CAR_Public/131011.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 202

                             Headlines


AB&I FOUNDRY: Accused of Fixing Prices of Cast Iron Soil Pipes
ACTION EDUCATION: Appeal From Merrill Suit Ruling Dismissed
AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AP-Fonden Case
AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Won Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Klein Moynihan Discusses Class Action Settlement

BLACKBERRY LTD: Sued in N.Y. for Allegedly Misleading Investors
BRIDGESTONE: "Shop Supplies Fee" Class Action Dismissed
CADBURY ADAMS: Dale & Lessman Discusses Class Action Settlement
CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Judge Trims Claims in Train Derailment Suit
COLORADO: Governor Faces Class Action Over COGCC Statutes

CREVE COEUR: Portion of "Ballard" Suit Remanded to Trial Court
DEAN FOODS: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Tennessee
DIGITAL GENERATION: Defends "Shaffer" Securities Suit in Texas
DIRECTV LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Certify Class

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Arkansas Class Suit
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Defend Covington-Related Class Suit
EAGLE MATERIALS: Denies All Allegations in Drywall Suits
FORD MOTOR: Pa. Court Refuses to Junk Breach of Warranty Claim
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Approval of Fannie Mae Suit Settlement

GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Hudson Mezzanine CDOs
GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss HAMP-Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Consolidated CDO-Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Suit Over RALI Pass-Through Certificates

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Suits Over Mortgage Certificates vs. Units
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Credit Derivatives
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Aluminum Storage Facilities Mgmt.
GOLDMAN SACHS: MF Global Securities Litigation vs. GS&Co. Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Pending

GREGORY TURZA: Klein Moynihan Discusses TCPA Junk Fax Ruling
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Has Yet to File Merger Suits Settlement
INTUIT INC: Wins Approval of $6.55-Mil. Accord in TurboTax Suits
LOS ANGELES: Judgments in "Owens" and "Pitts" Class Suits Upheld

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Orders Reforms in Immigration Crusade
MICHIGAN COMMERCE: ATMs Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Thousands of Retired Players Opt Out of Settlement
OTTAWA, CANADA: Former SALH Reservist Joins Benefits Class Action
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Faces Further Penalty Payment Over Freight Fixing

ROEHL TRANSPORT: Student Drivers File Wage Class Action
STILLWATER MINING: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk "Jurgelewicz" Suit
STILLWATER MINING: "Casey" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
TOWERS PERRIN: Wins Prelim. Okay of $10MM Shareholder Suit Deal
UNITED STATES: Fed. Claims Court Tosses Claims in "Jones" Suit

UNLIMITED MOBILE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Will" Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Pares Down Claims in Veterans Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Class Action

* Orrick Discusses Rail Freight Class Certification Reversal
* Employers Must Consider Class Action Waiver in Arbitration


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Keeps Coverage Disputes in Arbitration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Fibro Not a Concern for Newcomb Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Rumors Fill University of Vermont Campus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Illnesses Still Killing More People
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fear Over Barn Fire at Langton Matravers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYS Citizens to Vote on Mine Access to Adirondack
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Mass Tort Claims v. 3 Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Insists Products are Fibro-Free
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Commonly Used in Sydney Houses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Compensation To-Do List for Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust at Work Caused Terminal Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sutton Council "Negligent" Over Fibro Flats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Deadly Dust on Steelworks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thetford Mother's Fear Over Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Fibro Transfer Site Plan Turned Down

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trade Breakfast Attracts Hundreds of Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Victoria Square Upgrade
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburg Uni Urged to Axe Fibro Claim Academic
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Demolition Firms Fined for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Shutdown Doesn't Stop Cancer Care at NIH

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Problems Remain in Handling Fibro in Christchurch
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gagnard Sues Avondale, Northrop Grumman et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bosticks File Suit in St. Clair County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Supreme Court Reinstates Defense Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hudson Valley Area Site of Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Cop Calls Out Perth & Kinross Council
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Allowed to Make Asbestos Roofing Sheets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Commissioners Vote to Demolish 2 Butte Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fibers Found in Rock in Proposed Wis. Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Widow Awarded GBP180,000 in Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced in New Jersey Dumping Scheme
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Pre-Purchase Inspections
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deposition of Pathologist Allowed to Move Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Fibro at Ellesmere Port Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworkers Plagued by Fibro-Related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Conley Breach of Contract Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Junk "Juni" Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "McCloskey" Suit v. Goodyear Proceeds to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash Eng'g Dropped as Defendant in "Fischer" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "McDonald" PI Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recommendations Issued in "Walkup" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Directs Further Discovery in "Cary" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Liman" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litig. Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Swanson" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Judge Reprimanded in Misconduct Case


                             *********


AB&I FOUNDRY: Accused of Fixing Prices of Cast Iron Soil Pipes
--------------------------------------------------------------
A&S Liquidating Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane, Inc.,
Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding Company,
Case No. 3:13-cv-04568 (N.D. Cal., October 2, 2013) is a proposed
class action lawsuit against the Defendants for violations of the
federal antitrust laws in the cast iron soil pipe and fittings
(collectively, "CISP") market.

This case alleges a conspiracy among all Defendants to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize prices for CISP that they sold directly to
the Plaintiff and other class members, which began at least as
early as January 1, 2006, and continues through the present, A&S
asserts.  A&S further alleges that Charlotte Pipe's 2010
acquisition and liquidation of Star Pipe Products, Ltd.'s CISP
business, which resulted in substantially decreased competition in
the market for CISP, was an illegal acquisition, undertaken to
facilitate and ensure the success of the alleged price fixing
conspiracy.

A&S is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Flint, Michigan.
A&S purchased CISP through its predecessor, A&S Supply Co., Inc.,
directly from one or more Defendants during the Class Period.

AB&I is a division of McWane, Inc., with its principal place of
business located in Oakland, California.  AB&I was acquired by
McWane, Inc. in late 2006, and since that time AB&I has been a
division of and controlled by McWane, Inc.  McWane, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.  Tyler
Pipe is a division of McWane, Inc., headquartered in Tyler, Texas.

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company is a North Carolina corporation
headquartered in Charlotte.  Randolph Holding Company, LLC is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Charlotte Pipe and is a Delaware
limited liability company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  cdirksen@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
                  g.arenson@kaplanfox.com
                  mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Meghan Boone, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  mboone@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com


ACTION EDUCATION: Appeal From Merrill Suit Ruling Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two,
dismissed an appeal from a trial court ruling entered in the case,
CRYSTAL MERRILL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ACTION
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B240202.

Crystal Merrill and Fi Tran filed a putative class action against
Action Educational Services, Inc. also known as West Coast
University, Inc. for fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of
the unfair competition law and other statutes, following their
enrollment in the defendant's nursing school program. As part of
their enrollment, plaintiffs each signed an enrollment agreement
(EA) and one or more retail installment sales contracts (RICs).
All of the RICs, and the EA signed by Merrill, contained a
provision requiring arbitration of disputes. The EA signed by Tran
did not contain an arbitration clause.

The Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration of all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The trial court granted the petition to
arbitrate plaintiffs' individual claims under the RICs as well as
Merrill's individual claims under the EA. The court denied the
petition to compel arbitration of Tran's claims under the EA, and
stayed those claims, along with plaintiffs' class claims and their
claims under the UCL.

Defendant appealed from the trial court's order denying the
petition to compel arbitration of Tran's claims under the EA.
Defendant also appealed from the order staying plaintiffs' class
claims. Plaintiffs appealed from the order granting the petition
to compel arbitration of their individual claims under the RICs
and Merrill's claims under the EA.

The Calif. Appeals Court reversed the order denying the petition
to compel arbitration of Tran's claims under the EA but dismissed
(i) the defendant's appeal of the order staying the class claims
and (ii) the plaintiffs' appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 2, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/WPqUqdfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants, Eric Christopher Morris, Esq. --
emorris@lawsclg.com -- Southern California Lawyers Group and:

   Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
   Skapik Law Group
   5861 Pine Ave, Suite A-1
   Chino Hills, CA 91709
   Tel: 909-398-4404
   Fax: 909-398-1883

      - and -

   Richard G. Osborn, Esq.
   OsbornLaw
   8577 Haven Avenue, Suite 110
   Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91773
   Tel: (909) 237-7083
   Fax: (909) 987-2014

Duane Morris LLP, Keith Zakarin -- KZakarin@duanemorris.com --
Edward M. Cramp -- EMCramp@duanemorris.com -- and Lisa K. Widdecke
-- lkwiddecke@duanemorris.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.


AGNICO-EAGLE MINES: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AP-Fonden Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
a January 14, 2013 district court judgment entered in the case,
FORSTA AP-FONDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, JEROME STONE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CHRIS HASTINGS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AGNICO-EAGLE MINES LTD., SEAN BOYD, EBERHARD
SCHERKUS, Defendants-Appellees, AMMAR AL-JOUNDI, DAVID GAROFALO,
Defendants, NO. 13-0511-CV.

Forsta AP-Fonden, the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case,
appealed the District Court's January 14, 2013 decision granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' putative class
action in its entirety. The Consolidated Securities Class Action
Complaint alleges that Agnico-Eagle Mines, Ltd., Sean Boyd, and
Eberhard Scherkus violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing false and misleading
statements which at first concealed and later misleadingly
minimized structural geological risks to Agnico's operation of its
Goldex Mine. The Complaint also asserts a claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), against Boyd
and Scherkus.

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record,
the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court
substantially for the reasons "articulated in its thorough
opinion" of January 14, 2013.  "We have examined the remainder of
Appellant's arguments and find them to be without merit," the
Second Circuit said.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 3, 2013 Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/4bJksvfrom Leagle.com.

David L. Wales -- DWales@blbglaw.com -- (Ann M. Lipton, Adam D.
Hollander -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com -- Evan M. Berkow --
evan.berkow@blbglaw.com -- on the brief), Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Irwin H. Warren -- irwin.warren@weil.com -- (Miranda S. Schiller -
- miranda.schiller@weil.com -- Evert J. Christensen, Jr. --
evert.christensen@weil.com -- Stacey A. Harkey --
stacey.harkey@weil.com -- on the brief), Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.


AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Won Final Approval of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Air Transport Services Group, Inc.'s subsidiary received in July
2013 final approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On December 31, 2008, a former ABX Air, Inc. employee filed a
complaint against ABX, a total of four current and former
executives and managers of ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and
three former executives of the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The case was
filed as a putative class action against the defendants, and
asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO).  The complaint, which was later amended to
include a second former employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and alleges that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers to depress the wages paid
to hourly wage employees during the period from December 1999 to
January 2005.

On December 2, 2011, the plaintiffs agreed to settle this matter
in exchange for the payment by ABX to plaintiffs and the putative
class members of a monetary amount, which amount management
believes to be less than it would have cost to defend the case at
trial.  The final settlement was approved by the Court on July 9,
2013, and is subject to a 30-day appeal period, after which the
funds will be paid over to the class administrator for
distribution in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement.

Air Transport Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.atsginc.com/--
is a holding company whose principal subsidiaries include an
aircraft leasing company and independently certificated airlines.
Air Transport and its subsidiaries provides airline operations,
aircraft leases, aircraft maintenance and other support services
primarily to the cargo transportation and package delivery
industries.  The Wilmington, Ohio-based Company offers a range of
complementary services to delivery companies, freight forwarders,
airlines and government customers.


BANK OF AMERICA: Klein Moynihan Discusses Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that in what may be the largest
payment to settle an action brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Bank of America will be paying over
$32 Million in an effort to settle six pending TCPA class action
litigation matters.  The TCPA class action settlement, which must
still be approved by a federal judge, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Friday, September 27, 2013.  On September 30, BOA issued a
statement denying the allegations of wrongdoing, but assuring the
public that "we are pleased to resolve this matter."  The BOA
litigations are a collective microcosm of a nationwide movement to
hold companies liable under the TCPA for using auto-dialers to
contact consumers on their cellular telephones without consent.

                   TCPA Allegations Against BOA

Although the settlement covers several different lawsuits in
different federal courts, the allegations are largely similar.  By
way of background, on December 6, 2007, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a citation to BOA for violations of the TCPA,
admonishing that "[i]f, after receipt of this citation, you or
your company violate the Communications Act or the Commission's
rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose
monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation
or each day of a continuing violation."  Despite this, the
plaintiffs allege, BOA continued placing unauthorized telephone
calls to customer's cellular telephones using automated dialer
technology.  The subject of the calls varied, though by and large
they related to residential mortgage loan account and credit card
collection calls.  With respect to at least one plaintiff, there
is an allegation that she never gave BOA her cellular telephone
number and, therefore, BOA must have "trapped" the customer's
telephone number by making a record of her cellular telephone
number on an earlier inbound call to BOA using caller
identification technology.

                 The TCPA Class Action Settlement

BOA negotiated the TCPA class action settlement terms over many
months, including three in-person negotiations and numerous
telephonic mediation sessions.  Despite the absence of any
injunctive provisions in the final settlement agreement, the
parties nevertheless have represented to the Court that BOA has
developed "significant enhancements to its servicing systems which
are designed to prevent the calling of a cell phone unless a loan
servicing record is systematically coded to reflect the borrower's
prior express consent to call his/her cell phone."  Most
significantly, however, BOA has agreed to pay this record setting
TCPA class action settlement amount.

        Protect Yourself Against TCPA Class Action Claims

The TCPA has become the new favorite statute of class action
plaintiff's lawyers across the country.  We have been following a
number of class action TCPA cases on a nationwide basis.  (See
DirecTV Named in Multi-Million Dollar Class-Action TCPA Lawsuit,
Bank of America Sued in Putative Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged
TCPA Violations).  This wave of TCPA litigation has resulted in a
number of substantial settlement awards.  (See Domino's Pizza Pays
Almost $10 Million in TCPA Settlement, Papa John's To Pay $16.335
Million To Settle TCPA Class Action).  Additionally, new federal
regulations concerning the TCPA are scheduled to take effect on
October 16, 2013.  (See New TCPA Rules Effective October 16, 2013,
Will the New TCPA Amendments Apply Only to Cell Phones?)  It is
becoming increasingly important for businesses to understand the
scope of the TCPA and act affirmatively to protect themselves
against class action claims and regulatory investigation.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Sued in N.Y. for Allegedly Misleading Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown, writing for Reuters, reports that a shareholder of
BlackBerry Ltd. sued the company and its executives on Oct. 4,
accusing them of inflating the stock price by painting a
misleadingly rosy picture of the business prospects of its
BlackBerry 10 smartphone line.

Waterloo, Ontario-based BlackBerry, formerly Research In Motion
Ltd., misled investors last year by saying that the company was
"progressing on its financial and operational commitments," and
that previews of its BlackBerry 10 platform were well received by
developers, according to shareholder Marvin Pearlstein in a
lawsuit lodged in Manhattan federal court.

Mr. Pearlstein is seeking to represent a class of "thousands" of
shareholders who bought stock between September 27, 2012, when the
company touted its strong financial position, and September 20 of
this year, when it revealed it would have to write down between
$930 million and $960 million related to unsold BlackBerry 10
devices, according to the lawsuit.

"In reality, the BlackBerry 10 was not well-received by the
market, and the company was forced to . . . lay off approximately
4,500 employees, totaling approximately 40 percent of its total
workforce," the complaint alleges.

In addition to BlackBerry, Chief Executive Thorsten Heins and
Chief Financial Officer Brian Bidulka are named as defendants.  A
spokeswoman for BlackBerry declined to comment.

BlackBerry put itself on the block in August after bleeding market
share to other smartphone makers over the past few years, namely
Apple Inc and Google Inc.  It accepted a tentative offer of $4.7
billion from Fairfax Financial Holdings last month.

Several sources close to the matter told Reuters the company is in
talks with Cisco Systems, Google and SAP about selling all or part
of itself.  BlackBerry has also asked for preliminary expressions
of interest from Intel Corp and Asian companies LG and Samsung by
early this week.  Cerberus Capital Management was reported to have
expressed such interest on Oct. 2.

According to the lawsuit, the write-down announced on September 20
sent stocks reeling, with share price dropping 24 percent, from
$10.52 on September 19 to $8.01 on September 25.  The 35-page
complaint asserts two violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934.

It is not the first time BlackBerry has been in trouble with
investors.  A judge threw out a 2011 lawsuit by a proposed class
of stockholders who said the company misled them about the
prospects of its then-new line of tablet and other products.  The
plaintiffs in that case have appealed the decision.

The latest lawsuit is Pearlstein et al v. BlackBerry Inc et al,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-7060.


BRIDGESTONE: "Shop Supplies Fee" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott D. Kaiser, Esq., at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP reports that
a "shop supplies fee" class action against Bridgestone was
dismissed.

She needed new tires.  So she went to a Bridgestone tire shop.

She was charged a "shop supplies fee" of $1.20, which appeared on
the itemized initial estimate, as well as the final invoice.

A sign posted in the store explained the purpose of this "shop
supplies fee":

TO OUR CUSTOMERS: A variety of shop supplies are consumed in
servicing our customer's vehicles.  Parts and labor necessary for
servicing customer's vehicles are itemized on estimates and
invoices.  However, shop supplies (such as protective items for
your vehicle, solvents, cleaners, rags, etc.) do not lend
themselves to precise itemization.  Therefore, on invoices greater
than $30, an additional charge of 6% of the total labor amount,
not to exceed $25 will be added to your invoice.  This charge
represents costs and profits.  Non-mandated disposal or recycling
charges may also represent costs and profits.

A lawsuit ensued.  Plaintiff sought certification of a class of
individuals charged the "shop supplies fee" at defendant's stores
in Missouri.  She sued under the MMPA and for money had and
received, alleging that the "shop supplies fee" is deceptive
because its name suggests that the entire fee goes towards
supplies used in servicing a consumer's car.

The Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, concluding as a matter of law that Defendant did not
engage in an unlawful practice under the MMPA.  The Court found
that Defendant's disclosures regarding the reason for and
calculation of the fee were "clear, simple, and straightforward."
-- i.e. shop supplies do not lend themselves to precise
itemization.

The Court also rejected Plaintiff's notion that, "to be honest,"
the name of the fee must reference "profit."  The Court stated
that "[w]hile the MMPA requires honesty and candor, it does not
require every item of merchandise, service, or fee that generates
profit for a for-profit business to be titled as such."  Toben v.
Bridgestone Retail Oper., LLC, 2013 WL 5406463, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 25, 2013).


CADBURY ADAMS: Dale & Lessman Discusses Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Finkelstein, Esq. -- cfinkelstein@dalelessmann.com -- at Dale
& Lessmann LLP reports that last month, major chocolate producers
settled a class action for $23.2 million.  The class action
alleged that Cadbury, Mars, Hershey, Nestle and distributor ITWAL
had engaged in price-fixing by artificially inflating the cost of
chocolate.  Settlements with all of the defendants have resolved
the litigation, and will enable chocolate purchasers to be
compensated for a portion of their spending on chocolate.  The
settlement funds are currently being held in trust.

If you purchased chocolate from October 1, 2005 to September 30,
2007, you may be eligible to claim monetary compensation if you
file a claim by December 15, 2013.

There are two categories of chocolate purchaser: consumer and
commercial purchaser.
1) Consumers

Eligibility:

A consumer is someone who purchased chocolate not for commercial
resale.  Examples include purchasing chocolate for personal
consumption, or on behalf of sports teams or schools.  Consumers
must have purchased at least $1,000 in chocolate products from
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2007 to be eligible to claim
monetary compensation.  Spouses and/or children residing in the
same household may combine their purchases to meet this threshold.

Compensation:

    Consumers who are able to prove their purchases will be
compensated at a rate of 2.625% of their purchase.

    Consumers who are not able to prove their purchases may still
be compensated at a rate of 1.875% of their purchases, up to a
maximum of $50.

2) Commercial Purchasers

Eligibility: There are three sub-categories of Commercial
Purchaser.  Commercial Purchasers may fall under any number of
these categories, depending on the purchases made.

2.1) Direct Commercial Purchasers purchased chocolate directly
from Cadbury, Mars, Hershey or Nestle for direct commercial resale
to Consumers.

2.2) Intermediary Commercial Purchasers purchased chocolate either
directly from Cadbury, Mars, Hershey or Nestle or indirectly from
an entity other than Cadbury, Mars, Hershey or Nestle for resale
to entities other than Consumers (which includes affiliates,
licensees and/or franchisees).

2.3) Secondary Commercial Purchasers purchased chocolate from an
entity other than Cadbury, Mars, Hershey or Nestle (which includes
purchases from affiliates, franchisors or licensors) for direct
commercial resale to Consumers.

Compensation:

All Commercial Purchasers must provide proof of purchase, but may
be able to rely on the Defendants' sales records for proof.

    Direct Commercial Purchasers will be compensated at a rate of
0.875% of their purchases.
    Intermediary Commercial Purchasers will be compensated at a
rate of 0.175% of their purchases.
    Secondary Commercial Purchasers will be compensated at a rate
of 0.7% of their purchases.

Indirect Compensation

In addition to the direct monetary compensation available to
Consumers and Commercial Purchasers, a portion of the settlement
has been set aside for distribution to consumer and public
interest organizations in Canada.
Making a Claim

Chocolate purchasers with eligible claims are encouraged to file
their claims online at http://www.chocolateclassaction.com

Paper claim forms may also be requested by contacting the claims
administrator at 1-866-432-5534.


CONSOLIDATED RAIL: Judge Trims Claims in Train Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, Linda Chiem, Kat Greene, Matt Fair and Dan
Packel, writing for Law360, report that a New Jersey federal judge
trimmed claims on Oct. 4 in a consolidated class action against
Consolidated Rail Corp. over a 2012 train derailment and chemical
spill in New Jersey, but said a negligence claim could stand
because the victims sufficiently alleged a duty of care.

U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler tossed three plaintiffs'
claims, including an allegation that the rail company, Norfolk
Southern Railway Co. and CSX Transportation Inc. -- owners of the
bridge where the train derailed -- trespassed on their property
through the spill.

The companies said a trespass claim requires intentional conduct,
and the spill's release of vinyl chloride onto the alleged
victims' properties wasn't deliberate. Plaintiffs countered that a
trespass claim can assert negligence, not intentional conduct, in
order to be valid under New Jersey law.

Judge Kugler found that it didn't appear that the entry of the
chemicals onto plaintiffs' property was deliberate.

While some courts have required intentional conduct as to the act
causing the trespass but not intent as to the result, "[t]his
court would be reluctant to expand trespass liability," the Oct. 4
filing said.

After a train passing over the Paulsboro bridge derailed, four
tanker cars fell into Mantua Creek -- releasing vinyl chloride
vapor into the air and leaking the chemical into the creek,
according to court filings.  Vinyl chloride is a highly flammable
chemical used to manufacture PVC pipes, and exposure to the
chemical can cause a burning sensation in the eyes and respiratory
discomfort.

Defendants have faced a deluge of lawsuits in the wake of the
November accident, with many of them consolidated in New Jersey
federal court.  Plaintiffs accuse the companies of ignoring
reports of bridge malfunctions and not taking proper precautions
to protect those nearby from hazardous substances.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action include Gloucester County
residents who were allegedly evacuated due to the release of
chemicals and lost money as a result of the derailment, as well as
area businesses that allegedly lost income.

The alleged victims said that, in the year leading up to the
derailment, the transportation companies received at least 23
so-called trouble tickets that the bridge had malfunctioned.  In
the month preceding the accident, the companies allegedly received
at least nine tickets reporting the bridge wasn't operating
correctly.

The companies argued the plaintiffs' negligence claim should be
dismissed because they didn't plead the existence of a duty of
care or a heightened standard of foreseeability.

Judge Kugler disagreed, finding that while the consolidated
complaint didn't explicitly use the term "duty of care," it
contained enough facts related to the alleged breach of duties to
state a plausible claim for relief.

The judge said he wasn't "willing to parse the language in the
complaint to the degree that [the companies] wish" and that a duty
of care was implicit in the plaintiffs' allegations.

Judge Kugler also shot down the companies' argument that the
plaintiffs hadn't alleged facts suggesting their economic
suffering was foreseeable.  While the companies claimed it was the
evacuation and shelter orders that caused plaintiffs' alleged
losses, the judge said the defendants hadn't established an
intervening event.

"Shelter-in-place and evacuation orders leading to individuals
missing work and businesses temporarily closing requires no leap
in logic," the judge ruled.

Plaintiffs would've suffered economic harm due to the spill even
if the evacuation and shelter orders hadn't been issued, according
to the Oct. 4 opinion.

Plaintiffs also included a res ipsa loquitor allegation in their
complaint but voluntarily dismissed it after acknowledging the
doctrine isn't a stand-alone cause of action.  Judge Kugler denied
plaintiffs' attempt to include the language in their negligence
claim, saying he couldn't amend the pleadings in ruling on the
motion.

Lastly, the judge dismissed plaintiffs' strict liability claim,
saying it was too similar to a claim advanced in another case
involving the derailment.

Attorneys for both parties didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Oct. 4.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert J. Campbell of the Law
Offices of Robert J. Campbell.

The defendants are represented by Brett J. Lean of Burns White
LLC.

The cases are In re: Paulsboro Derailment Cases, case number 1:13-
cv-00784, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Camden Vicinage.


COLORADO: Governor Faces Class Action Over COGCC Statutes
---------------------------------------------------------
Nannette Hamilton, writing for The Coloradoan, reports that a
federal class action suit was filed against Gov. John
Hickenlooper.

"I recently found myself signing a pending federal class action
suit against Gov. John Hickenlooper. I had reached a point in my
life when I was no longer beholden to Republicans or Democrats but
to what is right," Ms. Hamilton said.

The basis of the federal class action lawsuit is that the Colorado
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission statutes illegally altered the
Colorado Constitution (Article V, Sec. 35, Article XX, Sec. 6)
without the consent of the governed, thereby rendering the COGCC
authority and governor's enforcement of that authority as
unconstitutional statutes.

The suit documents the alteration of the state constitution in
1992 with the Lundvall Bros v. Voss - City of Greeley.  It is the
most cited case regarding the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission.  The suit cites the 1992 Colorado Supreme Court
finding that the city of Greeley could not legally prevent oil and
gas exploration within the city's boundaries, even though the
city's electorate had approved an ordinance banning such industry
activities.

The state constitution protects the electorate by home rule and
consent of the governed.  Ms. Hamilton said "I would not mind
paying a little more in taxes if it would mean taking on a lawsuit
to uphold the state constitution."

If you would like to sign the petition, visit
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-colorado-oil-gas


CREVE COEUR: Portion of "Ballard" Suit Remanded to Trial Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERI BALLARD, et al. Appellants, v. CITY OF CREVE
COEUR, and AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondents, NO.
ED98320, Cheri Ballard, Jay Baur, and Stephen and Brenda Arnold
appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a joint
motion to dismiss filed by City of Creve Coeur and American
Traffic Solutions, Inc.

Appellants received violation notices from Creve Coeur alleging
that they had violated Creve Coeur's red light camera ordinance
and challenged the Ordinance in a six-count, purported class
action petition. Appellants sought declaratory judgment regarding
the Ordinance's constitutionality and conformity with state law,
as well as Creve Coeur's authority to enact the Ordinance.
Appellants also claimed the Ordinance violated procedural due
process and the privilege against self-incrimination, and they
alleged claims of unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy by Creve
Coeur and ATS.

Creve Coeur and ATS filed a joint motion to dismiss, which was
granted by the trial court.

"Because the Arnolds and Baur have an adequate remedy at law in
their municipal court proceeding, we affirm the trial court's
judgment dismissing their claims," ruled Judge Kurt S. Odenwald of
the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four.
"With regard to Ballard, we reverse the trial court's judgment
declaring that the Ordinance was properly enacted in accordance
with Creve Coeur's police power for regulating public safety.
Ballard pleaded that the Ordinance was enacted in order to
generate revenue rather than ensure public safety. Whether the
Ordinance is a revenue-generating mechanism advanced under the
guise of Creve Coeur's police power is a fact question that is not
appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. We remand this
portion of the trial court's judgment for proceedings consistent
with this opinion," he added.

The trial court's judgment in all other respects is affirmed.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 1, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/XPLYQCfrom Leagle.com.


DEAN FOODS: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
The two class action lawsuits against Dean Foods Company remain
pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The
Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either acting alone
or in conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also
defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers.  The Defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the retailer action was granted in part and denied in
part in August 2010.  The Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and filed a supplemental
motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims on
September 27, 2010.  On March 27, 2012, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants as to all remaining counts and
entered judgment in favor of all defendants, including the
Company.  The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 25,
2012.  On May 30, 2012, the Company participated in a scheduling
conference and mediation conducted by the appeals court.  The
mediation did not result in a settlement agreement.  Briefing on
the appeal was completed on April 5, 2013, and oral argument
occurred on July 25, 2013.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the
"indirect purchaser action").  The allegations in this complaint
are similar to those in the retailer action, but primarily involve
state law claims.  Because the allegations in the indirect
purchaser action substantially overlap with the allegations in the
retailer action, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser action pending the
outcome of the summary judgment motions in the retailer action.
On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit.  On January 17, 2013, these same
plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013
indirect purchaser action").  The allegations are similar to those
in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but
involve only claims arising under Tennessee law.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013.  On June 14, 2013,
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the Company's
motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint.  On July 1,
2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible for the Company
to predict the ultimate outcome of the pending matters.

Dean Foods Company -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- operates as a
food and beverage company in the United States.  The Company
operates in three segments: Fresh Dairy Direct, WhiteWave-Alpro,
and Morningstar.  The Company was formerly known as Suiza Foods
Corporation and changed its name to Dean Foods Company in 2001 as
a result of merger between the former Dean Foods Company and Suiza
Foods Corporation.  Dean Foods Company was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


DIGITAL GENERATION: Defends "Shaffer" Securities Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Generation, Inc., is defending itself against a securities
class action lawsuit initiated by Anastacia Shaffer, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 2, 2013, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, entitled Anastacia Shaffer v. Digital Generation, Inc., et
al., No. 3:13-cv-1684, alleging civil violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  The
purported class period is alleged to be June 20, 2011, through
February 19, 2013.

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the case with
certainty, it is the Company's present belief these matters are
not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
annual operating results and the Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  The Company believes the purported claims and
its defense costs will qualify for reimbursement under its
insurance coverage, which are subject to the applicable deductible
and the limits of its policies.

Digital Generation, Inc., operates an ad management and
distribution platform.  The Irving, Texas-based Company helps
advertisers engage with consumers across television and online
media, while delivering timely and impactful ad campaigns.


DIRECTV LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that in the marketing space, the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is dominating the
headlines.  By various accounts, TCPA lawsuits are up 40% to 60%
in 2013, compared to the same period in 2012, and there appears to
be no signs of this trend slowing any time soon.

                       DirecTV TCPA Lawsuit

On September 5, 2013, a TCPA lawsuit was filed against DirecTV,
LLC, alleging that the satellite television provider placed
multiple, unsolicited robocalls to consumers' cell phones,
offering its satellite television services.  In several instances,
it is alleged that pre-recorded messages were left on consumers'
answering machines.  According to the complaint, DirecTV did not
obtain express consent, written or otherwise, from any of the
consumers contacted.  Remember, beginning October 16, 2013,
express written consent must be unambiguously obtained from
consumers prior to making a marketing robocall.  Moreover, it is
alleged that consumers contacted DirecTV several times requesting
not to be called again and that such requests went unheeded.

The class-action TCPA lawsuit is seeking damages of up to $1,500
for every call made to consumers in violation of the TCPA.  The
plaintiff alleges that the potential class size of consumers
affected is at least 100,000 consumers across the country.  The
next hurdle for the plaintiff is to certify the class of consumers
contacted by DirecTV in violation of the TCPA.

In light of the potential class size, and the strict compliance
provisions of the TCPA, if the plaintiff's class is certified, a
settlement appears inevitable.

                          TCPA Penalties

What is interesting about this case is that Plaintiff is demanding
$1,500 per TCPA violation, which is the maximum amount of
statutory damages allowed under the TCPA.  As you may recall, the
TCPA provides for either actual damages or statutory damages
ranging from $500 to $1,500 per unsolicited call and/or message.
It appears that the plaintiff is requesting $500 for each
negligent violation of the TCPA and also $1,500 for every robocall
made after DirecTV was contacted by consumers requesting to be put
on the company's do-not-call list.  While the amount of statutory
damages awarded per violation is left to the judge's discretion,
judges have rarely awarded the maximum amount, unless there is
clear evidence of willfulness or knowing misconduct on the
defendant's part.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. is still awaiting a court
decision on a motion to certify a nationwide class in the
collective action pending in Arkansas, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In December 2011 and June 2012, two purported collective action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee and the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, respectively, against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.  The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seek
unpaid overtime wages.  The Middle Tennessee action was resolved
by settlement and dismissed in 2012.  The Plaintiffs in the
Arkansas action have moved for conditional certification of a
nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees.  The
Company will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases pending against it on its
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The
Company's reserve for professional liability expenses does not
include any amounts for the collective actions, the purported
class action against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the
Company's directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these
lawsuits or any of the Company's professional liability actions,
any regulatory action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging
violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any
state or Federal False Claims Act case could subject the Company
to fines, penalties and damages, including exclusion from the
Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, cash flows or results
of operations.

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.,
provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in
eight states, primarily in the Southeast and Southwest (Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and West
Virginia).  The Company's centers provide a range of health care
services to their patients and residents that include nursing,
personal care, and social services.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Arkansas Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against Diversicare
Healthcare Services, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and
Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility").  The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and
contractual obligations to the patients of the Facility over the
past five years.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages and has
not yet been certified by the court as a class action.  The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases pending against it on its
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The
Company's reserve for professional liability expenses does not
include any amounts for the collective actions, the purported
class action against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the
Company's directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these
lawsuits or any of the Company's professional liability actions,
any regulatory action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging
violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any
state or Federal False Claims Act case could subject the Company
to fines, penalties and damages, including exclusion from the
Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, cash flows or results
of operations.

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.,
provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in
eight states, primarily in the Southeast and Southwest (Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and West
Virginia).  The Company's centers provide a range of health care
services to their patients and residents that include nursing,
personal care, and social services.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Defend Covington-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit arising from certain expressions of
interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington
Investments, LLC, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 16, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, against the Company's Board of Directors.  This action
alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of
interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington
Investments, LLC ("Covington").  The complaint asserts that the
Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider
Covington's proposals.  In November 2012, the lawsuit was
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  The action was refiled in the Chancery Court for
Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial District), on
November 30, 2012.  The lawsuit remains in its early stages and
has not yet been certified by the court as a class action.  The
Company intends to defend the matter vigorously.

The Company says it cannot currently predict with certainty the
ultimate impact of any of the cases pending against it on its
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.  The
Company's reserve for professional liability expenses does not
include any amounts for the collective actions, the purported
class action against the Facility or the lawsuit filed against the
Company's directors.  An unfavorable outcome in any of these
lawsuits or any of the Company's professional liability actions,
any regulatory action, any investigation or lawsuit alleging
violations of fraud and abuse laws or of elderly abuse laws or any
state or Federal False Claims Act case could subject the Company
to fines, penalties and damages, including exclusion from the
Medicare or Medicaid programs, and could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, cash flows or results
of operations.

Brentwood, Tennessee-based Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.,
provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in
eight states, primarily in the Southeast and Southwest (Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and West
Virginia).  The Company's centers provide a range of health care
services to their patients and residents that include nursing,
personal care, and social services.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Denies All Allegations in Drywall Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. disclosed in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it and its subsidiary answered
the consolidated antitrust complaints pending in Pennsylvania,
denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price
of drywall.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum
Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum
conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for
drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law.
The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing.  In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North
America, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO
Building Products LLC.  The plaintiffs in these class action
lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or
indirect purchasers of wallboard during various periods from 2008
to present for unspecified monetary damage (including treble
damages) and in some cases injunctive relief in various United
States district courts, including the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina, North Carolina
and the Northern District of Illinois.  On April 8, 2013, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and
consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints.  The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant.  On
July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the
complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to
increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses
to plaintiffs' claims.

Limited written discovery has taken place to date.  Due to the
recent nature of these claims, the Company is unable to assess the
likelihood or amount of potential loss relating to the claims, or
whether such losses, if any, would have a material impact on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will
vigorously defend itself against these claims.

Eagle Materials Inc. is a diversified producer of basic building
products used in residential, industrial, commercial and
infrastructure construction.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


FORD MOTOR: Pa. Court Refuses to Junk Breach of Warranty Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Ford
Motor Co. won't have to face all the claims filed by a class of
consumers who say it sold them cars with engines that suddenly
lose power in the midst of driving, a federal judge ruled.

While New Jersey resident Jason Schmidt was driving on a highway
in 2012, his used 2005 Ford Explorer malfunctioned and completely
lost power, he claims.

Though the warranty allegedly was still valid -- since the SUV was
less than eight years old and had been driven less than 80,000
miles -- Schmidt says a Ford dealership told him no applicable
warranty would cover the cost of replacing his engine's powertrain
control module.

He then lodged a complaint with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and later found online that the issue he
experienced was "pervasive to the class of vehicles."

Schmidt and six others filed a nationwide class action against
Ford Motor Co., alleging that it knowingly sold vehicles equipped
with defective 5.4 L V8 engines from 2004 to 2008.

They say the engines' experience of acceleration hesitation,
stalling, loss of revolutions per minute and power, and sudden and
intermittent deceleration may stem from their powertrain or
transmission control modules, electronic throttle controls, or
throttle body assemblies.

Plaintiff Lee Pullen, of California, says he was never informed of
any warranty for repair costs, so he paid out-of-pocket to replace
his used 2005 Expedition's throttle body.

Two plaintiffs claim that no defects have manifested in their
vehicles, but the defect's latency reduced their cars' value and
usefulness and caused the customers to overpay for them.

The 17-count amended complaint asserts claims for breach of
express and implied warranty, common law fraud/violation of the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and quasi-contract recovery
under California law, and seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

Senior U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted Ford's motion to dismiss several claims on
September 23, 2013.

"Plaintiffs, with the exception of Jason Schmidt, whose breach-of-
warranty claims defendant does not move to dismiss, have failed to
allege that they provided pre-suit notice to defendant of any
alleged defect," Robreno wrote.  "While plaintiffs do allege that
defendant had knowledge of the defects through submitting
[technical service bulletins] TSBs and receiving consumer
complaints directly through customers including Jason Schmidt and
through the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]
NHTSA, such allegations are insufficient to sustain the claims of
other plaintiffs who (1) drove different vehicles with different
model years, (2) purchased at different times, and (3) in
different states."

The plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims
lacked specificity, as "they fail to plead any facts or
circumstances that might support this bare allegation of
justifiable reliance," Robreno wrote.  "No facts are pleaded
regarding (1) when, where, and from whom plaintiffs purchased or
otherwise acquired their vehicles; (2) what, if any, Ford
employees were involved in those transactions; and (3) any
particular information on how plaintiffs who did not actually pay
for repairs have been harmed by the omissions."

The judge tossed certain plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims, as
well.

"None of the relevant plaintiffs actually paid for any repairs to
their vehicles," Robreno wrote.  "Furthermore, these plaintiffs do
not even allege that they purchased their vehicles from defendant
or one of defendant's dealers.  They fail to show any way in which
their money transferred from their own pockets to defendant's."

Remaining are claims for unjust enrichment under Illinois law;
quasi-contract; Schmidt's breach of warranty; and an injunction,
which Ford did not move to dismiss, the ruling states.

Ford, the nation's second-largest automaker, reported more than
$134 billion in revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie Parker Thompson, Esq.
          Larry E. Coben, Esq.
          Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
          ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN & SMALLEY PC
          1710 Spruce St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790-4554
          Facsimile: (215) 875-7701
          E-mail: jthompson@anapolschwartz.com
                  lcoben@anapolschwartz.com
                  sweiss@anapolschwartz.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq.
          Richard Charles Beaulieu, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          901 East Cary St.
          One James Center
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1131
          E-mail: twalker@mcguirewoods.com
                  rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 South State St., Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7637
          E-mail: jconigliaro@dykema.com

               - and -

          Emily J. Stockwell, Esq.
          Tiffany M. Alexander, Esq.
          William J. Conroy, Esq.
          CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY
          1205 Westlakes Dr. Suite 330
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 964-1900
          E-mail: erogers@campbell-trial-lawyers.com
                  talexander@campbell-trial-lawyers.com
                  wconroy@campbell-trial-lawyers.com

The case is Schmidt, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:12-
cv-07222-ER, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Approval of Fannie Mae Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a
settlement in the litigation related to Fannie Mae, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) was added as a defendant in an
amended complaint filed on August 14, 2006, in a purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The complaint asserts violations of the federal
securities laws generally arising from allegations concerning
Fannie Mae's accounting practices in connection with certain
Fannie Mae-sponsored REMIC transactions that were allegedly
arranged by GS&Co.  The complaint does not specify a dollar amount
of damages.  The other defendants include Fannie Mae, certain of
its past and present officers and directors, and accountants.  By
a decision dated May 8, 2007, the district court granted GS&Co.'s
motion to dismiss the claim against it and the remaining parties
agreed to a settlement in April 2013, subject to court approval,
which would resolve the action in its entirety and would not
involve any contribution by GS&Co.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Hudson Mezzanine CDOs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the class action lawsuit against
its subsidiaries relating to Hudson Mezzanine synthetic
collateralized debt obligations, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Group Inc.) and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2).  The amended
complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims,
and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.
The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's
claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of the
plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012.  On May 21,
2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and
fraud.  On December 17, 2012, the plaintiff moved for class
certification.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss HAMP-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by homeowners
participating in the federal Home Affordable Modification Program,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On February 25, 2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.)
was added as a defendant through an amended complaint in a
putative class action, originally filed on April 6, 2012, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
Litton, Ocwen and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen Servicing).
Litton is a residential mortgage servicing subsidiary sold by the
Company to Ocwen Financial Corporation in the third quarter of
2011.  The amended complaint generally alleges that Litton and
Ocwen Servicing systematically breached agreements and violated
various federal and state consumer protection laws by failing to
modify the mortgage loans of homeowners participating in the
federal Home Affordable Modification Program, and names Group Inc.
based on its prior ownership of Litton.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well
as declaratory and injunctive relief.  On April 29, 2013, Group
Inc. moved to dismiss.

The Company has also received, and continues to receive, requests
for information and/or subpoenas from federal, state and local
regulators and law enforcement authorities, relating to the
mortgage-related securitization process, subprime mortgages,
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), synthetic mortgage-related
products, particular transactions involving these products, and
servicing and foreclosure activities, and is cooperating with
these regulators and other authorities, including in some cases
agreeing to the tolling of the relevant statute of limitations.

The Company expects to be the subject of additional putative
shareholder derivative actions, purported class actions,
rescission and "put back" claims and other litigation, additional
investor and shareholder demands, and additional regulatory and
other investigations and actions with respect to mortgage-related
offerings, loan sales, CDOs, and servicing and foreclosure
activities.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Consolidated CDO-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated class action lawsuit challenging the adequacy of
its public disclosure of its activities in the collateralized debt
obligation market, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s (Group Inc.'s) public disclosure of,
among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized
debt obligation (CDO) market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.). entering into a consent agreement with the SEC,
settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection
with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of
disgorgement and civil penalties.  The consolidated amended
complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which name as defendants Group
Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its
affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages.  On
June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on
Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice
from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to
proceed.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend itself and a
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit alleging they
systematically discriminated against female employees, according
to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. (Group Inc.) and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations.  The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.  On July 17, 2012, the district court
issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s
motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the
ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable
remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike
plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature.  On
March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named
plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the Company.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Suit Over RALI Pass-Through Certificates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary
against a class action lawsuit over RALI Pass-Through
Certificates, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in a putative securities class action initially
filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  As to the underwriters, the plaintiffs
allege that the offering documents in connection with various
offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated
the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential
Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI),
Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding
Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and
directors.  On March 31, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss
was granted in part and denied in part by the district court,
resulting in dismissal on the basis of standing of all claims
relating to offerings in which no plaintiff purchased securities.
In June and July 2010, the lead plaintiff and five additional
investors moved to intervene in order to assert claims based on
additional offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.).  On
April 28, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as
to certain of these claims (including those relating to one
offering underwritten by GS&Co. based on a release in an unrelated
settlement), but otherwise permitted the intervenor case to
proceed.

The district court has certified a class in connection with the
pre-intervention offerings which includes only initial purchasers
who bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their
agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date
(rather than just on the offering date).  On March 26, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the
defendants' petition seeking leave to appeal the district court's
class certification orders.  On April 30, 2013, the district court
granted, in part, plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the
claims, including claims related to seven offerings underwritten
by GS&Co., that were previously dismissed on March 31, 2010.  On
May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
incorporating both the reinstated and intervenor claims.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.51 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings for which claims
have not been dismissed or which have been reinstated.  On May 14,
2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and
the action has been stayed with respect to them, RFSC and certain
of their officers and directors.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defends Suits Over Mortgage Certificates vs. Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiaries
against two class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers
of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
(GSMC) and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current
or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative
class action commenced on December 11, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of
purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and
asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts
established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007.  The
complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
rescission or rescissionary damages.  By a decision dated
September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's
claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included in
plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings.  On March 18, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit
decision.  On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served a fourth
amended complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven
additional offerings.

On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought
to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action
asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the
offerings included in the initial plaintiff's complaint.  The
district court twice granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
this separate action, both times with leave to replead.  That
separate plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and has moved to
further amend this complaint to add claims with respect to two
additional offerings included in the initial plaintiff's
complaint; defendants have moved to dismiss and opposed the
amendment.  The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co.
underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of
certificates to all purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue
in the complaints.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Credit Derivatives
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., is facing antitrust class action
lawsuits relating to credit derivatives, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Group Inc.) are among the numerous defendants in putative
antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives, filed
beginning in May 2013 in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern
District of Illinois and Southern District of New York.  The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws by conspiring to forestall the development of
alternatives to over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and
maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Aluminum Storage Facilities Mgmt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are
facing class action lawsuits in connection with the management of
aluminum storage facilities, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) and its subsidiaries,
GS Power Holdings LLC and Metro International Trade Services LLC,
are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions
filed beginning on August 1, 2013, in various federal district
courts.  The complaints generally allege violation of federal
antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in connection with
the management of aluminum storage facilities.  The complaints
seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as
unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: MF Global Securities Litigation vs. GS&Co. Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The MF Global Securities Litigation involving a subsidiary of The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., remains pending, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing
November 18, 2011.  These complaints generally allege that the
offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in
principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other
things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks
of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation
of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.  On
October 19, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Numerous parties, including GS&Co., have
commenced a mediation relating to various MF Global-related
proceedings.  GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate principal amount of
approximately $214 million of the notes.  On October 31, 2011, MF
Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing.  Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit Over Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit relating to "force-placed" hazard
insurance arranged by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s former
subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), Litton and Ocwen
Financial Corporation are defendants in a putative class action
filed on January 23, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York generally challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance
as required by their mortgages.  Litton is a residential mortgage
servicing subsidiary sold by the Company to Ocwen in the third
quarter of 2011.  The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law,
and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- http://www.gs.com/-- is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company regulated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  New York-based
Goldman Sachs is also a global investment banking, securities and
investment management firm that provides a wide range of financial
services to a substantial and diversified client base that
includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GREGORY TURZA: Klein Moynihan Discusses TCPA Junk Fax Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that commercial messages
sent via facsimile by a marketing firm on behalf of an attorney to
more than two hundred certified public accountants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act because they did not inform the
recipients how to stop receiving future messages.

                    Background of TCPA Fax Case

Attorney Gregory Turza hired a marketing firm, Top of Mind, to
send "Daily Plan-It" faxes once every other week to CPAs.  The
faxes contained mundane business advice, along with Mr. Turza's
name, business address, logo and a description of his business
services.  Although the faxes were sent in Mr. Turza's name,
Mr. Turza did not author or edit them.  In fact, he never even
reviewed them.  The faxes were comprised of 75% business advice
and 25% marketing material describing the commercial availability
of Mr. Turza's legal services.

In 2008, a CPA firm that received thirty-two faxes from Mr. Turza
filed a putative class action against him in the Northern District
of Illinois.  The District Court held that Mr. Turza was liable
for violating the TCPA because each fax failed to contain opt-out
information to allow the recipient to stop receiving future faxes
from Mr. Turza.  The District Court entered a verdict against
Mr. Turza in the amount of $4,215,000.00, which included a payment
to the class representative plaintiff, a payment to each class
member, an award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and directed that
any residual funds be paid to a specific charity.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision on the merits (Mr. Turza's liability under the TCPA), but
vacated the remedial order because, among other reasons, it was
unclear how each class member would be paid (through a third-party
administrator, etc.) and, if the attorney had sufficient funds to
pay such a large judgment, whether the charity selected by the
judge was the appropriate recipient of any possible remainder.

      Why the Attorney Was Found to Have Violated the TCPA

The District Court held, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on
appeal, that regardless of whether the faxes were sent to
recipients who had consented to receive them or otherwise had an
established business relationship with Mr. Turza, each fax
violated the TCPA because it did not contain information which
would allow the recipient to opt-out from receiving commercial
faxes in the future.

Mr. Turza argued that the TCPA did not apply because the faxes did
not contain advertisements.  Further, he argued, even if they did
contain ads, such ads were merely incidental to the business
advice given in the faxes.  The court was not persuaded by
Mr. Turza's arguments, finding that, from a basic review of the
faxes at issue, it was obvious that the purpose of the faxes was
promotional and served to market Mr. Turza's services.

The Seventh Circuit separately noted that the marketing firm, Top
of Mind, had hired a third party, MessageVision, to send the
actual faxes.  The court further noted that Mr. Turza did not
argue that Top of Mind (or any other "person") was responsible for
sending the faxes at issue in the class action lawsuit.  Even if
he had, however, Mr. Turza still would be held accountable under
the TCPA.


HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that
a putative class of disgruntled consumers sued Hitachi Automotive
Systems Ltd. in Michigan on Oct. 3 over its alleged role in an
international price-fixing conspiracy, just one week after the
company agreed to shell out $195 million in a U.S. government suit
over related allegations.

Ifeoma Adams and more than 40 other co-plaintiffs said the
Japanese-based company colluded with manufacturers and suppliers
to artificially manipulate the stateside price of an automotive
part designed to control the timing of engine valves.

Late last month, Hitachi joined eight other Japanese auto parts
makers in paying $740 million in total fines in the largest
antitrust investigation ever pursued by the U.S. Department of
Justice.  The DOJ accused the companies of inflating the overall
cost of cars sold in the U.S. via a conspiracy to hike up the
prices of a host of parts, including windshield wipers, air
conditioning systems, power steering assemblies and the valve
timing control devices at issue in the instant suit.

"The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, which has been
investigating anti-competitive conduct in the automotive parts
industry for some time, has concluded that there is 'no doubt'
that consumers were hurt financially," The Oct. 3 complaint said.
"This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws
were meant to punish and prevent."

The plaintiffs are suing under the Sherman Antitrust Act as well
as state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection
laws, and seek to represent a class of consumer who bought or
leased a vehicle containing a Hitachi-made valve timing control
device since 2000.

Plaintiffs in the suit all purport to have purchased the valve
timing control devices indirectly, as such devices tend to be
purchased directly by auto manufacturers, such as Ford Motor Co.,
Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors LLC, and installed into new
cars, according to the complaint.

The complaint noted the fact that the market for such devices has
a high barrier to entry and demand for them is inelastic makes the
alleged conspiracy more plausible.

A massive investigation into the purported cartel is underway
around the globe, with officials from the Japan Fair Trade
Commission, the European Commission and the DOJ scrutinizing the
array of subindustries that make up the overall automotive
industry, according to the complaint.

The U.S. front in that investigation has already yielded more than
$1.6 billion in criminal fines, eclipsing the DOJ antitrust
division's total take in fines for all cases it handled in 2012,
the plaintiffs said.

On Sept. 26, Hitachi copped to a one-count criminal information in
that investigation over price inflation alleged to have occurred
between January 2000 and at least February 2010, according to the
complaint.

That case asserted that Hitachi took part in meetings in the U.S.
and elsewhere to discuss and agree upon bids and price quotations
to be submitted to auto manufacturers, using code names and
meeting at remote locations to keep their conduct secret,
according to the complaint.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Oct. 4.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm PC, Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP and Cotchett Pitre
& McCarthy LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available on Oct. 4.

The case is Adams v. Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd., case No.
2:13-cv-14226 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Has Yet to File Merger Suits Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. has yet to file for court approval its
settlement of merger-related class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On August 27, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with M&T Bank Corporation
("M&T") and Wilmington Trust Corporation ("WTC").  The Merger
Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, Hudson City will merge with and into
WTC, with WTC continuing as the surviving entity.

Since the announcement of the Merger, eighteen putative class
action complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery,
Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors, M&T, and WTC
challenging the Merger.  Six putative class actions challenging
the Merger have also been filed in the Superior Court for Bergen
County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "New Jersey Court").
The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Hudson
City Bancorp directors breached their fiduciary duties to Hudson
City Bancorp's public shareholders by approving the Merger at an
unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that Hudson City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading
and incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with the
proposed transaction.  All 24 lawsuits seek, among other things,
to enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.  Certain of the actions also seek an accounting
of damages sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the actions (collectively, the "Actions").

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other
named defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the New
Jersey Court.  Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T
agreed to make available additional information to Hudson City
Bancorp shareholders.  The additional information was contained in
a Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an
exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013.  In
addition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has
reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice.  The settlement will not affect the Merger
consideration to be paid to Hudson City Bancorp's shareholders in
connection with the proposed Merger.  In the event the New Jersey
Court approves an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with the settlement, such fees and expenses shall be
paid by Hudson City, its successor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.  Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.

Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Paramus, New Jersey.  The Company is the savings and loan
holding company for Hudson City Savings Bank and its subsidiaries.
Hudson City Savings is a federally chartered stock savings bank.


INTUIT INC: Wins Approval of $6.55-Mil. Accord in TurboTax Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge approved a $6.55 million settlement of two class
actions that claim Intuit's free edition of TurboTax included
usurious "quadruple-digit interest rates."

Lead plaintiffs Tasha and Fredierick Smith, of Arkansas, filed
their complaint against Intuit last year claiming that the
software maker violates the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and
California business and usury laws.  The couple said they used
TurboTax in 2009, 2010 and 2011, and deferred paying the $86.90
fee to use the software each time, choosing instead to have the
amount deducted from their tax refund.

But Intuit charged them another $29.95 for this, a "refund
processing option" (RPO) more than 34 percent of the original fee,
the Smiths claimed.  The couple said they received their federal
refund in two weeks.

"Plaintiffs paid $29.95 for an approximate 14-day loan of $86.90,"
their complaint stated.  "The APR, properly calculated in
accordance with TILA, was an exorbitant quadruple-digit interest
rate.  Such interest rates also violated California's usury laws."

The couple argued that Intuit's fee should be considered a refund
anticipation loan and therefore subject to interest rate and
finance charge disclosure rules.  But U.S. District Judge Edward
Davila disagreed and dismissed the action, writing that the RPO
did not qualify as a loan because customers never received any
money from Intuit.  After allowing the Smiths to amend their
complaint twice, Davila ordered the parties into mediation.

Earlier this year, both sides announced they had reached a
preliminary $6.55 million agreement.

Davila signed off on the settlement Tuesday, October 1, 2013,
which covers all users of TurboTax's refund processing service
between 2008 and May 28, 2013.  The agreement incorporates a
second class action against Intuit that is currently pending in
state court.  Additionally, the judge awarded a total of
$1,686,301 in attorney fees and costs to the firms Carney Bates &
Pulliam, Golomb & Honik, Ku & Mussman, and Milstein Adelman, who
represented the classes in the action.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Susan R. Kaufman, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES PULLIAM AND BOWMAN, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com

               - and -

          Richard Moss Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB HONIK
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 469-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          Isaac Miller, Esq.
          M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
          12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 406
          Miami, Florida 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  louis@kumussman.com
                  ryan@kumussman.com

               - and -

          Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Austin Van Schwing
          Joseph Richard Rose
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8210
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8458
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com
                  jrose@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Sarah Brown Hadjimarkos
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5395
          Facsimile: (650) 849-5095
          E-mail: shadjimarkos@gibsondunn.com

The case is Smith, et al. v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-00222-
EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose).


LOS ANGELES: Judgments in "Owens" and "Pitts" Class Suits Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, affirmed judgments entered in two separate superior court
class actions against defendant and respondent County of Los
Angeles (County); the first by plaintiff and appellant Larry Pitts
and the second by plaintiffs and appellants Patrick Owens and
Patricia Munoz.

Pitts appeals an order denying his motion to enforce a settlement
and Owens and Munoz appeal a judgment.

The appellants challenge the legality of Los Angeles County's user
utility tax (UUT) enacted pursuant to a measure approved by the
voters on November 4, 2008. The appellants contended the UUT is
unlawful because it violated the voters' due process and free
speech rights and because the tax was imposed in violation of
Proposition 218 and the Elections Code.

The Calif. Appeals Court rejected all of the appellants' arguments
on the merits and affirmed the judgment dated May 12, 2012, in the
Owens class action and the order dated April 26, 2012, in the
Oronoz/Pitts class action.  The Calif. Appeals Court concluded
that Pitts is judicially estopped and barred by the terms of a
settlement agreement he executed from pursuing his challenge to
the UUT.  Respondent County of Los Angeles is awarded costs on
appeal in both appeals.

The cases are:

PATRICK OWENS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B242291.

LARRY PITTS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant and Respondent, NO. B242393.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 2, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Ib4jMy from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Steven F. Carvel and Steven F. Carvel --
steven@carvellaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants Patrick
Owens and Patricia Munoz.

Huskinson, Brown & Heidenreich, Paul E. Heidenreich --
pheidenreich_huskinsonbrown@att.net -- and David W.T. Brown for
Plaintiff and Appellant Larry Pitts.

Jones Day, Elwood Lui -- elui@jonesday.com -- Brian D. Hershman --
bhershman@jonesday.com -- and Erica L. Reilley --
elreilley@jonesday.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Orders Reforms in Immigration Crusade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that federal judges in
Arizona recently handed down two rulings meant to rein in Sheriff
Joe Arpaio's highly publicized efforts to fight illegal
immigration in the state's most populous county.

U.S District Judge G. Murray Snow on Wednesday, October 2, 2013,
ordered a long list of reforms with which Arpaio and the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) must comply, including the
appointment of a federal monitor, enhanced data collection, record
keeping and training, and a video recorder in every patrol vehicle
to record every traffic stop.

The ruling comes in the wake of Snow's findings in May that the
department violated the civil rights of Latino plaintiffs by
racially profiling them and subjecting them to traffic stops and
arrests without probable cause.

That decision resolved a Phoenix trial last summer in which the
American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, lead plaintiff Manuel
de Jesus Ortega Melendres and others was pitted against the MCSO.

In a separate ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Robert
Broomfield enjoined Arizona's so-called Maricopa Migrant
Conspiracy Policy, which allegedly inspired Arpaio to create the
Human Smuggling Unit of the MCSO and to make immigration
enforcement one the department's top priorities.

Passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2005, the human smuggling law
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 13-2319) allowed for the arrest and
prosecution of immigrants for "conspiring to transport themselves
within Maricopa County."

Broomfield agreed with plaintiffs We Are America/Somos America
Coalition of Arizona in its proposed class action against the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that the statute was
preempted by federal law.  Since the law went into effect, the
MCSO has arrested some 1,800 "non-smugglers" and has prosecuted
1,357, according to the ruling.

Broomfield also certified a class of "all individuals who pay
taxes to Maricopa County and object to the use of county tax
revenues to stop, detain, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute, or
penalize individuals for conspiring to transport themselves, and
themselves only, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 13-
2319."

In addition to mandating the creation of a Community Advisory
Board and the appointment of a community liaison officer to work
with a full-time, on-site federal monitor, Snow's ruling prohibits
deputies from "detaining any individual based on actual or
suspected 'unlawful presence,' without something more." It also
bars them from "initiating a pretextual vehicle stop where an
officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a
traffic or equipment violation has been or is being committed in
order to determine whether the driver or passengers are unlawfully
present."

"MCSO shall deliver police services consistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Arizona,
MCSO policy, and this order, and with current professional
standards," Snow wrote.  "In conducting its activities, MCSO shall
ensure that members of the public receive equal protection of the
law, without discriminating based on actual or perceived race or
ethnicity, and in a manner that promotes public confidence."

Arpaio hinted Tuesday, October 1, 2013, that he would appeal
Snow's ruling.

"I have received a copy of the court order and I am in the process
of discussing it with our attorneys," he said in statement.  "We
are identifying areas that are ripe for appeal.  To be clear, the
appointed monitor will have no veto authority over my duties or
operations.  As the constitutionally elected Sheriff of Maricopa
County, I serve the people and I will continue to perform my
duties and enforce all laws."

Dan Pachoda, legal director for the ACLU of Arizona, said in a
statement that the requirements, which must remain in place for at
least three years, show "Judge Snow recognized that Sheriff
Arpaio's years of discriminatory practices and unconstitutional
policies required major change-including appointment of a federal
monitor, data collection and video recording for every vehicle
stop."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Duff Lyall, Esq.
          ACLU - PHOENIX, AZ
          3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
          E-mail: jlyall@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Kelly Joyce Flood, Esq.
          Daniel Joseph Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU - PHOENIX, AZ
          P.O. 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
          E-mail: kflood@acluaz.org
                  dpochoda@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU - NEW YORK, NY
          125 Broad St., 18th Fl.
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2676
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          ACLU - SAN FRANCISCO, CA
          IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Nancy Anne Ramirez, Esq.
          MALDEF - LOS ANGELES, CA
          634 S Spring St., 11th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 629-2512
          Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
          E-mail: nramirez@maldef.org

               - and -

          Anne Lai, Esq.
          ANNE LAI, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          401 E Peltrason Dr., Suite 3500
          Irvine, CA 92697
          Telephone: (949) 824-9894
          Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
          E-mail: alai@law.uci.edu

               - and -

          David Hults, Esq.
          Tammy Albarran, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP - SAN FRANCISCO, CA
          1 Front St.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: dhults@cov.com
                  talbarran@cov.com

               - and -

          Lesli Rawles Gallagher, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          9191 Towne Centre Dr., 6th Fl.
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 678-1807
          Facsimile: (858) 678-1600
          E-mail: lgallagher@cov.com

               - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4704
          Facsimile: (650) 632-4804
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charitie L. Hartsig, Esq.
          John Michael Fry, Esq.
          Michael D. Moberly, Esq.
          Thomas George Stack, Esq.
          RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE PA
          1 N Central Ave., Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417
          Telephone: (602) 440-4898
          Facsimile: (602) 257-9582
          E-mail: chartsig@rcalaw.com
                  jfry@rcalaw.com
                  mmoberly@rcalaw.com
                  tstack@rcalaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Selden, Esq.
          Julie A. Pace, Esq.
          THE CAVANAGH LAW FIRM PA
          The Viad Tower
          1850 N Central Ave., Suite 2400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 322-4009
          Facsimile: (602) 322-4101
          E-mail: dselden@cavanaghlaw.com
                  jpace@cavanaghlaw.com

               - and -

          Ann Thompson Uglietta, Esq.
          Thomas P. Liddy, Esq.
          MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE-CIVIL SERVICES DIV.
          222 N Central Ave., Suite 1100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 506-8581
          E-mail: uglietta@mcao.maricopa.gov
                  liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov

               - and -

          James Lawrence Williams, Esq.
          SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH & HERROD PC
          1221 E Osborn Rd., Suite 105
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 277-7000
          E-mail: james@azbarristers.com

               - and -

          Alec R. Hillbo, Esq.
          Leigh Eric Dowell, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          2415 E Camelback Rd., Suite 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 778-3700
          Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
          E-mail: alec.hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com
                  eric.dowell@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Kerry Scott Martin, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC - TUCSON, AZ
          3430 E Sunrise Dr., Suite 220
          Tucson, AZ 85718
          Telephone: (602) 778-3715
          Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
          E-mail: kerry.martin@ogletreedeakins.com

The case is Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
02513-GMS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix Division).


MICHIGAN COMMERCE: ATMs Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ATMs at Michigan Commerce
Bank are not accessible to the blind, a class claims in Michigan
Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS
          100 Park St.
          Traverse City, MI 49684
          Telephone: (231) 929-0500
          E-mail: dmyers@domlawoffice.com

The case is Besser v. Michigan Commerce Bank, Case No. 1:13-cv-
01088-PLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Thousands of Retired Players Opt Out of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Forliti, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
thousands of retired NFL players have opted out of a $50 million
class-action settlement in a case that accused the league of using
their names and images without their consent.

But in papers filed on Oct. 4, players' attorney Dan Gustafson
said the settlement should be approved because it is "fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class."
Mr. Gustafson wrote that more than 25,000 players -- or more than
90 percent of the settlement class -- chose to participate.
Meanwhile, 2,140 players -- less than 8 percent -- asked to be
excluded.

Eighteen players filed timely objections, and can argue against
the settlement at a final approval hearing later this month.  A
19th player filed an objection after the deadline.  Some say the
settlement should be rejected because it doesn't make direct
payments to class members, and that it unfairly gives varying
benefits to different players.

The federal class-action lawsuit was filed in 2009 in Minneapolis
by Hall of Famer Elvin Bethea and five other retired players.
They accused the NFL of blatantly exploiting retired players'
identities in films, highlight reels and memorabilia to market the
league's "glory days."

The settlement, reached in April, calls for the NFL to pay $42
million over eight years toward a trust to help retired players
with issues such as medical expenses, housing and career
transition.  It also establishes a licensing agency for retirees
to ensure compensation for the use of their identities.

A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 17.

Those who chose to be excluded can pursue their own cases against
the NFL in the future.  But U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson has
issued an injunction barring similar lawsuits from going forward
while this case is pending.


OTTAWA, CANADA: Former SALH Reservist Joins Benefits Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex McCuaig, writing for Medicine Hat News, reports that a group
of ex-soldiers including former South Alberta Light Horse
reservist Cpl. Bradley Quast is taking Ottawa to court, alleging
that the federal government's current compensation for veterans
violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government's Veterans Charter eliminates the lifetime
disability pension for disabled soldiers and replaces it with
lump-sum payments.

However, the Conservative government is appealing the B.C. court
ruling this week that would allow injured soldiers from the
Afghanistan conflict to launch a class-action lawsuit opposing the
Veterans Charter's provisions.

In the case of Quast injured in a Dec. 2009 IED explosion that
killed a Calgary Herald journalist, federal government civilian
and four soldiers that payment amounts to C$102,000, according to
court documents.  And that amount came following two appeals of
the original C$55,000 settlement.

According to court documents, in addition to life-altering
injuries to his right foot and leg, the former city resident also
suffers post-traumatic stress from his Afghanistan tour.

Veterans say the new disability payments are paltry compared to
awards given to those who fought in previous wars, and don't keep
up with worker's compensation claims or even civil settlements in
personal injury cases.

"The legislation confers benefits on the plaintiffs; it deprives
them of nothing," according to court documents filed by the
federal lawyers in response to the claim.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, said he had hoped the
government would allow the case to proceed and be decided on its
own merits.

The fight over whether the soldiers have the right to sue is
little more than a stalling tactic, Mr. Sorochan said one that
could find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada and delay the
case for years.

"The motivation here is money, saving money on the backs and blood
of veterans that served Canada," Mr. Sorochan said from Vancouver.

Federal lawyers intend to argue that allowing the lawsuit to
proceed would undermine the authority of Parliament.

The case put forward by the soldiers hinges on the fact that ever
since the First World War, successive federal governments have
recognized the sacrifice of wounded soldiers as an extraordinary
service that places a special obligation on the Crown.  But the
Harper government's legal team notes the promises of past
governments are not and should not be binding on present and
future governments.

"While this may sound reasonable, their argument could have a far
broader impact than perhaps intended by the plaintiffs," said a
government statement released on Oct. 2 by Veterans Affairs.

"If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic
accountability as parliamentarians of the future could be
prevented from changing important legislation, including the sort
of changes that some veterans would like to see to the new
veterans charter."

During the first round of court action, federal lawyers tried to
argue that the government had no special obligation to veterans.
But B.C. Justice Gordon Weatherill dismissed the federal
government's application, saying the case "is about promises the
Canadian government made to men and women injured in service to
their country and whether it is obliged to fulfill those
promises."

The decision to appeal came on the same day as Veterans Affairs
Minister Julian Fantino met with veterans advocacy groups at the
Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, trying to sell them on the merits
of an upcoming parliamentary review of the charter.

A House of Commons committee will examine whether recent changes
to the charter are having the desired effect.  The country's
veterans ombudsman released a report on Oct. 1 that said, among
other things, that the system will penalize hundreds and perhaps
thousands of wounded soldiers who don't have pensions when they
turn 65.


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Faces Further Penalty Payment Over Freight Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Sandilands, writing for Crikey, reports that when Qantas
conspired with a range of other airlines to rob its freight
customers through illegal cartel like behavior involving price
fixing between 2000 and 2007 it clearly didn't expect to be faced
with the risk of damages and compensation payments in 2013 and
perhaps beyond.

But that's part of the painful lesson in crime and punishment
being delivered to the Australian carrier, and others, as a class
action looms in the Federal Court from 27 October, in a trial that
has been set down for 26 weeks.

A detailed summary of the pending class action and the events that
preceded it is published on law firm Maurice Blackburn's site.

This is part of a notice the Federal Court of Australia required
to be published for the information of persons possibly affected
by the class action for damages against Qantas and others being
brought by the law firm.

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered that this notice be
published for the information of persons who might have claims
affected by this class action.

If you were resident in Australia as at January 11, 2007; and in
the period January 1, 2000 to January 11, 2007, paid identified
amounts totaling more than AUD$20,000 for the carriage of goods to
or from Australia, including in each instance a component by air
and have not opted out, you are a group member in this class
action.

The allegations in the class action relate to an alleged cartel to
fix the price of international air freight services, and
specifically the level of fuel and security surcharges imposed.
Proceedings have been brought against Qantas Airways Limited,
Lufthansa Cargo Aktiengesellschaft, Singapore Airlines Ltd,
Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd., Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,
Air New Zealand Ltd., Air New Zealand (Australia) Pty Ltd. and
British Airways Plc.  Some respondents have also joined other
airlines (cross-respondents).  To date the Respondents have denied
the allegations, and are defending the class action.

The cross-respondents are expected to do the same.

The proceeding claims that the cartel caused the prices of
international airfreight services supplied by carriers including
the Respondents to be higher than they would otherwise have been.
The Applicants are claiming damages, declarations, injunctions and
other orders on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the group
members.  You can only claim damages if you sustained loss or
damage by reason of the alleged conduct which is the subject of
these proceedings and have not released such a claim.

By way of further historical detail, a Qantas executive involved
in the illegal conduct in which the airline engaged,
Bruce McCaffrey, was jailed for six months in the US in 2009,
after the airline's more senior management traded an indemnity
from prison terms as part of a negotiated cash settlement with US
authorities of their liability and that of Qantas for its actions
in America.

One of the few stories that made it into print in this country
about McCaffrey's being sacrificed by Qantas in this manner can be
read here.

No on-the-record accounts have been discovered of any detailed
contrition by Qantas for its robbing its freight customers at home
or abroad over a seven year period, nor indeed of its casting
Mr. McCaffrey adrift to do time in an American prison.


ROEHL TRANSPORT: Student Drivers File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murphy, writing for News-Herald Media, reports that a
$5 million lawsuit was filed on Oct.2 against Roehl Transport
alleging its driver-training program violated state and federal
law the past three years by not paying student drivers a minimum
wage.

The suit seeks class-action status for what it contends are the
"thousands" of Roehl student drivers who underwent the company's
training program during the past three years.

According to the complaint filed in federal court, Marshfield-
based Roehl requires new drivers to undergo a multiweek, over-the-
road training program in which they transport cargo with an
experienced company driver.  Student drivers are paid a flat $300
a week regardless of the number of hours they worked.  The trainer
typically was paid per mile, not a flat salary.

Student drivers were told to report their time as "on duty" or
"off duty," designations the Department of Transportation uses to
regulate the number of hours a trucker can drive and then must
rest.

John Morales III of Monticello, Ind., the lead plaintiff in the
suit, enrolled in the program in April.  He regularly logged nine
or 10 on-duty hours a day, and up to 70 on-duty hours per week.

At $300 per week, Mr. Morales was paid far below the $7.25 federal
minimum wage.

The suit doesn't allege any violations of DOT regulations for
driver's hours.

Mr. Morales was told that meals, coffee breaks and routine stops
are to be logged as off-duty time.  Driving, fueling and
performing maintenance was to be logged as on-duty time.

Federal and state wage law requires employees to be given regular
paid regular breaks of up to 20 minutes if they are not meal
breaks.

Failure to pay Mr. Morales minimum wage for short breaks also
violated federal wage law, according to the suit.  Some rest time
occurring on multiday assignments also needs to be compensated at
minimum-wage levels as student drivers remain responsible for the
truck and cargo and must remain near it, the complaint said.
Roehl knew how much on- and off-duty time each student driver was
not getting paid for since operations were reported through a
Qualcomm system in each truck, according to the suit.

Mr. Morales is driving for another trucking company, said his
attorney Justin Swidler, of Cherry Hill, N.J.

"Student drivers spend a lot of time working that they're not
properly compensated for," Mr. Swidler said.

A call to Greg Koepel, Roehl's vice president of Workforce
Development and Administration, wasn't returned before deadline.

The suit seeks a court order:

    * Prohibiting Roehl from continuing to maintain the training
program that violates wage laws;

    * Compensation to student drivers for the pay and benefits
they should have received;

    * Reasonable legal costs and fees.


STILLWATER MINING: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk "Jurgelewicz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stillwater Mining Company is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit styled Jurgelewicz v.
McAllister, et al., according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, a putative derivative and class action complaint
was filed by a purported shareholder in the United States District
Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, captioned
Jurgelewicz v. McAllister, et al., Case 1:13-cv-00047-RFC.
Francis R. McAllister is the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer.  The complaint names the board of directors as defendants
and the Company as nominal defendant.  The complaint asserts
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste and unjust
enrichment against certain members of the Board, alleging that
those defendants violated the Company's 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan, which plaintiff alleges limits awards to 250,000 shares per
year to any individual, by awarding Mr. McAllister a grant of
337,447 restricted stock units in 2010 and a grant of 267,512
restricted stock units in 2012.  The Plaintiff also asserts
against the Board class action claims for violation of the
fiduciary duty of candor and violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, alleging that
the Proxy Statement is false and misleading because it fails to
disclose the alleged violations of the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan
in 2010 and 2012.  Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks a
declaration that the awards granted to Mr. McAllister in 2010 and
2012 allegedly in excess of the applicable annual limit were ultra
vires and void; rescission of the alleged excess grants; damages;
an injunction against the 2013 Annual Meeting until corrective
action is taken; and an order directing the Company to take all
necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance
and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and
policies.

The Company strongly disagrees with the legal position taken by
and allegations made by the plaintiff, and believes this lawsuit
is without merit as the limitation in the 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan derives from Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code,
which was not relevant in respect of these awards.  However, in
order to avoid unnecessary legal expenses and the potential
distraction of litigation (which in each case the members of the
Company's Compensation Committee and Mr. McAllister believed would
not be in the best interest of the Company's shareholders), on
April 6, 2013, the Company's Compensation Committee and Mr.
McAllister agreed to rescind each of such awards to the extent
each award exceeded 250,000 shares.  To that end (i) Mr.
McAllister paid back to the Company 87,447 shares received in
respect of his 2010 restricted stock unit award and (ii) Mr.
McAllister's 2012 restricted stock unit award (with respect to
service in 2011) was reduced by 17,512 restricted stock units.  In
addition, although not subject to the litigation, consistent with
the Compensation Committee's decision on April 6, 2013, on
April 9, 2013, the Compensation Committee and Mr. McAllister
rescinded 82,000 shares in respect of his 2009 restricted stock
unit award of 332,000.  Given the actions of the Company's
Compensation Committee, it is the Company's position that this
claim is moot.  On June 12, 2013, the Company and the named
directors filed a motion to dismiss this case.

Stillwater Mining Company -- http://www.stillwatermining.com/--
mines and processes ores from its Montana operations containing
palladium, platinum, rhodium, gold, silver, copper and nickel into
intermediate and final products for sale to customers.  Palladium,
platinum, rhodium, gold and silver are sent to third party
refineries for final processing from where they are sold to a
number of consumers and dealers with whom the Company has
established trading relationships.  The Company is headquartered
in Billings, Montana.


STILLWATER MINING: "Casey" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Casey v. Stillwater Mining Co., et
al., was dismissed without prejudice in July 2013, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On April 16, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported shareholder in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court,
Yellowstone County, captioned Casey v. Stillwater Mining Co., et
al.  The complaint names the Company and the board of directors as
defendants, and asserts class action claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the board, and aiding and abetting claims
against the Company.  On June 7, 2013, the Company and the named
directors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 17,
2013, the court entered an order dismissing this case without
prejudice.

Stillwater Mining Company -- http://www.stillwatermining.com/--
mines and processes ores from its Montana operations containing
palladium, platinum, rhodium, gold, silver, copper and nickel into
intermediate and final products for sale to customers.  Palladium,
platinum, rhodium, gold and silver are sent to third party
refineries for final processing from where they are sold to a
number of consumers and dealers with whom the Company has
established trading relationships.  The Company is headquartered
in Billings, Montana.


TOWERS PERRIN: Wins Prelim. Okay of $10MM Shareholder Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Rose Bouboushian reports that
a federal judge approved a $10 million settlement for former
Towers Perrin employee-shareholders who allegedly lost millions
when the global professional services firm merged to form Towers
Watson.

For much of Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc.'s history,
employees who were promoted to "principals" could buy its stock at
much lower than book value, as long as they agreed to resell the
shares to the company at book value upon retirement.

Though the Stamford, Conn.-based firm allegedly promised
shareholders that it would remain employee-owned, it merged with
the global consulting corporation Watson Wyatt Worldwide to form a
publicly-traded company, Towers Watson, in late 2009.

That made the value of resold shares fly through the roof, Alan
Dugan and other former employee-shareholders claimed in three
federal complaints filed soon after the merger's approval.

The complaints, which were later consolidated in the federal court
in Philadelphia, asserted claims for breach of contract, express
trust and fiduciary duty, as well as for promissory estoppel and
unjust enrichment.

But U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg awarded the Towers
Perrin directors summary judgment on December 11, 2012, finding
that they never promised to keep the firm employee-owned.

On appeal, and after consulting with the 3rd Circuit's chief
mediator, the parties ultimately reached a $10 million settlement
agreement to be split among 1,050 class members based on tenure
and the number of shares they held when they left the company.

The proposed settlement class includes all former principals who
ended their services between January 1971 and June 2005, except
for those who received any consideration arising from the merger,
participated in the company's voluntary separation program in
2006, signed a release of claims related to reselling stock, were
employees of Towers Perrin or Watson Wyatt at the time of the
merger, or are current employees of Towers Watson.

Goldberg preliminarily certified the class last week, finding that
it met all requirements put forth by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

"Given the common threads tying all the class members' claims
together, class adjudication is plainly superior to hundreds of
individual cases challenging essentially the same conduct,"
Goldberg wrote.

The judge also preliminarily approved the settlement and the 16-
page notice and manner of service.

"At this stage, the settlement appears within the bounds of
reasonableness warranting preliminary approval," Goldberg wrote.
"While the $10 million recovery reflects but a fraction of the
increased value from the public sale, plaintiffs were fighting an
uphill battle by the time the settlement was reached."

He continued: "This court had granted summary judgment as to all
claims against all defendants, leaving plaintiffs with a
substantial chance of receiving no recovery at all.  Plaintiffs
faced an uncertain outcome in the 3rd Circuit, followed by more
litigation in this court, if they hoped to obtain a favorable
judgment.  This lengthy process would have resulted in significant
cost and delay.

"When compared to the relatively immediate and certain recovery
promised by the settlement, there is good reason to think that the
recovery is fair," Goldberg said. "In addition, the participation
of the 3rd Circuit's mediator suggests an arms-length negotiation,
rather than collusion for the benefit of attorneys or named
plaintiffs. Class counsel's requested compensation, which
plaintiffs represent will be no more than $3 million (not
including expenses), or 30 percent of the total fund, also falls
within the bounds of reasonableness."

With more than 14,000 employees across the world and at its
headquarters in New York City, Towers Watson reportedly reaped
$3.42 billion in revenue last year.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avani M. Shah, Esq.
          Francis J. Menton, Jr., Esq.
          Alicia D. Kelman, Esq.
          James Fitzmaurice, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Clareman, Esq.
          Steven H. Reisberg, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8827
          E-mail: ashah@willkie.com
                  fmenton@willkie.com
                  akelman@willkie.com
                  jfitzmaurice@willkie.com
                  rclareman@willkie.com
                  sreisberg@willkie.com

               - and -

          Shaimaa Hussein, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          300 W 55th Street, Apt. 3B
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8638
          E-mail: shussein@willkie.com

               - and -

          Neill C. Kling, Esq.
          Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Esq.
          HARKINS CUNNINGHAM LLP
          4000 Two Commerce Sq.
          2001 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7044
          Telephone: (215) 851-6700
          E-mail: nkling@harkinscunningham.com
                  eprotano@harkinscunningham.com

               - and -

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          Roslyn G. Pollack, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-5715
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net
                  rpollack@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq.
          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq.
          Ann Lauren Carpenter, Esq.
          Matthew J. Siembieda, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5572
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5299
          E-mail: msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com
                  tkatsiff@morganlewis.com
                  lcarpenter@morganlewis.com
                  msiembieda@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Hirschfeld, Esq.
          Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
          Elizabeth Virga, Esq.
          Robert Hora, Esq.
          Stacey J. Rappaport, Esq.
          MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          One Chase Manhattan Plaza
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5832
          E-mail: mhirschfeld@milbank.com
                  smurphy@milbank.com
                  evirga@milbank.com
                  rhora@milbank.com
                  srappaport@milbank.com

Dugan, et al. v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:09-cv-05099-MSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).


UNITED STATES: Fed. Claims Court Tosses Claims in "Jones" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNETTE E. JONES; NORMAN SAMPSON; WAYNE RANDOLF
SCOTT, ROLAND SIMMONS; HAZELLA THORNHILL, SIDNEY WALLACE, ANTHONY
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL YAHKO, for themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, NO. 11-681C, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint.

The plaintiffs filed this class-action complaint on October 14,
2011, for themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that
they are entitled to Sunday premium pay, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
Sections 5544(a) and 5546(a), for work performed on Sundays.  The
complaint seeks damages dating back to May 26, 2003.

Judge Francis M. Allegra United States Court of Federal Claims
ruled that that the six-year limitations period in Section 2501 of
Title 28 fully applies. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs
claim premium pay accruing for Sundays before October 14, 2005,
those claims are dismissed.

A copy of the Federal Claims Court's October 2, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/WOqy1Tfrom Leagle.com.

For plaintiffs:

   Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
   Katz & Ranzman, P.C.
   Suite 250, 5028 Wisconsin Avenue N.W.
   Washington, DC 20016-4135
   Tel: (202) 659-4656
   Fax: (202) 237-2487

Daniel Gene Kim, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom was Acting Assistant Attorney
General Stuart F. Delery, for defendant.


UNLIMITED MOBILE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Will" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted conditional class
certification in BRITTANY WILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOHAIL
"NICK" PANJWANI, d/b/a Unlimited Mobile, et al., Defendants, NO.
1:13-CV-1055-JMS-MJD, (S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs Brittany Will and Gabby Lozano filed the action against
Defendants Sohail "Nick" Panjwani d/b/a Unlimited Mobile, Ali
Panjwani d/b/a Unlimited Mobile, and S.V.A.Z. (IN) Inc. The
Plaintiffs allege that Unlimited Mobile failed to pay them and
others similarly situated to them in accordance with the overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Magnus-Stinson grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification and for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs. The Court
conditionally certifies this class under the FLSA:

All current and former Sales Associates, Managers and District
Managers (or their functional equivalents) who have worked for
Defendants at any of their Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri,
Iowa, and Kansas retail locations.

The Court overrules the majority of Unlimited Mobile's remaining
objections to the Revised Proposed Notice and Consent Forms, with
the exception of one that is undisputed but that the Plaintiffs
apparently overlooked in modifying the Revised Consent form. To
that end, the Court orders the last sentence of the first
paragraph of the Revised Consent form to be modified to add the
word "alleged" and read as follows: "I hereby consent to join this
lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and overtime based on Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
[Section] 201 et seq."

The Court ordered the parties to jointly submit a Second Revised
Consent form based on this rulings.

The Court further orders Unlimited Mobile to produce to the
Plaintiffs' counsel a document in useable electronic format that
discloses the names, home addresses, home telephone numbers, and
email addresses, if known, of all potential plaintiffs. The opt-in
period will commence seven days after Unlimited Mobile produces
the document containing the referenced information, Judge Magnus-
Stinson said.

A copy of the District Court's October 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/FyGU1Afrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Judge Pares Down Claims in Veterans Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims on Oct. 2 pared down a class action alleging
part-time U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employees were
denied pay for Sunday work, ruling the Back Pay Act of 1966 does
not alter when the statute of limitations to receive back pay
begins.

Judge Francis M. Allegra rejected workers' claims that they were
owed premium back pay for Sundays they worked dating back to
May 26, 2003, based on a provision in the Back Pay Act.  Instead,
the judge ruled, the statute of limitations goes only to Oct. 14,
2005, six years before the current case was first filed.

"Plaintiffs' interpretation of this statute is simply wrong," the
order said.

The Back Pay Act contains a provision allowing the statute of
limitations for a case to go back six years before the date of an
administrative decision.  In their initial complaint, filed in
October 2011, the class argued that a 2009 decision in Fathauer v.
United States -- in which the Federal Circuit ruled that part-time
employees are entitled to the same premium back pay as full-time
employees -- qualified as an administrative decision, and so the
six years should go back from May 26, 2009, when the decision was
issued.

But Judge Allegra disagreed that the statute of limitations should
be based upon the Back Pay Act, instead citing Section 2501 of
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which says all claims under the
jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims have a statute of
limitations going back six years from the date a suit was first
filed.

Class attorney Ira M. Lechner said the court's decision to ignore
the cited Back Pay Act provision was a problem, and that he fully
intended to appeal.

"It just shows you that the federal government, and particularly
the VA, has got to take responsibility for being an honorable
employer in that it honorably interprets the law as the court
directs it to follow," Mr. Lechner told Law360 on Oct. 3.  "The
Court of Appeals directed it to pay these people.  These are
people who work on the weekend when everyone else is with their
family, so pay them, for god's sakes."

Representatives for the U.S. government were not immediately
available for comment on Oct. 3.

The class is represented by Ira M. Lechner.

The case is Annette E. Jones et al v. U.S., case number 11-681C,
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Davis" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The real estate at issue in the proposed class action captioned
MACK DAVIS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6-11-CV-47, (S.D. Tex.) is part of an
800-acre development along the mid-Gulf Coast of Texas. But the
allegations of fraud reach back to decisions made in Washington
and Wall Street during the height of the financial crisis in the
fall of 2008. In the spasm of bank merger activity that occurred
during that period, when troubled banks bought their even more
troubled brethren, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia. As a result,
Wells Fargo took on the mortgage loans that Wachovia had made to
Plaintiffs to fund their real estate purchases at the development
in Port O'Connor, Texas.

Plaintiffs contend that a special and short-lived IRS rule aimed
at encouraging the bank merger activity caused Wells Fargo to have
"unusual loss incentives" resulting in its "victimization" of
Plaintiffs when their loans came due. The temporary tax change
removed the limit on the amount of loan losses from an acquired
bank's balance sheet that an acquiring bank could deduct.
Plaintiffs contend that as a result of this increased ability to
deduct losses on Wachovia loans, Wells Fargo sold the homes at
below market prices, instead of offering reasonable refinancing
terms, when balloon payments came due on Plaintiffs' interest-only
loans around 2009. A principal allegation of fraudulent activity
supporting this "market value/tax manipulation scheme" is that
Wells Fargo instructed appraisers to use only foreclosure sales as
comparable because, as it supposedly told one appraiser, it
"wanted the appraisals lower."

This overall scheme serves as the basis for 14 different state and
federal claims Plaintiffs assert against the Defendants: Wells
Fargo Bank N.A., Wachovia Bank, N.A.; Greenlink LLC; Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage, Inc.; America's Servicing Company; and several
unnamed real estate appraisers.

Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss contending that Plaintiffs'
alleged scheme is implausible on its face, that federal law
preempts some of the state law claims, that the economic loss rule
precludes the tort claims, and that the individual causes of
action fail to state a claim.

In an October 1, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/VdZvXEfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Gregg Costa
rejected the Defendants' general plausibility, preemption, and
"economic loss rule" challenges, but finds that a number of the
claims are legally insufficient under the facts alleged. Judge
Costa granted in part and denied in part Wells Fargo's motion to
dismiss.  Judge Costa held that except for the Texas Debt
Collection Act claim, the statutory claims are dismissed. The
common law claims survive except for the negligence and gross
negligence claims, she added.

The following claims remain in this case:

* Texas Debt Collection Practices Act Claims;
* Common Law Unreasonable Debt Collection;
* Wrongful Foreclosure;
* Fraud by Nondisclosure;
* Unjust Enrichment;
* Negligent Misrepresentation;
* Civil Conspiracy; and
* Aiding or Abetting.


* Orrick Discusses Rail Freight Class Certification Reversal
------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick reports that on Aug. 9, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in a unanimous decision overturned the district court's
order granting certification of a class of direct purchasers in In
re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, 2013 WL
4038561(D.C. Cir. 2013). Plaintiffs, shippers who purchased
railroad freight shipping services, alleged that the defendants
conspired for many years to fix prices in setting rate-based fuel
surcharges.  They sought and obtained certification of a class
action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), which is granted
if the court finds that "the questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual class members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy."

The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's order based on the
U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).  In Comcast, the Supreme Court overturned
an order certifying a class action.  The plaintiffs in Comcast had
proposed four theories of antitrust impact, all but one of which
was rejected by the district court.  The sole basis for certifying
the class under Rule 23(b)(3) was a damages model based on all
four theories of impact.  The Court held that basing class
certification on a damages model divorced from the theory of
liability was insufficient under Rule 23(b)(3).

The D.C. Circuit embraced the analysis in Comcast, explaining that
"[it] is now indisputably the role of the district court to
scrutinize the evidence before granting certification, even when
doing so 'requires inquiry into the merits of the claim.'"  In
conducting that analysis, the D.C. Circuit found plaintiffs'
regression model inadequate to support certification under Rule
23(b)(3), because it suggested that shippers who were indisputably
unaffected by the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, due to long-
term contracts, were harmed by it.  Since the model was unreliable
it could not be used to demonstrate class-wide injury.


* Employers Must Consider Class Action Waiver in Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Berlin, Esq. -- berlis@mcblaw.com -- at Martin
Clearwater & Bell LLP reports that ever since the 2001 United
States Supreme Court decision in Circuit City Stores, Inc., v.
Adams, many employers have been requiring employees to sign
agreements to arbitrate employment claims.  The Circuit City court
held that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), properly
drafted agreements requiring employees to waive their right to a
jury trial and arbitrate statutory discrimination claims, such as
Title VII or ADA claims, are enforceable.  The question of whether
employee arbitration agreements also waiving the right to bring
class-action claims are enforceable is still not fully resolved.
However, at least for the time being, such waivers are valid in
New York.

Arbitration is a way to settle disputes outside the court system.
Employers tend to favor such agreements for a variety of reasons,
including that they often provide a quicker resolution, are less
expensive and are decided by a trained impartial professional, not
a jury.  There are trade-offs, however, such as less pre-hearing
discovery, no ability to appeal, and lawsuits by employees
challenging the enforceability and scope of their arbitration
agreement.

In its 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion decision, the Supreme
Court ruled the FAA compels enforcement of an arbitration
agreement that also waives the right of the individual to file a
class action.  Concepcion involved a consumer claim, the value of
which was so low it allegedly did not make economic sense for a
person to file an individual, as opposed to a class, claim.

Employers hoped that Concepcion could be extended to enforce
arbitration agreements pursuant to which employees waived the
right to file employment-related class actions, such as collective
actions for wage and hour claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.  While the issue has not been fully resolved by the
Supreme Court, it seems that for now, at least in New York, the
agreements are enforceable.

Enforcement of class-action waivers had initially been derailed by
two decisions, one issued in 2012 by the National Labor Relations
Board in the D.R. Horton case and a 2009 decision by the federal
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (which includes New York) In
re American Express Merchants' litigation (Amex I).

In D.R. Horton, the NLRB effectively ruled that despite the FAA's
strong policy favoring arbitration agreements, employees covered
by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) -- effectively non-
supervisory employees in the private workforce -- could not waive
their right to bring a class action because such waivers violate
an employee's right under Section 7 of the NLRA to engage in
concerted activity.  D.R. Horton did not preclude arbitration of
class claims, only waiver of the right to bring such claims on
behalf of a class. As of this writing, that decision remains on
appeal, but several  federal courts that have been asked to apply
it have refused to do so.

While Amex I was not an employment decision, the 2nd Circuit
invalidated an arbitration agreement's class-action waiver because
the plaintiffs would incur prohibitive costs if compelled to
arbitrate individually.  In early 2013, the Supreme Court reversed
that decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
(Amex/Italian Colors).  Relying on its Concepcion decision, the
court held that the right to pursue that remedy is not necessarily
eliminated just because it may not be worth the expense to prove a
remedy on an individual basis.

In Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, the 2nd Circuit was faced with
the question of the enforceability of an employee's class-action
waiver in an arbitration agreement. In its August 2013 decision,
the 2nd Circuit both declined to follow D.R. Horton and applied
Amex/Italian Colors.  The court held that the employee's claim for
unpaid overtime wages had to be arbitrated and only on an
individual basis.  Specifically, the court held that the
employee's class-action waiver is not rendered invalid by virtue
of the fact that the claim is not economically worth pursuing
individually.

So what is the employment lawyer's prescription? Employers,
whether a small medical practice or a larger healthcare
institution, should strongly consider requiring employees to sign
arbitration agreements that also waive their right to bring class-
action claims. Employers that already have arbitration agreements
should review those agreements to make sure class-action waivers
are included.  When designing or updating arbitration agreements,
talk to counsel to be sure the agreements cover the needs of the
organization and have the best chance of withstanding a legal
challenge.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Keeps Coverage Disputes in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that bankrupt construction products purveyor
Flintkote Co. on Sept. 30 succeeded in pushing Aviva PLC and a
British subsidiary into arbitration over more than $20 million in
disputed asbestos liability coverage, with a Delaware judge
binding Aviva to an arbitration agreement it never signed.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark
determined that since Aviva had exploited a global mediation
between Flintkote and other insurers for its own benefit, it was
estopped from invoking a 1989 pact with the company.

The case is Flintkote Company v. Indemnity Marine Assurance
Company Ltd., Case No. 1:13-cv-00935 (D.Del.).

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, The Flintkote Company
is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and
distributing building materials.  Flintkote Mines Limited is a
subsidiary of Flintkote Company and is engaged in the mining of
base-precious metals.  The Flintkote Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 04-11300) on April 30, 2004.
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for Chapter 11 relief (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 04-12440) on Aug. 25, 2004.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Fibro Not a Concern for Newcomb Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Hasch, writing for ConnectTriStates.com, reported that the
city of Quincy, Illinois, says it will move forward with the
cleanup of the former Newcomb Hotel, despite a previous report
that found traces of asbestos inside the building.

According to the report, Quincy Building Inspector Michael Seaver
says the building was gutted back in the late 1980s, at which
point any asbestos found was removed or abated.

"So, we know that but we don't have the documentation to show it
wasn't there," Seaver said.

But when a developer called, Three Diamond Development showed
interest in renovating the old hotel a couple of years ago, the
company paid to have the building inspected.

"A copy of that [inspection] showed a small amount of floor tile,
category 1 non-friable asbestos on certain levels of the
building," Seaver said. The report traced the findings of about
220 square feet of tile containing some amounts of asbestos,
generally located in hallways.

"If we knew conclusively that, that was all that was in there,
then by volume, that 200 square feet is negligible and the entire
site wouldn't have to be monitored for asbestos contained
material," Seaver said. "But the survey was done for renovation
and not for demolition, the difference being in a pre-demolition
inspection, they would open up wall cavities."

New concerns with the Newcomb arose after a fire destroyed the
vacant building on Friday, Sept. 6. Due to safety concerns, the
city contracted with Blick's Construction to demolish the building
down to the first story. Before the city can proceed with the
cleanup, it must pay for an additional person on site to monitor
any traces of asbestos, mandated by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.

Andrew Mason with the IEPA says he's confident construction crews
will handle the debris removal responsibly.

"There are tons of old buildings. This is done all over the
country. As long as it's being supervised, I'm confident it'll be
done properly," Mason said. "The amount of asbestos found, it's
not a big space, it's like a small room."

"We'll have a competent person on site the whole time materials
are being moved to monitor air qualities and to observe the
materials as they're being removed and if they identify anything
that's suspicious, it'll be treated differently and taken to a
designated place in a landfill," Seaver said.

The city received nine proposals for debris removal. Seaver says
once the city approves a contract, the cleanup will take weeks if
not longer. The original estimate of the cleanup was $500,000.

"We don't even have ballpark figures at this point of even the
first round of costs. We just received proposals of the balance of
the cleanup work, so we'll evaluate those and hopefully make a
recommendation and we can move forward with that work fairly
shortly," Seaver said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Rumors Fill University of Vermont Campus
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Vermont Cynic reported that as recent rumors of asbestos in
certain academic buildings circulated around campus, students were
left to wonder if they were actually in danger or if the rumor
mill was just grinding its gears.

According to the report, safety programs manager Vince Brennan
said that there is asbestos in some materials in the Rowell
building, in the University of Vermont, but that it is in tact and
therefore poses no threat to the occupants.

"If there is some work that you are planning [that would] disturb
the building materials, we would need to evaluate the work that is
planned and the impact on the Asbestos Containing Materials,"
Brennan said.

Junior Christian Dowd said he first heard that there was asbestos
in some of the buildings on campus from another student.
"[The student] said she has a class cancelled in Rowell because of
an [asbestos outbreak]," Dowd said. "I get anxious in my Rowell
classes now."

Although the asbestos present in Rowell is currently stable,
junior Kristin Tedeschi said she still feels uncomfortable that
the substance is present at all.

"Considering I have two classes in the building three days a week,
it is very concerning," she said. "It is just suspicious that the
school has not notified any students, it's something I believe we
should be informed about, especially if we spend time there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Illnesses Still Killing More People
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nash Riggins, writing for Evening Telegraph, reported that an
increasing number of Tayside, in Scotland, residents are falling
victim to life-threatening asbestos-related illnesses, new figures
have shown.

According to the report, at least 109 people living in the NHS
Tayside area were admitted to hospital last year for asbestos-
related conditions.

A total of 130 were admitted the previous year, while five years
ago just 74 cases presented annually, the report said.

It's been confirmed that 14 people in the Dundee area died during
2011/12 from one of five asbestos-related conditions -- an
increase of almost 30% since 2007.

The issue is particularly prevalent in the Tayside area, where a
recent spate of work-related claims have highlighted the fatal
health problems associated with asbestos.  These claims include
that of Dundee painters Willie Stewart and Billy Tully.

Last month, Mr Tully filed a GBP20,000 claim against his former
employers for unnecessarily exposing him to the hazardous
material. Yet even those who have never worked directly with
asbestos can still become a victim. George Anderson, a retired
carpet salesman and lifelong Dundee resident, found out this year
he had mesothelioma -- one of two deadly diseases that stem from
asbestos exposure.

Physicians estimate that every five hours someone in the UK dies
from mesothelioma. For Mr Anderson, who has never worked with the
dangerous substance, the discovery was particularly distressing.

"I was quite looking forward to retiring at 70," he said. "I told
the wife we'd get a campervan and finally do some travelling. Of
course, none of that has happened. I just went in for my first
chemotherapy session two weeks ago, and I'll be going back shortly
for more. Hopefully it can slow the disease, but there's no cure."

According to Alison Blake, the manager of local charity group
Asbestos Action Tayside, stories like Mr Anderson's are becoming
disturbingly common.

"We've had more numbers coming through our doors this year than
ever, and I don't suspect we're going to see numbers come back
down, either," she said. "All the medical predictions are saying
this disease hasn't even peaked yet."

While a vast majority of those who may be suffering from asbestos-
related illnesses will have likely contracted their conditions in
the 1960s and 1970s, Ms Blake emphasises that even in this day and
age, the public must remain alert.

"We've still got asbestos in a lot of our schools, homes and
offices," she said. "People will continue to come across this
material, and they absolutely must be aware that any sort of
exposure can be extremely hazardous."

Asbestos-related conditions are also on the rise across the
country. Scotland's Minister for Public Health, MSP Michael
Matheson, formally disclosed the rising figures to Scottish
Labour's Siobhan McMahon.

Although Mr Matheson maintained that "acute asbestos poisoning is
very rare", the Government's official numbers clearly indicate a
recent spike in hospitalisations and deaths.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fear Over Barn Fire at Langton Matravers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Reader, writing for Bournemouth Echo, reported that
firefighters worked through the night to extinguish a barn fire at
Langton Matravers, in Dorset, England.

According to the report, crews from Hamworthy, Swanage and Poole
were in attendance with relief crews from Poole and Bere Regis
working through the night to damp down.

The cause of the blaze is still unknown, the report said.

At the fire's height, around 30 firefighters were at the scene of
the fire on Spyway Farm, off Spyway, in between Langton Matravers
and Swanage.  Residents were advised to keep their doors and
windows shut due to fears over asbestos.

Crews from from Swanage, Wareham and Westbourne Fire Stations
attended along with two specialist appliances.  Firefighters
allowed the fire to burn out under their supervision while also
protecting nearby properties with the use of hose reel jets.

On Oct. 1, Sean Frampton, temporary group manager from Poole Fire
Station, said: "The barn is around 15 metres by 30 metres in size,
and it is filled with straw and hay, which was being stored ready
for the winter.

"We are in the process of protecting the other barns, one of which
contains a number of cattle, and another building which contains
the milking parlour.

"At this stage, there is no risk to the cattle, and we have set
about using damp twigs and leaves to dampen down the area, to
reduce the risk of the fire spreading.

"The barn has an old-style asbestos-type roof, so we are advising
residents to keep their doors and windows closed, and to stay
indoors, if possible, to reduce the chance of smoke getting into
their homes.

"We also have Dorset Police travelling around Langton Matravers
advising people to follow this instruction.

"We are letting the fire burn, so that we do not contaminate any
water courses, and we have the Environment Agency assisting us the
best way for the water to drain away.

"The fire has so far reduced down by around one third from around
two hours ago, when I got here around two hours ago.

"I believe it may be another two to three hours, before the fire
is completely out.

"The farmer here is going to assist us with the use of his tractor
to help move things so that we can ensure the fire is out."

An investigation is now being carried out by Dorset Fire and
Rescue Service to establish the cause of the fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYS Citizens to Vote on Mine Access to Adirondack
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that
Election Day in New York State will be more than about voting for
political seats: this year, New Yorkers will be asked to vote on a
state-wide referendum on whether to allow a private mining company
access to land in the Adirondack Forest Preserve near Willsboro.

According to the report, in exchange for expanding the boundaries
by two hundred acres, NYCO Mineral Inc., miners of wollastonite,
an asbestos-substitute, will return nearly fifteen hundred acres
of land to the Forest Preserve.

Voters across New York State will make the final decision on
whether the exchange will take place on November 5, the report
said.  Under New York State law, any changes to the Forest
Preserve must undergo a rigorous approval process including
passing separately through the Senate and Assembly, and passing
through a state-wide referendum.

Reactions from environmental groups on the proposed land exchange
is mixed: some are for the swap, pointing out that NYCO Mineral
Inc. will be returning more land to be protected than that it is
asking for to mine; while other groups are cite the larger impact
the mining will have on the region.

Part of the fifteen hundred acres are picturesque areas around the
Derby Brook and Jay Mountain Wilderness area. What remains clear,
however, is that if the exchange passes, one hundred jobs will
also be protected.

At the crux of the debate is wollastonite, a white mineral used in
a variety of manufacturing and industrial settings. Often used as
an alternative to asbestos especially in the manufacturing of
friction products, the calcium-based mineral is most commonly
mined in Upstate New York, Finland, China and Mexico.

Asbestos, also a naturally-occurring mineral, is highly toxic, and
exposure to asbestos dust can cause a lethal form of cancer known
as mesothelioma. Mining for or manufacturing with asbestos has
been banned, and for some products such as vehicle brakes that
relied on asbestos' natural properties like heat resistance have
used wollastonite instead.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Mass Tort Claims v. 3 Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that
the widow of a lung cancer victim is suing three companies that
dealt in asbestos, contending her late husband died as a result of
injuries he sustained because of his exposure to the fiber during
his working years.

According to the report, Philadelphia lawyer Michael B. Leh, of
the Locks Law Firm, filed a short-form complaint in the master
asbestos litigation at Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court on behalf
of Francesca Cerminara, of Ambler, Pa.

The woman is suing in her capacity as special administrator of the
estate of her late spouse, Francesco Cerminara, the report
related.

The three defendants named in the civil action are Ameron
International Corp., Hajoca Corp., and J.A. Sexauer Inc.

Francesco Cerminara died on May 1, 2012, at 81 years old, an
apparent victim of asbestos-related mesothelioma, the complaint
states.  The former Montgomery County resident, who was a lifelong
non-smoker, had been diagnosed with the disease in the fall of
2011.  The late Cerminara had worked as a maintenance man,
pipefitter, plumber and welder at Chemical Concentrate in Fort
Washington, Pa. from 1961 to 1974, and at AmChem in Ambler from
1974 to 1988, the record shows.

The companies listed as defendants in the case are accused of a
host of counts including negligence and strict products liability.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The case ID number is 130902438.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eternit Insists Products are Fibro-Free
--------------------------------------------------------
Business Day reported that Eternit Limited, one of Nigeria's
foremost roofing and ceiling materials manufacturer, is insisting
that its products, which also include concrete roofing tiles, are
without asbestos content as insinuated in some quarters.

According to the report, Eternit, which opened for business in
1974, is one the old generation industries in Nigeria and has over
time garnered both experience and expertise in its products line,
which are household names in the country today.

Recently, there have been insinuations that the company's products
still contain asbestos banned by the Standards Organisation of
Nigeria over a decade ago, because it is believed to be harmful to
human lives, the report related.

Officials of the company told journalists recently at a media tour
of the company that they do not make use of asbestos anymore,
pointing out that "the last line of our products with asbestos
content was churned out of our factory as far back as 2001.

"For the sake of emphasis, and to correct the impression that
Eternit products are asbestos products, none of our products
contain asbestos. The asbestos component of our products mix has
been replaced with synthetic new technology fibre over a decade
ago."

According to the officials, strong competition from imported
building materials in the country is a challenge to their company,
pointing out that in the face of keen competition among the
manufacturers and dealers of building materials in Nigeria, the
only way to remain relevant in the industry is not to compromise
set standards for quality of products, but to insist on improving
on quality of products at all times, no matter the situation.

"Our products meet international standards; we have a good name in
the building materials manufacturing sector of the nation's
economy," they said, stressing that the company wants to maintain
that good name.

"Even with the good name the company is currently enjoying, we
have to produce high quality products if we must remain in
business following strong competition with foreign products being
imported into the country that are cheaper than Eternit products.
This is why our watchword at Eternit is quality and no compromise
about it," they added.

Explaining that over 800 people have been trained by his company
free of charge on how to install various products of the company
ranging from Duratile roofing tiles, Ultra span roofing truss,
Super 7 and Ultra 7 roofing sheets and Super lightweight as well
as Coolite roofing sheets, suspended ceilings, nailed ceilings and
decorative ceilings, the officials said.

In order to cover the nation effectively with their products, the
company has concluded plans to open offices in Abuja and Port
Harcourt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Commonly Used in Sydney Houses
-----------------------------------------------------
Asbestos products were commonly used in Sydney houses until about
1990, a press release by Asbestos Check stated.  A known
carcinogen, asbestos is a cause for concern for several Sydney
homeowners.  However, if the asbestos is in good condition and not
likely to be disturbed, the risk is negligible.

The press statement states, "In Sydney asbestos is commonly
identified in asbestos cement fibro sheeting on eaves, gables, and
wall and ceiling linings (especially in garages, bathrooms,
laundries); corrugated roofs (especially old garages); electrical
fuse boxes; under sinks (sound dampener pads and spray coatings);
window putty and vinyl sheet.

Many Sydney councils require asbestos surveys to determine the
location and extent of asbestos prior to renovation or demolition.
A pre-purchase asbestos survey before buying a house in Sydney can
assist in determining the likelihood of asbestos if there are
plans for renovations.

               Health Risks from Sydney Asbestos Houses

Health risks from Sydney houses containing asbestos are low;
however when disturbed, respirable asbestos fibres may be released
into the air causing health issues. Engaging a licensed asbestos
contractor to remove asbestos identified by an accredited asbestos
surveyor is the best way to deal with the problem.

        Asbestos in Commercial Buildings and Workplaces in Sydney

Legislation requires all commercial buildings that are a place of
work to identify, assess and control risks associated with
asbestos. An asbestos register is required to be developed, which
will identify the location and extent of asbestos within the
premises. All Sydney workplaces are required to provide
information relating to asbestos health risks that may arise from
the work."

Asbestos Check provides commercial and domestic clients with
extensive asbestos inspection services including asbestos
identification, testing and management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Compensation To-Do List for Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center has developed a
compensation to-do list for diagnosed victims of mesothelioma or
asbestos related exposure lung cancer victims. If a diagnosed
victim or their family members are concerned about proper
compensation, the following issues must be addressed:

   * For there to be a viable mesothelioma compensation claim
there must be an actual written diagnosis from a medical doctor
that includes a pathology report indicating mesothelioma.

   * For diagnosed victims of lung cancer, before a compensation
claim can begin, there must be medical records that indicate
asbestos scaring in a pathology report.

   * Because the typical diagnosed victim of mesothelioma or
asbestos exposure lung cancer victim is between the ages of 60 and
70, it is vital the family have written records of workplaces
where the victim could have been exposed to asbestos. In the
instance of US Navy Veterans, this should include the victims job
classification(s) such as: machinist mate, damage control,
fireman, etc.

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We fear most
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma or related lung cancer victims,
exposed to asbestos at work, rarely seek out proper compensation.
The Center aims to do everything possible to change this. From a
decade of experience, we believe US Navy Veterans are the one
group most often shortchanged. Financial compensation for
mesothelioma can range from hundreds of thousands, up to millions
of dollars. Compensation for a lung cancer asbestos exposure
victim can range from the tens of thousands, up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. These figures are relative to the amount of
exposure to asbestos. This is why we encourage any diagnosed
victim of mesothelioma, workplace asbestos exposure victim, or
their family members concerned for a loved one to call us anytime
at 866-714-6466."

According to the Veterans Administration the states with the
largest number of US Navy Veterans include: California, Florida,
Texas, New York , Washington, Virginia, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, North
Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Michigan, Maryland,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana,
North Carolina, Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska.

According to the CDC, aside from the US Navy, other high risk
workplaces for asbestos exposure include 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 related lung cancer caused by asbestos
exposure, the cancer may begin to show symptoms decades after
exposure. As long as the victim or their family members can
provide sufficient evidence of exposure to asbestos, the center
will do everything possible to help them get what might be
significant financial compensation. Included in this service is
instant access to the nation's most skilled mesothelioma
attorneys, or asbestos exposure law firms.

For more information please call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims
Center anytime at 866-714-6466.
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, please visit the US
Centers For Disease Control's web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center would also like to direct
people to the CDC's very informative web site call Asbestos
Toxicity:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=4&po=7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust at Work Caused Terminal Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is Cornwall reported that a Par man died as a result of his
exposure to asbestos at work more than half a century ago, an
inquest has heard.

According to the report, David William Lee, of Panstrasse Place,
Tywardreath, died on December 12 last year at Mount Edgcumbe
Hospice.

An inquest into his death held at Truro Coroner's Court heard that
Mr Lee had "a strong working history" of having been exposed to
asbestos in the workplace, particularly when he worked as an
electrician between 1961 and 1965, the report related.

Mr Lee, who was aged 71 when he died, had been admitted to
Derriford Hospital at Plymouth in 2001 suffering from respiratory
problems, and a biopsy was done from which doctors diagnosed the
disease mesothelioma.

Mr Lee had stayed twice at Mount Edgcumbe Hospice and it was
during his second period there that he died in his sleep, the
inquest was told.

Cornwall Coroner Emma Carlyon said she accepted the pathologist's
finding that the cause of death was mesothelioma as a result of
asbestos exposure, and that Mr Lee had also been suffering from
underlying heart disease at the time of his death. Dr Carlyon
concluded that Mr Lee died from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sutton Council "Negligent" Over Fibro Flats
------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Sleigh, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported that
leaseholders in a block of council flats have raised a series of
concerns after potentially lethal asbestos was discovered during
refurbishment works.

According to the report, Sutton Council started work at Grange
Court, Wallington, at the beginning of July when they discovered
asbestos in the ceilings of the communal walkways.

Seven of the eighteen properties are owned by leaseholders who
face the prospect of picking up the shared cost of GBP7,000
asbestos removal, the report related.

They argue that the initial survey, conducted before starting the
refurbishment work, should have discovered the asbestos.

The group has written to Sutton Housing Partnership, the
contractor and the Health and Safety Executive with their
concerns.

These include a number of health and safety issues such as
allowing a contractor to drill into the ceiling to remove old
light fittings before the asbestos was discovered.

Jo Fallon, a leaseholder who has lived in the block for eight
years with her husband and daughter, said: "If [Sutton Council]
have put my health, my child's health, their entire workforce and
the public at risk they should be taken to court.

"When they started the works they realised there was asbestos -
however that is negligent. Before they started work they should
have done a survey.

"Considering they own the property they should know there is
asbestos but they started refurbishing without checking.

"It is ridiculously dangerous. It can be fatal you cannot mess
with asbestos at any stage."

A spokesperson for Sutton Housing Partnership said: "Following the
discovery of asbestos on the soffits of walkways at Grange Court,
Sutton Housing Partnership have carried out the necessary testing
and have been working with the Health and Safety Executive to
ensure all asbestos is removed safely and with minimum disruption
to residents living in the block.

"The well being and safety of our residents is our priority and we
will continue to monitor the situation and ensure residents are
kept updated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Deadly Dust on Steelworks
---------------------------------------------------------
This is Scunthorpe reported that a Scunthorpe man worked in
conditions which led to "heavy asbestos exposure" during his time
as a steelworker, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Cyril Branston died aged 85 at Lindsey
Lodge Hospice in Scunthorpe on March 13.

The report related that Dr Lorraine Sheehan, a consultant
pathologist at Lincoln County Hospital, said Mr Branston had
"heavy asbestos exposure".

The cause of death was adenocarcinoma of the lung, due to heavy
smoking and asbestos.

A statement written by Mr Branston before his death, stated that
from 1948 to 1958 and 1958 to 1965 he was employed at the
Lysaght's steelworks in Scunthorpe.  It said: "I had to crawl and
work in very dirty asbestos areas during my day."

Deputy coroner Andrew Pascoe told the inquest that Mr Branston was
diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer last October.
He said: "The statement of Mr Branston is clear that he had been
exposed to a great deal of asbestos over a very long period of
time."

Mr Pascoe recorded a verdict of adenocarcinoma of the lung, the
development of which was contributed to by both smoking and heavy
asbestos exposure, of which the latter is an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thetford Mother's Fear Over Fibro Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Fitchett, writing for EDP24, reported that a mother of two
has said described her fears for her children's health after a
housing association carried out work to remove asbestos from a
burnt-out garage near her home.

According to the report, Rebecca Capell, of Saxon Close, Thetford,
was sat in her garden with her children, four-year-old Haiden and
one-year-old Paige, while contractors sent by Flagship Housing
worked on garages that back on to her house, without warning to
residents.

Ms Capell said she noticed the workmen were wearing face masks as
they removed roofing and realised it was partly asbestos.

She said she was worried the dust from the asbestos may have
passed into her garden and been breathed in by her children.

"They should have been telling us to keep the windows and doors
shut. Luckily I knew the roofs had asbestos in them so I took my
children straight inside but it was a sunny day and if we hadn't
known we could have been out there the whole time they were
working.

"Asbestos is not nice stuff and they have put mine and my
children's health at risk," she said.

Ms Capell added that she has since spoken to her doctor who
informed her any effects from asbestos would not develop for
several years.

The workmen were removing the roofs from garages that had burnt
down after a fire on August 31.

The blaze had started just days after residents had warned
Flagship -- who own the garages -- that people had been fly-
tipping there and that the area needed to be cleared.

Ms Capell said she has since had Flagship Housing's health and
safety officer visit her house and apologise for not warning
residents of the asbestos removal.  However, she said it was not
an official apology and she is yet to hear from the housing
association otherwise.

A spokeswoman for Flagship said the type of asbestos being removed
meant that Ms Capell had no reason to be concerned.

"We take any works containing asbestos very seriously and always
use professional contractors who work within strict health and
safety guidelines.

"In this case, our contractors were removing low level asbestos
containing material, and with no wider risk to the public, it was
not necessary to notify all properties within the area.

"If any members of the public have any questions on such works we
happily discuss this with them," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lordswood Fibro Transfer Site Plan Turned Down
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Kent reported that proposals for the storage and transfer
of asbestos at a depot in Kent have been rejected by councillors
following hundreds of objections from residents.

According to the report, Asbestos First had wanted to adapt part
of its existing site in Lordswood where asbestos is already stored
in vans.

Managing director Debbie Hales said the rejection of its
application to transfer asbestos between vans and locked skips was
disappointing, the report related.

Medway Council's planning committee voted by 14-1 to refuse the
proposal.

                         'Wrong area'

Councillors refused the application to change the use of the depot
in North Dane Way to an asbestos waste transfer station because of
the impact it would have on the surrounding residential area.

Following the vote, planning officers said it had not been
demonstrated "that the development can be carried out without the
risk of waste, which is not double bagged and in an unsuitable
container, being either handled on site or flytipped in the
vicinity of the site".

The asbestos removal company had said the skips would be sealed
and kept under 24-hour surveillance.

Chatham MP Tracey Crouch, who objected the application on the
basis of health risks, said the result was a testament to the
campaign run by residents and local councillors concerned about
the increased level of asbestos going through the site.

                        Private waste

"The committee made it very clear that they weren't opposed to
asbestos sites in industrial areas, but they just didn't feel that
this application was in the right area," she said.

Ms Hales said Asbestos First would have to consider if there was a
way forward .

"It's going to make it very difficult to dispose of asbestos-
containing materials.

"Although council tips do accept private asbestos waste, they only
accept cement bonded waste, so there is still currently nowhere
for people to dispose of textured coating that contains asbestos
in their houses or floor tiles," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trade Breakfast Attracts Hundreds of Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voxy.co.nz reported that more than 350 people working on the
Canterbury rebuild downed tools for two hours early in the morning
of Oct. 4 to learn more about working with asbestos and
understanding the risks and controls that need to be in place.

According to the report, the Canterbury Rebuild Health and Safety
Programme team, part of the Ministry of Business of Innovation and
Employment's Health and Safety Group, held the trade breakfast at
Addington Raceway.

"Managing the health risks of asbestos is a major issue in the
rebuild, and it's absolutely crucial that any employer or
principal working on the rebuild understands their
responsibilities and requirements," says Programme Director
Kathryn Heiler.

"As the residential rebuild gets underway in earnest, many
construction companies are asking for more information and advice
on asbestos removal," Ms Heiler says.

"In particular companies are interested in the process for
applying for Certificates of Competence, a requirement for anyone
who works with friable asbestos, or undertakes what's known as
restricted work with asbestos.

"Since 2011 MBIE has already held a number of smaller workshops
and education sessions on asbestos and occupational health in the
rebuild -- but it has been fantastic to see such a strong turnout
. . .

"Over the next few months the Programme team will be holding more
of these types of events, helping to provide information and
guidance on health and safety to rebuild workers and companies,"
Ms Heiler says.

The trade breakfast covered off topics of:

- hazard identification
- asbestos sites
- health issues
- testing and sampling
- responsibilities of employers and duty-holders
- unrestricted and restricted work, andcge
- Certificates of Competency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Victoria Square Upgrade
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Williams, writing for Herald Sun, reported that the central
road through Victoria Square, in Adelaide, will stay closed until
early November after the discovery of asbestos piping.

According to the report, Victoria Square redevelopment project
manager Tom Playford said the delay was also a result of bad
weather stopping grout drying between newly laid pavers.

"Safety is the council's first and foremost priority, and while
professionals have been engaged to appropriately remove and
eradicate the asbestos, we have to allow adequate time to ensure
this and associated works are carried out properly," he said.

"There is no harm or risk to the community and a fully certified
and licensed asbestos removal company have removed the asbestos,
but unfortunately to do this properly additional time has been
required.

"The curing time of the grout between the pavers on the central
roadway is critical to the structural integrity of the road
surface, to ensure the road is strong enough to safely carry the
weight of cars and buses."

The central road was meant to open mid-October.

Mr Playford said the upgrade would still be finished in time for
the Tour Down Under in January.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Edinburg Uni Urged to Axe Fibro Claim Academic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Rose, writing for The Scotsman, reported that Edinburg
University is facing pressure to sever links with a leading
academic whose work has become embroiled in a US court case.

According to the report, Ken Donaldson, emeritus professor at the
institution, coauthored papers which the New York Supreme Court
heard "intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile
asbestos to cause cancer".

The research was funded by a grant from Georgia-Pacific, the
accused in an asbestos litigation suit, the report related.

Professor Donaldson was not the main author, but his name appears
on three of the papers.

The court heard that one author Stewart Holm was employed by GP --
manufacturer of tissue, pulp, paper, packaging, building products
and related chemicals -- and GP's "in-house counsel had reviewed
the manuscripts before they were submitted for publication".

The court has ordered an "in camera review", which means the raw
data used for the research papers must be made available to be
independently analysed.

The most recent paper, published last year, compared the impact of
two different types of asbestos -- chrysotile and amphibole -- in
rats, arguing that the former was safer.

In their conclusion, the authors added: "No cellular or
inflammatory response was observed in the lung or the pleural
cavity in response to the CSP exposure."

That is in stark contrast to the World Health Organization's view
on chrysotile asbestos.

"There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of
all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite,
tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite)," the WHO's
International Agency for Research on Cancer said.

"Asbestos causes mesothelioma and cancer of the lung, larynx, and
ovary. Also positive associations have been observed between
exposure to all forms of asbestos and cancer of the pharynx,
stomach, and colorectum."

The research papers and court case have led to stinging criticism
of Professor Donaldson from the academic community.

Professor Rory O'Neill, of Stirling University's occupational and
environmental health research group, said: "The professor's
willingness to deliver a rationale for continued chrysotile use,
while making a flat and flatly untrue denial of links to asbestos
interests, raises further serious questions."

He added: "If Edinburgh University does not wish to see its
reputation tarnished, it should rescind Professor Donaldson's
Emeritus professorship."

At least two of the articles coauthored by Professor Donaldson
contained the declaration: "This work was supported by a grant
from Georgia-Pacific."

However, some experts have argued the researchers should have been
even more open about their links with the company.

Susanna Bohme, deputy editor of the International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health, wrote last year: "Evidence
produced in the New York City Asbestos Litigation, provided to us
by an attorney involved in that litigation, shows that Dr
Donaldson received funding for asbestos litigation-related
consulting for Georgia Pacific, a former manufacturer of asbestos-
containing joint compound, facing action for asbestos-related
claims.

"GP also lists Dr Donaldson as an expert witness in ongoing
litigation."

In Scotland, asbestos victims won a landmark ruling against
insurers at the UK Supreme Court in 2011, which could see billions
paid out to Scottish sufferers.

There are at least 1,200 Scots who have developed pleural plaques
and will receive an estimated GBP20 million. However, the number
of sufferers being diagnosed continues to grow and is not expected
to peak until 2020.

The Scotsman has seen an invoice from Professor Donaldson to
Georgia Pacific, charging GBP150 for one hour's consulting.

An Edinburgh University spokeswoman said: "Professor Donaldson is
a recognised expert in his field who retired from the University
earlier this year.

"We are aware of the ongoing court case in the US that involves
three papers co-authored by Professor Donaldson."

Professor Donaldson declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Demolition Firms Fined for Fibro Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition Recycling reported that an Iowa judge
has imposed a fine on a demolition firm in the state that
allegedly failed to follow state regulations during a demolition
project.

According to the report, Iowa's District Court Judge Paul Miller
has assessed an $80,000 civil penalty against the demolition firm
Jai Santoshi Ma Inc., and its owner Bhupen Patel, for violating
the state of Iowa's environmental laws in the demolition of a
Williamsburg, Iowa, truck stop.

The penalty follows a petition, filed in April 2013 by Iowa's
Attorney General Tom Miller, against Patel and his corporation.
The company had arranged to demolish the truck stop in May and
June of 2012. Before beginning the demolition, the defendants
allegedly failed to inspect for asbestos and notify the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources.

Sampling by the DNR and Patel's consultant showed that the
demolition waste included asbestos-containing material.

According to the state's lawsuit:

   * The defendants failed to remove the asbestos prior to the
     demolition.

   * The defendants buried some demolition debris on-site and sent
     other debris to a landfill for disposal without identifying
     the waste as containing asbestos.

   * For several weeks the defendants left the debris in the open
     air, without wetting it down to prevent the release of
     asbestos. Not until July 30, 2012, did the DNR confirm that
     Patel had finally removed the demolition waste piles and the
     previously buried waste from the site.

The court's order, through a consent decree, resolved Miller's
lawsuit.

In addition to the civil penalty, the court ordered Patel and his
company to refrain from further violations, identify and properly
dispose of all asbestos-contaminated soil at the site, and provide
the state with related reports, test results, and invoices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Shutdown Doesn't Stop Cancer Care at NIH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that mesothelioma
cancer patients being treated at the National Institutes of Health
already enrolled in a clinical trial are not being affected  by
the partial federal government shutdown that began on Oct. 1.

According to the report, although 75 percent of the staff -- an
estimated 14,000 employees -- has been put on temporary leave
because of the shutdown, more than 1,400 ongoing clinical trials,
covering a myriad of diseases, are continuing, according to
National Institutes of Health spokesman John Burklow.

"Our patient care will continue," assured another NIH employee.

Although the shutdown won't affect those already receiving
treatment at the NIH, it will delay the start of new studies and
treatment protocols, and temporarily suspend new research,
according to the National Cancer Institute Advocacy Relations
Department. Much of the NIH staff is part of the furlough.

Burklow estimated that 200 people each week normally would be
admitted to new trials at the NIH, but their enrollment now will
be delayed until the shutdown ends. He also told CNN that six new
clinical trials were scheduled to begin, but now must wait. It was
unclear if any were related to mesothelioma.

              Affordable Care Act Prompted the Shutdown

The shutdown, caused by the inability of Congress to agree on
government funding legislation, began on Oct. 1 and has sparked
intense debate over the consequences.

At the heart of the funding battle is the controversial Affordable
Care Act -- known as Obamacare -- that was passed in 2010 and is
well supported by cancer advocacy groups, including the
Mesothelioma Cancer Center.

There are 11 mesothelioma-specific clinical trials already in
various stages at the NIH. Dozens more are being conducted at
various medical facilities around the country. Several
mesothelioma patients began clinical trials, as scheduled, at non-
NIH facilities. Some of those trials have been going on for years.

The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF) estimates that
the NIH sees 125 patients annually with mesothelioma.

Clinical trials are especially important to mesothelioma patients
because of the lack of treatment options currently available.
Alimta is the only FDA-approved treatment for mesothelioma. The
lack of options forces many patients to explore clinical trials
and experimental therapies.

Mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos, which was used extensively throughout the 20th century.
It is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 Americans each year. The
majority come with a poor prognosis because the disease already
has metastasized.

In an effort to reopen the door to start new clinical trials, the
U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation -- Research
for Lifesaving Cures Act -- that would have exempted the NIH from
a government shutdown.

The U.S. Senate rejected that proposal, insisting on a solution
that would reopen all government operations.

                 Meso Trials On-Going at NIH

Among the drugs still being studied in mesothelioma clinical
trials at the NIH during the government shutdown:

SS1P: An experimental cancer drug, genetically-designed to attack
the mesothelin protein that is over-expressed in mesothelioma
tumors.

ARQ 197: Known as tivantinib, it has shown an ability to block
some of the enzymes needed for mesothelioma tumor cell growth.

IMC-A12: An antibody designed to block growth-cell receptors that
play an important role in the division of mesothelioma cancer
cells.

ISCOMATRIX: An experimental anti-inflammatory drug that can
increase a body's immune system when combined with a mesothelioma
tumor-cell vaccine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Problems Remain in Handling Fibro in Christchurch
------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reported that the Ministry of Business,
Innovation, and Employment says there are still problems with
handling asbestos, for workers in Christchurch involved in its
rebuilding.

According to the report, more than than 350 people attended a two-
hour course on Oct. 4 to learn more about the potentially lethal
substance, and how to deal with it safely.

The report related that spokesperson from the ministry's health
and safety group Kathryn Heiler says the majority of contractors
are competent, but there are some who aren't identifying asbestos
before starting work on a building.

Ms Heiler says the ministry has received about 80 complaints about
asbestos since the earthquakes.

She says the workshop covered a variety of topics, including how
to identify asbestos and what protective equipment should be worn.

Ms Heiler says more workshops will be held over the next few
months.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gagnard Sues Avondale, Northrop Grumman et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holland Phillips, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that
several companies have been named in an asbestos lawsuit filed by
a man who contracted lung cancer, which he attributes to his
exposure to asbestos from the early 1970s.

According to the report, Lones James Gagnard Jr. filed suit
against Avondale Industries, Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
Inc., Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Eagle, Inc., Hopeman
Brothers Inc., International Paper Company, Champion
International, US Plywood, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as
insurer of Wayne Manufacturing Company, McCarty Corporation,
Maryland Casualty Company as insurer of Marquette Insulation Inc.,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Reilly-Benton Company,
Taylor-Seidenbach Inc., Uniroyal Inc., Viacom Inc. as successor to
CBS Corporation, Wayne Manufacturing, Albert Bossier, Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's London, OneBeacon Insurance Company, J.D.
Roberts, and James Melton Garrett in the Orleans Parish Civil
District Court on July 19.

The plaintiff claims that he was exposed to injurious levels of
asbestos and asbestos-containing products from his occupational
exposure from 1972 to 1974 and subsequently contracted lung
cancer.

The defendants are accused of mining, manufacturing, selling,
supplying, distributing, and using products unreasonably dangerous
and known to possess inherent dangerous properties with high
potential for injury, failing to warn the plaintiff as to the
hazards of their products in their foreseeable use, failing to
provide safety instructions to eliminate or reduce risks
associated with the products, failure to inspect truthfully or
adequately report product testing and medical studies, failure to
properly design, producing defective products, and failure to
properly package their products. In addition, employers allegedly
failed to provide Gagnard with a safe place to work, adequate
engineering or industrial hygiene measures to control the level of
exposure to asbestos and failure to warn of associated hazards.

An undisclosed amount is sought for all medical costs or expenses,
lost earnings, mental suffering, anguish, pain, and suffering,
physical pain and suffering, loss of quality of life and
disability.

The plaintiff is represented by David R. Cannella of New Orleans-
based Landry, Swarr & Cannella LLC and the Nemeroff Law Firm.

The case has been assigned to Division F Judge Christopher J.
Bruno.

Case no. 2013-06802.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bosticks File Suit in St. Clair County
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that another asbestos lawsuit has been added to the asbestos
docket in St. Clair County, Illinois.

According to the report, Steve and Marsha Bostick filed an
asbestos lawsuit Sept. 19 in St. Clair County Circuit Court
against 65 defendant corporations. The Bosticks do not specify
where they reside.

They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori,
Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

In their complaint, the Bostciks allege the defendant companies
caused Steve Bostick to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

Steve Bostick worked as a mechanic in the U.S. Army from 1965
until 1968, as a deckhand on the Mississippi River and as a
mechanic at MTA City Bus Line from 1968 until 1971, as a power
plant operator at TVA from 1971 until 1985 and as a power plant
shift operator for the Army Corps of Engineers from 1985 until
2002, according to the complaint.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of
asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the plaintiff's safety, the suit states.

As a result of his asbestos-related diseases, Steve Bostick became
disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great
physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition,
he was prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment
and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued
to him, the plaintiff claims.

In their 10-count complaint, the Bosticks are seeking a judgment
of more than $100,000, economic damages of more than $50,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, compensatory
damages of more than $50,000, punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish the defendants, plus costs and other relief
the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 13-L-480.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Supreme Court Reinstates Defense Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently overturned a lower appellate
court's ruling that allowed three asbestos mass tort claims to
proceed, with the high court noting that even the plaintiffs in
the consolidated cases admitted that the litigation should be
tossed.

According to the report, in a Sept. 26 order, the justices vacated
an Oct. 28, 2011 Superior Court ruling that vacated and remanded
to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas a trial judge's ruling
from a year prior that granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The companies being sued by John C. Ravert, and taken over by
representatives of Ravert's estate after he died, were
manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ravert's exposure to the defendants'
products caused the man to develop mesothelioma, which later
proved fatal.

A Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge initially awarded summary
judgment to the defendants, the record shows, ruling that Ravert's
deposition testimony failed to establish that he breathed
asbestos-containing dust from the specific products made or
supplied by the defendants.

The trial court also found that expert affidavits submitted by
plaintiffs' counsel represented "an artificial record which
attempts to dehor [Mr. Ravert's] observation denying the existence
of asbestos dust," the Supreme Court's per curiam order states.

On appeal, the Superior Court, which is an intermediate appellate
body, reversed the trial judge's decision granting summary
judgment to the defense on the basis that asbestos dust may have
been invisible to the naked eye, and that expert testimony was
enough to establish a material issue of fact as to whether dust
emanating from products associated with the defendants was a
substantial factor in causing Ravert's mesothelioma, according to
the high court's ruling.

Superior Court judges also had stated that a plaintiff bears a
diminished burden of meeting a frequency, regularity and proximity
threshold of exposure in mesothelioma cases, since the disease may
be caused by limited asbestos exposure.

The justices noted in their order that the plaintiffs now concede
that the factual record failed to show "regular and frequent
enough exposures during which respirable asbestos fibers were shed
by [defendants'] asbestos-containing products to defeat summary
judgment."

This admission led the high court to vacate the Superior Court's
earlier order.

In its order, the Supreme Court addressed a request by defendant
Monsey Products Co. to have the justices reaffirm several
governing principles deriving from prior cases, such as the "each
and every exposure" theory that came out of a case titled Betz v.
Pneumo Abex LLC.

The 2012 case said the theory that each and every exposure to
asbestos, no matter how small, is substantially causative of
disease and may not be relied upon as a basis to establish
substantial-factor causation for diseases that are dose-
responsive.

The high court also reaffirmed that expert witnesses in cases
involving dose-responsive diseases cannot ignore or refuse to
consider dose as a factor in their opinions.

The justices additionally reaffirmed that summary judgment is
available to defendants in cases in which only bare de minimus
exposure can be demonstrated and where the basis for the experts'
testimony regarding substantial-factor causation is the "any-
exposure" theory.

Justice Debra Todd filed a separate concurring statement in which
she agreed with the rest of the bench that the plaintiffs'
evidentiary concessions should lead the high court to reverse the
Superior Court's decision.

However, Todd said her colleagues "should have stopped there."

"Instead, the Court proceeds to 'reaffirm' a series of unadorned
holdings, simultaneously asserting they are 'well established,'
but nonetheless re-expressing them," Todd wrote. "I cannot join
this seriatimdicta, and so concur only in the result."

Todd wrote that the plaintiffs' concession is the "end of the
matter, as it fully supports our summary reversal, and, indeed,
the Court does not explain how the expressed principles are
relevant to our disposition."

The justice also stated that the high court's "well-meaning"
attempt to "accommodate" the defendants' request to reaffirm the
various precepts "is to little avail in the end: as these
statements are dicta, courts, including this one, are under no
obligation to follow such dictates."

Todd said she understands her colleagues' concern for the
defendants, given the time and expense spent on the litigation,
only to have the plaintiffs issue a last-minute concession, "and
one which presumably could have been issued long ago."

"Nevertheless," Todd continued, "with all due respect to the
litigants that come before this Court, such effort is not
justification, in and of itself, for this Court to issue
proclamations. That is particularly true when those proclamations
are unnecessary to our disposition, and are unmoored from any
factual context."

In the majority per curiam order, the high court pointed out that
the case was accepted and reviewed on the court's discretionary
docket, briefed and argued, "and we have never understood a
party's merits concession to foreclose the Court's ability to
explicate the ultimate disposition.

"Furthermore," the order states, "the relevance of our discussion
to the present case is plain and straightforward."

The order states that the plaintiffs' attorneys read and
understood Betz and other cases to mean what they say, "namely,
that 'this Court will not allow Plaintiffs to prove that a
plaintiff's exposure to a particular asbestos-containing product
is substantially causative of [an individual plaintiff's
particular] disease by the use of affidavits in which the expert's
methodology is founded upon a belief that every single fiber of
asbestos is causative.'

"The main points we have delineated above represent nothing more
than a modest elaboration upon this very reasoning supplied by the
[plaintiffs] themselves in support of their controlling
concession," the order states. "As such, it is difficult to
appreciate what additional 'adornment' or 'mooring' is
contemplated by the concurrence."

The court wrote that in light of the "intensely protracted" nature
of this case and other asbestos litigation, it has "acceded to
[defendants'] reasonable request to provide whatever limited
guidance we were able to supply under the circumstances."

"Indeed, as explained in detail in the unanimous decision in Betz,
the any-exposure opinion is simply unsupportable both as a matter
of law and science," the high court wrote.

"Our present effort to highlight this proposition while applying
it in a case in which it is conceded to be dispositive, we
believe, may be of some benefit to Pennsylvania litigants, in
terms of crystalizing the essential burdens of proof."

Chief Justice Ronald Castille and Justices Thomas Saylor, J.
Michael Eakin, Max Baer and Seamus McCaffery joined in the per
curiam order, and Todd filed her concurring statement.

In addition to Monsey Products Corp., the other defendants who had
been party to the litigation were A.W. Chesterton Co., Ace
Hardware Corp., Pecora Corp. and Union Carbide Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hudson Valley Area Site of Illegal Dumping
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a New
York neighborhood is suffering from extensive, hazardous and
potentially costly illegal dumping after a New York State
Department of Labor inspection suspended work at a renovation
project.

According to the report, the stop-work ruling was the result of a
DOL inspector's suspicions that the apartments undergoing
renovations could potentially have asbestos. As a consequence, the
large trash containers used by the site contractors to collect
renovation debris are required to stay on the property. Now, these
open, unsecured bins are attracting dumpers and critters alike.

The apartment renovation project in the City of Newburgh is under
the control of Toll Road Manor LLC, a developer who purchased the
property from the Newburgh Community Land Bank for the purpose of
redevelopment.

However, with the stop-work order, the construction bins are
attracting community members to secretly and illicitly dump
unwanted items. From dead animals to couches to televisions, the
construction bins are now filled to the brim, allowing the illegal
dumpers to resort to the street to place their trash.

The DOL's concern was that the apartment complex may contain
asbestos, a highly toxic material, and consequently, the
construction bins may also hold asbestos debris. Further inspector
revealed that the construction bins do not contain asbestos, but
the DOL wants the dumpsters to be treated as if they contain the
hazardous materials.

The efforts to control the construction bins are falling short.
Not only are the bins unsecured -- thus allowing the illegal
dumpers to gain access -- but they remain outside of the
construction zone. If there was asbestos present in the apartment
building and construction bin, then there is a considerable
potential for environmental contamination and a health scare.
Exposure to friable or disturbed asbestos can lead to serious
health concerns including mesothelioma cancer, lung cancer or
asbestosis.

Another growing concern of neighborhood residents is what is being
illegally dumped into the construction dumpsters may also be
hazardous. Without the construction dumpsters being secured
anything can be left.

The dumpsters are required to stay on the property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Cop Calls Out Perth & Kinross Council
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Swindon, writing for The Courier, reported that a former
police officer is campaigning to force the council to remove
asbestos from car garages and lock-ups across Perth and Kinross,
in Scotland.

According to the report, father-of-two Murdo MacDonald, 51,
believes the carcinogen could be harming children.

Perth and Kinross Council is reviewing the use of all the 1,780
units it owns and operates and a consultation has been launched.

But Mr MacDonald insists the process should be fast-tracked to
protect the public.  He obtained figures from the council under
Freedom of Information legislation which show that, of the sites
it tested for asbestos, all 30 came back positive.

Mr MacDonald also paid a private firm to test for asbestos at
several garages and many of the samples were found to contain
white asbestos, which the company described as a "class 1 human
carcinogen", which should only be handled by "expert contractors".

"It's got to the stage where somebody in the community has to take
a stand and decide enough is enough," Mr MacDonald told The
Courier.

"I've got children and I want my kids to grow up healthy. There
are kids going about here now and all those garages are bleeding
fibres.

"Young kids whose lungs are growing are breathing in these spores
and these fibres. There is not a test been done to say that ground
is clear. Somebody needs to take it on board and look at it."

Mr Macdonald, from Bridge of Earn, served with the Metropolitan
Police before retiring in 2005 and starting a taxi firm in Perth.

He discovered that some garages and lock-ups are unusable after
asking the council for permission to rent a site near Rannoch
Road.

He explained: "The council kept telling me they were let and I
thought it was strange because I'm sitting there 365 days a year
in my taxi and I never saw a soul.

"I phoned every single councillor and only Dave Doogan took it on
board. He arranged for them to be opened and every single one was
empty. This was before asbestos was even mentioned.

"What I want now is the council to fix this. It has to be done, by
law."

The council's housing spokesman Dave Doogan said: "Mr MacDonald
has worked very hard to bring this issue to people's attention and
it is very public-spirited.

"At all times I have been happy to listen to Mr MacDonald's
ambitions on this, which have coincided with the council's review
of the situation."

The SNP councillor recently brought an update report on garages
and lock-ups before the housing committee, which pledged to
consult with communities.

He said: "When I took over as convener, I had serious issue with
garages and lock-ups across Perth and Kinross, stemming largely
from the fact the previous administration failed to get a grip of
this issue.

"As new convener, I was happy to support officers' ambitions to
come up with a much more positive solution.

"The first action we took was to commission a condition survey and
from here on we will consult with local residents."

The housing spokesman also insisted that the administration is
committed to removing asbestos from all garages and lock-ups in
the region.

"Where it's found in council-owned garages and lock-ups, it will
be removed in a method that fully recognises the potential hazard
of that material," Councillor Doogan told The Courier.

"Any action in this regard will take full recognition of public
safety."

He added: "As decisions are taken about individual sites, any
removal work will follow on from this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Allowed to Make Asbestos Roofing Sheets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nirmala Kannangara, writing for The Sunday Leader, reported that
in true Board of Investment style, an asbestos sheet manufacturing
company in Ekala, Ja-Ela, in Sri Lanka, has been allowed to bypass
the pre-conditions laid down by the BOI in the investment approval
and to commence its production without any restriction.

According to the report, Rhino Products Limited of No. 111,
Maithri Mawatha, Ekala, Ja Ela, a subsidiary of Rhino Roofing
Products of No. 30, Minuwangoda Road, Ekala, Ja Ela entered into
an agreement with the BOI on May 29, 2008 to manufacture asbestos
roofing sheets for the local market. As per the investment
approval, all statutory requirements/ regulations stipulated under
relevant legal enactments including the Factories Ordinance, and
the National Environmental Act should be adhered to when
improvements are made to the selected site and also during the
operational period of the project.

The investment approval further states that the site approval is
valid only for the specific project referred to and all conditions
stipulated in the BOI approval letter under reference should be
complied with. It further states that an Environmental Protection
Licence (EPL) should be obtained from the BOI prior to
commencement of operations at the site. A completed application
form should be submitted to the Director Environment Management of
the BOI one month prior to commencement of trial operations.

UDA letter to BOI noting that correct porcedure has not been
followed to grant the development permit for Rhino Products, HRC
recomendation for an EIA and BOI Investment Approval that
stipulate to obtain EPL before commencement of operations
Although it is as such, the BOI has allowed Rhino Products to
commence its operational work in November 2011 without the proper
approvals from the Ja-Ela Pradeshiya Sabha, the Urban Development
Authority (UDA) or the Central Environmental Authority (CEA).
Further, allegations have been levelled against the Rhino Products
for getting the asbestos sheets manufactured in the parent company
-- Rhino Roofing Products Limited at No, 30, Minuwangoda Road,
Ekala, Ja-Ela.

"Rhino Roofing Products, which was opened in 1962 is not a BOI
company and produces 600 tons of asbestos sheets per day. Since
this company is not a BOI company and does not enjoy tax
concessions, they are bound to pay taxes to the Department of
Inland Revenue. In order to evade paying taxes, the parent company
dispatch part of their production to Rhino Products which enjoy
tax holidays. This is a known secret, but interestingly the BOI is
silent although they have been informed of this fraud. Let the
Department of Inland Revenue take immediate action against Rhino
Roofing Products for cheating the government and let the
Ministries of Investment Promotion and Economic Development pay
their attention to this at the very earliest," reliable BOI
sources on conditions of anonymity said.

Hence questions have been raised as to why the BOI is following a
deaf and dumb attitude without taking any action against Rhino
Products for obtaining asbestos sheets from its parent company.
"Aren't these sheets brought to the BOI factory not for anything
else but to be sold to the local market under the tax
concessions," added the sources.

The sources further accused the BOI for not finding out as to why
Rhino Products increased their investment from US$ 18 million to
US $ 26 million suddenly.

"According to the letter dated May 22, 2008 sent to Chairman BOI
by the Managing Director, Rhino Products, E. J. Gnanam, the
company has decided to increase the initial investment by a
further US$ 8 million to install larger Silos (huge steel circular
containers standing upright to store cement). Increasing the
investment by US$ 8 million, Rhino Products Managing Director has
requested the BOI to grant them a tax holiday of eight years as
per the existing BOI incentive package. Knowing that large scale
categories get more tax benefits, they invested more with an
ulterior motive.

They are now enjoying more benefits by selling their products
manufactured at the parent company through the BOI affiliated
Rhino Products. While the country is incurring losses in billions
because of this fraud, Rhino Products are gaining billions of
profits," added the sources. Although Rhino Products and the BOI
claim that the necessary approvals have been obtained before the
company commenced its work, it has now come to the limelight that
the local authority -- Pradeshiya Sabha (PS) has not followed the
correct procedure when granting the said 'approvals'.

In a letter dated January 10, 2012 to the Chairman BOI by D. G. W.
Abeygunawardene, Director Enforcement, Urban Development Authority
clearly states that despite their (UDA's) repeated requests, the
local authority has not followed the correct procedure to grant
the development permit for the industrial plant. The letter
further states as thus,

     "It was explained comprehensively the weaknesses of the
     executing procedure of the planning powers vested to
     Chairman/ Secretary to Ja-Ela Pradeshiya Sabha and the
     absence of due attention on the environmental procedures to
     be followed for establishment of this kind of industrial
     plant in a residential area. Thus it is required to obtain
     the preliminary planning from UDA and CEA prior to the
     establishment of the subject industry. Considering this
     situation, the UDA is compelled to rectify the planning and
     environmental shortcomings in relations to approving this
     kind of industry".

Questions have been raised as to why the BOI is silent when they
have been empowered to take action against the investors who have
violated their agreements. But in the case of Rhino Products, the
BOI has aided and abetted the investor by allowing them to ignore
the pre-conditions laid down in the investment approval.

"Rhino Products started manufacturing asbestos sheets in November
2011 and has brought horrendous impact to the environment although
the BOI is in deep slumber. Does the BOI follow the same procedure
when they come to agreements with other investors? We do know that
they have allowed certain other investors too to ignore their pre-
conditions but not for all. By doing so, this government
institution has become corrupt to the bone. The BOI is maintained
by the tax payers' hard earned money and the tax payers do not
want to see that their money is spent unnecessarily. Why should we
maintain a team of rouges if they cannot discharge their duties by
the people of this country?

They boast of only foreign direct investments (FDI) but do not
know that due to their bureaucracy, thousands of people in the
vicinity are exposed to carcinogenic asbestos," said the sources.
At a time when the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2006
declared all forms of asbestos as carcinogenic, it is questionable
as to why the BOI allowed Rhino Products to commence its operation
without the Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) which is
compulsory to ensure that there is no adverse effect to the
environment.

The sources further said that had the BOI stuck to its pre-
conditions, Rhino Products couldn't have started its production
until they received the stipulated approvals. "It is the fault of
the BOI. Why couldn't they follow their own guidelines? Allowing
Rhino Products to ignore the pre-conditions is not a good move.
This clearly shows how corrupt the BOI is. Unlike the early days,
some of the present BOI higher officials can be bought for few
thousand rupees. We have proof to prove how these officials have
become super rich in few years at the BOI," added the sources.
The sources further accused the BOI for permitting Rhino Products
to commence its manufacturing work in November 2011 despite being
aware that the CEA has not given their concurrence to the BOI for
the EPL and even the UDA has not approved to allow this factory to
have its operation at No. 111, Maithri Mawatha, Ekala, Ja-Ela.

"In a letter dated July 20, 201, the Senior Deputy Director
(Planning) UDA Gampaha has informed the Director Enforcement UDA
that although factories have been allowed to set up in this area
where Rhino Products Limited is situated, they have to be built
according to the guidelines of the environment authority as it is
also a residential area. As such the UDA does not approve the
operations of the Rhino Products in this area," the sources said.
Meanwhile residents at Maithri Mawatha, Ekala, Ja-Ela are up in
arms against Rhino Products and Rhino Roofing Products for causing
adverse environment impact.

"Asbestos is a banned substance in over 40 countries and this
mineral fibre which comes in various colours and types has been
declared unequivocally by the WHO in 2006 as a cancer causing
substance. Even the CEA has stipulated that it is harmful when
transporting, manufacturing and handling asbestos. This is a
horrendous damage to our environment. These factories do not only
emit asbestos dust to the environment but also dumping
carcinogenic waste to the wetlands where people depend on well
water. Although both factories emit the asbestos dust, it is the
old factory that dumps their poisonous waste to the wetlands,"
said the angry residents on condition of anonymity.
They too confirmed to The Sunday Leader that the asbestos sheets
are brought to the new factory from the old factory at Minuwangoda
Road.

"This is a regular sight. Although some environmental
organizations have written to the BOI and Ministries of Defence,
Investment Promotions, Economic Development and to the Finance
Ministry about the fraud that is taking place within the two Rhino
companies, it is surprising as to why they have failed to take
action into this. This is a great loss to the country," they
added.

They further accused the BOI for not taking any action against
Rhino Products since the company has not followed BOI regulations.
"They have openly violated the BOI agreements. Although the BOI,
the CEA, the UDA and the local authority -- Ja-Ela PS has
inspected the site and have given their approvals initially, we
learn that the PS has not followed the correct procedure to grant
the building permits. Proper attention has not been drawn on
environmental procedures that have to be followed when this kind
of a plant is established in a residential area," said the angry
residents.

According to them, an environmental organization filed a case in
Human Rights Commission (HRC) in 2009 seeking redress to the issue
and added that Rhino Roofing Products and Rhino Products were
asked to suspend their production activities until proper licences
and approvals are obtained. "An environmental organization filed a
case in HRC in 2009 (Case no: HRC/ 2073/ 09) seeking justice.
Although the BOI and the CEA claim that Rhino Products does not
need to carry out an EIA, the HRC clearly states that in terms of
regulations an EIA is required to be done," they said.
The HRC recommendation further states, "The Ja-Ela PS and the BOI
had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Environment
Act and had allowed Rhino to establish their factory in an area
where a population of 30,000 live.

Thereby they have deprived the local population the right to
breath fresh air without pollution. They have been deprived of
their right to access to fresh air and drinking water as the air
has got pollution with asbestos and steel dust. The water is
contaminated with sludge as a result of asbestos waste and the
polluted water and industrial effluence have released to the
environment untreated".

The HRC recommendation further states, "I recommended that the
licences granted to these institutions be suspended until the CEA
conducts a proper evaluation and assessment of the environmental
issues in terms of the National Environmental Protection Act No:
47 of 1980. Therefore it is recommended to suspend activities of
Rhino Roofing Products and Rhino Products until proper licence and
approvals are obtained from the BOI, CEA, SLLRD and the Ja-Ela
PS". According to the residents, Rhino Roofing Products at
Minuwangoda Road is operating without an EPL which had not been
renewed by the CEA.

"The EPL was cancelled on March 3, 2009 for violating the CEA
regulations. Even there is another subsidiary of Rhino Roofing
Products at No: 144/ 11, Minuwangoda Road, Ja-Ela manufacturing
zinc aluminium sheets. The CEA has confirmed that this factory too
is being operated without an EPL. This shows as to how the Rhino
chain of factories are violating environmental laws of the country
without any fear. How can the BOI claim that Rhino Products
Limited does not need to carry out an EIA when the residents are
exposed to the carcinogenic asbestos? This company shows no fear
carrying out their illegal activities that violates environmental
regulations. The UDA, in one of its letters to the Executive
Director, BOI, establishes the fact that BOI officials have not
visited the site to establish the impact of this factory on
residents. The parent company continues to flex its muscles and
pollute the environment without batting an eyelid," claimed the
residents.

According to them, as a result of the BOI conveniently ignoring
their own pre conditions that the site needs a UDA approval prior
to signing the agreement, the UDA fined Rhino Rs.14.39 million in
October 2012 for this violation.  The residents further said that
Rhino Products does not send their employees for medical checkups
once in three months as stipulated in the BOI agreement.
"According to the BOI agreement, the company has had to send the
employees for medical checkups once in three months. But the 65
labourers, supplied by an agency, are regularly rotated so it is
not necessary to send them for medical checkups. As a result they
take the cancer symptoms back home" they added.

Meanwhile the residents, while accusing the Rhino Group of
Companies for jeopardising the lives of the people by exposing
them to carcinogenic asbestos, noted that the company had opened a
Medical Incentive Care Unit (MICU) and an Operating Theatre at the
National Cancer Institute, Mahragama.

"While exposing our lives to cancer, the Gnanams have opened a
Medical Incentive Care Unit and an Operating Theatre at the Cancer
Institute Maharagama. This is ridiculous. If they are so
concerned, why don't they shut these asbestos manufacturing plants
and stop dumping carcinogenic waste in the wetlands," added the
residents. However, Director Environment BOI, Shereen Perera said
that Rhino has already submitted their application for the EPL but
due to the Human Rights Commission case, the CEA has not granted
the concurrence to the BOI to issue the EPL to Rhino Products.
"Before the company commenced their production, they submitted us
the application for the EPL. Generally this is a long procedure
and takes time. But in this case, because of the HRC case, the CEA
does not issue their approval until the HR case is over," said
Perera. When asked whether the case is still pending, Perera said
that she came to know that the case is now over but added that she
was not informed officially.

"Since we came to know that the case is over and because we were
not informed by the HRC, one of our lawyers visited HRC on two
occasions to meet the officers to find out what the status of the
case is. However the lawyer has failed to meet any relevant
officials at the HRC to know about the case. Then we sent letters
to them requesting them to inform us what the latest developments
are. For that they are yet to respond," said Perera.

When asked as to why the BOI allowed Rhino Products to commence
production knowing that they did not receive the EPL, Perera did
not have a proper answer.

However, Director General Central Environmental Authority Dr
Alahapperuma confirmed that the CEA has not given its concurrence
to the BOI to grant the EPL to Rhino Products. "CEA has not given
its concurrence to the BOI to grant an EPL to Rhino Products. It
is interesting to find out as to how this company has commenced
manufacturing asbestos sheets without an EPL. There are no
provisions for them to commence their production without an EPL.
This is a gross violation of National Environment Act," said Dr
Alahapperuma. Refuting allegations levelled against Rhino
Products, Manager Human Resources Srilal Wickremasinghe said that
all necessary approvals have been obtained from the relevant
departments before the development work was initiated.

"We did an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and has obtained
the EPL, the UDA and PS approvals," said Wickremasinghe.
When asked as to whether the company send all their workforce
including the labourers for medical checkups as stipulated in the
BOI agreement as there are allegations that only the permanent
employees are sent for medical tests since the labourers are
replaced very often, Wickremasinghe said that he has got all proof
that they have followed the guidelines from the very inception.

"We send them to Nawaloka Hospital for medical checkups. In regard
to the labourers, they are supplied to us by two manpower
agencies. The labourers who come to work in the factory
continuously are sent for checkups but not those who stop halfway
through," said Wickremasinghe. Wickremasinghe was not aware
whether Rhino Roofing Products at 30, Minuwangoda Road, Ja-Ela
sends their manufactured goods to the BOI enterprise -- Rhino
Products at 111, Maithri Mawatha, Ja-Ela.

"I am not aware of it but have to check with our Director. I will
furnish all the details to you after consulting our Director,"
said Wickremasinghe. However till the paper went for publication,
Wickremasinghe did not furnish the details he promised to provide.
Meanwhile Gampaha District Factory Inspecting Engineer of the
Labour Department Anura Kumara said that the labourers at Rhino
Products are not sent for medical checkups.

"Only the permanent cardre is sent but not the labourers as they
are replaced very often. This is not a good sign. Since it is
these labourers that are exposed to carcinogenic asbestos, they
should be sent for checkups. But the manpower agencies that
provide these labourers rotate them before completing 90 days,"
added Kumara.

Meanwhile Piyal Panapitiya, Director (Engineering Approvals and
Special Projects) BOI when contacted said that although Rhino
Products obtained the necessary approvals from the local
authority, later it was found that they (Ja-Ela PS) has not
followed the correct procedure to grant the development permit to
Rhino Products.

"Until the UDA informed us that the Ja-Ela PS had not followed the
correct procedure the BOI did not know of it. That was why we
signed the agreement with the investor and allowed them to start
the development work," said Panapitiya.

However when queried as to whether the BOI would have not allowed
Rhino Products to commence its development work and then the
production work if they knew that the investor had not obtained
the required approvals and licenses, Panapitiya said that Rhino
Products would not have been allowed to commence work.

When asked as to why then they allowed the investor to commence
its operation knowing that they had not received the EPL,
Panapitiya agreed that it was the fault of the BOI.

"I am not in charge of that section but still I totally agree with
you as we wouldn't have signed the agreement since the CEA did not
give their concurrence to the BOI to grant the EPL to the
investor," said Panapitiya.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Commissioners Vote to Demolish 2 Butte Buildings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missoulian reported that the Council of Commissioners for the
city and county of Butte-Silver Bow, in Montana, has voted to
demolish two historic buildings in Butte.

According to the report, commissioners voted 10-2 on Oct. 2 to
remove the buildings after potential developers didn't come
forward, The Montana Standard reported.

Historic preservation officer Jim Jarvis recommended that the
buildings, called the Deluxe and Brinck's, be demolished. He noted
that Butte has other buildings of greater importance.

An asbestos abatement plan is needed before demolition can begin,
officials said. Crews won't be available for at least a month, and
demolition will take about two weeks.

Brendan McDonough voted to save the buildings.

"I feel like a divorce attorney," McDonough told the crowd. "We're
all losers tonight. However we vote tonight -- we all lost."

Those in favor of saving the buildings cited preserving the
historic nature of Butte. Those who wanted them removed said the
buildings were hazards.

"It devalues our building," said Deborah Thomas, who owns a
building next to the Deluxe. "That building does pose a danger."

Bill Boone lives near the buildings and told commissioners they
should come down.

"It's a dead horse," Boone said. "No point in trying to ride it
again."

Terry Schultz, a former commissioner, said the buildings should be
preserved until a developer comes forward because they are
treasured resources and part of the attraction to Butte.

"No one will come to take a picture of a new parking structure,"
Schultz said.

Brian McGregor, owner of the Silver Dollar Saloon, previously
presented a proposal that commissioners rejected. He asked the
council to seal up the buildings to allow more time for potential
developers to come forward.

"The buildings represent the fabric of our community," McGregor
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fibers Found in Rock in Proposed Wis. Mine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Bergquist, writing for Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel,
reported that asbestos mineral fibers have been found in a rock
sample at the site of a proposed iron ore mine by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.

According to the report, the agency said on Oct. 7 that asbestos
was confirmed by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey recently after a DNR geologist visiting the site last
spring suspected the rock contained telltale fibers of the known
carcinogen.

The findings are sure to figure into the ongoing controversy over
Gogebic Taconite's proposed $1.5 billion iron ore mine in Ashland
and Iron counties, especially after the company said earlier this
year it didn't believe asbestos was present in the rock.

Gogebic, based in Hurley and a unit of a larger Florida-based coal
mining concern, has been conducting preliminary work as part of
its plans to apply for permit to mine iron ore from a large open
pit that could run for 4 miles on the Gogebic range.

Until now, environmental questions have revolved around other
issues. The most notable is the potential of sulfide rock that
could cause an acidic condition that could harm streams and
habitat downstream.

The discovery of asbestos in the local rock has come under fire
from critics and is sure to be raised by opponents as a reason to
reject the mine. One group, the Penokee Hills Education Project,
hiked to the site to survey wetlands. It issued a statement saying
the project should be tabled because of asbestos issues.

But the DNR cautioned that the extent of the mineral known as
grunerite on the potential mine site is not yet known.

If Gogebic goes ahead with its formal application, the company
would be required to conduct studies on the extent of asbestos in
the rock, how it would control the spread of airborne emissions
and how emissions from mining operations would be monitored,
according to Larry Lynch, a hydrogeologist at the DNR.

Lynch said the presence of grunerite was not surprising, because
asbestos particles have been found in other iron mining regions.
The bigger question: How widespread is it in the rock?

"The main concern is airborne particulates," Lynch said. "It will
come down to how effective their dust control will be."

In April, the University of Minnesota released results of a $4.9
million study showing a link between the amount of time spent
working in the iron ore industry and an increased risk of
contracting mesothelioma, a fatal cancer in the lining of the
lungs. But researchers also said they could not be certain that
the dust from taconite operations has been the cause of
mesothelioma. The main cause of the disease is sustained exposure
to asbestos particles in the air.

Gogebic spokesman Bob Seitz said the company will conduct studies
to determine the extent of asbestos in the rock. He said a mining
bill passed last spring, and attacked by opponents, included
language that mandated such detailed analysis for the first time.

The DNR received formal notice about a week and half ago of
asbestos in the the rock sample.

Area residents, many of whom are opposed to the mine, traveled to
one of the sites where Gogebic is proposing to conduct large-scale
sampling of rock in Ashland County.

The group included Tom Fitz, associate professor of geoscience at
Northland College in Ashland, who said he found plenty of exposed
rock with long, slender fibers typical of asbestos. "It isn't that
hard to identify," Fitz said. "I was certain I was looking at it."

Fitz said he is not an opponent of the mine.

"I am a proponent of science," he said. "We need to understand the
rocks before we move forward with anything."

Sen. Robert Jauch (D-Poplar) opposes the project under the mining
regulations approved by the Legislature. His district includes the
proposed mine.

The existence of asbestos "raises numerous serious scientific
concerns about the geology of the area," Jauch said.

Jauch was troubled that Gogebic said in a letter to the DNR on
July 28 that it didn't believe grunerite would be found.

"Based on our due diligence, the geologic conditions in the
Gogebic iron range do not support the formation of asbestos," the
company said in the letter.

"The company was either in denial or they didn't care -- they're
going to have to spend millions of dollars now to determine the
extent of grunerite in the rock," Jauch said.

Seitz said the company wasn't trying to mislead but made the
comments based on information from consultants and data supplied
by U.S. Steel, which conducted exploratory work decades ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Widow Awarded GBP180,000 in Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News England reported that a woman whose husband died from an
asbestos-related cancer after working at a power station in
Gloucester has been awarded GBP183,200 in compensation.

According to the report, John Cuss, from Fairacres, Hereford,
worked at Castlemead power station between 1961 and 1967 repairing
pipes and pumps, many covered in asbestos.

In 2009, he was diagnosed with asbestosis which developed into
lung cancer and he died in 2011 aged 73.

His former employer's successor, Magnox Limited, has accepted
liability.

                          'Full of dust'

The solicitor for his widow, Janet, said Mr Cuss had been exposed
to asbestos on a "daily basis when colleagues were knocking
asbestos lagging off pipes" and been given no protective clothing.

Solicitor Brigitte Chandler said: "The air that he worked in was
full of asbestos dust.

"There was a huge amount of asbestos lagged throughout the power
station."

Magnox Limited has accepted liability and agreed to pay the family
compensation for Mr Cuss's "pain and suffering".

In a statement, a spokesman for Magnox, said: "Castlemead power
station was not owned or operated by Magnox Limited nor were
Magnox Limited Mr Cuss's employer.

"However, we are the successor organisation to Mr Cuss's former
employer, the Central Electricity Generating Board.

"We are saddened about the death of Mr Cuss and our thoughts are
with his family."

All forms of asbestos were banned from use in the UK in 1999,
after it became widely recognised as a serious health threat.

Once commonly used as a fire retardant in buildings, asbestos
fibres can cause the fatal lung cancer mesothelioma, and the
scarring of the lungs known as asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced in New Jersey Dumping Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma and Cancer Monthly reported that the U.S.
Justice Department has announced that a New Jersey man will spend
15 months in prison for his part in a scheme to illegally dump
thousands of tons of asbestos-contaminated construction debris --
putting others at risk for mesothelioma. He was the last person to
be sentenced in the conspiracy.

According to the report, asbestos is the cause of mesothelioma, a
difficult to treat and aggressive cancer.  At the height of its
popularity from the 1940s to the early 1970s, asbestos was common
in building products ranging from floor and ceiling tiles to joint
compound, concrete and shingles. It is still present in tens of
thousands of older homes and buildings today.

In an effort to protect workers and the public from mesothelioma
and other health risks associated with asbestos, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established strict rules for handling
and disposing of asbestos. But 59-year-old Jonathan Deck of
Norwood, New Jersey, along with at least two companies and four
other people, were part of a plan to get around the costs
associated with government-regulated asbestos removal. The group
conspired to dump the contaminated construction waste on a 28-acre
piece of property along the Mohawk River in upstate New York,
potentially putting people downstream at risk for mesothelioma and
other health problems.

More than 400 truckloads of asbestos were dumped at the site
before the conspiracy was revealed in an investigation that lasted
five years and involved the EPA, the IRS, and police and
environmental officials from both New York and New Jersey. In
addition to his prison sentence, Deck was ordered to pay $492,000
in restitution to help in the cleanup of the site. In all, the
case resulted in more than 10 years of prison terms and more than
$1 million in fines, restitution and cleanup costs. Deck and the
other conspirators will also have to help pay for any future
cleanup costs.

Mesothelioma is the most deadly of a range of health problems
associated with inhaling or ingesting asbestos. The shape of
microscopic asbestos shards prevents the body from safely
expelling them. Decades of irritation and inflammation can lead to
physiological changes that eventually result in mesothelioma.
Construction workers and those who have worked or lived around an
asbestos facility have some of the highest rates of mesothelioma
in the world. Although some of these people encountered asbestos
for years, the EPA has said there is no safe level of exposure and
even small amounts of asbestos can increase mesothelioma risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Pre-Purchase Inspections
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Trotman, writing for Property Observer, reported that
asbestos is found in one in four homes during their pre-purchase
building inspections, according to Jim's Building Inspectors.

Buildings built between the mid 1980s to 1990 are likely to
contain asbestos, while buildings after 1990 are considered
unlikely, according to the Australian government.

Jim's Building Inspectors support the Australian Asbestos
Network's view that its presence alone does not mean residents
will get an asbestos related disease.

"The most important thing is that home owners, property managers
and tenants are aware that Asbestos containing materials are
present so they can be vigilant about its management, especially
when considering maintenance requirements and renovations," says
Suzanne Commerford, director of Jim's Building Inspections.

"It is when the Asbestos containing material is found in a damaged
or degraded condition or it's high risk environment, such as
frequently trafficked areas and exposed to the elements, which is
of greatest concern.

"Many of the houses we inspect do fall into that age range of 1945
to 1980. This is the construction period considered by the
Australian Government to be highly likely that Asbestos containing
materials are present." Says Commerford.

Commerford says in many circumstances, leaving Asbestos alone is
the best course of action.

"Importantly, we are not aligned with an Asbestos removal
companies who may have a bested interest in overstating the
situation," says Commerford.

Jim's Building Inspections recommends that an Asbestos inspection
and report be undertaken as part of your pre-purchase building
inspections, by rental property owners and property managers
before tenanting properties and by managers of workplaces needing
registers and management plans for compliance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deposition of Pathologist Allowed to Move Forward
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a special master overseeing
the New York asbestos docket has issued a recommendation allowing
a deposition of the plaintiff's pathologist to move forward as
scheduled in Milan, Italy.

According to the report, in a recommendation written Sept. 26, New
York Supreme Court for New York County Special Master Shelley
Rossoff Olsen additionally ordered that co-worker depositions must
take place on a week other than the vacation week of plaintiffs'
counsel.

Special Master Olsen addressed the deposition of Dr. Juan Rosai
first, noting that there had been "much contention" over the
plaintiff's treating pathologist's testimony, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Fibro at Ellesmere Port Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheshire Today reported that a fertiliser manufacturer has been
fined GBP60,000 after around 50 workers were exposed to
potentially-deadly asbestos fibres at its plant at Ince Marshes
near Ellesmere Port, in Cheshire, England.

According to the report, GrowHow UK Ltd was prosecuted by the
Health and Safety Executive after asbestos was discovered during
the refurbishment of a 50-metre-high industrial furnace on 31
January 2011.

Chester Crown Court heard that contractors had been demolishing
brickwork and insulation boards for two days, using hammers,
chisels and crow bars, before a bricklayer raised concerns that
asbestos may be present. This was confirmed when material from the
site was taken for analysis.

The HSE investigation found GrowHow had failed to carry out an
appropriate asbestos survey before allowing the project to start,
despite the fact that the demolition work was likely to create
large amounts of dust.

GrowHow UK Ltd was fined GBP60,000 and ordered to pay GBP17,094 in
prosecution costs after pleading guilty to one breach of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and two breaches of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on 4 October 2013.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Daniel Longdon said:
"Dozens of workers at GrowHow were exposed to potentially deadly
fibres because the company didn't carry out a risk assessment to
see if asbestos was present in the industrial furnace.

"They will have to live with the uncertainty for the rest of their
lives of not knowing whether they will develop lung cancer or
other diseases, such as mesothelioma, as a result.

"If GrowHow had arranged a proper survey ahead of the work
starting then the asbestos would have been identified and a
licensed contractor could have been brought in to remove it
safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworkers Plagued by Fibro-Related Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The British Steel-owned East Moors plant in Splott, Cardiff,
closed in 1978, despite this, former workers are now coming
forward to pursue asbestos related illness claims through the
site's former owners', insurance company Zurich Commercial

According to Wales Online, there are over 10 cases connected with
the site, and it is believed that more are likely to surface.
Conditions linked to asbestos exposure include - Mesothelioma,
asbestosis and pleural thickening. It is quite often the case that
such conditions are fatal, with their symptoms surfacing decades
after exposure.

William Tobutt, who was diagnosed with Mesothelioma, was employed
as a union convener, and a bricklayer at the East Moors site for
more than 20 years. Mr. Tobutt has allegedly claimed that workers
at the plant were unaware of the risks associated with asbestos
exposure.

Mr Tobutt, now 83, was diagnosed with Mesothelioma in January,
with doctors estimating his life expectancy to be between eight
and 14 months.

"The diagnosis has hit me for six, it really has," Mr Tobutt, from
Llanrumney in Cardiff, said. "The doctor told me I had
Mesothelioma, and said my life expectancy due to my age could be
between eight and 14 months, but now I am having chemotherapy."

Employees at the steelworks plant were believed to have been
exposed to the material, as it was commonly used as lagging all
pipe work; it was also present in a large number of the industrial
sized furnaces, and roof sheeting.

Thomas Fairclough, Executive at Asons Solicitors Stated that:
"An Asbestos related illness can lead to a slow, painful death,
taking up to 40 years for symptoms to present themselves. It is
unfortunate that something hadn't been done sooner, safeguarding
the health of those employed by the steelworks."

Moves have already been made by Assembly Members to address
compensation arrangements for sufferers of asbestos-related
illnesses, with a Private Member's Bill by Pontypridd AM Mick
Antoniw tabled to be debated this autumn.

The Bill aims to get employers to pay for the treatment of
workers, who contracted asbestos-related diseases, but its passage
through the Senedd has been delayed, after the Department for Work
and Pensions raised concerns.

Mr Antoniw said he had heard examples from East Moors, and other
sites in the 1960s, where employees used to have "snowball fights"
with the material, as they were not aware of the dangers they were
exposed to.

He said: "Steelworks such as those at East Moors have always been
known as a significant source of some of the worst examples of
these types of conditions because of asbestos."

"I have heard of stories that came about with people having
snowball fights in the 60s -- young apprentices that would join a
workplace and then they'd have 'snow time' where they came in and
they'd tip asbestos down on him, because they didn't know about
it."

According to the HSE, Men who worked in the building industry,
when asbestos was used extensively, are now among those most at
risk of Mesothelioma. Predictions have been made, that in the
worst case, annual deaths for men with asbestos related illnesses
will increase to a peak of about 2100, around the year 2016.

Asons Solicitors suggest that if someone would like to learn more
about asbestos related illnesses, or if they would like to better
understand Mesothelioma claims process, that such information is
available at http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an expert helpline on
01204 521 133

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.

For further information contact:
Email: info@asons.co.uk
Website: http://www.asons.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Conley Breach of Contract Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Conley & Tibbits Properties, LLC, obtained insurance
from Defendant Leatherstocking Cooperative Insurance Company to
cover a rental property that it owns in Oneida County.  Although
the policy covered losses caused by, inter alia, fire, it
contained an exclusion for losses or increased costs resulting
directly or indirectly from "enforcement of any code, ordinance or
law regulating the . . . repair . . . of a building," irrespective
of "any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in
any sequence to the loss."

While the policy was in effect, a fire damaged the building.
Plaster had been disturbed while the fire was being extinguished,
and a state code required under those circumstances that an
asbestos survey be completed before any further action could be
taken with respect to the building.  The survey indicated that
asbestos was present, and the Plaintiff obtained an estimate for
the cost of removing the asbestos.  Although the Defendant
reimbursed the Plaintiff for all other parts of its claim, it
denied coverage for the cost of asbestos removal.  The Plaintiff
thereafter commenced an action seeking "the full amount of the
building damages and remediation of asbestos."

The Plaintiff appeals from an order that denied its motion for
summary judgment and granted the Defendant's cross motion for
summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

In an memorandum dated Sept. 27, 2013, the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, affirmed,
concluding that the Defendant established its entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the policy does
not provide coverage for the increased costs sought by the
Plaintiff.

The case is CONLEY & TIBBITTS PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. LEATHERSTOCKING COOPERATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Respondent, 980 CA 13-00372 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/tWGukAfrom
Leagle.com.

GUSTAVE J. DETRAGLIA, JR., UTICA, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
GOZIGIAN, WASHBURN & CLINTON, COOPERSTOWN (E. W. GARO GOZIGIAN OF
COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Junk "Juni" Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Lipe Automation
Corporation moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross claims against it on the ground that Plaintiffs
Arthur H. Juni, Jr., and Mary Juni, have not established that Lipe
products contributed to Mr. Juni's asbestos exposure.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 23, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion,
holding that the record in the case is sufficient to raise a
material issue of fact whether Mr. Juni was exposed to asbestos
from Lipe clutches.  While Mr. Juni could not specifically recall
whether he personally installed a Lipe clutch, implicit in his
testimony is that Lipe clutches were used interchangeably by him,
and by others working in his presence, over the course of his long
career, Judge Heitler held.

The case is ARTHUR H. JUNI, JR. and MARY JUNI, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190315/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/1YnF65from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "McCloskey" Suit v. Goodyear Proceeds to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury action captioned PATRICK
McCLOSKEY and MARY ANNE McCLOSKEY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190441/12, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the
Supreme Court, New York County, ordered the following:

   -- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary
      judgment is denied in its entirety;

   -- Goodyear Canada, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is
      granted;

   -- the action and any cross-claims against Goodyear Canada,
      Inc. are severed and dismissed in their entirety; and

   -- the remainder of the action will continue as against the
      remaining defendants, including The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
      Company.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order dated
Sept. 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/x55J25from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash Eng'g Dropped as Defendant in "Fischer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated Sept. 23, 2013, granted defendant
Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing
the asbestos-related personal injury complaint and all cross-
claims against it on the ground that Plaintiff Gertrude Fischer
has failed to establish that decedent Arthur Fischer was exposed
to any asbestos-containing product manufactured, distributed,
sold, or installed by Nash.

According to Judge Heitler, the Defendant has facially established
its entitlement to summary judgment insofar as it has shown that
Mr. Fischer never identified a Nash product as a source of his
exposure.  In turn, the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to
raise a material issue of fact, Judge Heitler said.

The case is GERTRUDE FISCHER, as Administratrix for the Estate of
ARTHUR FISCHER, and GERTRUDE FISCHER, individually Plaintiffs, v.
AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190462/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Pe34lWfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "McDonald" PI Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos-related personal injury action, Defendant Hoffman-
New Yorker, Inc., moves for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and all cross-claims against it on the ground that there
is no evidence to show that decedent Leslie McDonald was exposed
to an asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed or installed by Hoffman.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that
the sole evidence that the Defendant relied upon was unsupport and
uncross-examined and is insufficient to form the basis of a motion
for summary judgment.

The case is ELSIE McDONALD, as Proposed Executrix for the Estate
of LESLIE McDONALD, and ELSIE McDONALD Individually, Plaintiffs,
v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET
NO. 190079/12, MOTION SEQUENCE NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated Sept. 27, 2013,
is available at http://is.gd/qfFywqfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recommendations Issued in "Walkup" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, on Sept. 26, 2013, issued two
reports and recommendations in an asbestos-related personal injury
action captioned LARRY WALKUP and BETTY WALKUP, Plaintiffs, v. AIR
& LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., AKA BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et aI.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1635-SLR-SRF (D.Del.).

In the first report and recommendation, a full-text copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/MmQE2Dfrom Leagle.com, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case after finding that Defendant Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation has established federal removal
jurisdiction.

In the second report and recommendation, a full-text copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/jQMPHMfrom Leagle.com, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the motion to
dismiss filed by "Swartz Defendants" composed of CBS Corp., Union
Carbide Corp., Dana Companies, LLC, Whitney Automotive Group, and
Crane Co.; and grant the motion to dismiss filed by Western Auto
Supply Co.  According to the Magistrate Judge, the Swartz
Defendants offer no argument that merits the dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims, warranting denial of their motion to dismiss.
On the other hand, the Magistrate Judge, pointed out that the
Court should grant Western Auto Supply's motion because the
Plaintiffs have not served the Defendant with the complaint,
despite having more than one year to do so.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Directs Further Discovery in "Cary" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co.
move to dismiss the complaint of Gloria Cary for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff objects to the motion, contending
that the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, cannot
exercise general personal jurisdiction over Watts but contends
that Watts had sufficient minimum contacts with Rhode Island to
establish specific personal jurisdiction.

In a decision dated Sept. 30, 2013, the Superior Court said it
will defer ruling on the motion pending further jurisdictional
discovery, after finding that, in the case at bar, it is clear
that Watts has not provided the Plaintiff with the "pertinent
facts" that would enable the Court to determine whether specific
personal jurisdiction is proper.

The case is GLORIA CARY, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LAWSON CARY,
JR., AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE v. AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, ET
AL., C.A. NO. PC 10-3263 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision, penned by Presiding Judge Alice B. Gibney, is available
at http://is.gd/h9IJ2Kfrom Leagle.com.

John Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff.  James A. Ruggieri, Esq., for
Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Liman" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and all other claims asserted against it in the asbestos
personal injury action captioned PETER C. LIMAN and REGINA
FEINSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190217/12, MOTION SEQ. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).

Judge Heitler held that Crane is the only valve manufacturer
identified by Mr. Liman with respect to his service aboard the USS
Cascade.  Whether or not Mr. Liman specifically recalled whether
the valves he observed being maintained in his presence were
manufactured by Crane or anyone else, the entirety of his
testimony raises an issue of fact in this regard that should be
decided by the jury, Judge Heitler said.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated
Sept. 19, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/4d0xhDfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litig. Enlarged
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued four separate orders on Oct. 3, 2013, enlarging
the time to perfect appeal to the April 2014 Term in the following
asbestos-related cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PERAICA,
     v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO, MOTION NO. M-4236
     (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is available
     at http://is.gd/BGjvhDfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
     McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO.,
     MOTION NO. M-4193 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
     Order is available at http://is.gd/LRcJKqfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MUISE,
     v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO.
     M-4192 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is
     available at http://is.gd/OtjgOCfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HISCHE,
     v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO.
     M-4191 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is
     available at http://is.gd/ttVMjXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Swanson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a secondary asbestos case where the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Three, was asked to
determine whether to follow Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206
Cal.App.4th 15, in an action against a premises owner brought by
its employee who initially was exposed to asbestos used in
manufacturing the premises owner's products, but also allegedly
was secondarily exposed off the premises to respirable asbestos on
his work clothes or on his son's work clothes, who was also an
employee, the Court of Appeals concluded that based upon the
public policy factors laid out in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69
Cal.2d 108, a premises owner has not duty to protect an employee
from secondary exposure to asbestos off the premises arising from
his association with a family member and fellow employee who wore
asbestos-contaminated work clothes at home.

The Court of Appeals stated that to hold otherwise would impose
limitless liability on premises owners.  The Court of Appeals
further concluded that an employee's secondary asbestos exposure
when wearing home his own work clothes is a collateral or
derivative injury barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
Workers Compensation Act.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion dated Oct. 2,
2013, affirmed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit.

The case is ALBERTA SWANSON, Individually and as Successor, etc.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SIMPSON TIMBER COMPANY, Defendant
and Respondent, NO. B244266 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/0n43Cnfrom Leagle.com.

Sharon J. Arkin, Esq., and Simona A. Farrise, Esq., at Farrise Law
Firm, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.  The firm may be reached at:

         FARRISE LAW FIRM
         225 South Olive, Suite 102
         Los Angeles, CA 90012
         Tel: 1-800-748-6186
         Fax: 1-510-588-4536
         E-mail: info@farriselaw.com

Stephen J. Foley, Esq. -- foley@foleymansfield.com -- and Keith M.
Ameele, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Judge Reprimanded in Misconduct Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a judicial-misconduct case, Eddie H. Bowen, Circuit Court Judge
for the Thirteenth District, State of Mississippi, failed to
disclose a conflict to the parties in a civil lawsuit and failed
to rule on counsel's motion to recuse made after the conflict was
discovered.  The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance
recommended, in a joint motion for approval of recommendations,
that Judge Bowen be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the
sum of $200 under Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of
1890, as amended, and Rule 10A of the Rules of the Mississippi
Commission on Judicial Performance.

After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court of Mississippi,
ruling en banc, found that the recommended sanctions are
insufficient.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that Judge
Bowen be publicly reprimanded, fined $500, and assessed costs in
the amount of $200.

According to the agreed facts, the judicial-misconduct case arose
from the the matter of Brown v. Phillips 66 Co., Union Carbide
Corp., et al., Smith County Circuit Court Civil Action No. 2006-
196, where Brown sought damages from the Defendants based on his
alleged exposure to asbestos.

The case is MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, v.
EDDIE H. BOWEN, NO. 2013-JP-00776-SCT (Miss.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision, dated Oct. 3, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/lqilHTfrom Leagle.com.

DARLENE D. BALLARD, Esq., and JOHN B. TONEY, Esq., Attorneys for
Appellant.  SAM S. THOMAS, Esq., Attorney for Appellee.


                             *********

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  * * *