi-spa treatments
and laser hair removal.  The Company is headquartered in Nassau,
The Bahamas.


UNITED STATES: Keepseagle Class Reps Want to Fund Foundation
------------------------------------------------------------
According to ICTMN.com, farmers and ranchers Marilyn and George
Keepseagle, Claryca Mandan, Porter Holder, Ross Racine said that
the Keepseagle v. Vilsack class action made history in 2010 when
Indian farmers and ranchers were awarded $680 million in damages
and $80 million in debt relief for decades of harsh discrimination
by the USDA's Farm Loan Program.   Now we have an opportunity to
make history again -- this time by using unclaimed settlement
funds to create the largest endowed foundation in United States
history dedicated to assisting current and future generations of
farmers and ranchers throughout Indian Country.

While no one had anticipated that $380 million would remain
unclaimed -- and many factors played into this, including the
deaths of potential claimants during the time it took to settle
the case, the lack of initial documentation by the USDA, and,
finally, general skepticism of the government by many -- the scope
of the remaining funds may well be the best thing to come out of
this historic settlement.

Keepseagle class representatives unanimously agreed that using the
funds to endow a large, well-managed foundation would be the best
use of the funds that remained unclaimed by class members.  Such a
foundation would have a far more profound and greater long-term
impact than dispersing the funds all at once to multiple
organizations.  Instead, funds from the approximately $30 million
in investment earnings this independent foundation is expected to
generate each year could be used to make annual grants to multiple
qualified organizations into the indefinite future.  The first
step in creating such an opportunity is to change the provision of
the settlement agreement relating to the unclaimed funds.  This is
why class counsel in a recent settlement status report asked the
court to consider the merits of the single foundation concept and
how best to create and implement such a plan.

Furthermore, an important provision of the foundation proposal is
that it would be managed and controlled by leaders from Indian
Country.  The foundation board would be comprised of those who are
familiar with the farming and ranching needs of our communities.
With the Court's approval, this board -- rather than class counsel
or any other non-Native entity -- would approve recipients of
foundation funds.

The benefits that this foundation ultimately can achieve within
our farming and ranching communities are boundless.  Consider what
it would mean to have funds available year after year to provide,
among other things, agricultural scholarships for our promising
young people; to establish unique programs for the unique needs of
Native American communities all over the country; to foster
control of Native American natural resources by Native Americans;
to provide educational programs at Tribal colleges that build our
capacity to grow livestock and crops and provide needed income for
our farmers and ranchers; to provide financial and technical
assistance to Native farmers and ranchers now and into the future;
and, finally, to ensure that Native peoples will be able to remain
on the land we all hold sacred.

The farmers and ranchers said "We urge all who believe as we do
that "the land does not belong to us; it is only borrowed from our
children" to support this legacy foundation so that this
unexpected inheritance will pay forward for countless generations
to come.

Marilyn and George Keepseagle, of Fort Yates, N.D., are Keepseagle
Class Representatives and members of the Sioux Tribe; Claryca
Mandan, of Mandaree, N.D., is a Keepseagle Class Representative
and a member of the Hidatsa Tribe; Porter Holder, of Soper, Okla.,
is a Keepseagle Class Representative and a member of the Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma; and Ross Racine is Executive Director of the
Intertribal Agriculture Council.


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid as Moot in "Hill" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HILL v. SNYDER involves M.C.L. Section 791.234(6)(a), which
prohibited the Michigan Parole Board from considering for parole
those sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder. On
January 30, 2013, the court declared that M.C.L. Section
791.234(6)(a) is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles who were
convicted when they were under the age of eighteen.

Defendants have taken the position that the court's ruling applies
only to the Plaintiffs named in this action. In other words,
Defendants believe they may enforce the statute, which the court
has declared unconstitutional, with respect to other juveniles
sentenced to life in prison.

District Judge John Corbett O'Meara granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for a ruling on the scope of the court's January 30, 2013 order
and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

"The court now makes clear, Defendants are incorrect," says Judge
O'Meara.  "[E]very person convicted of first-degree murder in the
State of Michigan as a juvenile and who was sentenced to life in
prison shall be eligible for parole," he added.

The case is HENRY HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK SNYDER, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 10-14568, (E.D. Mich.).

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/4yagGVfrom Leagle.com.

Keith Maxey, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin --
dkorobkin@aclumich.org -- at American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan, Ezekiel R. Edwards -- eedwards@aclu.org -- at The
American Civil Liberties Foundation, Michael J. Steinberg --
msteinberg@aclumich.org -- at American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan, Steven M. Watt -- swatt@aclu.org -- at American Civil
Liberties Union &:

   Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
   Law Offices of Deborah A. LaBelle
   221 North Main Street, Suite 300
   Ann Arbor, MI 48104
   Tel: 734-996-5620
   Fax: 734-769-2196

Giovanni Casper, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah A. LaBelle.

Jean Cintron, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah A. LaBelle.

Nicole Dupure, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah A. LaBelle.

Dontez Tillman, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah A. LaBelle.

Jennifer Granholm, Defendant, represented by Joseph T. Froehlich,
Michigan Attorney General & Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan
Department of Attorney General.

Patricia Caruso, Defendant, represented by Joseph T. Froehlich,
Michigan Attorney General & Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan
Department of Attorney General.

Daniel H. Heyns, Defendant, represented by Ann M. Sherman, MI Dept
of Attorney General, Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of
Attorney General & Joseph T. Froehlich, Michigan Attorney General.

Thomas R Combs, Defendant, represented by Ann M. Sherman, MI Dept
of Attorney General, Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of
Attorney General & Joseph T. Froehlich, Michigan Attorney General.

Rick Snyder, Defendant, represented by Joseph T. Froehlich,
Michigan Attorney General & Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan
Department of Attorney General.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Distribution Plan Approved in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
At the behest of the lead plaintiff in In Re Washington Mutual,
Inc. Securities Litigation No. 2:08-md-1919 MJP, Case No. C08-387
MJP (W.D. Wash.), Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman in
Seattle approved a distribution plan for the Net Settlement Funds
in the class action.

The Claims Administrator, The Garden City Group, Inc., is directed
to conduct an initial distribution of the Net Settlement Funds,
after deducting the payments previously allowed and authorized,
and after payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing
appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees.

All of GCG's fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
administration of the Settlements and to be incurred in connection
with the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Funds are
approved, and Lead Counsel is directed to pay $373,540.81 out of
the Settlement Funds to GCG for the unpaid balance of such fees
and expenses.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Uui5k3from Leagle.com.

                     About Washington Mutual

Based in Seattle, Washington, Washington Mutual Inc. --
http://www.wamu.com/-- was the holding company for Washington
Mutual Bank as well as numerous non-bank subsidiaries.

Washington Mutual Bank was taken over on September 25, 2008, by
U.S. government regulators.  The next day, WaMu and its affiliate,
WMI Investment Corp., filed separate petitions for Chapter 11
relief (Bankr. D. Del. 08-12229 and 08-12228, respectively).  WaMu
owns 100% of the equity in WMI Investment.


WHIRLPOOL: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Defective Dishwashers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Kelowna woman has filed a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool in B.C. Supreme Court, alleging the
company's dishwashers are dangerously defective.

In her notice of civil claim, Natalie Bickert says her dishwasher
ignited on Dec. 11, 2012, filling her house with smoke and sending
her to hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning.

"It was a terrifying experience," Ms. Bickert said in a written
statement.  "I had no idea that my dishwasher was a fire hazard."

"After the blaze, I started researching this product on the
internet, and I found out that many other people across North
America have had the same problem.

"This makes me angry.  The company should recall or repair the
dishwashers, and they should warn consumers.  I don't want anyone
else in Canada to be hurt or maybe even killed by this product."

Whirlpool spokesperson Kris Vernier issued a statement on
Sept. 10, saying the company is in the process of reviewing the
complaint.

"We evaluate every report that is brought to our attention and
share the results with the appropriate government safety agencies,
including the U.S. Consumer Product Safety in the United States
and the Ontario Electrical Safety Authority, and Health Canada in
Canada," the statement reads in part.

"We will continue to monitor the safety performance of our
dishwashers and work closely with those agencies."

Ms. Bickert's lawyer Douglas Lennox of the firm Klein Lyons says
his research suggests there may have been as many as 600 similar
fires across North America.

"We are talking about a pervasive problem, and in Ms. Bickert's
case she is lucky to be alive."

Lennox is seeking to certify the case as a class action lawsuit.
He's chosen B.C. because under the Consumer Protection Act he can
seek an injunction ordering the recall of dishwashers.

Lennox says the case has the potential to see thousands of
Whirlpool-manufactured dishwashers -- including KitchenAid and
Kenmore -- recalled.

"This is a lawsuit that doesn't have to be about money at all," he
said.  "It's about fixing the problem."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Katten Muchin Discusses Sixth Circuit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stern, Esq. -- emily.stern@kattenlaw.com -- and Jason F.
Clouser, Esq. -- jason.clouser@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP report that the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit recently affirmed an Ohio district court's decision to
dismiss a securities fraud putative class action accusing
Defendant Zoo Entertainment, Inc., a video game software company,
of publishing financial statements with reckless disregard of
their falsity.  The court found that the allegations did not
support the strong inference of scienter required under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The complaint concerned financial statements Zoo issued during
2010, the year the company went public.  After claiming record
revenues in its 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission filings,
Zoo issued a press release in April 2011 stating that a year-end
audit revealed errors in recording certain transactions and that
its 10-Q statements for the first three quarters of 2010 should no
longer be relied upon.  Zoo lowered its 2010 quarterly revenues,
causing its stock value to plummet.  Plaintiff shareholder
Bruce E. Ricker sued, relying, in part, on information allegedly
from a confidential witness, a former employee in Zoo's accounting
department.  It was alleged that the confidential witness had
informed Zoo's CEO and CFO of payment problems with Zoo's most
significant customer account, which prevented the accountant from
accurately projecting cash flow.  Mr. Ricker also alleged that,
despite knowing about these problems, the CEO and CFO took no
action.  Mr. Ricker additionally alleged that Zoo's awareness of
its weak internal controls and the departure of high-ranking Zoo
officials following the restatement further supported a strong
inference of scienter.

After applying a "holistic analysis" of the shareholder's amended
complaint, the district court dismissed the complaint finding that
Mr. Ricker had not presented information tying the confidential
witness's allegations to the need to restate revenue.  Even
assuming Zoo knew about problems with its largest account, the
district court held that did not support a strong inference that
the company should have known its financial statements were false.
The Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that Ricker failed to meet the
pleading standard of alleging "unreasonable conduct that was an
extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care."  The court
recognized its duty to consider the whole of the complaint and
opposing plausible inferences, and found that the inference that
Zoo recklessly disregarded internal revenue recognition problems
with its largest account was not as strong as the opposing
plausible inference: that Zoo is a small company with an
understaffed and unsophisticated accounting department that simply
miscalculated revenues.  Further, despite a "long list of alleged
errors," the court found that Zoo failed to allege the "multiple,
obvious red flags" the court typically requires to infer
recklessness.

Ricker v. Zoo Entm't Inc. et al., No. 12-3951 (6th Cir. Aug. 27,
2013).


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Factory on Daniel Terrace
---------------------------------------------------------
The Transcontinental Port Augusta reported that large amounts of
asbestos have been found in the remains of an old factory on
Daniel Terrace.

According to the report, the factory, which was demolished decades
ago, had all the valuable leftover materials cleaned up but the
dangerous asbestos bits left behind.  The site is just down the
road from a residential area and next door to the railway yards,
the report related.

The asbestos was found after local Asbestos Victims Association
president Geoff Maul received a tip off, the report said.  Mr Maul
went out to the site and was appalled at what he found.  He
compiled a DVD and sent a copy to local state member Dan van Holst
Pellekaan and immediately contacted the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

The EPA got into contact with new landowners who have now begun
the removal and disposal effort.

Mr Maul is concerned for the health implications for people who
work and live in the area.  "One of our members had a workshop out
there and he isn't with us anymore," he said.

Mr Maul couldn't categorically say the member got his asbestos
related illness because of the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW School in Partial Lockdown Due to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a New South Wales school is in partial
lockdown after a student discovered asbestos in the playground.

According to the report, the alarm was raised after a student
found a piece of fibro in the grounds of Newcastle East Public
School.  The affected area was fenced off on August 12, the report
related.  An inspection that afternoon found more fragments and
almost all of the grounds were closed.

The students' outdoor area is now confined to a covered section of
the school and sporting activities are done at a nearby park.  A
school newsletter says the bonded asbestos presents minimal risk,
but it is compiling a register of children whose parents have
concerns.

The Education Department says it understands three students could
have been exposed but it is unsure of where the material came from
or how long it has been there.  The department says an asbestos
management plan has been prepared.  It says the affected grounds
will be levelled, covered with geo-tech fabric and returfed during
the next school holidays.  It will be about six weeks after that
before students are back on the playground.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Query Sparks Action in Dickson Gov't Office
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Cox, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that staff at
an ACT government directorate had an asbestos scare after a member
of the public brought a bag of the substance to a Dickson office.

According to the report, a spokeswoman for the Environment and
Sustainable Development Directorate confirmed that a "small sealed
bag allegedly containing asbestos" had been brought into the
directorate's offices at Dame Pattie Menzies House.

A member of the public had walked in with the bag on August 30 to
ask if staff could confirm if the substance was asbestos before
leaving, the report said.  Tests concluded it was asbestos.  The
spokeswoman said: "The directorate took immediate steps to ensure
that the material was isolated and the area made safe."  This
included notifying police and removing the material.

"Appropriate experts . . . were immediately contacted including
the police . . . the Environment Protection Authority, and an
independent expert to undertake testing and removal of the
material. The work areas were given the 'all clear' the next day
by the independent expert."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contaminated LA Schools May House Charter Schools
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
Los Angeles Unified School District may seek redevelopment
proposals for four of its abandoned school campuses in the
Woodland Hills area from charter schools and other organizations.
Early estimates put the total of necessary renovations needed to
ensure the four schools are updated and safe -- including
extensive environmental and asbestos remediation -- around $80
million.

According to the report, as the LAUSD moves closer to requesting
redevelopment proposals, district officials are wary: in years
past, the LAUSD has attempted to secure an outside organization or
charter school group to take on the hefty challenge of raising the
necessary capital to completely renovate the blighted school
buildings, but to no avail. The needs of the LAUSD has changed
over the years, and to best serve the community has left the
district's books riddled with abandoned properties.

Over the years, the LAUSD has been able to occasionally find a
suitable tenant for one of its vacant school buildings, but as the
years progressed, the upkeep of the empty buildings grew more
challenging year after the year, the report said.  Most of the
properties require extensive environmental remediation and
updates. Razing the schools is another possibility, but with it
comes a significant price tag. Estimates to raze and build new are
between $15 and $20 million per school.

Due to the age of some of the buildings, it will not be surprising
to find lead and asbestos. Safely removing lead and abating
asbestos is an extremely costly and, often, invasive procedure.
The use of lead and asbestos in new construction has long since
been banned, but it is very commonly found in buildings built in
the 1950s and 1960s. Exposure to asbestos and lead can cause some
serious medical conditions, and with asbestos, in particular,
exposure can lead to mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer.

Though, the land-rich, cash-poor LAUSD may find suitable
organizations to take the heavy burden of updating several of its
properties. School officials are confident that at least two of
the four promising school locations may find new inhabitants soon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Fibro Dumped at Site Near Kellswater
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballymena Times reported that hazardous asbestos dumped at a
bonfire site near Kellswater is still awaiting removal.  Now local
MLA Robin Swann, has demanded an investigation over the delay.

He said: "My office was contacted by local residents with concerns
about the dumping of asbestos waste on the site of the Eleventh
Night bonfire at Kellswater Bridge on the Slaght Road. On further
investigation, I have found out that the Roads Service has fenced
off the material while it awaits the arrival of a specialist waste
management contractor from England who is licensed to deal with
this material.

"I understand that the contractor will also remove material from
another Roads Service site in the Ballymoney area.

"Given the length of time the material has already been there and
the delay in having it removed, the dangers of contamination from
vehicles driving over the material and spreading it across a wider
area would appear to be significant.

"I have concerns on a number of issues; the time taken to remove
the material, the cost of bringing specialists from England to
deal with it, and the irresponsible and illegal actions of those
who dumped the material in the first place.

"I have asked my party colleague, Danny Kennedy MLA, the Minister
of Regional Development, to carry out an investigation into how
this work has been allocated and what targets his department have
in relation to the urgent removal of hazardous material from the
public highway," said Assemblyman Swann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phil Hammond Criticizes Fibro Quarry Stance
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Daily Press reported that TV personality and GP Dr Phil
Hammond has criticised a local authority for failing to help its
constituents stop an asbestos dump being allowed in the Chew
Valley.

According to the report, Mr Hammond has written an open letter to
Bath and North East Somerset Council regarding his public health
concerns surrounding an application to allow Stowey Quarry become
a landfill site for asbestos and inert waste.

Its owner Larry Edmunds' plan for the dump was rejected by the
council but he appealed, triggering a public inquiry -- the first
two days of which were at Keynsham's Fry Club and Conference
Centre, the report related.

At the beginning of the inquiry Mr Edmunds was granted permission
to amend his application, so that he was no longer asking to dump
"stable non-reactive hazardous waste" (SNRHW) as well as inert
waste and asbestos, the report said.

In his letter, Dr Hammond, who lives in nearby Bishop Sutton,
claims that by not presenting evidence B&NES is failing to fulfill
its statutory public health obligations.  He said: "Under
legislation brought in by this Government, B&NES is directly
responsible for both protecting and improving the public health of
its constituents. Its abdication from that duty in this case from
a failure to provide evidence when there is a risk of both
perceived and actual public health harm -- a recognised planning
objection -- could be legitimate cause for a negligence claim
should any harm ensue."

B&NES declined the opportunity to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repair Work on Seattle Building Exposes Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Chittim, writing for King5.com, reported that repair work
being done on a fire-damaged apartment complex in Seattle has
exposed a possible danger -- asbestos inside the damaged units.

According to the report, firefighters responded to a two alarm
fire in the 1100 block of South Massachusetts in July after an
explosion ripped through one apartment and set others on fire.

Paul Larson says since then, people may be living with asbestos in
the air, an independent investigation he paid for found it in his
apartment, the report related.  He believes the apartment managers
have been ignoring the laws protecting residents from asbestos
that was released during the fire, the report said.

Apartment managers won't confirm it, but apparently several people
have moved back in since the fire. The contractor in charge of
cleaning up the damage and protecting the residents arrived during
our interview.

"All of our process and procedures have been tested, have been
certified The Department of Labor and Industries and the
department of Puget Sound Air Quality." Said Ted Sitterley, V.P.,
Project Management, Belfor USA

Sitterley said the asbestos contamination is limited to areas that
have been sealed off to protect other residents who have been
fully notified of the process.

KING 5 said none of the residents it spoke to knew there was
asbestos work underway.  Work is underway to clear the debris and
remove the asbestos, but Paul Larson says the contamination is
inside his apartment and he'll pay for his neighbors to check for
it inside theirs.

KING 5 did a check with Washington State Labor and Industries.
Investigators say they found the contractors are following the
law, with a few exceptions. they were fined for having an
untrained worker on the project.

Larson says an outside company will send an inspector to check for
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Samoa College Closed for Fibro Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand International reported that a building at the
America Samoa Community College suspected of causing sickness
among students and teachers has been closed while tests are
carried out to determine whether asbestos is the cause.

According to the report, last month five staff members using the
building required treatment at the LBJ Hospital after they
developed breathing problems.

They experienced breathing problems and itching -- symptoms that
the Environmental Protection Agency's deputy director, Faamao
Asalele, says are consistent with asbestos exposure, the report
said.

However there is no one certified in the territory to look into
whether the building contains asbestos, the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Assures Safety of Fibro Pits
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Robertson, writing for Barrier Daily Truth, reported that
concern has been raised at the condition of many of Telstra's pits
which have damaged lids or are completely exposed like this one.

According to the report, Telstra says its pits pose no risk to
public safety despite the fact a number of them contain asbestos.

Missing or damaged lids on some pits has sparked concern people
could potentially be exposed to asbestos, a known cause of cancer,
the report said.

Asbestos cement was used widely in the construction of the pits,
which are scattered throughout the city under footpaths, up until
the 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Eastside Warehouse Fire Debris
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Disis, writing for IndyStar.com, reported that some of the
debris found in the remains of a four-alarm fire that burned on
the Near Eastside tested positive for asbestos, the Marion County
Public Health Department announced on Sept. 11.

According to the report, Department spokesman Curt Brantingham
said some samples from debris found in the 1300 block of Calhoun
Street -- just down the road from the fire's origin in a warehouse
in the 1500 block of East Van Buren Street -- contained asbestos.

Officials are still trying to determine the cause of the fire,
which burned in two abandoned buildings and almost threatened some
nearby homes, the report said.  The fire continued to burn until
the morning of Sept. 10, when officials began their investigation.

All of the samples were found within the same one-block radius,
Brantingham said, adding that the presence of asbestos did not
pose "an immediate risk" to the residents.

"But if people were to move it, disturb it," he said, "it could
make some of the particles go into the air."

Brantingham described the debris as a dark-colored tar-like
substance "almost like roofing."  He said public health officials
are posting notices on residents' doors alerting them to the
presence of asbestos, and asking them to call the health
department if they see any.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found on Graceville School Oval
------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Calligeros, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that
Graceville State School students and staff will have to wait until
investigations are complete to learn whether asbestos debris found
on the school oval has put them at risk.  However Education
Minister John-Paul Langbroek was quick to say he thought it was
"unlikely".

According to the report, speaking outside parliament on Sept. 10,
Mr Langbroek said the site had been immediately closed off when
the debris was discovered and air tests were currently being
conducted.

"We have a strong series of protocols that we enact whenever these
issues are raised," Mr Langbroek said.

"These protocols are being followed and the safety of students and
their teachers and the whole school community is what we are
committed to."

A letter sent to student's homes alerted parents to the discovery.

The debris was found during construction work at the school.
The state government has budgeted $40 million over two years to
remove asbestos from Queensland schools. But Mr Langbroek said the
process would take time.

"It is obvious that when you have a very, very big capital works
program -- and we have a number of schools that were built pre the
1990s and we are having a lot of construction and a lot of
maintenance -- we are going to have these issues of asbestos being
uncovered in some of the older sites," Mr Langbroek said.
The state's School's Asbestos Register, which details areas in
schools where asbestos has been identified, has more than 9000
pages.

Asbestos, left undisturbed, poses no danger.

Construction workers were hosing down the Graceville school's
oval.

In her letter to parents, acting principal Catherine Waldron said
access to the oval had been restricted.  "Testing has confirmed
that the debris contains asbestos," she wrote.

"Repairs and a professional clean are to be undertaken. The area
will remain restricted until a clearance is provided for its
reuse. These precautions will ensure that all students and staff
are kept safely away from the area."

Regional education director Chris Rider said "tight processes"
were in place around asbestos management at schools.

"We find asbestos from time to time during construction work," he
told 612 ABC Brisbane.

"We're on top of this and in control of it . . . everything is
perfectly safe at Graceville."

Authorities are conducting air and soil tests at the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trusts Should Consider Copying Share Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon C. Ogg, writing for 24/7 Wall St., reported that the carryover
effect of asbestos and the death and damages from mesothelioma are
both still many years away from coming to an end. In fact, some of
the new mesothelioma cases may still not even be discovered for
another decade or more. Armstrong World Industries Inc. has been a
public company since after its bankruptcy in late 2006. The
Armstrong World Industries Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust and Armor TPG Holdings, under the private equity firm TPG,
had more than 50% controlling interest and they are lightening up
on the position.

24/7 Wall St. does not view this as a localized or single-entity
issue. Mr. Ogg stated, "Our belief is that other asbestos trusts
around the country should consider copycat offerings like we have
just seen. The company makes and sells flooring products and
ceiling systems, and it is still living under the control of its
post-bankruptcy under its former employees' asbestos trust and
private equity.

Shares were within striking distance of a 52-week high of $58.48,
and the chart reads differently than the actual all-time highs
because of three one-time dividends of around $27 per share in
total since 2006.

What we find interesting about this offering is that it was
upsized to 12,057,382 common shares. The previous amount was to be
an offering of 10,057,382 shares, an indication of strong demand.
One thing helping the demand was that the company stepped up to
the plate and bought about half of the offering. Another reason
that asbestos trusts might want to consider doing copycat
offerings for their mesothelioma patients and future claims is
that the $51.75 offering price was never even seen on the
downside, and the stock is up from a week earlier and is back at
the highest level in months.

Wall Street often makes for a strange partner when it comes to
finances. It seems that the investment community is happy to have
this much less influence from the former Armstrong World employees
and dependents asbestos trust out from the daily workings of the
new Armstrong World.

As of December 12, 2013, the Armstrong World Industries Asbestos
Trust held more than 25.3 million shares of common stock. The pre-
offering control by the trust came to more than 40% of the value
of the more than $3 billion market cap of Armstrong World
Industries. In short, there are still many shares here that can be
sold in the future, and it was refreshing to see a secondary
offering this well received by Wall Street.

Also note that Moody's recently issued a negative outlook on
Armstrong World's corporate credit rating to reflect that the
controlling shareholders are negatively affecting Armstrong's
liquidity profile in an effort to enrich themselves. Still, the
stock went above its offering price.

You could almost make the argument that asbestos trusts around the
country might even be able to use Wall Street to their advantage
in this strong stock market. If you run an asbestos trust or are
in a mesothelioma class holding many shares of recapitalized post-
bankruptcy stocks, you might want to consider looking to see if
the Armstrong World situation is applicable to you."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paterson Awards Removal Contract in Office Rehab
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico, writing for NorthJersey.com, reported that the
City Council approved a $31,000 contract with a Totowa company
hired to remove asbestos floor tiles from municipal offices at 133
Ellison Street.

According to the report, last year, municipal officials had
assigned public works employees as well as inmates from a county
work program to remove the asbestos tiles, prompting a variety of
investigations. The state ended up issuing 13 occupational safety
and health violations in the case, but did not impose any fines
after the city agreed to hire outside experts to complete the job.

The Passaic County Sheriff's Office conducted its own inquiry into
the city's use of the work program inmates and afterwards asked
the state Attorney General to review the situation, the report
related.

Academy Construction Inc. posted the lowest of six bids for the
asbestos removal job, according to city documents, the report
added.  The highest of the bids was for $125,000.

Public Works Director Christopher Coke said the start date for the
asbestos removal had not yet been set.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dust Cloud Threatens Beagle Bay School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Cordingley and Rourke Walsh, writing for Broome Advertiser,
reported that parents have been keeping their children away from a
remote Kimberley school amid fears an old asbestos building being
demolished just metres away poses a serious health risk.

According to the report, an angry Jacinta Monck pulled her four
children, aged 6-11, out of Sacred Heart School in Beagle Bay
after part of its ceiling collapsed as water was being sprayed
onto walls to help stop particles becoming airborne.

The incident created a huge dust cloud while children played
during their lunch break, the report said.  "There was a loud bang
and a dust cloud had risen above the building being demolished,"
Ms Monck said.

"The children were all ushered into the classroom and two of the
school's employees ran over to say 'please stop work'.

"From that, it came that they would only work after school hours
for the asbestos removal."

Ms Monck was aware the work was happening but said a date was
never given to parents.

"I was not told about what happened until I got home because I
live on an outstation on the Dampier Peninsula," Ms Monck said. "I
was shocked and pulled my children out for the rest of the week."

"My thing is not with the contractors, it is with the timing of
the whole thing -- school holidays are just two weeks away. No one
had any forethought."

An incident report has been prepared for the Shire of Broome.

Mining and Pastoral Member Stephen Dawson has written to Minister
for Aboriginal Affairs Peter Collier calling for the work to be
suspended at the school.

In the letter, Mr Dawson said the dismantling of the structure
posed a risk to the health of children and urged Mr Collier to
postpone the works until school holidays.

"This will ensure that students are not necessarily taken out of
school as the community becomes increasingly concerned for their
children's welfare," he wrote.

After travelling to Beagle Bay and meeting with the school
principal Lyla Forte, Mr Dawson said work removing the asbestos
had not begun when he was there.  He could understand parents'
concerns and that children should not be at school while an
asbestos-ridden building was torn down.

Several calls to the school went unanswered.

In July the Broome Advertiser first lifted the lid on Aboriginal
communities plagued with abandoned buildings.

The Shire of Derby/West Kimberley said one of them in Bayulu were
a significant health risk because fibres had the potential to
become airborne.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs said the work to remove the
potentially deadly material in Beagle Bay was not a risk to the
public.

"The contractor is a Restricted Asbestos Licence Holder and has
advised the work being undertaken does not pose any risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9/11 Survivors Say Worries on Fibro Still Linger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that George Rolon
left his job in New York City and moved to Florida less than a
month after narrowly surviving the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center, hoping to escape his recurring nightmares and
start anew.

"It was not that easy. Too many good friends had died, and too
many visions of horror remained from Sept. 11. The toxic,
asbestos-laden dust cloud that engulfed him and everyone else in
lower Manhattan still lingers in his mind -- and possibly in his
lungs -- today," the report said.  It's an uncertain future he and
many others are forced to live with.

According to the report, as all of America commemorates the 12th
anniversary of 9/11 to honor the nearly 3,000 people who died, but
little will be said about those like Rolon who survived to ponder
an uncertain, uneasy future, caused by the 2,000 tons of
pulverized asbestos floating in the air for weeks.

The inhalation of microscopic asbestos fibers can cause a variety
of serious health issues, including mesothelioma, a deadly cancer
that develops decades after exposure.

While one recent study of 9/11 first responders revealed a 19
percent increase in other cancers, the impact of mesothelioma and
asbestos-related lung cancer won't be felt until decades from now.

"You can't really connect mesothelioma directly yet with 9/11
because of the long lag time that will be involved," Raja Flores,
M.D., chief of thoracic surgery at New York's Mount Sinai
Hospital, told Asbestos.com. "In 20 years, though, you'll see a
bump up (in the numbers).  It's common sense. Asbestos causes
cancer. We've already been seeing it."

No amount of asbestos exposure is safe. And while the majority of
mesothelioma cases in America usually come after lengthy
occupational exposure, many experts believe that exposure to such
a high concentration of asbestos on 9/11 -- even for one day --
will cause some serious, long-range health problems for many who
were there.

Victim Faces Uncertain Future

Rolon, 50, was working as a senior clerk for a major brokerage
firm on the fifth floor of the second tower to be hit. Many of his
friends on the upper floors didn't get out. He scrambled, like
everyone else, to get as far away as quickly as he could, covered
in toxic dust and struggling to find clean air.

When he finally reached his home in Jersey City -- about eight
hours later -- he was put through a detox center, where he was
hosed down under a tent and given new clothes.

"It was just something you never forget," he told Asbestos.com.
"Many times, I'd wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweat,
or wake up crying. I needed therapy. For a long time, I was scared
to go into elevators or tall buildings."

Rolon, who was single then, moved in early October 2001 to Central
Florida, where his parents lived. In the years since, he married
and started a family, which has helped soften some of his memories
from 9/11.

"It's always in the back of your mind -- What is down the road for
you? -- especially when you go in for a physical each year, or you
have any kind of breathing issue," Rolon said. "It's something
that never really goes away."

Future Risk Is Real

"It's difficult to know the absolute risk for each person, but I
would expect a rash of mesothelioma and lung cancer cases to begin
20 years after 9/11, and to peak about 40 years after 9/11," said
Craig Stevens, M.D., Ph.D., mesothelioma specialist at the Moffitt
Cancer Center in Tampa. "It is a looming health problem that is
underestimated right now by the general public."

Since 9/11, researchers at Mount Sinai have been following
approximately 30,000 first responders, including firefighters,
police officers, paramedics and those who were part of the early
cleanup efforts. They found that 30 percent had problems with
asthma, 40 percent with sinus issues and 40 percent with
gastroesophageal reflux, a common predictor of esophageal cancer.

And while many of those who worked near ground zero were equipped
with protective clothing and respiratory gear, hundreds of
thousands of Manhattan residents returned to their everyday
routine under the same dust cloud.

And those like Rolon who were running for their lives that day as
the twin towers collapsed, covered in dust and gasping for breath,
they still wonder what may eventually happen to them.

Everyone There Is at Risk

Nora Jean Quinn, who was working across Manhattan that day for a
global management company, didn't feel threatened by asbestos
exposure on 9/11, but put herself into danger during the next
couple months as a Red Cross volunteer.

"I never even thought about any danger from the haze and dust and
the burning debris," said Quinn, who lives now in Texas. "I just
wanted to go help fellow New Yorkers in trouble. Seeing those
people come running, looking like they'd been rolled in a vat of
flour, thick with a white and gray dust, with absolutely dazed
expressions, it was something you don't forget."

Quinn later joined the Army and spent almost a year in
Afghanistan, working close to the open air Burn Pits, where the
smoke from the solid waste attracted considerable attention from
environmentalists. It made her rethink what she had done to help
in New York City.

"All that asbestos material burning in New York, and I was right
there," she told Asbestos.com. "You have to wonder now what kind
of long-term effect it will have on you. It wasn't until after I
left New York that I started thinking, 'What have I done?' I try
not to think too much about it now."

Covered in Asbestos Cement

Eddie Watson, who lives on the east coast of Florida, was in
Manhattan on business that day, just a few blocks away when the
twin towers were hit, leaving him covered with debris and running
for his life.

"You had to put your shirt over your head to breath," he told
Asbestos.com. "The cement pieces just covered us like rain. It was
all over your face, your chest, your hair. The plaster just turned
into dust and came rolling down the street and covered us like a
tidal wave."

Watson, 79, who is retired, said he and the others he was with
that day have not suffered any respiratory issues, but there's no
guarantee for the future.

"We had to cover our faces to breathe," he said. "We have a prayer
group that meets every year and prays for the families involved. I
don't know if I'll ever go back to New York again, but I will
never, ever forget that day."

The deadline to register as a potential claimant with the 9/11
Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) is Oct. 3, 2013. If you were
injured by exposure to asbestos or other toxic materials at a 9/11
crash site, visit the VCF's website as soon as possible for more
information about registering. You may also contact the VCF at
(855) 885-1555.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AWA Concerned With Fibro Disposal in Port Augusta
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Transcontinental Port Augusta reported that the Asbestos
Awareness Association has warned young people about the dangers
associated with the deadly substance.

According to the report, president of the local AWA group Geoff
Maul is worried that expensive safe disposal methods are driving
young renovators and builders to undertake risky do-it-yourself
jobs.  Mr Maul would like to see government subsidies on the
removal and disposal of asbestos, the report related.

"Ninety-five per cent of the houses in the north, not just Port
Augusta, would have asbestos somewhere in them," he said.

"They should do something to encourage people to safely dump
asbestos."

In Port Augusta, non-friable asbestos can be disposed of at the
TPI Waste Transfer Station on Footner Road.

It needs to be wrapped and sealed in black plastic and prices
start at $133.50, with weights above half a tonne priced per tonne
at $267.

However the removal of asbestos can be far more costly with
SafeWork SA recommending the use of a licensed asbestos
contractor.

Port Augusta City Council director of infrastructure Hayden Hart
said asbestos could be affordably disposed of.  "The disposal of
asbestos need not be a daunting experience, it can be easily and
affordably disposed of at the Footner Road Waste Transfer
Station," he said.

"I also strongly encourage anyone considering removing asbestos
from their home to read through the SafeWork SA guide, which is a
great source of information."

The danger of asbestos arises when it is disturbed and the fine
particles and dust are breathed in.  It is usually 20 to 30 years
after a victim's first exposure to asbestos that symptoms of
disease show up.

Mr Maul had a simple message when it came to the deadly substance.

"Asbestos kills."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Brisbane Schools Face Fibro Scare
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that three Brisbane
schools are now facing asbestos scares.  According to the report,
Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek says letters have been sent
to the parents of students at Sandgate High School and Rainworth
State School regarding asbestos concerns.

The scares follow revelations that construction workers digging
trenches at Graceville State Primary School found asbestos there,
the report said.  Mr Langbroek says parents, students and teachers
at all three schools had been kept informed.  Mr Langbroek says
there are very clear processes to deal with any asbestos issues in
schools, including closing off areas and bringing in specialists
to do soil and air tests. He says in the Graceville case, two very
small, discreet pieces of asbestos have been identified.

"The soil and air testing has come back to show there are not
asbestos particles spread throughout those areas," he said.

Mr Langbroek says there's a very large amount of asbestos in
Queensland schools, dating back to the 1950s.

"We do remove (it). Over last financial year and this financial
year, we have a budget of $40 million to go towards removing
asbestos," he said.

"Given the amount of asbestos there though, it's a small amount.
But it's something that's at least planned and structured compared
to what was happening when I first came into parliament in 2004."

He says the LNP in opposition had to force the then Labor
government to act on things like flaking asbestos roofs.

The minister says all teachers, parents and students should know
their health is the priority in any matters relating to asbestos
in schools.

Asbestos is considered to be safe unless it is disturbed. That's
when asbestos fibres can be released into the air and inhaled,
risking severe and deadly respiratory disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harland and Wolff Disease Claims to Hit GBP150MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Magee, writing for BBC News Northern Ireland, reported that
some GBP150m in compensation is expected to be paid to former
Harland and Wolff workers who contracted asbestos-related diseases
while working at the shipyard.

According to the report, more than than 2,000 people have been
already been paid compensation.

Asbestos was a widely-used insulation material in shipbuilding
until the 1970s, the report said.

Many workers contracted asbestos-related diseases after they were
exposed to its fibres.

The legacy of the once government-owned Belfast shipyard is still
causing misery for thousands of former workers.

To date more than 2,000 former workers, relatives and contractors
who worked in the yard before it was privatised in 1989 have
successfully claimed for compensation at a cost of GBP60m. That is
an average of GBP30,000 each.

Billy Graham from east Belfast, who worked in ship repair in the
yard for 20 years, is one of the former workers who was awarded
compensation.

Range of diseases

He said: "We were told nothing about asbestosis. When you were
working with old boilers, there was an asbestos ring around them,
and we just pulled them off and the dust was flying everywhere.

"It's a big shock when you are told you have a mild form of
asbestosis. It does not get any better. It affects you that you
can't walk. You can't do certain things. You can't play with the
grandkids the way you used to. You are just beat."

The former employees are suffering from a range of diseases
including asbestosis, mesothelioma, pleural plaques and lung
cancer.

It is not just shipyard workers who were affected. In some cases
there was "secondary contamination" -- where people close to the
those working in the yard contracted an asbestos-related disease.

East Belfast man Eddie Harvey worked in the yard for 20 years. His
wife Margaret died in December 2008, aged 65, from fibres she
breathed in while washing his work clothes.

'Couldn't breathe'

Mr Harvey urged anyone who has been affected by asbestos in the
shipyard to claim against the Stormont Executive.

"I lost my wife to it, through washing my clothes. She couldn't
breathe in the end. She was in and out of hospital for three years
and tried to fight it. She went from being 12 stone to a frail old
woman of maybe five stone.

"Anyone who has it, make no mistake, they should go and claim
because the government says the money is there.

"Don't be afraid to. The government is not going to give you money
if you are not entitled to it."

The Department of Enterprise (DETI) at Stormont estimates it will
pay out another GBP89m for claims by people who have yet to be
diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. It expects the claims to
continue up until 2040 -- some 50 years after the government sold
the shipyard into private ownership.

After the privatisation DETI retained control of Harland and Wolff
PLC, which includes the liabilities for asbestos-related diseases
contracted by former workers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Bellevue Hill Playground
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Schiller, writing for Wentworth Courier, reported that
asbestos fears have hit Bellevue Hill for the second time this
year after a fragment of fibro material was found in a children's
playground used by a local primary school.

According to the report, Bellevue Hill Public School issued an
email to parents informing them of the asbestos discovery. It is
the second time this year the playground next to the school has
been investigated for asbestos contamination after similar small
fibro fragments were found in March.

An Education Department spokeswoman said the playground remained
out of bounds to students until further notice, the report said.

Anna Starostina's children regularly use the playground, the
report related.  She said it was "disappointing and concerning"
that asbestos had been found in the park twice within six months.

"It came as quite a shock to hear it had happened again because we
had been assured by council that the site had been cleared," she
said.

"It hasn't been that long since it happened the first time- I just
hope something hasn't been overlooked, because this material is
just sitting on the surface, right where the kids play."

Asbestos tests on the small 48-by-36mm sample discovered from the
playground came back positive, and Woollahra Council has now
commissioned consultants to conduct a complete site investigation
and air testing.

A council spokeswoman said that given the isolated fragment had
been safely removed and with further investigation of the site
under way, there was no need to close the playground at this
stage.

"We will take advice from the consultants and if we need to take
further action we will," she said.

"If we are advised of any risk to public safety we will move
quickly to close the playground."

Woollahra Council conducts weekly inspections of all its parks and
reserves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richland County Jury Awards $38MM in Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for The State, reported that a Richland County
jury has awarded a Wagener equipment worker and his wife $38
million in damages for health problems linked to exposure to
asbestos.

According to the report, following a 2-1/2-week trial, the jury
awarded plaintiff Lloyd Strom Garvin, 74, $10 million in actual
damages and another $1 million in actual damages to his wife of
50-plus years, Velda Garvin, for loss of consortium.

The jury also ordered defendants Durco and Crane Co. to pay
$11 million each in punitive damages to Lloyd Garvin, the report
related.  It ordered a third defendant, Byron Jackson, to pay
$5 million in punitive damages.

A spokesman for Crane said the company will appeal, the report
further related.  Among possible grounds for appeal are "no
credible evidence" and excessive and unwarranted jury awards, said
Terry Budd, a Pittsburgh lawyer who represents Crane.

"The verdict is flawed," Budd said. "We're definitely appealing."

Efforts to reach Charleston attorney Tim Bouch, who represented
Durco and Byron Jackson during the trial, were unsuccessful.

Durco, Byron Jackson and Crane are major companies that
manufacture pumps and valves. Garvin contended his years of
exposure to their asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in
valves and pumps that he used in factory and farm work caused him
to develop mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that plaintiffs
said was nearly always caused by asbestos exposure.

The jury was out some four hours and returned a final verdict
around 9 p.m. on the night of Sept. 11. Circuit Judge Garrison
Hill of Greenville presided.

Originally, Garvin's lawsuit named 13 defendants, but most had
been dropped or settled by the time the trial began Aug. 26.

Garvin's lawyers, Jessica Dean of Dallas and Theile McVey of the
Columbia firm Kassel McVey, argued at trial that defendants Crane,
Durco and Byron Jackson used asbestos in their products, should
have known about its dangers and failed to take action to warn and
protect people like Garvin who work around their products.

Garvin's testimony and cross-examination during trial was
presented to the jury by a video recording displayed on a large
courtroom screen.  He is currently recovering from double
pneumonia. His lawyers contended at trial that he has less than a
year to live because of his cancer.

During closing arguments, Garvin's attorney Dean asked the jury to
award $1 million in actual damages for each year of life that
Garvin was expected to miss because of his fatal disease. Garvin's
life expectancy would have been another 10 to 11 years, she
argued.

Attorney Robert Meriwether of the Columbia firm Nelson Mullins and
Bouch were the defendants' attorneys during trial.

According to a complaint in 2012 action, some of Lloyd Garvin's
exposure to asbestos-containing equipment and products came in
Wagener while working on his family farm, as well as while working
as a heavy equipment operator in West Columbia and Aiken.

The trial took place in Richland County because the complaint,
filed in 2012, alleged some of the exposure had a Richland County
connection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Montague Demolition Prompts Precautions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that asbestos in the old Montague High School
building has prompted special precautions to be taken as
demolition work begins.

According to the report, the province has confirmed asbestos in
floor tiles, wall plaster and pipe insulation in sections of the
school built in the 1960s.

Actual removal of the asbestos will begin in a week or 10 days.
But first the contractor must get approval of its work plan from
the province, detailing exactly how it intends to get the job
done, the report said.

The province has hired an environmental company to ensure the
contractor adheres to all safety guidelines, the report related.

Workers have already sealed off some areas inside the school that
contain asbestos.

Once the Worker's Compensation Board and the province give
approval, crews will remove materials containing asbestos, bag it,
and truck it away to certified disposal sites.

Tyler Richardson, manager of building design and construction for
the province, said officials will also be closely monitoring the
situation.

"There are very stringent protocols for removing asbestos.  Of
course asbestos is not dangerous unless you disturb it. So we know
of the protocols. We have to set up containment areas where the
asbestos is located. We actually create zones where we make areas
and put them under negative pressure with filtering systems and
everybody has to have proper attire on, respirators etcetera," he
said.

"We are very much aware that protocols have to be followed, given
the fact that we have residents and the school operating close
by."

The demolition site is located next to the intermediate school.

Despite close monitoring, some residents feel uneasy about the
work being done in the centre of town.

"I think it's dangerous for the junior high right beside it, for
the kids who come outside at lunchtime or at break time," said
April MacDonald.

The province says the only disruption to the nearby school or
residents may be some excessive noise.

But that's common in any demolition project, not just those
involving asbestos.

Inspectors can order the work stopped if they find problems.

The contract to do the demolition work was awarded to the lowest
bidder, A & L Concrete Forming Limited of Halifax.

Richardson hopes the $340,000 demolition project will be complete
by Dec. 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Moves on Huskisson's Fibro Cottages
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wright, writing for South Coast Register, reported that
crunch time is finally drawing near for the three derelict
asbestos cottages at Huskisson.

According to the report, after years of campaigning by the
community and numerous court cases by council to force the owners
to remove the buildings, action is finally being taken.

The property owners, who live abroad, have not complied with Land
and Environment Court orders to remove the buildings, the report
related.

The court orders provided provision for council to move in after a
considerable period of time and do the work.

Shoalhaven City Council development building manager Bob
Goldspring said that time had come and gone.

"Council would now start obtaining quotes and get a contractor in
to demolish the buildings and remove the material," he said.

Chairman of the Huskisson Woollamia Community Voice Garry Kelson
would not be surprised if Shoalhaven ratepayers end up footing the
bill to demolish the three asbestos cottages in Huskisson.

However he would rather see the derelict buildings on Murdoch
Street removed now and let the courts chase the owners for the
money later.

"We have been lobbying to have these buildings removed on the
grounds of safety for three years," he said.

"We are heading into prime holiday time. We also have the Hobie
World Championships coming up and these houses are right next to
Moona Moona Creek which is a very popular picnic area,
particularly with families.

"The buildings have been trashed and with the recent dry and windy
weather who knows how much asbestos has been blowing around."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg.'s Collapse Could Release Fibro Dust Cloud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Lawrence, Ayrshire Post, reported that a building's collapse
could release an asbestos dust cloud over Maybole, community
councillors fear.  And they are furious at the time it's taking to
get the old Co-op building demolished.

According to the report, the building has long been identified as
dangerous, and South Ayrshire Council has set aside GBP150,000 for
its demolition. But that was months ago, and now complications are
causing more delays.

"This building could fall down at any time," said Mark Fletcher,
chairman of Maybole Community Council.

"Part of the facade collapsed last year, and the A77 had to be
closed," he pointed out.

"It should have been demolished by now.

"And the council should have realised it wouldn't be just a case
of swinging a ball at it.

"A building of that age was always likely to contain asbestos. So
now they are going to have to shore it up to some extent, in order
to safely remove the asbestos.

"We are really concerned about this, as a building in this state
creates many risks for people in our community.

"And we are fed up to the back teeth of being ignored," added Mr
Fletcher.

The community council fired off a letter to South Ayrshire Council
leader Bill McIntosh.

"In fairness to Councillor McIntosh, he replied promptly and has
agreed to meet us," said Mr Fletcher.

"But we've been talking to the council about this for five years.
"And South Ayrshire had no idea who owned it.

"It was the community council who found the owner by paying for a
business search," added Mr Fletcher.  But the building's owner has
done nothing, and its derelict state is now having knock-on
effects.

A nearby cottage in Whitehall is also scheduled for demolition --
but Historic Scotland has lodged an objection.  And the cottage's
unsafe condition has led to the closure of public toilets next
door.

The Maybole Arms pub has had to deal with queues of people wanting
to use their loos.

The situation got so bad that pub bosses have put up signs saying
'customers only'.

Mike Newall is head of neighbourhood services at South Ayrshire
Council.

The council chief said: "The old Co-operative building is
privately owned and we served notice on the owners two years ago
to have it demolished as it was in a poor structural condition.

"There are signs of deterioration in the main roof to the front of
the building and the limited inspections we have been able to
carry out confirm there is asbestos present on the premise but the
survey does not show asbestos in these front sections of the roof.

"The owners have taken no action and our intention is to demolish
the whole building, although we do not consider the roof to be in
danger of immediate collapse.

"During the initial tendering process for the demolition, the
Health and Safety Executive advised that all material from the
building would have to be classed as asbestos-contaminated,
meaning we had to stop the process, widen the scope of our
demolition requirements and re-tender the contract.

"We intend to recoup all costs involved from the owners."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Tosses $14.5MM Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that a
three-judge Pennsylvania Superior Court panel has thrown out a
$14.5 million plaintiff's verdict in an asbestos case out of
Philadelphia, determining that the trial court should have granted
a mistrial because the plaintiff's attorney made prejudicial
remarks during closing arguments, and also due to the fact that
the judge erred in allowing certain expert witness testimony.

According to the report, Crane Co., Hobart Brothers and The
Lincoln Electric Company, who were the defendants who made it to
trial in the case, appealed the Feb. 23, 2011, multi-million-
dollar judgment in favor of plaintiff Darlene Nelson, who sued on
behalf of her late husband, James Nelson, over contentions that
the trial court erred in allowing the admission of Nelson's expert
witness testimony that every asbestos exposure must be considered
a cause of mesothelioma, according to the appellate court ruling,
which was handed down on Sept. 5.

The appeals judges vacated the hefty plaintiff's award and
remanded the case to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for a
new trial on damages, the report related.

Darlene Nelson sued a host of companies that dealt in asbestos
products over the mesothelioma related death of her husband, who
contended he developed the disease as a result of occupational
exposures during his career at the Lukens Steel Plant in
Coatesville, Chester County.

James Nelson, who worked as a pitman, laborer, welder and mechanic
at the plant during his decades-long career from 1973 to 2006, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in the winter of 2008, the record
shows.  He died a result of his cancer on Oct. 30, 2009.

In her subsequent complaint, the widow alleged that her husband
had been exposed to asbestos while working with pipe coverings,
gaskets, packing, furnace cement and something called "hot tops,"
which is an asbestos-containing board.

In February 2010, attorneys for Hobart Brothers and The Lincoln
Electric Company filed a motion seeking to preclude the testimony
of plaintiff's expert Daniel DuPont on the doctor's "each and
every breath causation" theory.

Crane Co. and others filed similar motions.

The court, which ordered the trial bifurcated, deferred the
motions until the liability phase of the trial was under way.

In early March 2010, following the completion of the first phase
in the trial, the jury found damages in excess of $14.1 million
for the plaintiff, the record shows.

The deposition of DuPont, the plaintiff's expert witness, was
taken 10 days later.

Attorneys for Crane Co. and the plaintiff agreed that defense
lawyers would object to the "each and every breath testimony," the
record shows.

Meanwhile, at the conclusion of phase two in the trial, jurors
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to liability.

The defense subsequently filed post-trial motions, which were
ultimately denied by the trial court judge in late February 2011.

Defense lawyers then filed their appeal with the state's Superior
Court.

One argument on appeal was whether expert testimony that "every
asbestos exposure must be considered a cause of disease" was
legally sufficient to establish causation under the facts
presented in this case in light of state court precedent.

In another defense argument on appeal it was alleged that the
trial court erred in denying a mistrial and in failing to grant a
new trial in response to post-trial motions where the structure
and size of the verdict demonstrated conclusively that the jury
was improperly prejudiced after a lawyer for the plaintiff
"repeatedly wrongfully appealed to emotion and interjected [their]
conduct into his closing argument" at the conclusion of both
phases of the trial.

Examples given of the conduct included the plaintiff's attorney
improperly urging a specific minimum amount of damages by stating
in his phase one argument that each of the 12 separate elements of
non-economic damages was worth "at least $1 million," and by
improperly injecting alleged settlement discussions into his phase
one closing argument by saying that Hobart and Lincoln "did not
place an adequate 'value' on Decedent's life, and 'has it dawned
on any of you yet that the reason we're here and the only reason
we're here is because I can't agree with these people with the
value of my client's life' and 'I can't agree with any of these
people on how much money should be awarded . . . for what has been
done in this case . . .'"

The appeals judges first turned their attention to the issue of
whether or not the trial court improperly allowed the each and
every exposure witness testimony by the plaintiff's expert.

DuPont, the expert witness, had testified that mesothelioma has a
long latency period and that each and every exposure to asbestos
is a substantial controlling factor in eventually developing
disease.

The Superior Court judges held that DuPont's testimony was
analogous to testimony in another asbestos mass tort case that was
found to be inadmissible, and that the trial court's admission of
it in the Nelson case was inconsistent with Supreme Court
precedent.

"The admission of this prejudicial evidence was reversible error,"
the appeals panel wrote. "Therefore, we vacate the judgment and
remand for a new trial as to liability. Because of the resolution
of this issue, we need not address the other issues raised
relating to the liability phase of the trial."

The panel next turned to the issues raised as to the damages phase
of the trial, including the defendants' contention that the
plaintiff's lawyer made improper remarks during closing arguments.

Hobart and Lincoln asserted that Nelson's lawyer improperly asked
the jury to award $12 million in pain and suffering damages, while
Nelson countered that her attorney didn't suggest a specific
amount and that if there was prejudice, it was cured by the trial
court's jury instructions regarding damages.

Hobart and Lincoln averred that the trial judge's instructions on
damages had no curative effect, and Crane averred that the
plaintiff's counsel improperly suggested a value of at least $1
million on each of 12 separate items of damages, the record shows.

The appeals judges agreed with defense attorneys that Nelson's
lawyer suggested a value of at least $1 million for each of the 12
types of damages, and they disagreed with the trial court that its
jury instructions cured the "taint of [Nelson's] counsel's
improper suggestion of a specific sum for non-economic damages to
the jury."

Superior Court Judges Jacqueline Shogan, David Wecht and James
Fitzgerald participated in the decision.

Wecht filed a separate dissent in which he disagreed with the
majority's conclusion that DuPont's testimony was subject to
exclusion as a matter of law, and the determination that a
mistrial should have been declared due to Nelson's attorney's
closing comments.

"I believe, respectfully, that the learned majority has
substituted its judgment for that of the trial court in
determinations properly entrusted to that court's discretion,
which are reversible only for an abuse thereof," Wecht wrote. "I
detect no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on
these issues."

As for the issue involving the expert witness testimony, Wecht
wrote that the Nelson case is distinguishable from the case cited
by the majority panel, Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC.

"While Betz is the most recent in a serious of opinions
circumscribing the range of expert testimony that may be admitted
to establish substantial causation in asbestos litigation, I do
not believe that it is dispositive of the case at bar," the jurist
wrote.

The Betz case, Wecht wrote, was one in which substantial causation
rose or fell solely upon the every-exposure theory that is now
disfavored under state law.

In cases such as Betz, the jurist continued, the plaintiff had no
choice but to rely upon the every-exposure theory because the
exposure at issue was de minimus as to the defendants' products.

"Thus, the plaintiffs could establish substantial causation only
if expert testimony based upon the every exposure theory was
admitted," he wrote. "The case before us, however, is
distinguishable. James Nelson undisputedly was exposed to a great
deal of asbestos-containing products over many years of
employment, some of them undisputedly manufactured by one or more
of [the defendants]."

Unlike the plaintiff's expert in Betz, Wecht wrote, DuPont,
Nelson's expert, was "intimately familiar with [Nelson's] exposure
history.

Wecht also disagreed with the majority that the plaintiff's
attorney's closing comments prejudiced the jury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Work at Old Bryan Foods Plant
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that demolition work at the old
Bryan Foods plant in West Point has stopped after crews discovered
asbestos.

WTVA-TV in Tupelo reported that the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality is going to take a look at the plant and run
a series of tests before work can resume on removing the old
buildings.

The city of West Point is using a Brownfield grant to further
analyze the site for other contaminants, the report said.

Kohart Salvage and Surplus of Paulding, Ohio, took ownership of
the plant in 2010, the report related.

Sara Lee Corp. of Downers Grove, Ill., closed the plant in March
2007, putting more than 1,200 people out of work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Dust Still on Many Rwandan Houses
------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Mwema Bahati, writing for AllAfrica.com, reported that
while asbestos has been labeled by Rwanda Housing Authority as a
hazardous material, even some government institutions are still
housed in building which have it in their roofing sheets.

According to the report, statistics by the World Health
Organization indicate that 125 million people worldwide are still
exposed to asbestos, which can cause cancer and lung diseases.

According to Frederic Bizimana, the coordinator of the asbestos
removal project in RHA, a study conducted revealed that asbestos
used in Rwanda contains between 30 to 40% of hazardous chemicals.
What makes it even more dangerous is that the effects on one's
health from exposure to asbestos can sometimes take decades to
manifest themselves, and are difficult to cure.

In a documentary made by the Rwanda housing authority, Dr.
Emmanuel Musabeyezu of King Faisal hospital says there is no
specific cure for asbestos fibers in the lungs of a patient apart
from providing him with oxygen

Toshikazu Mito, an expert in asbestos, advises people not to touch
the material with their bare hands, and not to try and dismantle
it themselves but resort to specialized entities. "Although
asbestos is dangerous, you don't need to get panic, you only need
to evacuate," he says.

Bizimana indicates that nationwide 2,309,905m2 of asbestos have
been removed from houses since the decision was taken in 2009, yet
there are still 1,068,190m2 remaining.

"We have a plan to remove asbestos completely in three years, and
institutions have been warned to do so during the national
dialogue."

He explains that the delay for its removal at some government
institutions is caused by the lack of a specific budget, but in
the last national dialogue every institution has been allocated a
budget in this financial year to replace their roofs. About Frw 13
billion francs has been set apart for the exercise.

"We have a plan to remove asbestos completely in three years, and
institutions have been warned to do so during the national
dialogue," Bizimana points out, adding that that places that
receive many people like hospitals, schools, and military and
police camps have been identified as priorities.

One of these buildings is, strangely enough, the Kigali university
teaching hospital (CHUK), a referral hospital in the country. Its
sister institution CHUB is also affected.

Commenting on the presence of asbestos at these health
institutions, Dr. Theobald Hategekimana, the director of CHUK,
says asbestos is hazardous only when it is damaged and dust is
released. "When people breathe in this dust, it can cause cancer
in the long term. That is the only problem," he said, adding that
at the moment there is no risk whatsoever for the patients at the
hospital.

Yet he notes that there is now a plan to remove the asbestos
roofing in order to comply with the regulations.

While government institutions are waiting for the budget
allocation to start that action, for individuals, too, money is
often the main obstacle.

According to Lorenzo Nshizirungu, the managing director of The
Live Architecture Ltd, one of the companies that remove asbestos,
many people whose house has an asbestos roof do not have the means
to have it removed by specialists and put on a new roof.

Once removed, asbestos is buried in order to prevent the dust to
get into the air or the risk of it being used again. In this
respect, RHA targets to set up collection points in Huye, Kayonza,
Ngoma, Muhanga and Rubavu district, where asbestos can be dumped
and later buried.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Wants Duty to Warn Expanded
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that in its opening brief in the
California Supreme Court, asbestos defendant Special Electric has
asked the high court to reverse an intermediate appellate ruling
that reinstated a $5 million verdict, arguing that the
sophisticated user rule should include sophisticated purchasers
and intermediaries.

According to the report, in a brief filed Sept. 10 in California's
highest court, the defendant says that it never had possession of
any asbestos and was merely a broker of asbestos fiber from
Central Asbestos Company in South Africa to Johns-Manville.

William and Jacqueline Webb filed the lawsuit, seeking damages for
William's mesothelioma, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules Movie Prop Man Died From Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Hall, writing for The Herts Advertiser 24, reported that a
film prop master who worked on The Sweeney and Empire of the Sun
died due to asbestos exposure, a coroner ruled.

According to the report, Gordon Billings, of Hill End Road, St
Albans, had a history of shortness of breath and coughing and died
on August 13 this year at Harefield Hospital from lung cancer.

A biopsy of the left lung carried out at the Royal Brompton on May
28 diagnosed mesothelioma and he was admitted to Watford General
Hospital on August 11 before being transferred to Harefield in
Middlesex, the report related.

An inquest heard that Mr Billings had a career history which would
have risked exposure to fibres, including a post at British Rail
which involved clearing dust from trains.  His job at Associated
British Cinemas and EMI as a prop man saw him regularly cleaning
out derelict buildings in East London.

Once or twice a year the 78 year old would sweep up and throw away
corrugated sheet metal, known for its asbestos content, in just
his regular clothes.

The Welshman, originally from Mid-Glamorgan, said in a witness
statement read out by Assistant Deputy Herts Coroner Alison Grief
that he was not aware of being exposed to asbestos but that sets
were often made alongside him.

While working on The Sweeney in the early '70s there were certain
areas he could not go into as they were roped off for
contamination, and during his time on location for Steven
Spielberg movie Empire of the Sun at Greenwich power station he
had to sweep dust and debris from the floor.

The assistant deputy coroner ruled the death as due to industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Majority Owners Get $620MM in Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Mekeel, writing for Lancaster Online, reported that the
majority shareholders of Armstrong World Industries have 600
million reasons to become minority shareholders.

According to the report, Armstrong disclosed new details of the
stock sale by its majority owners -- the Armstrong Asbestos
Personal Injury Settlement Trust and private equity firm TPG.

The trust and TPG will sell 12.1 million of their Armstrong shares
to an underwriter for $51.41 and $51.75 each, generating $620.0
million for them, the report related.

Armstrong then will buy 5.1 million of the shares from the
underwriter and hold them in its treasury.  That will reduce the
number of outstanding Armstrong shares to 54.1 million.

After Armstrong repurchases those 5.1 million shares, the trust
and TPG will own 35.9 percent of Armstrong's remaining outstanding
shares.  That's down from 53.2 percent prior to the transaction.

Completion of the sale will mark the first time the trust -- alone
or with TPG -- does not own a majority of Armstrong stock since
the company emerged from bankruptcy in October 2006.

The trust and TPG own their shares separately but act in concert.
They last together sold a large block of their Armstrong stock
last November, when they sold 6.0 million shares for $51 each.

Going into this latest divestiture, the trust had 25.4 million
shares and TPG had 6.1 million.  In this transaction, the trust is
selling 9.3 million shares and TPG 2.7 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Seeks Review of Class Precedent
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that following the Fifth Circuit's refusal to
throw out investors' claims against Halliburton Co. over losses
allegedly suffered due to the company's misrepresentations of
liability in asbestos litigation, the energy giant asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to overturn controlling precedent regarding
requirements for investors to prove reliance on material
misstatements.

According to the report, in a petition for certiorari, Halliburton
asked the high court to review its landmark 1988 ruling in Basic
Inc. v. Levinson -- which established the fraud-on-the-market
theory of reliance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Over Pilbara Rail Plan
---------------------------------------------------
Kate Emery, writing for The West Australian, reported that a
Pilbara council has raised health concerns about Rio Tinto's plan
to build a rail line near the asbestos-contaminated former town of
Wittenoom.

According to the report, Rio has submitted environmental documents
for a 167km line that would avoid the former townsite, abandoned
by all but three residents, but go through the wider Wittenoom
asbestos management area.

Wittenoom is declared unfit for habitation because of its deadly
blue asbestos, mined in Wittenoom Gorge until the late 1960s, the
report related.

The Shire of Ashburton is concerned workers could be at risk and
wants indemnity from litigation if the railway goes ahead.

The line would link Rio's Koodaideri project to its existing rail
line. However, the study phase for Koodaideri is still under way
and there is no final decision on how to develop the mine.

Koodaideri could become one of the biggest Pilbara's iron ore
mines, exporting up to 70 million tonnes a year.

But some analysts believe its estimated $US3.2 billion cost means
it might be delayed.

An Environmental Protection Authority spokesman said Rio's
Koodaideri project was being assessed at the highest level before
a report went to the Environment Minister.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Receive Update on Fibro Discovery in Park
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Simpson, writing for Sarnia Observer, reported that
standing just feet away from where asbestos and lead were
discovered in Centennial Park, Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley promised
victims of occupational disease that the popular waterfront park
would be reclaimed by the community.

"We're going to show that you don't run away from these issues,"
he told the crowd, the report related.  "You don't say we don't
want to talk about the bad things. What we're going to do is use
this an example . . . that we are a community, we're family and
we're going to talk about the things we don't like in the family
sometimes, the things that have hurt us, but in this case, we've
made it a healing experience."

A large portion of the park's north end has been fenced off for
months since contaminated soil was discovered there in the spring.

Since then, the city has been in contact with the Ministry of the
Environment, the county's health unit and the local occupational
health clinic, Bradley noted. He expects a proposed remediation
plan will be ready for the public in a few weeks.

"When we reclaim the park, we're going to make that (Victims of
Chemical Valley) memorial stand up because we have shown we're not
afraid of asbestos, we're not afraid of governments, we're going
to take them on and challenge them, and we're going to give our
next generation a better life," Bradley said.

The mayor was asked to specifically address the issue of
Centennial Park at the third annual Walk to Remember Victims of
Asbestos and Occupational Disease.

This year, participants hung photos of their loved ones around the
temporary fence surrounding the Victims of Chemical Valley
Memorial. They also marched with a new banner compliments of an
anonymous donor after their previous banner had been stolen from
the park.

"This entire community has been really affected (by occupational
disease) -- not by one member in each family but often multiple
members," said Sandy Kinart, chair of Victims of Chemical Valley.

Cheryl Orrange knows this firsthand.  She has lost several members
of her family to asbestos-related disease, including her father
who worked at Holmes Insulation.  In 2011, her husband Charlie,
who worked at Dow Chemical, was diagnosed with four primary
cancers and later died at the age of 70.  Orrange herself has been
diagnosed with pleural plaques linked to asbestos exposure.

"Was it from hugging my dad so many years?" she said, fighting
back tears. "Who knows?"

Family members of occupational disease victims also spoke of the
struggle to have WSIB claims processed.

Hamilton activist Kim Hoover brought her WSIB Chain of Shame to
Centennial Park, wrapping the paper link chain around fencing
along the waterfront.  Hoover said the chain contains the names of
280 injured workers and the 324 names of WSIB employees on the
sunshine list.

"I've been challenged to wrap (the chain) around Queen's Park
before June 1 (Injured Workers' Day) next year," she said.

Participants wrapped up the walk with a glow stick-lit vigil near
the site of the Victims of Chemical Valley Memorial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY Renovators Admit Taking Fibro Risks
--------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Fram, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reported that home renovators are risking death by not protecting
themselves from asbestos, according to an article in the latest
issue of the Medical Journal of Australia.

According to the report, research based on a NSW questionnaire
shows around six in ten DIY renovators have been exposed to
asbestos, but fewer than 15 per cent say they regularly use
protection.

A high proportion of home renovators say other family members,
including children, have been exposed as well.  Just under a third
say they use protection occasionally.

Asbestos can lead to deadly malignant mesothelioma many years
after exposure, and the article says Australia has one of the
highest rates of the cancer in the world.  Asbestos has been
banned in Australia since the 1970s, but all homes built before
the mid-1980s are potentially risky.

The researchers, led by Associate Professor Deborah Yates from St
Vincents Hospital in Sydney, acknowledge there is a lack of
clarity about how much exposure is dangerous.

"Whether exposure during home renovation will result in disease in
the future remains to be seen. However, this entirely preventable
exposure needs to be addressed," they write.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miscommunication Means Fibro Left in Fla. School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that some
Tice Elementary School students will remain displaced in temporary
classrooms as the school continues to remove left over asbestos.
School officials reveal that a 'miscommunication' with the
contractor performing extensive renovations and updates at the Lee
County, Florida elementary school meant that some of the asbestos
slated for removal was left. Now, Tice Elementary School officials
are asking for an additional $350,000 to finance the remaining
asbestos abatement work.

According to the report, it is unclear what the 'miscommunication'
was or how it lead to asbestos remaining in Tice Elementary
School, though school officials are confident that the left over
asbestos will be safely removed. In accordance to the school
district regulations, every school property is inspected by
asbestos abatement contractors for asbestos every three years.

Students in the second grade through fifth grade are housed in
temporary classrooms as the asbestos abatement work continues.
However, students in the lower grades have already returned to the
newly updated and renovated classroom spaces. After the school-
wide renovations are complete, classrooms will be equipped with
smart boards and computers.

Though the extensive renovations are burdensome for students and
faculty, many parents are happy that the historic building is
getting a much-needed facelift.

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral used primarily in
building supplies and materials. During the manufacturing process,
asbestos is often combined with other materials to increase the
products' strength, durability and flame resistance. Though
asbestos has been banned from use in the United States for years,
products containing asbestos can be found in buildings constructed
during the twentieth century.

Classified as a carcinogen -- or a cancer-causing agent --
exposure to asbestos can lead to several serious medical
conditions including lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma
cancer. Since asbestos is highly toxic, professional asbestos
abatement contractors are recommended to handle the safe removal
of asbestos from any building. Mishandling asbestos can cause the
material to break a part, releasing toxic particles into the air.
Breathing in contaminated air can become deadly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Not Told of Flats' Fibro Removal Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
John-Paul Holden, writing for Edinburgh News, reported that an
outraged couple has told how council workers in masks and
protective suits descended on their block of flats without warning
to remove deadly asbestos.

According to the report, council tenants Sandra Marshall and
Ulrich Lauxen were stunned to open the front door of their
Muirhouse flat to discover the men extracting the cancer-causing
insulating material.

Asbestos can prove lethal when disturbed, releasing tiny crystals
which cause killer illnesses if they are inhaled.

Ms Marshall, 52, and Mr Lauxen, 53, said they were completely
unaware of the operation and slammed housing leaders for failing
to inform them and other tenants who may have wanted to vacate the
building.  Ms Marshall, a community worker, said: "I was wondering
why there were people with suits and gas masks on in the building,
yet the tenants were given nothing protective -- it was a strange
situation to be in.

"As far as I know, the law is that people have to be informed the
asbestos is going to be removed from somewhere.

"If they had communicated that there was asbestos that had to be
removed, then people could have got out. I'm angry this wasn't
done."

Complaints came after specialist housing teams visited the
Muirhouse block of flats to remove a quantity of asbestos from its
roof exterior as part of ongoing refurbishment work.

Ms Marshall and Mr Lauxen -- who came to Scotland 11 years ago
from Cologne, Germany -- said removal teams were careful to make
sure residents stayed behind closed doors while the asbestos was
extracted and taken away.  But they questioned why more had not
been done to let tenants know the potentially dangerous work would
be carried out.

Mr Lauxen said: "I feel shocked -- I think the residents should
have been put in a hotel or a bed and breakfast for two days. We
should have been moved for two days while it was taken out. That's
what you would do in Germany or Sweden or Norway."

City housing bosses claim residents were notified about the
refurbishment work and the dates on which it would take place. But
the letter they sent to residents failed to mention workers would
be removing asbestos.

A council spokeswoman defended the work, saying careful testing of
the asbestos by specialist staff established there was no risk to
residents.  She added: "As part of the refurbishment of Muirhouse
Grove, some external roof-level materials containing asbestos were
removed.

"The level and type of asbestos were carefully tested before
specialist contractors began the operation and I can confirm there
was no risk to residents or the public while this work was carried
out."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumpers Add Costly Tab to Fibro Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Emma Spillett, writing for Illawarra Mercury, reported that
Wollongong City Council is set to invite people to "dob in a
dumper" via a new education guide, aimed at cutting down illegal
asbestos dumping in the region.

According to the report, during the last financial year alone, the
council spent more than $62,000 disposing of illegally dumped
asbestos -- a figure Greens councillor Jill Merrin believes could
be significantly reduced through better education and
surveillance.

The report related that councillors have unanimously endorsed
plans to produce an educational guide to inform residents about
asbestos removal including listing businesses offering
professional disposal services.

Cr Merrin also put forward a motion, calling for a publicity
campaign asking people to "dob in a dumper".

"I think people around Wollongong often suspect that someone is
illegally dumping asbestos materials," she said.

"They might see trucks dumping things but don't know what to do -
if we provide them with a hotline to call, it could definitely
provide that extra level of surveillance."

A proposal to establish an asbestos disposal facility at Whytes
Gully has also been moved forward after the council resolved to
carry out a feasibility study to determine the cost and time
required to set up the program. A report to council said there
were "major practical considerations" for accepting asbestos at
the Kembla Grange tip due to limited space and the need to isolate
asbestos waste.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guadalupe County Workers Moved During Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Lucero, writing for KENS5, reported that an environmental
safety threat forced Guadalupe County staff to relocate
temporarily citing mold and asbestos found in the county's
agriculture building.

According to the report, on Sept. 16, the commissioner's court
held an emergency meeting on the matter. Guadalupe County
Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the 2014 budget, and County
Judge Larry Jones, said some commissioners want to add a $1.5
million renovation of the agriculture building to next year's
budget.

The judge said mold and asbestos in the building have been there,
and were tested a few years ago and it was determined not be a
public health threat, the report related.

Employees were still asked to move their daily operations into the
Guadalupe County Justice Center until the county gets back
environmental test results evaluating the building conditions.
Jones said the county attorney warned him the county could be
liable, so he evacuated employees.

The building is used by staff and the public. The asbestos is
found in the glue used on floor tiles, and there has been some
mold from the condensation on the air conditioning ducts.

"I don't want that stuff in any body's," said Guadalupe County
Commissioner Jim Wolverton. "We may be fine today, but somewhere
down the line you could become ill. l dad gum sure this doesn't
happen in this community. All we were doing is being proactive
getting these people out of a potentially dangerous situation."

"I just suspect that I'm trying to pass a budget and now some
court members want to remodel that building and it looks to me
that don't think there's an emergency," said Jones.

The ordered environmental report should be late next week. At that
point the Jones said he'll call another emergency meeting to
decide what to do.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Center Offers Tips for US Navy Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Our new tips are
aimed at US Navy Veterans exposed to asbestos while serving on any
US Navy ship and have been diagnosed with any type of lung cancer
or mesothelioma. Not enough people are being compensated for these
illnesses so our tips are designed to better inform all diagnosed
victims of asbestos exposure lung cancer or mesothelioma."

"We fear many diagnosed victims of lung cancer or mesothelioma are
US Navy veterans that are not aware they may be eligible for what
could be significant financial compensation. Because of a lack of
information on these issues, we developed a tip sheet for the
victim to ask his/her medical doctor. The goal is to obtain
answers to key questions about the victims actual condition, that
in turn will help the Victims Center make certain that everything
possible is done to assist these individuals in receiving the best
possible compensation."

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center has compiled a what-to-do
list for diagnosed victims of lung cancer, or families who fear
mesothelioma and a loved one exposed to asbestos while serving in
the US Navy:

The attending physician needs to examine chest x-rays for any
indication of asbestos scaring, especially if the US Navy Veteran
is a non smoker, or has not smoked in sometime.

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center is urging diagnosed
victims of lung cancer to ask the attending physician if there are
any visible masses or tumors on the lungs.

If so, can a biopsy be done to examine the mass or tumor to see if
it could be mesothelioma?

Diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, lung cancer victims who were
exposed to asbestos at work, or their family members can call the
Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466, if
they have any questions.

"There are currently 20 million US Navy Veterans. If they have
been diagnosed with lung cancer and they were exposed to asbestos
on a US Navy ship, we want to hear from them, especially if they
are a nonsmoker or have not smoked for some time."

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "If a US Navy
Veteran or person had workplace exposure to asbestos, we strongly
encourage a yearly chest X-ray. The X-ray should focus on excess
fluid build up in the lungs, and or asbestos scaring of the lungs.
For more information about asbestos exposure symptoms, please
visit MedicineNet's web site devoted to the topic."

If a US Navy Veteran or any person that has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma, or any type of asbestos exposure lung cancer, the
Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center will direct the victim or
family members to the nation's most skilled and capable
mesothelioma attorneys, or asbestos exposure law firms. These
extremely competent legal experts consistently get the best
financial compensation results for their clients. For more
information, any victim of mesothelioma or lung cancer victim are
urged to call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center at 866-714-
6466. http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "According to the
Centers for Disease Control the top six states for individuals
diagnosed with mesothelioma include: Maine, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington. Both Washington,
and Maine have major shipyards. Other states with major shipyards
include California, Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Maryland,
Florida, and Texas." For more information about a rare form of
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, or lung
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos please visit the US Centers
For Disease Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm

According to the CDC, high risk workplaces for asbestos exposure
include the US Navy, shipyards, power plants, manufacturing
factories, chemical plants, oil refineries, mines, smelters,
aerospace manufacturing facilities, demolition construction work
sites, railroads, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto
brake shops. With mesothelioma, or lung cancer caused by asbestos
exposure the cancer may not show up until decades after the
exposure. As long as the victim, or their family members can prove
the exposure to asbestos, we will do everything possible to help
them get what might be significant financial compensation. For
more information please call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims
Center anytime at 866-714-6466 or visit
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found Outside Skip Hire Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Morris, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that deadly
toxic waste left on an access road was just one of many hazards
uncovered during an inspection of a North-East skip hire company.

According to the company, asbestos sheets were left uncovered in
skips and on the ground of the road leading to the Darlington-
based Albert Hill Skip Hire company, according to evidence given
by an Environment Agency officer at Teesside Crown Court on
Sept. 17.

At the trial of the company's director, Paul Shepherd, and his
brother Raymond, officers described the scenes that met them
during an inspection of the waste transfer site at Dodsworth
Street in June 2011.

Environment Agency officer Rachel Elaine Adams said several skips
-- some branded with the Albert Hill Skip Hire name -- were left
outside of the site, in violation of its permit.

She said: "Some of these skips contained items I believed to be
asbestos sheeting . . . there was no security surrounding the
asbestos skips.

"Some of the asbestos material had fallen out of the skips and was
on the road about 100m outside of the permitted site."

Several large mounds of mixed waste -- including plastics, wood,
bricks and rubble -- found within the grounds of the site could
also have posed dangers to the environment and to people,
according to Mrs Adams.  She said: "In my opinion, the waste had
just been stock-piled there and had built up over time."

The Shepherd brothers deny a number of charges relating to serious
environmental breaches at the firm's Dodsworth Street site as well
at as their site on Whessoe Road, Darlington and at the West
Musgrave Farm -- operated by the company in St Helen Auckland,
County Durham.

The trial continues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Property in Melbourne's West
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Leow, writing for Property Observer, reported that a run-
down house in Melbourne's west may be contaminated with asbestos,
which has caused much distress to its tenants.

According to the report, the house has been leased by a family,
who believes there is exposed asbestos in the house as well as in
a shed on a neighbouring property.

The family has sought assistance from their local council but
allegedly received no help. They then turned to building
inspection company Jim's Building Inspections to conduct an
assessment of the property and verify the presence of asbestos.

Jim's Building inspector Phil Smallman determined that asbestos
was present on the property after an initial inspection. He has
since sent off a sample to the lab for testing.

"Once we have the results back from the lab we hope that the
landlord and rental agencies will enable the family to break the
lease, or provide alternative accommodation whilst the asbestos is
removed," Smallman said.

The tenants are currently negotiating with the property agent to
break the lease. If unsuccessful, they plan to take the cast to
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Smallman has also expressed concerns about the adjoining shed on
the neighbouring property.

"We believe the family living there, who are also probably
renters, have recently arrived in Australia and may not be aware
of the dangers."

"Our clients say they are often outside playing cricket against
the shed and the ball is constantly pounding and damaging the
cladding. If it is asbestos this is very dangerous," he said.

Smallman added that Jim's Building Inspections will assist with
documentation to formally notify neighbouring occupants, the
owners of the neighbouring property, as well as the local council,
as he feels someone needs to take responsibility.

In addition, he recommends anyone who suspects asbestos in their
property to conduct a professional property inspection and get
testing done to ascertain the risk.

"My advice is don't take a chance. It's simply not worth it," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Men Arraigned in Federal Fibro-Removal Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Waterman, writing for MLive.com, reported that after a grand
jury indictment, the last of three men accused by prosecutors of
mishandling asbestos removal from a Bay City charter school has
been arraigned on four felony charges.

According to the report, Gerald A. Essex on Monday, Sept. 16,
appeared before U.S. District Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder
in the federal courthouse in Bay City for arraignment on four
counts of illegally distributing and handling asbestos, a felony
punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Essex pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Binder arraigned codefendant Roy C. Bradley Sr. on the same four
charges on Aug. 29. Binder on that day also arraigned Rodolfo
Rodriguez as a codefendant on single counts of tampering with
witnesses, victims or informants, a 20-year felony, and making
false declarations to a grand jury, a five-year felony.

Prosecutors contend Bradley and Essex broke the law during
renovations at the 400 N. Madison Ave., a former church, from Aug.
18, 2010, through Sept. 2, 2011. Bradley owns Lasting Impressions,
a contracting business that oversaw renovations at the site.

The indictment states that Bradley and Essex, "as the persons
operating, controlling and supervising a demolition and renovation
activity involving at least 260 linear feet and 160 square feet of
regulated asbestos-containing material" at the former church
"knowingly failed to remove and cause the removal of all regulated
asbestos-containing material from that facility in accordance with
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants."

Rodriguez, a carpenter who also worked on the renovations,
testified before a grand jury on Jan. 23, 2013. Prosecutors allege
he deliberately made false statements regarding the amount of
asbestos-containing material that had been removed from the church
and gave misleading statements as to the identities of those doing
the removal.

The EPA and IRS investigated the case. Prosecutors have not
publicly outlined how they believe asbestos was mishandled.

Bay City Academy is in its third year and was founded by
optometrist and entrepreneur Steve Ingersoll. The academy is a
charter school for students from kindergarten through ninth grade
and has three campuses in Bay City. The campus   at 1005 Ninth St.
is the most recent to open.

Since its inception, the academy has grown from 160 students to
470. The academy is chartered through Lake Superior State
University.

Ingersoll has said that Bradley hired an abatement company to
remove all potentially harmful material from the Madison Avenue
location prior to the renovations. Ingersoll has also said that
the Bay City Academy buildings are safe.

Bradley is represented by attorney Andrew D. Concannon, Essex by
James F. Piazza and Rodriguez by Andrea J. LaBean. Bradley is free
on a $100,000 bond; Essex and Rodriguez are each free on $50,000
bonds.

The trio's cases are scheduled for a telephone pretrial conference
at 9 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 26.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Ex-Navy's Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, is Defendant United States of America's
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs Roger and Carol Botts's Federal Tort Claims Act claims
under the discretionary function exception to the Act.  The
Bottses filed a lawsuit against the Government for Mr. Botts's
alleged exposure to asbestos at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

Judge James L. Robart -- having reviewed the motion, all
submissions filed in support of and opposition thereto, the
balance of the record, the applicable law, and having heard oral
argument -- granted in part and denied in part the Government's
motion to dismiss.  Judge Robart also further stayed discovery in
the matter and directed the Government to file a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

In support of his decision, Judge Robart explained that there is a
disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Mr. Botts
entered asbestos installation and removal exclusion areas and
whether he was properly warned about those areas.  If Mr. Botts
did in fact enter those areas after March 1970, there were ample
Navy regulations directly on point, which the Navy had no
discretion but to follow, and the Government's argument fails at
the first step of the discretionary function exception test.

The Bottses, however, have at this point in the matter presented a
questionable case demonstrating that Mr. Botts's current illness
was caused by asbestos exposure at PSNS after March 1970, Judge
Robart said.  It is also undisputed that Mr. Botts was exposed to
asbestos in contexts other than PSNS.  Judge Robart, accordingly,
concluded that further action in the matter would be counter to
the interest of judicial efficiency given the case's facts as the
parties have currently presented them to the Court.  Judge Robart
found that the Bottses would suffer no actual and substantial
prejudice from staying discovery pending the resolution of a
motion for summary judgment.

The case is ROGER BOTTS et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Defendant, CASE NO. C12-1943JLR (W.D.Wash.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Robart's Decision, dated Aug. 5, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/ClcrKZfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Recommends Remand of "Mims" PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher J. Burke of the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware recommended that the case captioned
PATTERSON MIMS and VERA MIMS, Plaintiffs, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-298-SLR-CJB (D.Del.), be
remanded to the Superior Court of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County.

The matter arises out of an asbestos personal injury action filed
by Plaintiffs Patterson Mims and Vera Mims against numerous
Defendants, including Defendants Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
and CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to and
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the Superior Court.
Foster Wheeler removed the state court action to the District
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1442(a)(1) and 1446, and
Westinghouse joined in Foster Wheeler's Notice of Removal that
same day.  Foster Wheeler and Westinghouse argued, as the basis
for removal, that any actions they took relating to Plaintiffs'
claims came when they were acting under an officer or agency of
the United States within the meaning of Section 1442(a)(1).

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to Delaware
state court, on the grounds that the Defendants' removal was
untimely in light of the requirements of Section 1446(b)(3).

In recommending for remand, Judge Burke stated that Foster Wheeler
has not carried its burden of establishing the timeliness of its
removal nor why the Complaint or Responses were insufficient to
put it on notice of its federal defense.

A full-text copy of Judge Burke's Report and Recommendation dated
Sept. 6, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/0mlu2Vfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. High Court Reverses Ruling in "Fields" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Georgia, in a decision dated Sept. 9, 2013,
reversed an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in Union
Carbide Corp. v. Fields, 315 Ga.App. 554 (726 S.E.2d 521)(2012),
which involves assignment of tort liability to entities who are
not parties to the suit.

In this case, Rhonda Fields suffers from peritoneal mesothelioma
allegedly contracted as a result of her childhood exposure to
asbestos dust from various sources.  She and her husband alleged
in their complaint that Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide, as well
as a number of other companies, were responsible for either
mining, manufacturing, processing, importing, converting,
compounding, selling, or distributing the asbestos-containing
products to which Mrs. Fields was exposed.  The Fields separately
reached settlements with a number of nonparty entities and
original defendants, and in pleadings subsequent to the original
complaint, omitted any allegation that the nonparties were
responsible for Mrs. Fields's injuries.

As the case proceeded in the trial court, the Fields moved for
partial summary judgment on the issue of nonparty fault, seeking
to preclude the Defendants from presenting the potential fault of
the nonparty entities for purposes of apportioning potential
damages.  The state court granted the motion, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed.  In Division 1 (d) of its opinion, the Court of
Appeals addressed the Defendants' argument that summary judgment
on the issue was inappropriate because the Defendants had
presented sufficient evidence, in the form of allegations
contained in the Fieldses' complaint and in Mrs. Fields' sworn
information form, to preclude summary judgment on their nonparty
defense as it pertained to the potential fault of nonparties.

Finding that the Court of Appeals erred in Division 1(d) of its
opinion in holding that admissions concerning the nonparties found
in the pleadings and elsewhere did not constitute evidence for the
purpose of summary judgment, and also erred in applying the "right
for any reason" to rule the issue, the Supreme Court reversed.

The cases are GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC et al., v. FIELDS et al.,
S12G1393 (Ga.) and UNION CARBIDE CORP. et al., v. FIELDS et al.,
S12G1417 (Ga.).  A full-text copy of the Decision penned by
Justice P. Harris Hines is available at http://is.gd/OMwYtffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mellis" Suit Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, in an order
dated Sept. 9, 2013, remanded the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned ELWOOD MELLIS, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 13-3449 SBA
(N.D. Calif.), to the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, because Defendant Crane Co., who moved for the removal
of the action to the District Court, was voluntarily dismissed by
the Plaintiffs from the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of Judge Armstrong's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Peb57Ufrom Leagle.com.

Elwood Mellis, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton, Esq.,
David R. Donadio, Esq., and Richard Martin Grant, Esq., at Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Brayton Purcell may be reached at:

         BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
         222 Rush Landing Road
         PO Box 6169
         Novato, CA 94945
         Tel: 415-895-2669
         Fax: 415-898-1247

CBS Corporation (FKA VIACOM INC., fka Westinghouse Electric
Corporation), Defendant, represented by Mary Katherine Back, Esq.
-- mback@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffery J.
Fadeff, Esq. -- jfadeff@behblaw.com -- and Reshma Amarlal Bajaj,
Esq. -- rbajaj@behblaw.com -- at Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suit Remanded to Calif. Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aubrey B. Collins of the United States District Court for
the Central District Court of California in an order dated
Sept. 6, 2013, remanded the living-mesothelioma case captioned
Benjamin Lara, Jr., et al., v. CBS Corp., et al., NO. CV 13-5569
ABC (MANX)(C.D. Calif.), to the Los Angeles Superior Court after
finding that Defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc., which removed
the case to the District Court, failed to satisfy its burden of
demonstrating the propriety of removal.

A full-text copy of Judge Collins' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/cC7rc9from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Lara, Jr., and Mary Lara, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gordon D Greenwood, Esq., and Ian Wilfred Alido Rivamonte, Esq.,
at Kazan McClain Satterley Lyons Greenwood & Oberman APLC.

The firm may be reached at:

         KAZAN MCCLAIN SATTERLEY
         LYONS GREENWOOD & OBERMAN APLC
         Jack London Market
         55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
         Oakland, CA 94607
         Tel: 877-995-6372
         Fax: 510.835.4913

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Francis D Pond, Esq. --
fpond@pondnorth.com -- Kevin D Jamison, Esq. --
kjamison@pondnorth.com -- and Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq. --
krivera@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert H Baronian,
Esq. -- bbaronian@prindlelaw.com -- and Danielle Ochi Renzi, Esq.
-- dochi@prindlelaw.com -- at Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes
and Reinholtz LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Kichong
Hwang, Esq. -- SKHwang@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP.

Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mary
Therese McKelvey, Esq. -- mmckelvey@mckennalong.com -- at McKenna
Long and Aldridge LLP.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by Melissa
R Badgett, Esq. -- rbadgett@cmjlaw.com -- and Dustin Clark
Beckley, Esq. -- dbeckley@cmjlaw.com -- at Cooley Manion Jones.

P and H Mining Equipment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin D
Jamison, Esq., and Russell W Schatz, Jr., Esq. --
rschatz@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Dean
Brosamle, Esq. -- anthony.brosamle@tuckerellis.com -- Jenny-Anne S
Flores, Esq. -- jenny-anne.sinson@tuckerellis.com -- and Nicole
Elisabet Gage, Esq. -- nicole.gage@tuckerellis.com -- at Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele C
Barnes, Esq. -- michelle.barnes@klgates.com -- and Zachariah D
Baker, Esq. -- zac.baker@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mary Therese
McKelvey, Esq., at McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Hoyt" Take-Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Loretta Hoyt claims that she developed cancer from her
exposure to asbestos carried home, first by her father, and later
by her husband, during the period from 1948 to 1958.  Appellee
Lockheed Martin is the successor-in-interest of the shipyard where
Hoyt's father and husband were allegedly exposed to asbestos
during their employment.  Hoyt sued Lockheed for negligence under
Washington state law, and Lockheed moved for summary judgment,
arguing that it did not owe Hoyt a duty of care, and even if it
did, the harm was not foreseeable.  The district court granted the
motion, reasoning that while, in general, employers owe the family
members of their employees a duty of care to prevent harm from
take-home exposure to asbestos, Hoyt had not established a genuine
issue of material fact that harm from such exposure was
foreseeable to Lockheed during the relevant time period.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit composed of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, Judge M. Margaret
McKeown, and Judge Richard Clifton agreed that Hoyt has failed to
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding foreseeability.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The case is LORETTA HOYT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Puget
Sound Bridge and Dredging Company and LOCKHEED SHIPBUILDING
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to Puget Sound
Bridge and Dredging Company, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-35573
(9th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum
dated Sept. 10, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/aWNyFdfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rheem's Bid to Dismiss "Janits" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
Defendant Rheem Manufacturing's Company's motion for summary
judgment dismissing the asbestos-related personal injury action
captioned FRANK JANITS and KATHLEEN JANITS, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS., et al. Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190084/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.), after determining that there is
no documentary evidence to support Rheem's assertions that it did
not manufacture furnaces or asbestos-containing insulation that
match Plaintiff Frank Janits' description.

In this regard, Judge Heitler ruled that the Defendant's position
really goes to the weight to be accorded to Mr. Janits' testimony
at trial by the trier of fact and it is not a matter for the Court
to decide on a summary judgment motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Sept. 9, 2013, Decision is
available at http://is.gd/jTgjMIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fund Created to Pay Eagle Inc.'s PI Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana entered an order dated Sept. 10, 2013,
approved the Eagle, Inc. Qualified Settlement Fund in order to
receive settlement proceeds from the settlement agreement between
Eagle and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and its affiliates.

The settlement resolves, among other things, all coverage issues
for asbestos claims under policies issued to Eagle.  Fireman's
Fund disputes that it issued any coverage to Eagle that responds
to asbestos claims.  The settlement provides that Fireman's Fund
will pay money into the QSF.

The purposes of the QSF is to provide funds to pay for costs
incurred by the parties in connection with claims, suits and
demands alleging personal injury and bodily injury from alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials, to pay the legal fees
of the parties related to those Asbestos Claims, to pay for legal
fees and settlement costs of Asbestos Claims asserted against
Eagle, to pay for administrative and management costs, and to do
all things necessary or appropriate in connection with the Eagle
QSF.

The case is FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ASSOCIATED
INDEMNITY COMPANY v. EAGLE, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-01865
(E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge Zainey's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/GnGFIsfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Court Allows Appeal in "Andrucki" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted a motion for leave to
appeal filed in the case captioned IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARY ANDRUCKI, ETC. ET AL.,
Appellants, v. ALUMINIUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants,
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent, MOTION NO.
2013-770 (N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 12, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/l9hFUQfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enlargement of Record on Appeal Nixed in NY Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enlargement of record on appeal is denied by the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in
the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to HERLIGY, v. A.F. SUPPLY CORP. -- MUNACO PARKING &
RUBBER COMPANY, INC. -- ESTATE OF HERLIGY, MOTION NO. M-3956 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 10,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/woUU18from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Bid to Reopen Evidentiary Hearing Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum dated Sept. 9,
2013, denying Lockheed Martin Corporation's motion to re-open the
evidentiary hearing on its motion to disqualify the counsel of
plaintiffs in an asbestos products liability case.

Lockheed asked the Court to decide whether the counsel of
Plaintiffs Frank R. Williams, Jr., et al., had ex parte contact
with current Lockheed Martin employees, whether the contact
violated Rule 4.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional
Conduct, and whether the Plaintiffs' Counsel's contact in this
regard warrants his disqualification and/or the imposition of
other sanctions.

In his decision, Magistrate Judge Angell also denied in part
Lockheed's motion to disqualify but awarded the company partial
attorney fees and expenses in prosecuting its motion to disqualify
in the amount of $10,000.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. IV)
relating to FRANK K. WILLIAMS, JR., et al. v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, et al., MDL DOCKET NO. 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-
70101, NO. 09-CV-065 (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Magistrate Judge Angell's Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/2JMwWCfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order accompanying the Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/geIZC5from Leagle.com.

TARSIA WILLIAMS and BRECK WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, represented by
CALEB H. DIDRIKSEN, III, Esq. -- caleb@didriksenlaw.com -- MICHAEL
D. LANE, Esq. -- mike@didriksenlaw.com -- and DIANE R COSENZA,
Esq. -- Diane@didriksenlaw.com -- at DIDRIKSEN LAW FIRM.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by ARTHUR WENDEL STOUT, III, Esq. -- astout@dkslaw.com
-- DAVID K. GROOME, JR., Esq. -- dgroome@dkslaw.com -- and ROBERT
EMMETT KERRIGAN, JR., Esq. -- rkerrigan@dkslaw.com -- at DEUTSCH,
KERRIGAN & STILES; and GUY P. GLAZIER, Esq., and MICHAEL DAVID
SMITH, Esq. -- smith@glazieryee.com -- at GLAZIER YEE LLLP.

Owens-Illinois Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
ANN R. CHANDLER, Esq. -- chandlerar@fpwk.com -- JENNIFER MARIE
STUDEBAKER, Esq. -- studebakerjm@fpwk.com -- and MARY REEVES
ARTHUR, Esq. -- arthurm@fpwk.com -- at FORMAN PERRY WATKINS KRUTZ
& TARDY.

VIACOM, INC., AS SUCCESOR-IN-INTEREST TO WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, and FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, Defendants and Cross
Defendants, represented by JAMES H. BROWN, JR., Esq., and JOHN J.
HAINKEL, III, Esq., at FRILOT LLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by ANGELA M. BOWLIN, Esq., JOHN CAZALE, Esq. --
jcazele@frilot.com -- JOHN J. HAINKEL, III, Esq., JAMES H. BROWN,
JR., Esq., and PETER R TAFARO, Esq., at FRILOT L.L.C.

UNIROYAL INC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP.

THE MCCARTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by DOUGLAS R. KINLER, Esq., MICHAEL DAVID HAROLD, Esq.
-- michaelh@spsr-law.com -- SUSAN BETH KOHN, Esq., and STEPHEN J.
AUSTIN, Esq. -- stephena@spsr-law.com -- at SIMON PERAGINE SMITH &
REDFEARN.

EAGLE INC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by DOUGLAS
R. KINLER, Esq., JAMES R. GUIDRY, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr-law.com --
MICHAEL DAVID HAROLD, Esq., SUSAN BETH KOHN, Esq., and STEPHEN J.
AUSTIN, Esq., at SIMON PERAGINE SMITH & REDFEARN.

TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by ANNE ELIZABETH MEDO, Esq. -- amedo@hmhlp.com --
CHRISTOPHER KELLY LIGHTFOOT, Esq. -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com --
CLAUDE ALVIN GRECO, Esq. -- cgreco@hmhlp.com -- at HAILEY,
MCNAMARA, HALL, LARMANN & PAPALE; and JEVAN S. FLEMING, Esq., at
ABBOTT SIMSES & KUCHLER.

REILLY-BENTON COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by DIANE MICHELLE SWEEZER DAVIS, Esq. --
dianes@willingham-law.com -- JEANETTE SERAILE-RIGGINS, Esq. --
jeanettesr@willingham-law.com -- JENNIFER D. ZAJAC, Esq. --
jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- and THOMAS L. COUGILL, Esq. --
tomc@willingham-law.com -- at WILLINGHAM FUITZ COUGILL LLP.

CBS CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR TO VIACOM, INC., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by ANGELA M. BOWLIN, Esq., JOHN CAZALE,
Esq., JOHN J. HAINKEL, III, Esq., PETER R TAFARO, Esq., and JAMES
H. BROWN, JR., FRILOT LLC.

STANDARD SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by LAWRENCE G. PUGH, III, Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com
-- at PUGH ACCARDO HAAS RADECKER & CAREY LLC.

AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by THORNE D. HARRIS, Esq.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by KENAN S. RAND, JR., Esq. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- at
PLAUCHE MASELLI PARKERSON.

INSULATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Cross Defendant, represented by KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, Esq. --
kobrien@moodklaw.com -- at MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY &
KELLY P.C.

LOU-CON, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
DESIREE W. ADAMS, Esq. -- dadams@twpdlaw.com -- at TAYLOR WELLONS
POLITZ & DUHE APLC.

THE GOTTFRIED CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by ADRIAN A. D'ARCY, Esq. --
aad'arcy@shielsmottlund.com -- SHIELDS MOTT LUND LLP.

ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by ERIC TODD HEBERT, Esq., at SEXTON &
HEBERT.

Mr. Hebert may be reached at:

         Eric Todd Hebert, Esq.
         SEXTON HEBERT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
         10715 N. Oak Hills Parkway
         Baton Rouge, LA 70810
         Phone: 225-767-2020
         Fax: 225-767-0845


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Ct. Flips Ruling in Improper Disposal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff, Franklin Office Park Realty Corp., challenges the
assessment of a penalty in the amount of $18,225, imposed by the
Department of Environmental Protection for improper handling and
disposal of roof shingles that contained asbestos.  Franklin
argues that, pursuant to an administrative penalties act, it was
entitled to a notice of noncompliance and the opportunity to cure
any violations before a penalty was imposed.  The commissioner of
the DEP accepted the recommendation of a hearing officer that he
affirm the penalty on the ground that Franklin's failure to comply
fell within one of six exceptions to the notice requirement
because it was "willful and not the result of error," which he
interpreted as requiring only a showing of "the intent to do an
act that violates the law if done."  Franklin sought judicial
review; a judge of the Superior Court determined some of the facts
found by the hearing officer to be unsupported by substantial
evidence, and that the DEP's interpretation of the law was
unreasonable and thus not entitled to deference.  DEP appealed,
and the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, Worcester.

The Court, ruling en banc, concluded that the language "willful
and not the result of error" when considered in the context of the
statutory scheme and the Legislature's intent, clearly requires a
showing that the party who has not complied with the law knew or
should have known of the operative facts that made their acts
unlawful.  The DEP's decision in the instant case was based on an
error of law because its interpretation of the wilfulness
exception does not comport with the clear meaning of the statute.
However, the hearing officer also found that Franklin knew or
should have known of the likely presence of asbestos in the
shingles.  Based on those findings of fact, the Court concluded
that Franklin's conduct was willful and not the result of error
within the meaning of the administrative penalties act.
Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed.
As permitted by the administrative penalties act, the DEP's
decision to the extent that it rests on the hearing officer's
findings that Franklin knew or should have known of the likely
presence of asbestos in the shingles is affirmed and, on that
basis, the DEP's imposition of a penalty without prior notice of
noncompliance is affirmed.

The case is FRANKLIN OFFICE PARK REALTY CORP. vs. COMMISSIONER OF
the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SJC-11334 (Mass.).  A
full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Sept. 16, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/TDMcp1from Leagle.com.

Louis M. Dundin, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Paul E. White for the plaintiff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "DiSalvo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Neles-Jamesbury,
Inc. moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all
cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff Carl
DiSalvo has not provided any evidence to show that he was exposed
to asbestos from a product manufactured, distributed, sold, or
supplied by Neles-Jamesbury.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 11, 2013, Judge Sherry Heitler
of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion for
summary judgment, finding that there is no documentary evidence
submitted in the case to support the Defendant's assertion that
"Neles-Jamesbury, Inc." did not exist during the 1970's when Mr.
DiSalvo claimed to have been exposed to "Neles-Jamesbury" valves.
At most the Defendant's arguments on the motion go to the weight
to be accorded to Mr. DiSalvo's testimony at trial by the trier of
fact, Judge Heitler said.

The case is CARL A. DiSALVO, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190109/10, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/f5cFm8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Brown" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury action captioned HARRY E.
BROWN and PHYLLIS BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12, MOTION SEQ. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.), Defendant Crane Co. filed a motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted against it
on the grounds that plaintiff Harry Brown's testimony regarding
Crane is inadmissible at trial and because it is not liable for
asbestos containing products that it did not manufacture, supply
or specify for use with its pumps.  The Plaintiffs' position is
that Mr. Brown's testimony should be heard by a jury and that
Crane had a duty to warn against the use of asbestos-containing
products because it knew or should have known that they would be
integrated with its pumps for their intended use.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 3, 2013, Judge Sherry Heitler
of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Crane Co.'s motion,
holding that, on its face, Mr. Brown's deposition testimony
sufficiently identifies the Defendant as a source of his asbestos
exposure to give rise to a genuine issue of fact.  Crane's
assertions that its pumps did not require asbestos to operate
properly and that it did not specify the use of asbestos on said
pumps do not comport with the record, Judge Heitler said.
Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in Sawyer v A.C. & S.,
Inc., et al., Index No. 111152/99 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. June 24, 2011),
Judge Heitler found that Crane had a duty to warn the Plaintiff of
the hazards associated with asbestos.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order is
available at http://is.gd/ZKPe4dfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Couple's Bid to Vacate Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section III, paragraph B of the September 20, 1996
Case Management Order, as amended May 26, 2011, which governs New
York City Asbestos Litigation, plaintiffs Robert Stitt and Helen
Stitt moved to vacate the July 1, 2013 written recommendation of
Special Master Shelley Rosoff Olsen, which upheld objecting
defendants' request that the case be excluded from the Supreme
Court, New York County's In-Extremis calendar on the ground that
Mr. Stitt had no exposure to asbestos within the five boroughs of
New York City.  The Plaintiffs' motion is opposed by defendant
Georgia-Pacific, LLC.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 4, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler denied the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
Recommendation, holding that the Plaintiffs' arguments do not
persuade the Court to depart from the standard articulated in
Logan v. A.P. Moller-Maersk, Inc., Index No. 190203/12 (Sup. Ct.
NY Co. June 17, 2013, Heitler, J.).  However, Judge Heitler stated
that since Mr. Stitt's injuries occurred in Suffolk County, if the
Plaintiffs wish to seek a trial preference in that jurisdiction,
the Court will issue an appropriate transfer order of the file of
the action.  Should the Plaintiffs decline to request a transfer,
the action will be carried in its proper place on the Court's FIFO
calendar, Judge Heitler said.

The case is ROBERT STITT and HELEN STITT, Plaintiffs, v. BURHAM
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190478/12, MOTION SEQ.
002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/IQgySefrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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

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

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *