CAR_Public/131018.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 207

                             Headlines


ALABAMA MUTUAL: City of Vernon Suit Remanded to Trial Court
ALLEN STANFORD: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Class Actions
AMERICAN DEBT: Judgment Entered on Some Claims in "Newton" Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Underreports WC Insurance Premium, Suit Claims
BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacons

CASH CONVERTERS: Westpac Emerges as Key Provider of Loan Funding
CG SECURITY: Does Not Pay Required Overtime Premium, Suit Says
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over CTA's New Ventra Cards
COSTCO: El Camino Real Store Recalls Rotisserie Chicken Products
DOLE FRESH: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec. 30

ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Canadian Court Approves Settlement
FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GENERAL MILLS: Court Tosses Motion to Stay Mislabeling Class Suit
GLADSTONE PORTS: 20+ Fishermen Launch Class Action
GRAND JUNCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Premiums, Suit Claims

HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Seek Review of Class Action
HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Sued by Detention Officers and Dispatchers
JIM THRELKEL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action in Israel Over PROLIFT MESH
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Correct OT Wages, Suit Claims

KGI LANDSCAPING: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Overtime
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Asking for Personal ID Information
NEBRASKA PRIME: Magistrate Judge Awards $880,000 to Investor
NISSAN MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Falco" Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.

REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Refund All Slot Losses" Campaign
SINO-FOREST: Nov. 18 Hearing on US Recognition of E&Y Settlement
SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Suit in California
SKECHERS USA: To Produce Docs Amid Subpoena From Ohio Jury
SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Accord to Solve "Stalker" Suit

SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Hochberg" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Tomlinson" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski/Morga Deal to Solve "Loss" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Boatright" Suit
SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Scovil" Suit

STEC INC: Has Agreement in Principle Over Merger-Related Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 369 Tacoma and Tundra Model Trucks & Vans
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 625 Avalon, Camry, Camry HV & Corolla Models
UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania

VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Certification Bid
WATERLOGIC COMMERCIAL: Recalls Chiller-Based Water Dispensers
WELLS FARGO: Tie-in Claim in "Lane Suit" Dismissed
YODER'S COUNTRY: Recalls Gift Boxes Containing Roasted Peanuts

* TCPA Regulatory Changes Likely Spur More Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Estimation Appeals Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borough of Emerson Filing Cabinets Contain Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied in Part
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurance Disputes Sent to Arbitration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Bid to Dismiss "Griffin" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Misrepresentation Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion in Limine Denied in "Anderson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Nolan" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litigation Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Denning" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Bowles" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Uxbridge, Mass. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mold Being Removed at Old Hospital Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Like Particles Found at Gogebic Taconite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bland Block City Expecting Fibro Assessment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marion County BOE OKs Fibro Removal at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Educates Trade Workers on Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Won't Review "Any Breath" Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Kerang Hotel Walls Completed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Appeal $1.3MM Fraud Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition of Yakima Troubled Spot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Fined for Failure to Protect Staff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Explains Next Steps for Monticello Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wausau Sues R&Q Reinsurance for $520,000

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Close Beach" Call as More Fibro Wash Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland County May Consider Banning Explosives
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up to Begin at Riverview Property
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at Wood County Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glass, Fibro Sheets Flew Due to Cyclone Phailin

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Loses Fibro on NSW Highway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillors Call for Answers Over Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Stage Paris "Die-in" to Protest Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurks in Spots Around Fla. University
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Firm Questions Protester's Role as Geologist
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village Can't Act on Collapsing Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Insurance Payments Criticized


                             *********


ALABAMA MUTUAL: City of Vernon Suit Remanded to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Alabama remanded the case captioned Alabama
Mutual Insurance Corporation, v. City of Vernon et al., No.
1110738, to the trial court for further proceedings.

Alabama Mutual Insurance Corporation, the defendant in an action
pending in the Lamar Circuit Court filed by the City of Vernon on
behalf of itself and other similarly situated entities, appealed
from the trial court's order certifying a class in the underlying
action.

Vernon responded, arguing that it has the right to withdraw from
the pending litigation, but, it argues, the trial court has
certified the class and the litigation remains viable. Vernon
requests a reasonable time in which to allow the class to name a
new representative.

According to the Alabama Supreme Court, the trial court should
have the opportunity to determine whether a new named plaintiff
should be certified. The trial court is the proper entity to
decide whether to allow the class members to amend their complaint
to substitute a new named plaintiff and to determine whether that
plaintiff meets the adequacy requirements in Rule 23(a), Ala. R.
Civ. P., so as to represent the class, the Supreme Court added.

"If a new class representative is in place, we can proceed to
review the merits of the order certifying the class," ruled the
Alabama Supreme Court.

A copy of the Supreme Court's October 11, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/rMIMVzfrom Leagle.com.


ALLEN STANFORD: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reports that for years federal law
enforcers ignored warnings about R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion
fraud, but don't expect government officials to suffer any
penalty.  Instead, plaintiffs lawyers are seeking to use
Stanford's crimes as a pretext to launch class-action lawsuits
against other people and businesses.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether to let them.  The
question at oral argument this week in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v.
Troice was whether state class-action lawsuits filed against
various vendors to Stanford's operation should be allowed to
proceed.

Last year Stanford was convicted and sentenced to 110 years in
prison for defrauding thousands of investors around the world.
Because the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange
Commission spent more than a decade ignoring recommendations to
investigate from both inside and outside the SEC, victims will
likely recover very little of the billions they sent to Stanford.

So plaintiffs lawyers want to take it out on others who did
business with Stanford, even if they didn't have anything to do
with his bogus offering of certificates of deposit from his bank
in Antigua.  Stanford told investors that the money backing their
CDs was invested in safe, liquid securities that trade in U.S.
public markets, when in fact investors were funding a Ponzi
scheme.

The trial lawyers want to sue under state law because previous
Supreme Court decisions -- especially Central Bank of Denver v.
First Interstate Bank of Denver and Stoneridge v. Scientific
Atlanta -- make it difficult under federal law to sue companies
that merely did business with fraudsters, unless these vendors
directly participated in misleading investors.

Moreover, a 1998 reform prevents securities class-action cases
from being brought under state law.  The Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act says that such cases must be filed under
federal law if "the defendant used or employed any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or
sale of a covered security."

Covered securities include stocks and bonds issued by firms that
trade on U.S. exchanges.  At the Oct. 7 oral argument, Justice
Antonin Scalia noted that Stanford didn't fulfill his promise to
put investors' money in these securities, and therefore such a
case "can't be in connection with a purchase or sale that has
never occurred."

As usual, Justice Scalia is doing a public service by focusing on
the text of the law the court is asked to interpret.  But a
fraudulent claim of buying securities sure sounds to us like a
"deceptive device" that's "in connection with" a purchase of
securities. Otherwise, could Bernie Madoff argue that he didn't
commit securities fraud because he pocketed the cash from victims
instead of investing it?

The Justices also wrestled with the significance of Stanford's
various deceptions.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit had overturned a district court and ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs in part because Stanford made other significant
misrepresentations unrelated to securities.

But on Oct. 7 Paul Clement, attorney for the defendants, rightly
noted that without the promise of these liquid assets, "nobody's
going to give their money to a bank in Antigua.  The reason you
give your money to a bank in Antigua is because you think it's
backed by something more than a piece of paper, and the something
more was purchases of covered securities on the market."

Even if the Supreme Court rules against them, Stanford's victims
can still pursue justice via federal class-action suits, or via
individual suits in both state and federal court.  But overriding
federal law to allow suits against defendants who may have done
nothing wrong is anything but just.


AMERICAN DEBT: Judgment Entered on Some Claims in "Newton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and grants in
part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
case captioned HEATHER NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEBT
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-11-3228 EMC, (N.D.
Calif.).

Heather Newton brings an individual and class action against
Defendants American Debt Services (ADS), Quality Support Services
(QSS), Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (RMBT), and Global Client
Solutions (GCS) for alleged violations of state and federal law
regulating debt settlement.  Currently before the Court are (a)
RMBT's motion for summary judgment; (b) GCS's motion for summary
judgment; and (c) Newton's motion to amend the first amended
complaint, filed concurrently with her opposition.

The Court ruled that:

1. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to
   Newton's CROA claim is granted.

2. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to
   Newton's CLRA claim is granted.

3. Defendant GCS's and RMBT's motion for summary judgment as to
   Newton's UCL claim is granted in part (as to RMBT's liability
   for conspiracy to violate the Proraters Law), and denied in
   part; a claim of conspiracy by GCS and aiding and abetting by
   GCS and RMBT to violate the Proraters Law may proceed to trial.

4. Plaintiff Newton's motion for leave to amend the First Amended
   Complaint is denied as to any claim of conspiracy by RMBT to
   violate the Proraters Law, and granted as to the remaining
   claims.

A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/jK5hF9from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN INT'L: Underreports WC Insurance Premium, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Franjo, Inc., and DMS Facility Services, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American International
Group, Inc.; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire and Marine
Insurance Company; American Home Assurance Company; Chartis
Property Casualty Company f/k/a AIG Casualty Company f/k/a
Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania; Commerce and
Industry Insurance Company, Inc.; Granite State Insurance Company;
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; New Hampshire Insurance
Company; AIG Risk Management Inc., Maurice R. Greenberg; and Does
1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-04685-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
October 8, 2013) is a class action lawsuit brought by California
employers.

The Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement, compensatory,
punitive, and treble damages, a constructive trust, and injunctive
relief arising from the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful,
and fraudulent underreporting of workers' compensation ("WC")
insurance premium, evasion of related financial obligations, and
abuse of their statutory, regulatory, common law, and fiduciary
responsibilities with regard to WC policies issued to businesses
that employ workers in the state of California.  By engaging in a
systematic underreporting of WC premiums written, the Defendants
not only wrongly enriched themselves in various ways, but their
systematic practice of underreporting WC premium caused the
Plaintiffs and other WC policyholders in California to pay
improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to suffer other
damage, the Plaintiffs contend.

Franjo, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Fresno.
Franjo operates occupational medical clinics in the Fresno area.
From approximately 1994 through the present, Franjo has employed
between 12 and 27 California workers and was required under
California law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that
would cover the potential work-related injury claims of its
California workers.  During this timeframe, Franjo purchased WC
insurance from different insurers.

DMS Facility Services, Inc. is a California corporation
headquartered in Monrovia.  From approximately 1967 through the
present, DMS has operated in the business of building services,
providing janitorial services, maintenance, landscaping,
facilities engineering and other services to multi-tenant office
buildings, large corporate campuses, government buildings,
schools, and financial institutions.  DMS presently employs
approximately 1,900 California workers and has employed as many as
3,000 California workers.  DMS is and has been required under
California law to have in effect a policy of WC insurance that
would cover the potential work-related injury claims of its
California workers.  During this timeframe, DMS purchased WC
insurance from different insurers.

American International Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York.  AIG is a publicly traded holding
company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in
a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the
United States and throughout the world.  AIG, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is the largest underwriter of
commercial and industrial insurance in the U.S.

American Home Assurance Company, formerly known as American Home
Fire Assurance Company, is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in New York.  AHAC is a subsidiary and
affiliate of AIG.  AIU Insurance Company, formerly known as
American International Insurance Company, is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in New York.  AIU
is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  American Fuji Fire and
Marine Insurance Company was incorporated in Illinois and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  Chartis Property Casualty
Company, formerly known as AIG Casualty Company and Birmingham
Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, is a Pennsylvania
corporation based in New York, and is a subsidiary or affiliate of
AIG.  Commerce and Industry Insurance Company is a New York
corporation and a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  Granite State
Insurance Company, formerly known as Granite State Fire Insurance
Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York, and
is an affiliate of AIG.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  New Hampshire Insurance Company,
formerly known as New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, is a
Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in New York, and is a
subsidiary or affiliate of AIG.  AIG Risk Management, Inc. is a
New York corporation and is a subsidiary or affiliate of AIG and
CPC.  The AIG Companies have been major participants in the
California WC market for decades.

Maurice R. Greenberg is a resident of Key Largo, Florida.  Mr.
Greenberg joined AIG in approximately 1967 and served as the
Chairman and Chief Executive of AIG until his forced resignation
in March 2005.  In his capacity as head of AIG, Greenberg was
responsible for conducting the business operations of AIG and the
AIG Companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
          5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-9999
          Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
          E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
                  npr@rpnalaw.com


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacons
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 15, 2013
Posting date:             October 15, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36175

Affected products: Pieps VECTOR Avalanche Beacon

The recall includes Pieps VECTOR 457/GSP avalanche beacons.  The
unit is gray and yellow with a LCD screen and is sold in a yellow
cardboard box labeled "Pieps VECTOR - Premium Alpine Performance".
The product is identified by model number 109880 and UPC number
9120029061347.

Functioning of various operational features may deteriorate over
time and may result in the product not performing as originally
intended by the manufacturer.  This could interfere with the use
of the products potentially life-saving communications.

Neither Black Diamond Equipment nor Health Canada have received
any reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
avalanche beacon.

Approximately 60 units of the recalled beacons were sold in
Canada.

The recalled beacons were manufactured in Austria and sold from
January 2012 to October 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer      Pieps
                    Lebring
                    Austria

  Distributor       Black Diamond Equipment Ltd.
                    Salt Lake City
                    Utah
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the avalanche beacon immediately and
contact Black Diamond Equipment at 1-801-278-5552 for product
returns and refund.


CASH CONVERTERS: Westpac Emerges as Key Provider of Loan Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Hutchens, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Westpac has
emerged as the provider of most of the funding that allows
Cash Converters to lend small amounts of money at extremely high
interest rates.

Westpac recently brokered a two-year facility to provide the pay-
day lender with AU$60 million in funding via a "securitization
warehouse facility" secured against Cash Converters' Australian-
based loans book.

The deal is structured so that Westpac funds up to 70% of the
loans sitting in Cash Converters' lending book and as the size of
that loans book increases the capacity for Cash Converters to draw
from it also increases.

Details of the funding agreement follow Cash Converters being hit
last week with a AU$40 million class action in NSW amid claims it
had been charging excessive interest rates on personal loans.
Advertisement

Banks are generally wary of the pay-day lending market given the
reputational risks involved in writing short-term loans at high
rates to low-income earners.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn initiated the class action against Cash
Converters in the Federal Court, alleging some customers had been
paying interest rates of up to 633%, despite laws in NSW capping
such rates at 48%.

Cash Converters said it would vigorously defend the class action,
saying the loans in question were not unlawful.

The recently negotiated Westpac deal will run for a minimum of two
years, with an option to extend it.  At the end of June, Cash
Converters had drawn down the facility by AU$52.1 million,
documents show.

A Westpac spokesman declined to comment on the class action but
said the bank knew that Cash Converters' business involved payday
lending.

"[But] with any customer that we lend to, we have processes to
ensure that they remain compliant with all laws and regulations .
. . we conduct rigorous due diligence and work closely with our
customers as a matter of practice."

The Consumer Action Law Centre welcomed Maurice Blackburn's class
action against Cash Converters, which is Australia's biggest pay-
day lender, saying it would shine a light on an industry where
people often fall into cycles of debt that are difficult to escape
from.

"The desperately sad thing is that pay-day loans are generally
given to people on very low incomes, the very people who can least
afford to be paying a premium for credit," Consumer Action chief
executive Gerard Brody said.

Most borrowers got a Centrelink payment.

"So clearly this is an industry that makes its money from highly
vulnerable people," Mr. Brody said.

Maurice Blackburn's Ben Slade said Cash Converters was the only
company named in the class action.

"[But] like the Commonwealth Bank in relation to Bankwest, ANZ in
relation to Gunns and now Westpac in relation to Cash Converters,
there are in many people's view social responsibility obligations
on the big financial institutions to at least know what's
happening with their facilities," Mr. Slade said.


CG SECURITY: Does Not Pay Required Overtime Premium, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.G. Security Services, Inc., and Charles Guynn, Case
No. 1:13-cv-01611-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., October 8, 2013) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required wage
for every hour he worked and failure to pay the overtime premium
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week.

During his employ at the Defendants, Mr. Silva alleges that he was
regularly not paid for all the hours he worked and was regularly
not paid the required overtime premium.  By this lawsuit, he seeks
all available relief for himself and similarly situated employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Silva is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana.  He worked as a
security guard for the Defendants at the Hyatt Regency
Indianapolis from April 2011 through February 2013.

C.G. Security Services is an Indiana corporation doing business
from its offices in Indianapolis.  During relevant times, C.G.
Security Services is an enterprise engaged in commerce.  Charles
Guynn is the "employer" of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
          445 North Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          E-mail: jmacey@maceylaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over CTA's New Ventra Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------
WLS reports that problems with the new CTA fare system Ventra have
triggered legal action.  A class action lawsuit has been filed --
citing numerous issues with the new Ventra cards.

Dave Kenger is a CTA bus rider, who used to have a Chicago Card
Plus.  Now, he has a new Ventra card.  When checking his account
covering the last couple weeks, he discovered that he'd been
charged twice for a single ride.  But more interestingly, he found
that on September 26, within a span of 70 seconds, he was billed
six times for calling the CTA customer call center -- a total of
$8.50.  Not a lot of money, but Mr. Kenger's phone log shows no
record of those calls, and even if he did make them, you are not
to be charged for making calls to the customer service center.

I thought there had to be some mistake.  I tried to get someone on
the phone, and it was my second mistake," Mr. Kenger said.

"We're not talking about a lot of money in terms of one person,
but if you multiply it by 100,000 to 200,000 people who might be
using this Ventra card, we're talking about an awful lot of
money," said Kenger attorney Dan Edelman.

So, aggravated that he's not been able to get answers to numerous
calls and email follow-ups, Mr. Kenger and his attorney Dan
Edelman have now filed a federal lawsuit against Cubic Corporation
-- overseeing Ventra -- and the CTA, alleging breach of contract
and consumer fraud.  It's the first legal action over Ventra
frustration.

"This is a service thing.  It isn't going to be stopped unless
somebody steps forward and takes action and files a lawsuit,"
Mr. Kenger said.  "I question how, what was done to test it before
putting it into service.  It looked like the beta testing is being
done on the public," said Mr. Kenger.

The suit comes as many commuters face a series of problems related
to switching to the new payment system.

On Oct. 9, the CTA reversed its decision on Oct. 7 to cut off some
fare payment options.

If you have a Chicago Card or Chicago Card Plus, you can once
again load money on it at a station.  The CTA apologized, saying
that it is unacceptable that riders are being left on hold.

How the Ventra rollout is going depends on who you ask.  The
private contractor that runs Ventra, Cubic, continues to be
flooded with calls.  Around noon on Oct. 9, wait times for a
Ventra operator were so long, ABC7 was kicked off immediately.

"Ventra should have been prepared for that and was not prepared
for that, and for that we absolutely apologize to our customers,"
said CTA spokesperson Brian Steele.  "They should not have
experienced the call times, the wait times they had on some of
those calls."

In light of those problems, CTA says Ventra will triple the number
of call center operators.

More than 100,000 Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus customers who
represent the bulk of the callers are being re-emailed a username
and temporary password to register the card online.

Sales of magnetic strip fare cards resumed after they were cut off
two days earlier.  And Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus
customers will once again be able to load money onto their cards
at stations.

"Given some of the issues we've seen, we want to provide that as
another option for customers while this really intense transition
period is ongoing," said Mr. Steele.

CTA suggests if you don't yet have a Ventra card, buy one at a
station, vendor or on the Ventra website.  That way, you can
bypass the call center and register online.  You will, however,
need to talk to a real person to transfer any balance from a
Chicago Card to Ventra.

Ironically, CTA said it made the move to Ventra in part to give
riders a better customer service experience.  The agency said they
are confident that with the changes on Oct. 9 the transition to
Ventra will be smoother.


COSTCO: El Camino Real Store Recalls Rotisserie Chicken Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco's El Camino Real store in South San Francisco, Calif., is
recalling 9,043 units (approximately 39,755 lbs.) of rotisserie
chicken products that may be contaminated with a strain of
Salmonella Heidelberg, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall are:

   -- 8,730 "Kirkland Signature Foster Farms" rotisserie chickens
      313 total units of "Kirkland Farm" rotisserie chicken soup,
      rotisserie chicken leg quarters, and rotisserie chicken
      salad.  The products were sold directly to consumers in a
      Costco located at 1600 El Camino Real, South San Francisco,
      Calif., between Sept. 11 and Sep. 23, 2013.

The recall was initiated due to concerns about a group of
Salmonella Heidelberg illnesses that may be associated with the
consumption of rotisserie chicken products prepared in and
purchased at the Costco El Camino Real store.  The PFGE pattern
(0258) associated with this outbreak is reported rarely in the
United States. FSIS, working with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), the California Department of Public Health
and the County of San Mateo Public Health Department, determined
through epidemiologic and traceback investigations that there is a
link between the Costco El Camino Real rotisserie chicken products
and this illness outbreak.  FSIS is continuing to work with CDC,
public health partners in California and Costco on the
investigation. FSIS will continue to provide information as it
becomes available.

This group of illnesses is part of a larger cluster of Salmonella
Heidelberg illnesses that are known to be multi-drug resistant.
For more information about the larger cluster, visit:

    http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/heidelberg-10-13/index.html

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  Costco has already taken steps to contact
every customer who purchased rotisserie chicken products.  When
available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the
FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-
public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact Costco at (800) 774-2678.

FSIS reminds consumers to properly handle raw poultry in a manner
to prevent contamination from spreading to other foods and food
contact surfaces.

FSIS further reminds consumers of the critical importance of
following package cooking instructions for frozen or fresh chicken
products and general food safety guidelines when handling and
preparing any raw meat or poultry.  In particular, while cooking
instructions may give a specific number of minutes of cooking for
each side of the product in order to attain 165F internal
temperature, consumers should be aware that actual time may vary
depending on the cooking method (broiling, frying, or grilling)
and the temperature of the product (chilled versus frozen) so it
is important that the final temperature of 165F must be reached
for safety.  Please do not rely on the cooking time for each side
of the product, but use a food thermometer.

All poultry products should be cooked to a safe minimum internal
temperature of 165F as determined by a food thermometer.  Using a
food thermometer is the only way to know that food has reached a
high enough temperature to destroy foodborne bacteria.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  Salmonella infections can be life-threatening,
especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly, and persons with HIV or undergoing chemotherapy. The most
common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps
and fever within eight to 72 hours.  Additional symptoms may be
chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can last up to seven
days.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


DOLE FRESH: Bid for Class Certification Due Dec. 30
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied a stipulation extending
the time for the plaintiff to move for class certification in the
case, TRACI WALLERSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC.
Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-07271-ODW(VBKX), (C.D. Calif.).

Ms. Wallerstein's Motion for Class Certification must be filed by
December 30, 2013 -- the Monday before the end of the 90-day
deadline provided by Local Rule 23-3 -- says Judge Wright.

A copy of the District Court's October 9, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/rj7Rfpfrom Leagle.com.


ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Canadian Court Approves Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that the Superior Court has approved a
settlement in the class-action lawsuit against the English
Montreal School Board and former teacher Renwick Spence.

Under the terms of the settlement, the school board will pay out
C$5 million to victims who were sexually abused by Mr. Spence, who
taught biology at Montreal West High School.  Mr. Spence, now 84,
was sentenced to 30 months in prison after admitting that he
molested eight male students at Montreal West between 1967 and
1981.  He received a full parole in 2009.

Launched by 17 former students, the class action lawsuit was
authorized in 2007.  The lead claimant, who uses the pseudonym
Sebastian, said Mr. Spence took advantage of his authority by
inviting students to his cottage, where he sexually abused them.
Sebastian and the other claimants say the EMSB (then the
Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal) was aware of the
abuse and didn't act.

"The EMSB, as successor to the PSBGM, sincerely and profoundly
apologizes to those students and their families whose lives have
been affected by the abuse they endured and hopes that the
settlement will in some way help with each victim's healing
process," the school board wrote in a statement released on
Oct. 11.

The EMSB was not immediately available for comment but in its
proposed settlement released in August, the school board denied
any wrongdoing or liability.

Careen Hanouche, one of the lawyers representing the victims, said
she believes more people will come forward with abuse claims now
that a settlement agreement is in place.

Any living person who was sexually abused by Mr. Spence and a
student at Montreal West High School from the 1960s to the 1980s
is eligible for compensation under the terms of the settlement.
Victims have 60 days to submit a claim for compensation.

Sebastian, who was 15 when he was sexually assaulted by
Mr. Spence, told The Gazette in August that he hopes the
settlement will allow him and other victims to get on with their
lives.  The 49-year-old told his family about the abuse, but it
took him years to report it to police.  He said he suffered from
bouts of depression in the aftermath of his abuse but that he's
proud he was able to speak out on behalf of the other victims.

The Oct. 11 settlement brings to a close a legal battle that began
10 years ago.


FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Furniture Brands International, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri, and docketed under 13-cv-01703, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of FBN between February 13, 2013 and
August 5, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased FBN securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 15, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

FBN manufactures and distributes residential furniture.  The
Company's products include stationary upholstery products,
occasional furniture, recliners and sleep sofas. The Company's
trade names include, among others, Thomasville, Broyhill, Lane,
and Drexel Heritage.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) the Company was experiencing weaknesses in its wholesale
business; (b) the Company's trade names were being carried at
inflated values that would require material impairments; (c) the
Company was experiencing severe liquidity issues; (d) and based
upon the above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company during the Class Period.

On August 6, 2013, prior to the open of the financial markets, the
Company issued a press release, reporting the Company's second
quarter financial results for the quarter ending June 29, 2013.
The Company disclosed a material impairment and that it would need
to address liquidity challenges and improve business performance
by implementing strategic initiatives to achieve cost reductions,
pursuing asset sales and working with its lenders to potentially
modify its credit facilities.  On this news, shares of FBN
declined $0.84 per share, more than 38%, to close at $1.37 per
share on August 6, 2013.

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


GENERAL MILLS: Court Tosses Motion to Stay Mislabeling Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Bohac brought a putative class action against General Mills,
Inc., asserting that the use of the terms "100% NATURAL," "all
natural," or "natural" on General Mills's "Nature Valley" products
is deceptive and misleading because of the alleged presence of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as high fructose
corn syrup (HFCS"), high maltose corn syrup (HMCS), maltodextrin,
and other similar ingredients.

General Mills moved to stay this case because it argued that the
United States Food and Drug Administration has primary
jurisdiction over the term "natural" and two judges, including one
in the Calif. district, have stayed their cases pending a response
to a referral to the FDA the question of whether products with
bioengineered ingredients may be labeled "natural."  General Mills
also argued that the Court should exercise its inherent authority
to stay the case.

In an Oct. 10, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/trtNz1from
Leagle.com, District Judge William H. Orrick denied General Mills'
request saying factors do not weigh in favor of a stay.

The case is SEAN BOHAC, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05280-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).


GLADSTONE PORTS: 20+ Fishermen Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Burdon, writing for The Satellite, reports that more than
20 fishermen have launched a class action against the Gladstone
Ports Corporation, to secure more compensation for the loss of
their fishing grounds.

The legal action is the second case led by fisherman Trevor Falzon
against the State Government-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation.
It follows a previous case which was rejected on a technicality
last year.

It centers on the Coordinator-General's approval conditions for
the Western Basin dredging project, which demand the port provide
compensation for the loss of local fishing grounds affected by the
project.

The port has had a compensation process open for several months,
but Mr. Falzon and around 20 other fishermen are challenging
whether the program has offered enough.

Mr. Falzon described the compensation offered as "peanuts"; with
payments offered to fishermen, crabbers and trawler operators
ranging from $200 to $50,000.  He said the Western Basin dredging
project had forced him out of the fishing business and for two
years he had been forced to seek other work to maintain his
mortgage payments.

"You're dealing with a $60 billion industry that has literally
stuffed our industry up," he said.

Mr. Falzon said the port also had confined the area for which
compensation should have been offered, excluding vital fishing
grounds from adequate compensation for their losses.  He said GPC
had only offered compensation for four smaller areas of the
harbor, rather than the entire area that was affected by the
massive dredging project.

"The ports corporation only want to pay us out for four of those
(grid areas), but the Coordinator-General said any commercial
fisherman that have been interrupted will be compensated for," he
said.  "We should be compensated for the whole area."

The ports corporation did not respond to requests for comment.


GRAND JUNCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Premiums, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Albert and John Hein, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Grand Junction Metal Movers, LLC
and Chuck Myers, Case No. 1:13-cv-02740-REB-MJW (D. Colo., October
8, 2013) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act when they refused to pay the Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated overtime premiums for all hours worked beyond
40 each workweek.

The Defendants also violated the FLSA when they refused to pay Mr.
Hein any wages at all for one full week of work, the Plaintiffs
allege.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' conduct
violated the FLSA because that Act requires employers to pay their
employees for all hours worked and one-and-one-half times each
employee's regular rate of pay for each hour worked beyond forty
each workweek.

Albert is a resident of the state of Colorado and was employed by
the Defendants from April 2012 through August 7, 2013.  John Hein
is a resident of the state of Colorado and was employed by the
Defendants from February 2012 through May 2012, and again from
February 2013 through May 2013.  The Plaintiffs were employed by
the Defendants as laborers at a scrap metal yard.

Grand Junction is a limited liability company registered to do
business in the state of Colorado.  Chuck Myers is the
owner/operator of Grand Junction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: Brandt@Milsteinlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Lore, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 782-5291
          Facsimile: (713) 758-0345
          E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com


HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Seek Review of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In a brief filed on Oct. 11, the Manufacturers' Center for Legal
Action joined other business groups in calling for the U.S.
Supreme Court to grant review in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John
Fund, Inc., challenging a key precedent in securities class action
cases.

"We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this important
case that would help to address the scourge of securities class
action lawsuits that siphon productive capital out of the
manufacturing economy while enriching a narrow group of trial
lawyers," said National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior
Vice President and General Counsel Linda Kelly.  "Private
securities class action litigation imposes a significant cost
burden on manufacturers, impairing their ability to grow and
create jobs by diverting financial resources toward legal fees and
settlements, often with no net benefit to shareholders."

The case involves the "fraud on the market" theory of liability in
securities class actions.  This theory has greatly facilitated
securities class actions and has contributed to their exponential
growth since the late 1980s.

The Manufacturers' Center for Legal Action serves as the leading
voice of manufacturers in the courts, representing the 12 million
men and women who make things in the United States.  The Center
strategically engages in litigation as a direct party, intervenes
in litigation important to our manufacturers and weighs in as
amicus curiae on important cases.


HIDALGO COUNTY, NM: Sued by Detention Officers and Dispatchers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madonna Bustillos, Francisco Contreras, Concepcion T. Hernandez,
Martha S. Jimenez, And Amanda Vogelsang-Wolf, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Board of County
Commissioners of Hidalgo County, Case No. 2:13-cv-00971 (D. N.M.,
October 8, 2013) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all
current and former Detention Officers and Emergency Dispatch
Operators, who are or were employed by the Defendant at the
Hidalgo County Detention Center.

The lawsuit is brought to recover back pay, compensatory,
exemplary and punitive damages as a result of the Defendant's
failure to pay employees for all hours worked, the Plaintiffs
contend.  They add that the Defendant fails to pay them overtime
wages, in violation of state wage and hour laws and the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs work (or worked) for the Defendant as Correctional
Officers, Sergeants and Lieutenants at the Hidalgo County
Detention Center.

Board of County Commissioners of Hidalgo County is a municipal
corporation located in the state of New Mexico.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shane C. Youtz, Esq.
          Stephen Curtic, Esq.
          James A. Montalbano, Esq.
          YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C.
          900 Gold Avenue S.W.
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-1200
          Facsimile: (505) 244-9700
          E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com
                  stephen@youtzvaldez.com
                  james@youtzvaldez.com


JIM THRELKEL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kamarer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jim Threlkel Florist and Foliage, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, and Jeffrey Allen Sophir, Individually, Case No.
0:13-cv-62180-RSR (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2013) is brought to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
commission, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid overtime premium of his
regular rate of pay and his overtime premium for all hours worked
in excess of 40 during a work week.  When his employment with the
Defendants terminated in May 2013, he asserts that he has demanded
proper compensation for those weeks, which he is entitled to
recover overtime compensation but the Defendants have refused and
failed to compensate him.

Richard Kamarer is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Jim Threlkel Florist and Foliage, Inc., is a Florida corporation,
licensed as a business and doing business in the state of Florida.
Jeffrey Allen Sophir is a citizen and resident of Palm Beach
County, Florida.   He is a principal senior management staff, or
owner of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles H. Bechert, III, Esq.
          BECHERT & ASSOCIATES, P.A
          901 East Atlantic Blvd.
          Pompano Beach, FL 33060
          Telephone: (954) 941-8363
          E-mail: Emailservice@southfloridaattorney.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action in Israel Over PROLIFT MESH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish Business News reports that Zubeidat Narges submitted a
claim in the District Court in Lod, Israel against the American
multinational company, which is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of medical products, drugs and medical equipment.
The plaintiff submitted the claim on behalf of herself, and also
with a request for the Court to certify the claim as a class
action suit for NIS6 billion (about US$1.7 billion) against the
Defendant on behalf of an estimated 60,000 women in Israel who, it
is alleged, experienced the same difficulties as her because of
complex gynaecological procedures performed using the Defendant's
allegedly faulty products.

The plaintiff asserts that in August 2006 a surgical procedure to
relieve vaginal pain was performed on her at the medical centre
"Bnei Zion", whereby soft synthetic vaginal supports were
implanted in her body namely a "PROLIFT MESH" produced and
marketed by the Defendant.  According to the statement of claim,
PROLIFT MESH is a form of synthetic netting used in light
gynaecological surgical procedures to provide support for the
female pelvic organs of the body.  The purpose is to prevent
prolapse, or collapse, of the pelvic organs, a condition known as
POP which is described as a condition where the uterus may fall
into the vagina as a result of the weakening of the tissues of the
pelvic area.  It is a relatively common phenomenon occurring in up
to 25% of women and can in extreme cases be very painful.

The statement of claim alleges that since 1996 there were many
reports, worldwide, of women who had PROLIFT MESH implanted and
then suffered profuse vaginal discharge and associated damage to
their body, including bleeding, bed sores, recurring infection,
perforation of the urinary tract during installation, incontinence
and severe pain.

According to the plaintiff the Defendant had marketed the product
PROLIFT MESH since March 2005, including in Israel, without the
approval of the US Food and Drug Administration.  The statement of
claim further states that in March 2012 the FDA itself issued a
statement stating that the Defendant had marketed the PROLIFT MESH
product without their approval.  The statement of claim also
states that about six years after beginning to market the PROLIFT
MESH product the Defendant began to recall the product from its
distribution channels and then discontinued it.  Finally the
statement of claim points out that many lawsuits have been
asserted elsewhere against the Defendant and substantial
settlement arrangements already achieved.

In this case the plaintiff asserts that the material implanted
into her body caused her, and many other women in Israel, severe
harm.  In her own case, the plaintiff asserts that most of the
known risks associated with the material did in fact occur, and
she suffered form increased pain in the lower abdomen, recurring
infection, increased bleeding, bed sores, and damage to the
urinary tract.

The plaintiff is also seeking to represent all the estimated
60,000 women in Israel who were also affected because of the
PROLIFT MESH product supplied by the Defendant.  Damages are
sought in the average amount of NIS 100,000 (about $28,000) per
patient and the aggregate claim, if class action status should be
approved, is therefore NIS 6 billion, or about US$1.7 billion.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Correct OT Wages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Maximovskikh, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion v. Johnson
Controls, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-62179-WJZ (S.D. Fla., October 8,
2013) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act for failure to pay overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5
times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours a
week.

Mr. Maximovskikh says he and members of the class routinely worked
over 40 hours per work week.  However, he contends, for certain
hours over 40 in a work week, he and members of the class were
only paid straight time rather than premium overtime pay.

Mr. Maximovskikh is a resident of Florida.  He has been employed
by the Defendant starting in 2008 as a non-exempt, hourly
employee.

Johnson Controls is a foreign, for-profit corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale J. Morgado, Esq.
          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
          100 North Biscayne Boulevard
          29th Floor, Suite 2902
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 222-7850
          Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
          E-mail: dmorgado@ffmlawgroup.com
                  erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com


KGI LANDSCAPING: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Duran, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. KGI Landscaping Co., and
Gabriel A. Hostalet, Case No. 1:13-cv-07209 (N.D. Ill.,
October 8, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Prevailing Wage Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

He and all similarly situated members of the Plaintiff Class work
or have worked in excess of 40 hours per week at times throughout
their employment with the Defendants, Mr. Duran states.  He
contends that he and the Class members were denied time and one
half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state
statutes.

Mr. Duran is a past employee, who performed work for the
Defendants as a laborer.  He also performed work as a driver for
the Defendants during a portion of his employment.

KGI provides landscaping and snow plowing services in the
Chicagoland area.  Gabriel A. Hostalet is the owner of KGI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Ana Dominguez, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          100 W. Monroe, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: adominguez@fwadvocacy.org


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Accused of Asking for Personal ID Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Alberts and Michael Pietrantonio, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc., 1:13-cv-12523-WGY (D. Mass., October 8, 2013) arises from
Kohls' violation of the Massachusetts General Laws through its
practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to
make a purchase, customers' personal identification information
(PII), specifically their ZIP codes.

As a condition of using their credit cards, they were required by
Kohl's to enter PII associated with the credit card, including
their full and complete zip codes, the Plaintiffs allege.  They
note that Kohl's would not allow them to complete their purchases
without supplying the information.

Timothy Alberts and Michael Pietrantonio are citizens of the state
of Massachusetts.

Kohl's is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Menomonee Falls,
Wisconsin.  Kohl's conducts business throughout the United States
and Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Alexander Shapoval, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          1 Winnisimmet Street
          Chelsea, MA 02150
          Telephone: (617) 889-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 884-3005
          E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com


NEBRASKA PRIME: Magistrate Judge Awards $880,000 to Investor
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Piersol, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that
one of the original investors in what became Nebraska Prime Group
-- now a kosher slaughterhouse in Hastings and owner of an idle
plant in Lincoln -- was awarded almost $900,000 by a federal
magistrate to settle a split with those now controlling the
business.

Lincoln Provision Inc., a Chicago meat company owned by
Jim Stevens, was awarded the money as the value of its share of
Hastings Acquisition, owned by New York investor Aron Puretz,
which took over the business that was supposed to have been a
collaboration.

Together, they bought Premium Protein of Lincoln and Hastings out
of bankruptcy almost four years ago, but they never came to an
operating agreement.  Mr. Puretz took over, and Lincoln Provision
sued for its share of the value of the business.  The case went to
trial in May.

The $880,000 award is the return for Lincoln Provision on a
deposit of $100,000 in earnest money.  Mr. Puretz put up the rest
of the down payment, then $3.9 million for a company appraised at
as much as $20 million in a series of wildly divergent valuations
reported in court documents.

Lincoln Provision was supposed to have put up 30 percent of the
payment and was expecting to be the operation's biggest customer,
with plans to kill 40,000 cattle a year, according to court
documents, but that didn't happen.

The Hastings plant resumed operation as a kosher slaughter and
packing operation in August 2010 as Nebraska Prime Group, under
Mr. Puretz's leadership, but the Lincoln plant never reopened.

Attorney David Domina, representing Lincoln Provision, said his
client was pleased matters were concluded.

"The company is disappointed that actions of the persons in
control precluded it from operating the plant in a way that would
have been a credit to Hastings and a complement to its economy,"
Mr. Domina said in an email.  "The Hastings plant is an
opportunity requiring much careful management ,and Lincoln
Provision became involved on the condition it would provide that
management."

Lincoln Provision contended in court that Mr. Puretz shut it out
of the deal almost immediately.  The Chicago meat company asked
for compensation not based on the money paid at bankruptcy, but a
"distributional interest at fair value" defined under Illinois
law, because the acquisition company was created there.

Lincoln Provision had asked the court to award it, among other
things, at least $12.5 million for the reasonable value of the
real estate assets.

Mr. Puretz and his company countered that Lincoln Provision, on
whom Mr. Puretz relied for guidance, misrepresented the operating
capacity of the Hastings plant in an effort to induce Mr. Puretz
to invest.  Lincoln Provision misstated the plant's projected
revenue by more than $16 million dollars over five years,
according to court documents filed by Mr. Puretz.  Mr. Puretz said
Lincoln Provision deserved, at most, $100,000.

Federal Magistrate F.A. Gossett ruled the company was worth $3.9
million and that Lincoln Provision deserved half, less $1.07
million it hadn't paid to put up 30 percent of the purchase price.

Part of a New York-New Jersey real estate investing family,
Mr. Puretz acknowledged having no experience in the meat industry,
but he continues to operate the Hastings plant.   He and his
attorney could not be reached to comment on the ruling.

Coincidentally, in a separate federal court action, the former
owner of Premium Protein Products agreed in late September to pay
$1.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit by former employees.

Private equity firm Matlin Patterson, which was majority owner of
the meatpacking company when it declared bankruptcy in November
2009, agreed to the settlement without admitting any wrongdoing.

The employees had alleged the company violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by furloughing them for
months without pay and then filing bankruptcy.

The WARN Act requires companies of a certain size to give
employees 60 days' notice of a plant closing.  Instead, Premium
Protein furloughed as many as 400 employees in June 2009, then
filed for bankruptcy in November.

There is still no apparent plan for use of the vacant Lincoln
plant at 4611 W. Adams St.


NISSAN MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Falco" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied, in part, and granted, in
part, a motion to dismiss the case captioned KOBE FALCO,
individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR
CO. LTD, a Japanese Company, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-00686 DDP
(MANX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs in the case asserted six causes of action against
Nissan North: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq; 2)
breach of implied warranty pursuant to California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1792 and 1791.1 et
seq.; 3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act (WCPA), RCW 19.86 et seq; (5) Fraud, and (6) Unjust
Enrichment.

The court denied Nissan North's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiffs'
(1) CLRA,(2) Implied Warranty, (3) UCL,(4) WCPA, and (5) Fraud
claims. The court granted Nissan North's motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment claim.

A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/zSmxhhfrom Leagle.com.


OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Oct. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
and docketed under 13-cv-12286, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of OvaScience between February 25, 2013 and September
10, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased OvaScience securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 15, 2013 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of new treatments for
infertility.  The Company's patented technology is based on the
discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the
ovaries.  By applying proprietary technology to identify and
purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase
the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, OvaScience
represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT
qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human
cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed
without FDA licensure.  Yet despite this representation,
OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was
suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an
"untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT
as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more
than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013.

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


REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over "Refund All Slot Losses" Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franziska Montag, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Revel Entertainment Group, LLC, and Chatham Asset
Management, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-07133-UA (S.D. N.Y., October 8,
2013) arises from Revel's post-bankruptcy promotion called "Refund
All Slot Losses," which promises to refund all slot machine losses
exceeding $100 during the month of July.

When it came time to pay up, Revel refused to provide refunds,
instead providing credits for continued slot machine play, Ms.
Montag alleges.  The credits have no cash value and can only be
claimed in 5% increments by showing up at the casino each week for
20 consecutive weeks.  Ms. Montag argues that Revel made
affirmative misrepresentations and failed to disclose material
facts regarding the terms of the "Refund All Slot Losses"
campaign.

Ms. Montag is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.  She states that
she and the Class members responded to the "Refund All Slot
Losses" campaign by traveling to Revel casino and playing the slot
machines in July 2013.

Revel is a New Jersey limited liability company headquartered in
Atlantic City.  Chatham is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Chatham, New Jersey.  Chatham has a significant
ownership stake in Revel and oversees the casino's management and
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Anthony Kehoe, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867-1721
          Facsimile: (212) 867-1767
          E-mail: jak@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com


SINO-FOREST: Nov. 18 Hearing on US Recognition of E&Y Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a hearing Nov. 18, 2013, on the motion to recognize and
enforce an order by the Ontario Superior Court approving a
settlement of a class action lawsuit solely against Ernst & Young
LLP and Ernst & Young Global Limited for C$117 million and other
consideration.

The class consists of persons and entities who, from March 19,
2007, through August 26, 2011, purchased the common stock of Sino-
Forest Corporation on the United States Over-the-Counter market
and who were damaged thereby; or debt securities issued by Sino-
Forest other than in Canada and who were damaged thereby; and who
have, had, could have had or may have a claim against E&Y or any
of its member firms and any person or entitiy affiliated or
connected thereto in connection with the purchase or sale of Sino-
Forest securities.

These defendants are excluded from the US E&Y Settlement Class:
the officiers and directors of Sino-Forest, members of the
immediate families of those persons, and the legal
representatives.

The Settlement Class excludes investors who purchased Sino-Forest
securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange or in Canada.

The hearing will be held 11:00 a.m. on Nov. 18 before Judge Martin
Glenn.  Objections or responses to the Motion must be filed with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by due Nov. 7.  Objections also may be
sent to:

US Counsel for Ernst & Young:

     Ken Coleman, Esq.
     Jonathan Cho, Esq.
     ALLEN & OVERY LLP
     1221 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020

Bankruptcy Counsel for the Class Action Plaintiffs:

     Michael S. Etkin, Esq.
     Tatiana Ingman, Esq.
     LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New Yor, NY 10020
     E-mail: tingman@lowenstein.com

Additional information on the Motion and E&Y Settlement may be
obtained upon request at:

     Richard A Speirs, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: 212-838-7797
     E-mail: rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com

Sino-Forest Corporation -- http://www.sinoforest.com/-- is a
commercial forest plantation operator in China.  Its principal
businesses include the ownership and management of tree
plantations, the sale of standing timber and wood logs, and the
complementary manufacturing of downstream engineered-wood
products.  Sino-Forest also holds a majority interest in
Greenheart Group Limited, a Hong-Kong listed investment holding
company with assets in Suriname (South America) and New Zealand
and involved in sustainable harvesting, processing and sales of
its logs and lumber to China and other markets around the world.
Sino-Forest's common shares have been listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange under the symbol TRE since 1995.

Sino-Forest Corporation on March 30, 2012, obtained an initial
order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for creditor
protection pursuant to the provisions of the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act.  FTI Consulting Canada Inc. served as the Court-
appointed Monitor under the CCAA process and assisted the Company
in implementing its restructuring plan.

FTI Consulting commenced a Chapter 15 case for Sino-Forest in New
York to give force and effect of Sino-Forest's plan of compromise
and reorganization that has been sanctioned by creditors and an
Ontario court.


SKECHERS USA: Continues to Defend "Chavez" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit initiated by Esteban Chavez, according to the
Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On September 18, 2012, Esteban Chavez filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Esteban Chavez v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. BC492357, alleging violations of
the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, non-compliant wage statements, and wages not timely
paid upon termination.  The complaint seeks actual, consequential
and incidental losses and damages; general and special damages;
civil, statutory and waiting time penalties; restitution of unpaid
wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; pre-judgment
interest on unpaid compensation; and appointment of a receiver.
On September 25, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the
action until an initial status conference that was held on
December 19, 2012.  While it is too early to predict the outcome
of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and
whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on
its results of operations or financial position, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the
allegations, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: To Produce Docs Amid Subpoena From Ohio Jury
----------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc., said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that it is fully cooperating and is in the
process of producing documents and other information with respect
to a subpoena issued by a Grand Jury of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio relating to its toning
shoe products, including Shape-ups.

The Company's claims and advertising for its toning products
including for its Shape-ups are subject to the requirements of,
and routinely come under review by regulators including the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), states' Attorneys General and
government and quasi-government regulators in foreign countries.
The Company is currently responding to requests for information
regarding its claims and advertising from regulatory and quasi-
regulatory agencies in several countries and is fully cooperating
with those requests.  While the Company believes that its claims
and advertising with respect to its core toning shoe products are
supported by scientific tests, expert opinions and other relevant
data, and while the Company has been successful in defending its
claims and advertising in several different countries, it has
discontinued using certain test results and periodically reviews
and updates its claims and advertising.  The regulatory inquiries
may conclude in a variety of outcomes, including the closing of
the inquiry with no further regulatory action, settlement of any
issues through changes in its claims and advertising, settlement
of any issues through payment to the regulatory entity, or
litigation.

In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles,
the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial
statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or
considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.
When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant
judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss
to be recorded.  Estimates of probable losses resulting from
litigation and governmental proceedings are inherently difficult
to predict, particularly when the matters are in the procedural
stages or with unspecified or indeterminate claims for damages,
potential penalties, or fines.  During the fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2011, the Company reserved $45 million for costs and
potential exposure relating to existing litigation and regulatory
matters.  Additionally, the Company recorded a pre-tax expense of
$5 million in legal and professional fees related to the matters,
which was included in general and administrative expense in its
consolidated statement of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On May 16, 2012, the Company announced that it had settled all
domestic legal proceedings relating to advertising claims made in
connection with marketing its toning shoe products, including
Shape-ups. Under the terms of the global settlement -- without
admitting any fault or liability, with no findings being made that
the Company had violated any law, and with no fines or penalties
being imposed -- it made payments in the aggregate amount of $50
million to settle and finally resolve the domestic advertising
class action lawsuits and related claims brought by the FTC and
states' Attorneys General for 44 states and the District of
Columbia ("SAG").  The FTC Stipulated Final Judgment was approved
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on July 12, 2012, and consent judgments have been approved
and entered in the 45 SAG actions.  On May 13, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entered
an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action
settlement.

On November 8, 2012, the Company was served with a Grand Jury
Subpoena ("Subpoena") for documents and information relating to
its past advertising claims for its toning footwear, including
Shape-ups and Resistance Runners.  The Subpoena was issued by a
Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Subpoena seeks
documents and information related to outside studies conducted on
the Company's toning footwear.  This Subpoena appears to grow out
of the FTC's inquiry into the Company's claims and advertising for
Shape-ups and its other toning shoe products, which the Company
settled with the FTC, State Attorneys' General and consumer class
as part of the global settlement.  The Company is fully
cooperating and is in the process of producing documents and other
information requested in the Subpoena.  The Assistant United
States Attorney has informed the Company that neither the Company
nor its employees are targets at the present time.  Although the
Company does not believe this matter will have a material adverse
impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
position, it is too early to predict the timing and outcome of
this matter or reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if
any.

The toning footwear category, including the Company's Shape-ups
products, has also been the subject of some media attention
arising from a number of consumer complaints and lawsuits alleging
injury while wearing Shape-ups.  The Company believes its products
are safe and is defending itself from these media stories and
injury lawsuits.  It is too early to predict the outcome of any
case or inquiry, whether there will be future personal injury
cases filed, whether adverse results in any single case or in the
aggregate would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
results of operations or financial position, and whether insurance
coverage will be adequate to cover any losses.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Accord to Solve "Stalker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc. expects that the settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuit will entirely resolve the
class claims brought by Sonia Stalker, according to the Company's
August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 2, 2010, Sonia Stalker filed an action against the Company
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleging that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates California's Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The complaint seeks certification of
a nationwide class, actual and punitive damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On July 23, 2010, the Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and it is now pending as Sonia Stalker v.
Skechers USA, Inc., CV 10-5460 JAK (JEM).  On January 21, 2011,
the District Court stayed this case pending resolution of the
Grabowski action.  On May 16, 2012, this action was ordered
transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On August 13, 2012, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement
agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary
injunction further enjoining prosecution of this action.  On
May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the
nationwide consumer class action settlement.  The settlement in
the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve
the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Stalker.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Hochberg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc. expects that the settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class action lawsuits will entirely resolve the
class claims brought by Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum, according
to the Company's August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On November 23, 2011, Wendie Hochberg and Brenda Baum filed a
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Wendie Hochberg and Brenda
Baum v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV11-5751.  The complaint
alleges, on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups violates
the New York Consumer Protection Act, and is resulting in unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks certification of a statewide
class, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 16, 2012, this action was
ordered transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceeding
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On August 13, 2012, the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a
preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this
action.  On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an order finally
approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement.  The
settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected
entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in
Hochberg.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski Deal to Solve "Tomlinson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga
class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class
claims brought by Patty Tomlinson.

On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Patty
Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. CV11-121-7.  The
complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, constitutes a
breach of certain express and implied warranties, and is resulting
in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson action").  The complaint
seeks certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages,
prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
February 18, 2011, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where
it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-
05042 JLH.  On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the
action back to Arkansas state court, which motion the Company
opposed.  On May 25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to
Arkansas state court and denied the Company's motion to dismiss or
transfer as moot, but stayed the remand pending completion of
appellate review.  On September 11, 2012, the District Court
lifted its stay and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of
Washington County, Arkansas.  On October 11, 2012, by stipulation
of the parties, the state Circuit Court issued an order staying
the case.  On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval
of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the
Grabowski/Morga actions, and issued a preliminary injunction
enjoining the continued prosecution of this action.  On May 13,
2013, the Court entered an order finally approving the nationwide
consumer class action settlement.  The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Expects Grabowski/Morga Deal to Solve "Loss" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga
class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class
claims asserted by Loss, et al.

On February 12, 2012, Shannon Loss, Kayla Hedges and Donald Horner
filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Shannon Loss, Kayla
Hedges and Donald Horner v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:12-cv-78-H.
The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for
Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a breach
of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, and
resulting in unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks certification
of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On March 9, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion
to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.  On
August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer
class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions,
and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued
prosecution of this action.  On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an
order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action
settlement.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Loss.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Boatright" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SKECHERS USA, Inc. said in its August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the settlement in the Grabowski/Morga
class action lawsuits is expected entirely to resolve the class
claims brought by Elma Boatright and Sharon White.

On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Elma Boatright and Sharon
White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and
Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S.  The complaint
alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated, that the Company's advertising for Shape-ups
is false and misleading, thereby, constituting a breach of
contract, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and
resulting in unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks certification
of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion
to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.

On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga
actions, and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the
continued prosecution of this action.  On May 13, 2013, the Court
entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class
action settlement.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class
actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought
by the plaintiff in Boatright.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


SKECHERS USA: Grabowski Deal Expected to Solve "Scovil" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected to
entirely resolve the class claims brought by Michele Scovil,
according to SKECHERS USA, Inc.'s August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On April 25, 2012, Michele Scovil filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Michele
Scovil v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. A-12660756-C.  The
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered physical injuries that she
attributes to the allegedly defective design of Shape-ups, and
plaintiff asserts, in her individual capacity, claims for
negligence, products liability, strict liability, and breach of
warranty.  In addition, plaintiff also purports to bring a class
action on behalf of all persons in Nevada who purchased Shape-ups
shoes at retail, and seeks class certification on her claims for
alleged violations of the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages,
restitution, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On
July 12, 2012, this action was transferred to the multidistrict
litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, entitled In re Skechers
Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2308.  On
August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer
class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga actions,
and issued a preliminary injunction that enjoins the continued
prosecution of this action.  On May 13, 2013, the Court entered an
order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action
settlement.  The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Scovil.

SKECHERS USA, Inc. -- http://www.skechers.com/-- based in
Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a
diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the
SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is available in the United
States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS
retail stores and its e-commerce Web site, and over 100 countries
and territories through the Company's global network of
distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and
across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia.


STEC INC: Has Agreement in Principle Over Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
sTec, Inc., has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs
in certain class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger
with Western Digital Corporation.

On June 23, 2013, sTec, Inc., a California corporation (the
"Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with Western Digital Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("WDC"), and Lodi Ventures, Inc., a California
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of WDC ("Merger Sub")
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of WDC (the "Merger").

On August 8, 2013, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
on Schedule 14A (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

On September 12, 2013 (the "Effective Time"), Merger Sub was
merged into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of WDC (the "Merger"). As a result of
the Merger, each share of common stock of the Company, $0.001 par
value per share ("Common Stock") issued and outstanding
immediately prior to the Effective Time (other than shares of
Common Stock (i) owned, directly or indirectly, by WDC or Merger
Sub, (ii) held in the treasury of the Company, or (iii) held by
any holder who did not vote in favor of the Merger and who
properly demanded that the Company purchase such shares in
accordance with Chapter 13 of the California General Corporation
Law ("Dissenting Shares")) was canceled and converted into the
right to receive $6.85 in cash, without interest (the "Merger
Consideration").

Seven shareholders filed purported class action lawsuits, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated shareholders of
the Company, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, against the Company, members of its board of
directors, WDC and Merger Sub challenging the proposed Merger (the
"State Court Shareholder Lawsuits"). The State Court Shareholder
Lawsuits generally assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the members of the Company's board of directors for
approving the proposed Merger at an allegedly inadequate price and
for engaging in a flawed sales process. The State Court
Shareholder Lawsuits also generally assert claims against WDC and
Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 13, 2013, another shareholder filed a new purported
class action lawsuit, Sokolowski v. Western Digital Corp. et al,
Case No. 8-13cv1277, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, against the Company, members of
its board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub challenging the
proposed Merger. The complaint asserts a claim against the
directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and a claim
against WDC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks class certification, to enjoin
the consummation of the proposed Merger, to have a special master
or trustee appointed to oversee the board of directors in
connection with the sale of the Company, damages, costs and
attorneys' and expert fees, and any other relief the court may
deem proper. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties because the proposed
Merger does not maximize shareholder value, that the Definitive
Proxy Statement fails to provide shareholders with material
information and/or provides them with materially misleading
information, that the proposed Merger undervalues the Company
because it fails to account for the value of the pending purported
shareholder derivative claims, and that the Merger is intended to
extinguish those allegedly valuable claims. Plaintiff alleges that
the Definitive Proxy Statement should have included a detailed
assessment of the value of the derivative claims, and more clearly
stated that, if the proposed Merger is consummated, the plaintiffs
will lose standing to assert the purported derivative claims on
behalf of the Company and their derivative actions will be
terminated. The Company, its directors, WDC and Merger Sub deny
the allegations in the lawsuit and believe they are without merit.

From January 5, 2010 through August 2, 2010, the Company received
letters from counsel for four purported shareholders, including
counsel for Mr. Sokolowski, the plaintiff in this new putative
class action, demanding that the Company take action to remedy
breaches of fiduciary duties by several of its senior officers and
directors.  The allegations in these letters were similar to the
allegations in the shareholder derivative complaints filed in
state and federal court, and demanded that the Company take action
to recover damages from its senior officers and directors and to
correct alleged deficiencies in its internal controls. The demand
letters stated that if, within a reasonable time, the Company's
board of directors had not commenced the requested action, or if
the board of directors refused to commence the requested action,
the purported named shareholders would commence derivative
actions.

In evaluating the demand letters, the independent members of the
Company's board of directors conducted a review of the issues and
allegations raised by the purported shareholders. After
considering a number of factors, including the legal and factual
merits of the claims made in the demand letters, the independent
members of the Company's board of directors unanimously determined
that it would not be in the Company's best interests to pursue the
claims alleged in the demand letters against any of the
individuals mentioned therein. This determination was formally
communicated to counsel for the four purported shareholders on
December 17, 2010. Counsel for two of the purported shareholders
responded by letter dated July 13, 2011, further demanding that
the Company take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by several of its senior officers and directors. In
evaluating the July 13, 2011 demand letter, the independent
members of the Company's board of directors conducted a further
review of the issues and allegations raised by the purported
shareholders. After considering a number of factors, including the
legal and factual merits of the claims made in the demand letter,
the independent members of the Company's board of directors
unanimously determined that it would not be necessary to retain
separate independent counsel and again determined that it would
not be in the Company's best interests to pursue the claims
alleged in the demand letter against any of the individuals
mentioned therein. This determination was formally communicated to
counsel for the two purported shareholders on December 7, 2011.

On October 25, 2012, Mr. Sokolowski filed an individual and
purported derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California asserting the claims that
were the subject of these demands.

In approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger, the Company's
board of directors was aware of and considered interests that the
Company's executive officers and directors have in the Merger that
may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of the
Company's shareholders generally, including the pending
shareholder derivative actions purportedly filed on the Company's
behalf against several of the Company's senior officers and
directors and that upon consummation of the Merger, the plaintiffs
asserting these derivative claims may lose standing because they
will no longer be shareholders of sTec. Consistent with the prior
evaluation by the independent members of the Company's board of
directors of a number of factors, including the legal and factual
merits of the claims, and their determination that it would not be
in the Company's best interests to pursue these claims, the board
of directors did not place any material value on these claims in
evaluating the Merger.

In addition, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuit
pending in Superior Court of California for Orange County filed a
motion seeking to amend their complaint to include claims related
to the Merger, including a claim that the Merger is intended to
extinguish the derivative claims. On August 16, 2013, the court
denied the motion to amend the complaint in the California state
derivative action.

                  Proposed Litigation Settlement

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the lawsuits challenging the Merger is without merit, that the
disclosures set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement fully
comply with applicable law, and that the Company and the other
defendants have valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to
minimize the cost and expense of litigation, to provide additional
information to the Company's shareholders, and to avoid the risk
of any possible delay in the consummation of the Merger, on
September 3, 2013, the Company and the other defendants reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the State Court
Shareholder Lawsuits to settle the lawsuits subject to certain
conditions.

Subject to court approval and definitive documentation, after
arm's-length negotiations, the parties have agreed in principle to
resolve all claims against the Company, members of its board of
directors, WDC and Merger Sub in connection with the Merger. The
agreement contemplates a release and settlement by the Company's
shareholders of all claims against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, WDC and Merger Sub, and their respective
affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger. In exchange
for these releases and settlement, the Company has agreed to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement. The parties anticipate
that they will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will
be subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the
Merger, certification of a class of the Company's shareholders for
settlement purposes and court approval. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled, following notice to the Company's shareholders, at
which the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
the settlement.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging or otherwise relating to any aspect
of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for dissenting
shareholder rights under Chapter 13 of the California General
Corporation Law). There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. If the parties do not enter into a
stipulation of settlement, the stipulation is not approved by the
court, or the conditions to the proposed settlement are not
satisfied, the proposed settlement may be terminated and the
Company and the members of its board of directors intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuits. The settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be received by the Company's shareholders
pursuant to the Merger Agreement or the timing of the special
meeting of the shareholders of the Company, scheduled for
September 12, 2013.

The Company, the members of its board of directors, WDC and Merger
Sub have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that
they have breached any fiduciary duty, committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in
any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in
the State Court Shareholder Lawsuits (or other litigation related
to the Merger), and expressly maintain that they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
obligations and are entering into the proposed settlement of the
State Court Shareholder Lawsuits solely to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
in the consummation of the Merger.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 369 Tacoma and Tundra Model Trucks & Vans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           369
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013353
TC ID number:             2013353
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SSC222

On certain vehicles equipped with an optional tonneau cover where
the front-most panel can be opened with the vehicle ignition key,
the lock cylinder could bind.  If the lock cylinder were to bind
in the open position, the panel may not remain closed and the
tonneau cover assembly could separate from the vehicle while it is
being driven.  This could potentially result in property damage
and pose a hazard to other road users.

Dealers will affect repairs when service parts become available.
In the interim, the panel release mechanism will be disabled or
the tonneau cover removed, at the owner's choice.

Affected products:

  Maker    Model      Model year(s) affected
  -----    -----      ----------------------
  TOYOTA   TACOMA     2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
  TOYOTA   TUNDRA     2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 625 Avalon, Camry, Camry HV & Corolla Models
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           625
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013352
TC ID number:             2013352
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SSC219

On certain vehicles, the windshield wiper switch may have been
manufactured incorrectly and could cause an electrical short when
the wiper switch is moved from the OFF position to the MIST
position.  This would blow the fuse, causing the windshield wipers
to become inoperative, potentially reducing driver visibility and
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the switch.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model      Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----      ----------------------
  TOYOTA   COROLLA    2014
  TOYOTA   CAMRY      2013, 2014
  TOYOTA   AVALON     2013
  TOYOTA   CAMRY HV   2013, 2014


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that United Airlines is facing a
potential deceptive business practices class action lawsuit filed
by two Jersey City residents who allege the airline uses an
algorithm that modifies the number of miles needed for an award,
depending on the number of frequent flyer miles the person has.

The federal lawsuit was filed by Robert Gordon and Melissa Chan
who claim United Airlines attempted to charge each of them
different amounts of miles for the same hotel room last year when
they were booking a trip together.  Both are members of United's
MileagePlus rewards program, the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, in August 2012, Mr. Gordon tried to use
his miles to book a three-night stay at a hotel in Japan.  Using
United's website, he was informed it would cost him 40,750 mile,
which exceed the amount of points he had in his account, but was
fewer than 41,733 miles in Ms. Chan's MileagePlus account.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Chan subsequently decided to book
the same room for same dates using her miles instead.  However,
when she tried to do so only several minutes later, United's
website required her to use 44,500 miles, or 3,750 miles more than
what it attempted to charge Mr. Gordon.  To book the hotel room,
Ms. Chan had to pay $26.10 to buy the additional miles that United
charged her.

The lawsuit states that Gordon then called United, but was told
the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number miles
needed for an award, depending on the number of miles the person
has.  They claim United was deceptive in not disclosing this
alleged practice.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Roxanne Palmer, writing for Law360, report that
Urban Outfitters Inc. was hit with a shareholder class action in
Pennsylvania federal court on Oct. 11 alleging the retailer misled
investors about its financial performance, failing to disclose its
declining sales in recent months.

The suit alleges that the Philadelphia-based company violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by not disclosing to stock
purchasers that fiscal year 2014 sales were not rising at the
anticipated rate and that it was relying on discounts, making it
unlikely that it would meet expected financial targets.

"When the true facts about the company were revealed to the
market, the inflation of the price of the Urban Outfitters common
stock was removed and the price of Urban Outfitters common stock
declined dramatically, causing losses to plaintiff and the other
members of the class," alleged lead plaintiff David Schwartz in
the complaint.

The complaint specifically says that, between March 12, 2013, and
Sept. 9, 2013, the company did not reveal that comparable sales
growth, especially in the company's key Urban Outfitters group,
had significantly declined, and that it had to offer an additional
30 percent off all clearance items during Labor Day weekend 2013,
which it did not do the previous year.  Consequently, the company
was not on track to achieve the financial results it had led the
market to expect during that interval.

The Urban Outfitters Group, with 215 retail stores, is the largest
unit in the company, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, when the company disclosed its second
quarter 2014 financial results on Sept. 9, revealing a 5.2 percent
comparable sales growth rate for the Urban Outfitters Group -- far
less than the anticipated 9 percent rate -- the company's stock
price plunged 13 percent, from $44 per share to a close of $38.35
per share on September 10, 2013.

The suit, in addition to naming the retailer, also includes five
directors of the business, including co-founder and CEO Richard
Hayne.

A 2011 lawsuit accused Hayne of violating securities laws by
keeping $5.28 million in so-called short swing stock profits that
should have been returned to the company.

The parties involved agreed to dismiss that case with prejudice in
April 2012, but no details of a settlement were made available.

Representatives for Urban Outfitters did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on Oct. 11.

The plaintiff is represented by Samuel H. Rudman and David A.
Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Counsel information for Urban Outfitters was not available on
Oct. 11.

The case is Schwartz v. Urban Outfitters Inc. et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The case
number was not available on Oct. 11.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation related to a class certification motion filed by a
former employee of a subsidiary of Verint Systems Inc. remains
ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were
commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our
subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel
Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch
Labor Action") and against Verint's former parent company,
Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI") in the Tel Aviv Regional
District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District
Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion
to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports
to represent a class of our employees and former employees who
were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly
damaged as a result of the suspension on option exercises during
our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District
Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms.
Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were
allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and
CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its
financial reporting. The class certification motions do not
specify an amount of damages.  On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch
Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and
was transferred to the Tel Aviv Regional District Court and
consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

"On March 16, 2009, and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal
actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of
CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse
Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09)
(the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv
Regional District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel
District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is
seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI
stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the
suspension on option exercises during CTI's previous extended
filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition
to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to
certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to
their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of
alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On
March 2, 2010, the Labor Court ordered the transfer of the case to
the District Court in Tel Aviv - Jaffa, based on an agreed motion
filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

"On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to
file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.
Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the
signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. We filed our response to this motion on September
6, 2012.

"Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us.

"We and the other defendants filed our responses to the complaint
on November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their replies on
December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on
December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to
settle the dispute through mediation.

"On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to
CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses
we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in
connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"On February 28, 2013, the mediation process began and, as of
September 4, 2013, remains ongoing."


WATERLOGIC COMMERCIAL: Recalls Chiller-Based Water Dispensers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 15, 2013
Posting date:             October 15, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36137

Affected products: Chiller-based water dispensers

The recalled product is an upright, bottle-less water cooler sold
in white, silver or black and includes floor and tabletop models.

The brand names involved in this recall include Innowave Chiller
Sport, Innowave Chiller 3, Aquamark Refresh Centre and Culligan
Chiller Water Purifying Dispenser hot /cold.

The following model numbers are at issue: 12-CHCU3, 12-CHCMU3-ARA,
12-RC-1, 12-RC-2, 12-CHCUB-ARA, 12-CHCUW-ARA, 12-CHCMU3, 12-RCP-1,
12-WL2200-CUL, 12-WL2200M-CUL, 12-CHCUR-CUL, 12-CHC, 12-CHCU, 12-
CHCUB, 12-CHCU-CUL, 12-CUCHUW2, 12-CHCUB2, 12-CHCMUW2 and 12-
CHCMUB2.

The affected serial numbers for Canadian models include the
following:

   -- 2105A through 2105L, 2106A through 2106L, 2107A through
      2107L, 2108A through 2108L;

   -- 2205A through 2205L, 2206A through 2206L, 2207A through
      2207L, 2208A through 2208L;

   -- 2305A through 2305L, 2306A through 2306L, 2307A through
      2307L, 2308A through 2308L;

   -- 2405A through 2405L, 2406A through 2406L, 2407A through
      2407L, 2408A through 2408L;

   -- 2505A through 2505L, 2506A through 2506L, 2507A through
      2507L, 2508A through 2508L;

   -- 2605A through 2605L, 2606A through 2606L, 2607A through
      2607L, 2608A through 2608L;

   -- 2705A through 2705L, 2706A through 2706L, 2707A through
      2707L, 2708A through 2708L;

   -- 3105A through 3105L, 3106A through 3106L, 3107A through
      3107L, 3108A through 3108L;

   -- 3505A through 3505L, 3506A through 3506L, 3507A through
      3507L, 3508A through 3508L;

   -- 3605A through 3605L, 3606A through 3606L, 3607A through
      3607L, 3608A through 3608L;

   -- 7105A through 7105L, 7106A through 7106L, 7107A through
      7107L, 7108A through 7108L;

   -- 7505A through 7505L, 7506A through 7506L, 7507A through
      7507L, 7508A through 7508L; and

   -- 7605A through 7605L, 7606A through 7606L, 7607A through
      7607L, 7608A through 7608L.

The hot water tank can stop functioning and cause the machine to
overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Waterlogic has received 16 reports of fire and smoke within the
water dispensers.  No injuries or property damage have been
reported.  There have been no reports of incidents in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these water dispensers.

Approximately 1,049 units of the recalled water dispensers were
sold through Waterlogic dealers and distributors in Canada.

The affected water dispensers were manufactured in China and sold
from January 2005 to December 2008.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Waterlogic Manufacturing
                   China

  Distributor      Waterlogic Commercial Products, LLC
                   Omaha
                   Nebraska
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the water dispenser, unless otherwise
instructed.  Waterlogic is contacting its distributors and
providing a list of affected units and all technical instructions
and parts necessary to complete the approved repair on the next
scheduled preventive maintenance visit.  Consumers who have not
been contacted by their dealer for a free repair should contact
Waterlogic.


WELLS FARGO: Tie-in Claim in "Lane Suit" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted a motion to dismiss a claim
asserted under the anti-tying provision of the Bank Holding
Company Act in the case captioned DANNY LANE, BEVERLY LANE, and
MERCEDES GUERRERO, individually, and for other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, NO. C
12-04026 WHA, (N.D. Calif.).

This is a putative class action involving force-placed insurance
on home mortgages.  Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the Tie-In Claim.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification of the Bank Holding
Company Act anti-tying provision is denied as moot, added Judge
Alsup.

A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/HupWvcfrom Leagle.com.


YODER'S COUNTRY: Recalls Gift Boxes Containing Roasted Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoder's Country Market, is recalling custom gift boxes distributed
in December 2012 because they may contain 11 oz. bags of honey
roasted peanuts which contain undeclared milk and wheat.  People
who have allergies to milk or wheat run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the honey
roasted peanuts.  No other components of the gift boxes are
affected.

These recalled custom gift packages containing the affected 11 oz.
bags of Honey Roasted Peanuts were distributed nationwide through
mail orders in December 2012.

The recalled honey roasted peanuts were packaged in 11 oz. clear
plastic bags labeled: "HONEY ROASTED PEANUTS, Net Wt. 11 oz.
(311G), Dist. By: Dutch Valley Food Distributors, Inc. Myerstown,
PA 10787, UPC Code 8 77245 00143 3"

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with
consumptions of these peanuts.

The recall was initiated after Yoder's Country Market, Inc. was
notified by Dutch Valley Food Development, the supplier of the
honey roasted peanuts, of their recall in Mid-September, 2013.

Consumers with questions or who have peanuts remaining from these
gift boxes are urged to contact the company for further
instructions at 1-423-235-9400, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00PM
EDT.


* TCPA Regulatory Changes Likely Spur More Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that under long-
anticipated changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act rule
set to take effect on Oct. 9, telemarketers will have to receive
express written consent from consumers before making calls or
sending texts, a shift that will allow plaintiffs to pad an
already saturated class action docket.

The revisions to the TCPA rule published by the Federal
Communications Commission in June 2012 tighten restrictions on
sending telemarketing calls or texts by requiring companies to
obtain "prior express written consent" from consumers rather than
simply inferring that the consumer has consented by voluntarily
providing a company with his or her contact information.

Because there are no exceptions to the new consent requirement for
prior business relationships, companies will not just need consent
from future customers, but also from consumers on their existing
telemarketing lists before the revamped rule takes effect
Wednesday.

"If telemarketing is a significant part of a business, as it is
for a lot of companies, then the company either has to comply with
the rules or stop sending these types of telemarketing calls or
texts, because the risk of not complying is that you are going to
be sued, as the plaintiffs' bar has been pretty aggressive about
pursuing TCPA cases," Fenwick & West LLP partner Brian Buckley
told Law360.

Driven by plaintiffs eager to capitalize on uncapped statutory
damages of between $500 and $1,500 per violation, courts have
witnessed an explosion in the quantity of nationwide TCPA class
actions that have been brought before them in recent years, and
attorneys predict the heightened consent requirements that will
soon take effect will only add to the already bulging dockets.

"It is entirely possible that these regulatory changes will make
litigation under the TCPA more likely because businesses might not
be aware of what they need to do to comply with the regulations,
or they might not do it quite correctly," Vinson & Elkins LLP
partner Jason Levine said.  "The changes open up a new area of
possible legal exposure for them."

At first glance, the updated rule seems fairly straightforward,
attorneys say.  It not only directs telemarketers to receive
"prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded
telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines,"
but also defines the scope of the disclosure required to satisfy
the new consent requirement.

According to the FCC, the written consent must contain a "clear
and conspicuous disclosure" about what will happen if the consumer
consents, be met with an "unambiguous" agreement by the consumer
to receive communications at a designated number, and make it
clear that providing consent is not a condition for receiving a
product or service.

The rule also says companies don't need a formal ink signature on
paper to comply with the heightened consent requirement, but
instead can obtain a consumer's written consent electronically
using methods approved by the federal E-Sign Act, which includes
permission obtained via an email, website form or text message.

But despite the relative clarity of companies' obligations,
attorneys say there are still plenty of complexities and
ambiguities in the TCPA rule to trip up companies trying to
comply.

"One of the complaints about the TCPA is that it is very
hypertechnical, and companies feel like there is a moving goalpost
rather than one standardized goalpost," Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP partner David Almeida said.

A potential source of liability could arise from the rule's
distinction between telemarketing calls, which require the new
heightened consent, and autodialed or prerecorded calls made by
debt collectors or for informational purposes, which do not
require express written consent, according to attorneys.

"These consent distinctions between telemarketing and
informational calls that didn't exist before are likely to be a
little bit confusing," Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP partner Becca
Wahlquist -- bwahlquist@manatt.com -- said.  "Companies really
need to sit down and ensure that they know what types of
communications they are making so that they obtain the right kind
of consent."

The plaintiffs bar could also target companies that fail to update
the consent agreements they have with existing customers,
attorneys noted.

"It's unclear if the FCC actually intended for companies to go
back and get consent from all consumers, but given the language of
the rule, there is a significant concern that the class action
plaintiffs bar will potentially see this as an opportunity to go
after those companies that don't opt people back in and a growing
consensus that the re-opt-in process is necessary to avoid that
risk," Winston & Strawn LLP partner Brian Fergemann said.

Reed Smith LLP partner Judith Harris -- jlharris@reedsmith.com  --
added that companies are confused about what constitutes an
automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA, an issue that
several groups have pushed the FCC to clarify, thus far to no
avail.

"Companies tend to say that they understand what's required of
them going forward under the new consent rule, and acknowledge
that if they are making a telemarketing call using an autodialer
that they need prior express written consent," she said.  "But
what they want to know is whether they are actually using an
autodialer."

With companies likely to err on the side of caution at least at
the outset, many companies will be forced to revamp their consent
procedures and record-keeping requirements to avoid the high risk
of litigation.  But several attorneys noted that having to keep a
more detailed paper trial of consumers' preferences may actually
help companies better defend the class actions that are likely to
arise, which would require the sender to bear the burden of proof
to demonstrate that it obtained proper consent.

"The rule revision is a good development to the extent that it
standardizes what companies need to do and the evidence they need
to have of prior written consent," Mr. Almeida said.  "Previously,
consumers could consent verbally, so it was the consumer's word
versus the company's in court.  But now at least companies will
know that they have some paper trail, and will have the ability to
go after plaintiffs to say that they consented, and to show them
the disclosure that they made."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Estimation Appeals Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a bankruptcy court estimation of Bondex
International, Inc., and Specialty Products Holding Corp. remain
pending, according to RPM International Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2013.

Prior to May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC were defendants in various
asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state
courts. These cases generally sought unspecified damages for
asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products.

On May 31, 2010, Bondex and its parent, SPHC, filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. SPHC is
also the parent company for various operating companies that are
not part of the reorganization filing, including Chemical
Specialties Manufacturing Corp.; Day-Glo Color Corp.; Dryvit
Holdings, Inc.; Guardian Protection Products Inc.; Kop-Coat Inc.;
TCI, Inc. and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. SPHC and Bondex (the
"filing entities") took this action in an effort to permanently
and comprehensively resolve all pending and future asbestos-
related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC-related
products. As a result of the filing, all Bondex and SPHC asbestos
personal injury lawsuits have been stayed due to the imposition of
an automatic stay applicable in bankruptcy cases, with the
exception of certain cases with respect to which the stay was
lifted. In addition, at the request of SPHC and Bondex, the
bankruptcy court has entered orders staying all claims against RPM
International Inc. and its affiliates that are derivative of the
asbestos claims against SPHC and Bondex.

The Company states: "Through the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
filing entities are seeking to formulate a consensual plan of
reorganization pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
That contemplated plan of reorganization would establish a trust
to which all present and future asbestos claims against the
debtors would be channeled, and which would provide compensation
to the asbestos claimants based upon factors set forth in trust
distribution procedures provided for by the plan of
reorganization. We would hope to have any channeling order issued
by the bankruptcy court in connection with such a plan of
reorganization also protect ourselves as well as other non-filing
affiliates of the debtors, so that all future SPHC-related and
Bondex-related asbestos claims must proceed against the trust and
cannot be asserted against us or other non-filing affiliates. The
ultimate ability to achieve such a consensual plan of
reorganization on such terms, however, depends on numerous
factors, and no assurance can be provided that such a plan of
reorganization with these terms will, in fact, be achieved.

In January 2013, a hearing to estimate the aggregate current and
future asbestos liabilities of the filing entities was conducted
before Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court"). In
May 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion estimating the
current and future asbestos claims associated with Bondex and SPHC
at approximately $1.17 billion. The estimation hearing represents
one step in the legal process in helping to determine the
appropriate amount of funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust. Bondex
and SPHC firmly believe that the ruling substantially overstates
the amount of their liability and is not supported by the facts or
the law. The debtors have filed an appeal of the decision and are
seeking certification of the appeal directly to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, thereby bypassing review
by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
We have also separately filed an appeal. The asbestos claimants
and the future claims representative have moved to dismiss the
appeals, arguing that the estimation order is not a final,
appealable order. Bondex, SPHC and we believe that the order is
final and appealable, and that, even if it were not, the appeal
should be treated as a motion to appeal, which should be granted.
Assuming that the motion to dismiss the appeal is not granted, it
is anticipated that the appeal process could take an additional
two to three years. That time period could be shorter if the
appeal is certified to and heard directly by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the filing entities had litigated
and, on many occasions, settled asbestos-related products
liability claims brought against them. The debtors paid $92.6
million during the year ended May 31, 2010, prior to the
bankruptcy filing, in connection with the litigation and
settlement of asbestos claims, $42.6 million of which consisted of
defense costs. With the exception of the appeal bonds, no claims
have been paid since the bankruptcy filing and it is not
contemplated that any claims will be paid until a plan of
reorganization is confirmed and an asbestos trust is established
and operating.

Prior to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, we recorded asbestos-
related contingent liabilities that included estimations of future
costs. Such estimates by their nature are subject to many
uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the
ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to
resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the
amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims,
including the outcome of coverage litigation against the filing
entities' third-party insurers; (iv) future earnings and cash flow
of the filing entities; (v) the impact of bankruptcies of other
companies whose share of liability may be imposed on the filing
entities under certain state liability laws; (vi) the
unpredictable aspects of the litigation process including a
changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (vii) the outcome of any such trials, including
potential judgments or jury verdicts, as a result of the strategy
of Bondex and SPHC to take selective cases to verdict; (viii) the
lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure to
products for which Bondex, SPHC, or another of our subsidiaries is
allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases
resulting from such exposure; (ix) potential changes in applicable
federal and/or state tort liability law; and (x) the potential
impact of various proposed structured settlement transactions. All
these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-
related liability estimates.

As a result of their bankruptcy filing, SPHC and Bondex are
precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and from making
payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable
that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of
companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") or other pre-
petition creditors during the pendency of the bankruptcy case,
without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. Moreover, no assurances
can be given that any of the Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables
will ever be paid or otherwise satisfied.

When SPHC emerges from the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court,
the subsequent accounting will be determined based upon the
applicable circumstances and facts at such time, including the
terms of any plan of reorganization.

SPHC has assessed its liquidity position as a result of the
bankruptcy filing and believes that it can continue to fund its
and its subsidiaries' operating activities and meet its debt and
capital requirements for the foreseeable future.

In fiscal 2006, management retained Crawford & Winiarski ("C&W"),
an independent, third-party consulting firm with expertise in the
area of asbestos valuation work, to assist it in calculating an
estimate of Bondex's liability for unasserted-potential-future-
asbestos-related claims. C&W's methodology to project Bondex's
liability for unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims
included an analysis of: (a) a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; (b)
epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases; (c) the historical rate at
which mesothelioma incidences resulted in the payment of claims by
Bondex; (d) the historical settlement averages to value the
projected number of future compensable mesothelioma claims; (e)
the historical ratio of mesothelioma-related indemnity payments to
non-mesothelioma indemnity payments; and (f) the historical
defense costs and their relationship with total indemnity
payments. Based upon the results of this analysis, Bondex recorded
an accrued liability for asbestos claims through 2016 as of May
31, 2006 of $421.3 million. This amount was calculated on a pretax
basis and was not discounted for the time value of money.

During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008, the ten-year asbestos
liability established as of May 31, 2006 was reviewed and
evaluated. As part of that process, the credibility of
epidemiological studies of Bondex's mesothelioma claims, first
introduced to management by C&W some two-and-one-half years
earlier, was validated. At the core of the evaluation process, and
the basis of C&W's actuarial work on behalf of Bondex, is the
Nicholson Study. The Nicholson Study is the most widely recognized
reference in bankruptcy trust valuations, global settlement
negotiations and the Congressional Budget Office's work done on
the proposed FAIR Act in 2006. Based on our ongoing comparison of
the Nicholson Study projections and Bondex's specific actual
experience, which at that time continued to bear an extremely
close correlation to the study's projections, the asbestos
liability projection was extended out to the year 2028. C&W
assisted in calculating an estimate of our liability for
unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims out to 2028.
C&W projected that the cost of extending the asbestos liability to
2028, coupled with an updated evaluation of Bondex's current known
claims to reflect its most recent actual experience, would be
$288.1 million. Therefore, management added $288.1 million to the
existing asbestos liability, which brought Bondex's total
asbestos-related balance sheet liabilities at May 31, 2008 to
$559.7 million. On May 30, 2010, the day prior to the bankruptcy
filing, Bondex had recorded an asbestos related product liability
of $397.7 million.  However, the Bankruptcy Court has now
estimated the present and future asbestos-related liabilities of
Bondex and SPHC at $1.17 billion, and that determination is the
subject of pending appeals."

RPM International Inc. (RPM), through its subsidiaries
manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product
lines, including specialty paints, protective coatings, roofing
systems, sealants and adhesives. The Company's family of products
includes those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP,
EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, Flowcrete, Hummervoll, Universal
Sealants, illbruck, Rust-Oleum, Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and
Zinsser. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments:
the industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the
consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial
segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group
and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total
net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for
roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and
other specialty applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borough of Emerson Filing Cabinets Contain Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Spear, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that The Borough
of Emerson had filing cabinets containing asbestos removed from
borough hall in August, months after borough employees first
expressed concern that they may have been emitting clouds of dust
containing fibers of the cancer-causing material.

Clerk Carol Dray reported rumors of asbestos contamination in
April, according to borough records.  Borough Administrator Joseph
Scarpa contacted Joint Insurance Fund (JIF), the borough's
insurance company, approximately three months later to ask for the
name of an asbestos contractor to conduct tests.

"The question begs to be asked: Why did he wait until July to take
any action . . .?" Ms. Dray inquired in an email to members of the
governing body.

When asked, Mr. Scarpa gave no explanation for the lapse in time
between when he received complaints about possible asbestos
contamination and when he took action on the issue.

In a press statement Mr. Scarpa said, "I continue to believe that
any of this asbestos information should not have been released by
the borough clerk in the first place, as this is still clearly an
open matter that involves the elements of personnel, potential
litigation and HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability And
Accountability Act] protections.  The governing body recently saw
fit to take the drastic measure of censuring a council colleague
for supposedly releasing basically the same type of information .
. . I will not elaborate on this matter anymore . . . out of fear
of personal reprisal from the mayor and council, and because I
believe it is not in the best interest of the borough."

Purchased in 2009, the refurbished fire-proof cabinets showed
visible deterioration, explained Mayor Carlos Colina in an
interview.  Detail Associates, Inc., an environmental engineering
firm certified by the New Jersey Department of Labor and
Department of Health, confirmed the presence of asbestos in the
suspect cabinets and on documents inside them.

"It was the administrator's role to address that.  Why did it take
him that long to take action?" Mr. Colina asked.  "The positive
test results and finding of asbestos fibers . . . was important
enough to take action on an immediate basis."

Following initial testing in mid- July, Stephen Jaraczewski,
president of Detail Associates, Inc., explained that "Proper
removal is highly recommended."  Nearly 20 days later, Best
Removal Inc.  Asbestos Removal Contractors & Consultants rid
Borough Hall of the cabinets on Aug. 5.

Mr. Scarpa said to his knowledge there is no asbestos remaining in
Borough Hall.

Although the cabinets reportedly discharged "poofs" of dust, air
samples in Borough Hall tested in accordance with Environmental
Protection Agency standards, according to an email from
Mr. Jaraczewski to the borough.

According to Mr. Colina, the cabinets, each weighing several
hundred pounds, were located in the Finance Office, the Clerk's
Office, the Department of Public Works, and in the Police
Department storage area.

Ms. Dray, who said she had handled contaminated documents over
several years, declined to comment.  Chief Financial Officer
Catherine Henderson, whose office housed asbestos-tainted cabinets
holding vital statistic documents, said she is not concerned.

According to Mr. Jaraczewski, who declined to speak specifically
about the asbestos remediation in Emerson, said there is no risk
associated with physically touching the fibers, only with
inhalation.

Once the material makes its way into the lungs, it does become a
health concern.

"If it's not airborne, it's not a problem . . .," Mr. Jaraczewski
explained.

Asbestosis, scaring of the lungs from asbestoses fibers is the
first sign of exposure, which in healthy individuals could take up
to 25 years to manifest.  Asbestosis then leads to scar tissue
which can grow into a cancerous tumor called Mesothelioma.

"There is no cure for asbestos exposure," Mr. Jaraczewski said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Brown" Suit Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Grid Generation, LLC, sued as "Keyspan Generation LLC,
f/k/a Long Island Power Authority," moves for an order dismissing
plaintiffs' Labor Law Sections 200 and 241(6) claims against it on
the ground that there is no evidence to show that LILCO supervised
or controlled any of the work which gave rise to plaintiff Harry
Brown's alleged asbestos exposure.

In a decision and order, dated Oct. 4, 2013, a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/YfntJxfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion, in part, and denied, in part.

Specifically, Judge Heitler ruled that the Plaintiff's Labor Law
Section 241(6) claim is dismissed against LILCO.  Labor Law
Section 241(6) provides that "1. All areas in which construction,
excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so
constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and
conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and
safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting
such places. The commissioner may make rules to carry into effect
the provisions of this subdivision, and the owners and contractors
and their agents for such work, except owners of one and two-
family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the
work, shall comply therewith."

Judge Heitler denied LILCO's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiff's Labor Law Section 200 claims.  Labor
Law Sec. 200 provides in relevant part that "All places to which
this chapter applies shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged,
operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate
protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed
therein or lawfully frequenting such places. All machinery,
equipment, and devices in such places shall be so placed,
operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and
adequate protection to all such persons. The board may make rules
to carry into effect the provisions of this section."

The case is HARRY E. BROWN and PHYLLIS BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. BELL
& GOSSETT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurance Disputes Sent to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware are Plaintiff The Flintkote Company's Motions to Compel
Arbitration in two related cases.  Also pending before the Court
is Defendant Indemnity Assurance Company Ltd.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Defendant Aviva PLC, formerly known as Commercial
Union Assurance Company Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Transfer.

The pending motions involve several agreements, including a
general liability insurance Policy No. 547/620242RM, the Agreement
Concerning Asbestos-Related Claims, and a 1989 agreement between
Flintkote and Aviva.  Genstar Corporation, Flintkote's parent,
entered into the Policy on March 15, 1981, for a four-year period.
The Policy lists Aviva, Indemnity Marine's corporate parent, as
holding a 2.0780% and 2.597% share of the Policy.  Indemnity
Marine was not licensed to provide insurance in Canada, and
therefore entered into a separate agreement with Aviva to provide
the 2.597% share of the Policy.  Thus, Indemnity Marine was to
reimburse Aviva for the 2.597% share.

In a Sept. 30, 2013, memorandum opinion, a full-text copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/cWxU56from Leagle.com, District
Judge Leonard P. Stark denied as moot Indemnity Marine's Motion
for Summary Judgment, denied as moot Aviva's Motion to Dismiss or,
in the Alternative, Transfer, and granted Flintkote's Motions to
Compel Arbitration.

The cases are THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INDEMNITY
MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Defendant, C.A. NOS. 13-935-LPS
(D.Del.) and THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA PLC,
formerly known as COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
Defendant, C.A. NOS. 13-103-LPS (D.Del.).

Michael P. Kelly, Esq. -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- and Katharine L.
Mayer, Esq. -- kmayer@mccarter.com -- at McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware; and Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. --
grothschild@mccarter.com -- and Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. --
lchiafullo@mccarter.com -- at McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, in Newark,
New Jersey, serve as attorneys for The Flintkote Company.

Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esq. -- tweaver@dilworthlaw.com -- at DILWORTH
PAXSON LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Fred L. Alvarez, Esq. --
falvarez@wwmlawyers.com -- and Arthur J. McColgan, II, Esq. --
amccolgan@wwmlawyers.com -- at WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP, in
Chicago, Illinois, serve as attorneys for Indemnity Marine
Assurance Company Limited and Aviva PLC, formerly known as
Commercial Union Assurance Company Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Powell's Bid to Dismiss "Griffin" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant The William
Powell Company moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that
plaintiff Robert Griffin has not provided any evidence of asbestos
exposure from a Powell product.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 24, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion,
holding that the Plaintiff's documentary submissions raise a
material issue of fact whether asbestos-containing Powell valves
were present in the USS Eberle's boiler room during the relevant
time period.  Taken together, the testimonial and documentary
evidence creates a sufficient nexus between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant's products to preclude summary judgment, Judge Heitler
concluded.

The case is ROBERT GRIFFIN Plaintiffs, v. A.P. SERVICES, Inc., et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190361/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/2zxBixfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Misrepresentation Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Uhlig filed a lawsuit asserting, among others, that
Drayprop, LLC, negligently misrepresented the presence of asbestos
and the need for abatement in the two apartments he purchased from
Drayprop.  The Defendants deny all Uhlig's allegations, arguing
they fail as a matter of law.  The Defendants also move for
summary judgment as to any damages they may be liable for, and to
exclude the testimony of Steve Adams, an expert Uhlig wishes to
present.

Because Judge B. Avant Edenfield of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division,
agrees with the Defendants that no genuine disputes of fact exists
as to liability, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  The Defendants' remaining motions regarding
damages and Uhlig's expert witnesses are dismissed as moot.

The case is THOMAS UHLIG, Plaintiff, v. DRAYPROP, LLC; DRAYPARK,
LLC; MICHAEL BROWN; REUBEN CROLL; and MARLEY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants, NO. 4:11-CV-145 (S.D.Ga.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Edenfield's Order dated Oct. 4, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/s4iEADfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion in Limine Denied in "Anderson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Defendant Procter & Game
Paper Products Co.'s motion in limine, holding that evidence
relating to exposures during the time Plaintiff Beverly Anderson
worked on improvements and new construction will be barred at
trial absent further order of the court.

Judge Griesbach has earlier denied the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, concluding that the Plaintiff had sustained
damages prior to April 29, 1994, when he was exposed to asbestos
during his work at the Charmin mill.

The case is BEVERLY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER
PRODUCTS CO., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-C-61 (E.D. Wis.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Griesbach's Order dated Oct. 4, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/z85b8efrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Goodyear's Bid to Junk "Nolan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendants The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada, Inc., move for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claims against
them on the ground that the non-party co-worker's testimony
identifying Goodyear's sheet gasket material as the product which
actually exposed the Plaintiff Thomas Robert Nolan, Sr., to
asbestos is insufficient and speculative.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 3, 2013, a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/SkeSkufrom Leagle.com, Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion, finding that Mr. Nolan's co-worker who
testified for him could not say when, or where, or how often he
worked with Mr. Nolan nor could he identify which Goodyear gasket
material they used at work.  In light of the fact that Goodyear
manufactured asbestos-free gaskets as well as asbestos-containing
gaskets during the relevant time period, and manufactured
asbestos-containing gaskets only until 1973 after which they only
produced asbestos-free gaskets, Judge Heitler concluded that it is
mere speculation to infer that the Goodyear gaskets Mr. Nolan
allegedly worth with contained asbestos to which he was exposed.

The case is JOAN M. NOLAN, Individually and as Administratrix for
the Estate of THOMAS ROBERT NOLAN, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 108180/06,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Litigation Enlarged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued four separate orders on Oct. 10, 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 ENGLE,
     v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER
     TO BUFFALO PUMPS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4748 (N.Y. App.
     Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is available at
     http://is.gd/Ld1129from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
     BATTIPAGLIA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO.,
     MOTION NO. M-4754 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
     Order is available at http://is.gd/0AOz4Kfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GILL, v.
     A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4755
     (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is available
     at http://is.gd/wo4rqKfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to VIOHL v.
     A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4756,
     (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Order is available
     at http://is.gd/LmMA7sfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Affirms Ruling in "Denning" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Denning was employed by CSX Transportation, Inc., from
1963 through 2001, initially as a brakeman and, from 1978, as an
engineer.  In September 2004, Mr. Denning commenced an action
against CSXT in the Circuit Court for Sumner County alleging that
CSXT's intentional conduct and negligent acts and omissions caused
him to suffer injuries including cancer, asthma, neurological
impairment, pulmonary diseases and other disorders resulting from
exposure to asbestos, diesel exhaust and other carcinogens.

An appeal arises from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff in an
action filed pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
The Defendant appeals denial of its motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and the trial court's determination
that post-judgment interest is properly awarded in the amount
provided by Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 47-14-121 and not
federal law.  On cross-appeal, the Plaintiff appeals the trial
court's decision to exclude certain evidence and its determination
that post-judgment interest is properly calculated from the date
the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict rather than
the date the jury rendered its verdict as provided by Tennessee
Code Annotated Sec. 47-14-122.

In an opinion dated Oct. 9, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
Tennessee, at Nashville, affirmed denial of the Defendant's motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the trial court's
evidentiary decisions.  The Court of Appeals also affirmed the
trial court's determination that post-judgment interest is
properly awarded at the rate provided by Tennessee Code Annotated
Sec. 47-14-121.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
determination that post-judgment interest accrues from the date
provided by federal law.  The Court of Appeals held that state law
controls the calculation of post-judgment interest to be awarded
in FELA actions adjudicated in state court.

The case is WILLIAM J. DENNING, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., NO.
M2012-01077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/wNjwa0from Leagle.com.

Christopher W. Cardwell, Esq. -- ccardwell@gsrm.com -- and Mary
Taylor Gallagher, Esq. -- mtgallagher@gsrm.com -- at Gullett
Sanford Robinson & Martin PLLC, in Nashville, Tennessee; Andrew E.
Tauber, Esq. -- atauber@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown, in
Washington, DC; and Kendra L. Smith, Esq. --
klsmith@smithbutzlaw.com -- at Smith Butz, in Canonsburg, PA, for
the appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc.

James Bryan Mosely, Esq., at Mosely & Mosely, in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee; and Joshua Leizerman, Esq., at E.J. Leizerman &
Associates LLC, in Toledo, Ohio, for the appellee, William J.
Denning.

Mr. Mosely may be reached at:

         James Bryan Mosely, Esq.
         MOSELY & MOSELY
         237 Castlewood Drive, Suite D
         Murfreesboro, TN 37129
         Tel: 615-254-0140
         Fax: 615-244-2270
         Email: mail@moseleylawfirm.com

Mr. Leizerman may be reached at:

         Joshua Leizerman, Esq.
         E.J. LEIZERMAN & ASSOCIATES LLC
         717 Madison Avenue
         Toledo, OH 43624-1609
         Tel: (419) 243-1010
         Fax: (419) 243-8200


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Bowles" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, Virginia Bowles, individually and as independent
executrix of the estate of Jerald Bowles, deceased, filed suit
against Owens-Illinois, Inc., John Crane, Inc., and other
defendants, seeking damages in connection with decedent's lung
cancer allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos and/or
asbestos-containing products.  In June 2012, the trial court
granted motions for summary judgment filed by Owens-Illinois and
John Crane.  On appeal, the Plaintiff argues the trial court erred
in granting the motions for summary judgment filed by Owens-
Illinois and John Crane on her exposure counts.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion
dated Oct. 11, 2013, affirmed.  The Appellate Court found that
even if the Owens-Illinois product was on the ship and utilized in
repair work, it has not been shown where the product was placed,
whether decedent worked or slept in areas the product was present,
or whether the product's asbestos dust fell from the pipes when
the guns were fired.  The Appellate Court further found that in
this case, the Plaintiff's claims that decedent was exposed to
asbestos-containing products of John Crane is speculative and
conjectural.  The Plaintiff, according to the Appellate Court,
failed to present evidence decedent worked with or around any John
Crane asbestos-containing product with sufficient frequency,
regularity, and proximity to create a genuine issue of material
fact.

The case is VIRGINIA BOWLES, Individually and as Independent
Executrix of the Estate of Jerald Bowles, Deceased, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., and JOHN CRANE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, and PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; PNEUMO ABEX,
LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; AURORA PUMP COMPANY;
BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; and TYCO FLOW CONTROL
INC., f/k/a YARWAY CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 4-12-1072 (Ill.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/BCrSqafrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Discovered in Uxbridge, Mass. School
----------------------------------------------------------------
NECN.com reported that the parking lot is quiet at McCloskey
Middle School in Uxbridge, Mass.  Pat Rocheleau's granddaughter
was one of dozens with the day off. The building was closed
because of the discovery of asbestos.

"I would like to think that they go to school in a safe
environment," Rocheleau says, the report related.

According to the report, Uxbridge Schools Superintendent Kevin
Carney says flooring was removed from the school over the summer.
Test results came back positive for asbestos. Inhaling the
substance can lead to disease.

"I want them to be cautiously optimistic that we're gonna handle
this the right way," Carney says.

He says the building was tested and showed safe air quality
levels. To be safe, Carney says crews cleaned impacted areas and
further testing will be done.

"Unfortunately, we're at the mercy of when those lab results come
back, so we will have to close school again."

The building is more than 75 years old. Carney says many old
buildings have asbestos but it becomes a problem when it's
disturbed.

"In this case with an adhesive, once they ripped up the carpet,
you now moved the tiles, thus making it airborne."

Carney says they're working with state agencies and independent
contractors to solve the problem. He's hopeful the doors will
open. Parents have mixed feelings about sending students back.

"I'm not too concerned about the issue that's come up with the
asbestos and most of the parents I've talked to don't express too
much concern," says parent Kim Demers.

"I have a lot of concerns about the well-being of all of those
children," Rocheleau says.

Carney hopes the final round of testing comes back showing safe
air quality levels. He says once that happens, the school will
open.

"Before I open school again, want to be sure that all of the
proper testing will be conducted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Mold Being Removed at Old Hospital Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Larry, writing for Cumberland Times-News, reported that in
addition to asbestos abatement, project managers must now add mold
removal to its list of issues to be addressed at the old Sacred
Heart Hospital as they prepare to demolish the former medical
complex to clear the way for a new Allegany High School.

An update on the new Allegany was given at the Allegany County
Board of Education's regular monthly meeting.  Referred to as the
Braddock Campus by the board, the mold was discovered while
ongoing asbestos removal continues at the former hospital campus.

Asbestos abatement is currently focused on the ground and basement
levels. The mold problems were found on the basement floor.

"We expect to complete the abatement work by the end of this month
or the first of next month," said Vince Montana, director of
facilities for the board.

Board officials do not expect the mold and asbestos issues to
delay the project.  A specific date for the demolition to take
place has not been determined, but officials say it may be after
the first of the year.  Board officials say meetings will be held
with neighbors surrounding the new high school prior to any
demolition work beginning.

The new Allegany, with a price tag of between $30 and $40 million,
is expected to open its doors in the fall of 2017.

Education officials recently visited two new schools in Towson and
Aberdeen to see first-hand the design of modern schools. The new
Allegany is being designed with a 50-year time frame in mind,
according to officials.

In other news from the meeting, Robert Farrell, coordinator of
security, safety and risk management for the BOE, updated the
board on work being done by three new rotating school security
officers.

"It has been working really well. To see them interacting with the
kids is great," said Farrell.

Farrell said the the drug awareness course known as DARE will be
taught soon at the Mount Savage School and Westernport and
Flintstone elementary schools.

"Some schools have not had DARE classes in a long time," said
Farrell.

It was also announced during the meeting that the board was
selected to receive a top honor from the city of Cumberland's
Historical Preservation Society.

Known as the Mary Susan Cerutti Historic Preservation Award, the
annual recognition is given to a person or organization that
completed a historically important restoration project.

The board was chosen for the bronze plaque for the rehabilitation
work it recently completed at its central office on Washington
Street.

"The work that was done to restore the slate roof instead of
replacing it was terrific. Not many projects were as complete as
yours," said Cheri Yost, of the HPS.

The board's central office building was constructed in 1866. The
BOE took it over in 1931.

Ben Brauer, supervisor of student services for the BOE, gave an
update on efforts to work with students who present serious
behavioral challenges.

When a child's school, known as the student's home school, has
exhausted all efforts to manage a student with serious behavioral
issues, Brauer explained the process for handling the student.

Students with special behavioral needs are temporarily removed
from their home school.

He said the work done at the Virtual Academic Village on Pershing
Street has been very positive and is yielding a lot of success.

Brauer said a troubled student is placed with the same teacher for
the entire day.

The board has also renamed the Eckhart Alternative School, a
facility for challenging students, to the Eckhart Alternative
Program. Brauer said there is a statewide effort under way to
remove the implication of permanence given by calling alternative
facilities "schools."

"Calling it a school sounds permanent. We work with the kids' home
school to keep them on course. They are not lost or forgotten,"
said Brauer.

Brauer said efforts are being made to see that a student who is
removed from his home school can be returned to the home school as
soon as possible.

Also at the meeting, Claire Romaine, a student at Mountain Ridge,
serving as the student member of the board, debuted a new public
service announcement video prepared by her and other students
called "See it, Say it."

The video is an effort to make students aware of safety concerns
at schools. Romaine says the video will be on the BOE website and
hopes it can be shown during an English class in all area schools.

The video focused on the dangers surrounding propping doors open.
Future videos are also planned on a variety of safety topics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Like Particles Found at Gogebic Taconite
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Verburg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reported that
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has found hazardous,
asbestos-like minerals in a rock taken from the site of a
controversial proposed iron mine.

According to the report, if further testing shows that large
quantities of the cancer-causing material are present, Gogebic
Taconite could need to obtain a more involved air pollution permit
describing how it would contain the fibrous particles released
when the rock is blasted, moved and crushed, a DNR official said.

"It's a worker-safety issue," said Ann Coakley, who directs
regulation of mines.

Other mines have found cost-effective ways to contain so-called
"asbestiform" air pollution, but it's too early to say how the
mine proposed for Iron and Ashland counties will be affected, said
Gogebic Taconite spokesman Bob Seitz.

Independent laboratories are testing deep core samples taken from
the taconite iron mine site to determine how extensive the problem
is, Seitz said.

"We will identify the issue and identify the response and if the
response adequately handles the issue, we will have a permit (to
mine)," Seitz said. "If we don't or can't handle the issue, then
there is no permit to mine."

Earlier this year, company officials said they weren't aware of
any asbestiform risk.

"Based on our due diligence, the geologic conditions in the
Gogebic Iron Range do not support the formation of asbestos," the
company said in a July 28 letter after the DNR asked for an
estimate of possible emissions to be included in an application
for a bulk sampling permit. "We do not expect asbestos or
asbestiform minerals to be present."

Mine opponents said the confirmation that the material is present
means there should be tougher scrutiny of company plans. Some
pointed to a five-year study, released by the University of
Minnesota this year, that said people who worked in the taconite
iron mining industry had higher than average occurrences of
mesothelioma -- a lung cancer caused by asbestiform particles.

For decades, asbestos was mined and applied to construction
materials to suppress heat and fire, but the federal government
banned it from most uses in the 1970s because of health risks.

How heavily the material is concentrated at the mine site will
determine how hazardous it could be, said Kristin Hart, a section
chief in the DNR air management program. Particles that become
airborne during blasting and digging would tend not to travel as
far as gaseous emissions from fires, Hart said.

But the DNR air management program's experience with mining is
limited to rock and sand quarries, so more investigation will be
needed before the remedy for any asbestiform hazard can be
designed, Hart said.

In some mining operations it is sufficient to keep materials wet,
but sometimes enclosures and other techniques are used, she said.

Asbestiform particles were found in a potato-sized rock picked up
off the ground by a DNR geologist in May when agency and company
officials were examining sites where the core testing could occur,
Coakley said.

The rock caught the geologist's eye because it appeared to contain
grunerite, a mineral that occurs in the iron deposit that
stretches from Minnesota to Michigan, Coakley said. Grunerite
exists in two or three forms that aren't problematic, she said.

But scientists examined the rock microscopically and saw that it
was in a fibrous form, meaning it could be released into the air
and inhaled, creating a health hazard, Coakley said. The DNR
notified the mining company on Sept. 27, she said.

Gogebic Taconite wants to dig a 4 1/2-mile-long open pit mine.
Boosters say it will create jobs, while opponents warn of
environmental damage, especially to lakes, wetlands and streams
around the scenic, forested Penokee Hills just south of Lake
Superior.

Laboratories are analyzing eight 1 3/8-inch in diameter core
samples totaling 5,870 feet in length that were obtained last
summer by drilling as deeply as 1,100 feet into the mine site,
Seitz said. Five more will be drilled after the ground freezes
providing access to wetland areas, he said.

Meanwhile, Gogebic Taconite is seeking a bulk sampling permit to
dig or blast on several sites and remove about 4,000 tons of rock
for testing that will help it choose the machinery it will need to
extract iron.

Seitz said the company probably won't need to take steps to
control air emissions during sampling.

In July, the company submitted answers to DNR questions about its
June 17 proposal for bulk sampling, which the agency said lacked
sufficient information.

Coakley said the company has indicated that it will file a final
bulk sampling plan within weeks, meaning that operation wouldn't
start until January at the earliest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bland Block City Expecting Fibro Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen W. Todd, writing for Sanford News, reported that city
officials should have the results of a follow-up assessment for
asbestos in the building at the corner of Cottage and River
streets this week.

Demolition of the Bland Block, located at 37 River Street, was
scheduled to begin Sept. 30, but was halted because the company
contracted to take down the building found quantities of asbestos,
which had not been previously identified, during its preliminary
work in the building. City Manager Steven Buck told city
councilors at their Oct. 3 meeting that he was seeking quotes for
a second assessment of the asbestos in the building.

Samples of building materials taken from the River Street building
in August 2012 tested negative for asbestos -- that is, they
contained one percent or less of asbestos, according to a letter
from Environmental Management, Inc., of Brunswick, which conducted
the survey.

Buck said the presence of asbestos would mean additional disposal
costs of the debris for the demolition contractor.

City councilors voted unanimously last month to award a bid for
the demolition of the Bland Block to Green Environmental Inc., of
Norwell, Mass. The company's bid of $53,500 was the lowest by far
of the three bids submitted in response to Sanford's request for
proposals for the demolition and site clean-up.

The city purchased the building last October for $30,000 with the
intention of demolishing it. It was appraised at $41,300,
according to city records, with an additional value of $25,500 on
the land.

The city manager that he expects to receive the results of the new
asbestos assessment this week and that the demolition project will
proceed later this month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marion County BOE OKs Fibro Removal at School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Pape, writing for WBoy.com, reported that several
classrooms were damaged at Mannington Middle School in August
after heavy rains caused a drain to clog and overflow.

According to the report, water spilled into a third floor
classroom and made its way to a first floor computer lab.

The Marion County Board of Education recently approved the
emergency removal of asbestos from the third floor classroom.

Students are in another classroom, and Superintendent Gary Price
said the situation is under control.

"There was some limited amount of asbestos in the ceiling material
that we are going to have all of that abated out of the room. Some
of the floor tiles that got wet and came up from the floor were
also asbestos tiles and we are also going to have those abated and
removed," Price said.

Price said it will cost nearly $9,000, and will be finished in a
couple months.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eliza Walker, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
former shipyard worker and pipe-filler claims he has been
diagnosed with lung cancer resulting from his occupational
exposure to asbestos.

According to the report, Templeton Evans filed suit against
Avondale Industries Inc., Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc.,
Huntington Ingalls Inc., Eagle Inc., Hopeman Brothers Inc.,
International Paper Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
McCarty Corporation, Maryland Casualty Company, Metropolitan Life
Insurance, Reilly-Benton Company, Taylor-Seidenback Inc., Uniroyal
Inc., Viacom Inc., Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Albert Bossier,
Certain Underwriter's at Lloyd's, London, One Beacon Insurance
Company, Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana LLC, Union Carbide
Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Chevron USA Inc., Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Shell Oil Company and Monsanto.

The plaintiff states that form 1967 to 1977 he worked at Avondale
Shipyard's main dock, the Harvey Quick Repair Yard and the
Westwego Yard, where he used and handled asbestos and asbestos-
containing products. He claims he was further exposed to asbestos
during his work as a pipefiller for Local 60, Murphy Oil, Union
Carbide, Shell Oil, Monsanto, Hooker Chemical, Entergy Waterford
III and Chevron, at different sites around Louisiana.

The plaintiff claims he has contracted malignant lung cancer as a
result of his many years of asbestos exposure.

The defendants are accused of intentional misconduct, fraud and
concealment or conspiracy to defraud or conceal the dangers of
asbestos-containing products.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for medical costs, lost
earnings, mental sufferings and reduced quality of life.

The plaintiff is represented by Frank J. Swarr of Landry, Swarr &
Cannella LLC of New Orleans.

Case no. 13-7371.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Educates Trade Workers on Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Within the past week, we've
established a new focus on educating building trades workers about
asbestos and its link to mesothelioma. The Center acknowledges the
estimated figure from the ATSDR as staggering. 1.3 million workers
is a large number of people and we want them to know that while
the victims center might be the best branded mesothelioma advocate
for US Navy Veterans, we are equally passionate advocates for the
best possible compensation for all diagnosed victims of
mesothelioma in the United States."

The new focus highlights that all building trades workers with
mesothelioma are encouraged to call 866-714-6466, so that the
Mesothelioma Victims Center can:

   * Instantly put them in contact with the nation's most skilled
mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get the best mesothelioma
compensation claims results for the victim or their family
members.

   * Discuss the scientific research associated with the rare form
of cancer called mesothelioma.

   * Answer any questions they might have about how to begin a
mesothelioma compensation claim.

   * Provide them with information on how to receive an official
diagnosis of mesothelioma (which is needed to begin a compensation
claim).

About a week ago the Mesothelioma Victims Center had a riveting
phone call from a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, whom at 84
years old, was still working as a plumber. He called the Center to
see if US Navy Veterans were the only types of victims the Victims
Center helps when it comes to financial compensation for this rare
form of cancer. The group replied emphatically that they help all
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma.

They had an amazing conversation with this man about his possible
sixty years of exposure to asbestos. He told them that when he was
a young man, he built and rehabbed US Army barracks after World
War II. After that, he worked on several US Army bases for a labor
union as an electrical worker and did both commercial and
residential jobs through the mid 1960s in Massachusetts. In 1965
he began working as a plumber at a steam plant that created
electricity for New York, and in the 1970s he took a job for a
school district in Florida maintaining boilers all while doing
side jobs as a residential plumber.

Because of the possibility of extreme exposure to asbestos over
the decades, the Mesothelioma Victims Center had one of the
nation's premier mesothelioma attorneys in the victim's home in
less than 24 hours. It turned out to be a two day conversation
about all the different times and places the victim had held jobs
that possibly exposed him to asbestos. The attorney feels that the
mesothelioma compensation claim for this individual could be in
the millions.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says feels so blessed to know that
they get to help diagnosed victims of mesothelioma. they are 100%
focused on making certain all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma
really do get the best possible compensation. They go the extra
mile to make certain these people are connected with the best
possible mesothelioma attorneys that are as passionate about
mesothelioma compensation as they are. they urge any diagnosed
victim or their family members to call them anytime at 866-714-
6466, or visit http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.com

Who can get Mesothelioma? Mesothelioma is directly linked to
exposure to asbestos. Individuals who served in the US Navy, or as
oil refinery workers, ship yard workers, employees of defense
contractors, rail road workers, power plant workers, chemical
industry workers, automotive repair specialists, construction
workers, electricians, plumbers, demolition contractors, were all
exposed to asbestos in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
The worst thing about a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis is that it
typically comes out of the blue. Frequently, these workers were
exposed decades before symptoms similar to pneumonia begin to
surface.

The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include: New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maine, Washington, and
Wyoming. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma Victims
Center receives, a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma could be in
any large state such as New York, California, Florida, Texas,
Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia, Illinois, or Michigan, to the
smallest by population such as Montana, North Dakota, Delaware,
Rhode Island, or Idaho. http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Won't Review "Any Breath" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 10
declined to review a nearly $1 million judgment against a welding
products company in an asbestos case that turned on the hot-button
issue of whether any asbestos exposure counts as a contributing
factor to asbestos-related disease.

According to the report, in a one-page order, the high court said
that it would not hear an appeal by the Lincoln Electric Co.
challenging the verdict in favor of a suburban Philadelphia man
whose family said he died from exposure to asbestos contained in
the company's product.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal of Kerang Hotel Walls Completed
--------------------------------------------------------
Northern Times reported that the removal of the second-storey
external walls of the fire-ravaged Kerang Hotel may be completed
as early as Oct. 11.

According to the report, specialist contractors believe they have
removed the last of the asbestos found in the ruins and engineers
have confirmed that the top level walls need to be removed as a
matter of safety.

KGB Constructions site manager and occupational health and safety
officer, Cliff Bowers said that he was waiting for written
confirmation that all asbestos had been removed.

"Once that occurs, we can move on the walls," he said.

A hygienist has been on site throughout the asbestos removal
process, using instruments to monitor the air quality and to
collect samples all around the site.

Work on removing the street frontage walls above the verandas
facing Wellington and Nolan Streets started on Oct. 9, possibly
clearing the way for streets to be re-opened to through traffic.

The highway entrance into the two streets has been closed since
fire spread through the 85-year-old section of the hotel on
September 7. About 50 fire-fighters fought for about 90 minutes to
control the fire.

Safety barricades surrounding the site have meant that the
adjoining motel units and bottle shop have remained closed since
the fire. The function room attached to the hotel was affected by
smoke and water damage and has also remained closed.

Selective demolition during the last couple of weeks has been
delayed at times due to gale-force wind.

Mr Bowers has said that it was difficult to predict with any
accuracy when demolition work would conclude.  He said that windy
weather has been "horrific" during the site demolition, with
workers struggling to keep fencing in place or operating the
crane.

A traffic management plan has been prepared by the contractors in
conjunction with VicRoads and Gannawarra Shire Council.

Business owners in Wellington Street have reported a significant
downturn in trade since the road closures.

Gannawarra Shire Council has erected signs directing traffic into
the shopping centre via Muir Avenue and Shadforth Streets and
signs in different locations advising that shops are open for
business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Appeal $1.3MM Fraud Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that
asbestos lawyers found to have committed fraud against CSX
Transportation in West Virginia courts are appealing the recent
$1.3 million decision against them.

According to the report, Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond --
formerly of the Pittsburgh firm Peirce, Raimond & Coulter -- on
Oct. 3 filed a notice of appeal of a September decision by U.S.
District Judge Frederick Stamp, of the Northern District of West
Virginia. The appeal will be before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va.

According to the notice, the two attorneys are appealing Stamp's
amended judgment, which included his tripling of the damages
awarded by a jury and his denial of the defendants' motion for
judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial.

Stamp issued a series of lawsuits on Sept. 25 in CSX's fraud
lawsuit against the attorneys and radiologist Ray Harron, with
whom they were found to have conspired to fabricate asbestos
claims.

Stamp tripled a nearly $430,000 jury award pursuant to the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

"The defendants' arguments that this Court should deny this motion
as it would be premature to amend the judgment prior to this Court
ruling on the issues contained in their post-judgment motions are
moot," Stamp wrote.

"This Court has since denied the defendants' motions as to those
issues and thus, it would not be premature to now amend the
judgment.

"Further, the defendants' argument concerning CSX's statements
during trial that this case was not about the money have no
bearing on the fact that based on the above-cited law, CSX is
entitled to treble damages."

The resulting amount is $1,287.721.41, plus post-judgment interest
at a rate of 0.15 percent per year since the December jury
verdict.

Stamp did not make a ruling on the most expensive motion -- CSX's
request that the defendants pay its more than $10 million legal
bill.  Stamp decided to postpone any decision on the motion until
exhaustion of any appeal.

On Dec. 20, an eight-person jury found Peirce, Raimond and Harron
committed racketeering, conspiracy and fraud and ordered them
jointly and severally liable for a penalty of $429,240.27.

CSX's original complaint, filed in 2005, said Peirce's firm hid
nine fraudulent claims among other lawsuits filed by the law firm
in West Virginia.

The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000-2006. Stamp
granted summary judgment to the Peirce firm in 2009, ruling a
four-year statute of limitations began when the Peirce firm began
targeting CSX.

However, the the Fourth Circuit overturned that decision and gave
new life to the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear
the defendants' appeal of the decision.

CSX amended its complaint to include two additional claims it said
were fraudulent. The Peirce firm filed counterclaims against the
company that said it was engaging in fraud by bringing and
conducting the lawsuit, though the jury ruled for CSX on them.

In 2005, federal court judge Janis Graham Jack made national
headlines when she uncovered duplicate and fraudulent silica
diagnoses in her Texas courtroom. Many of those diagnoses were
made by Harron and were made on plaintiffs who had already brought
asbestos claims.

In Jack's opinion dismissing the claims, she said "These diagnoses
were driven by neither health nor justice -- they were
manufactured for money."

Following Harron's admission that he did not even make the
diagnoses of the patients whose X-rays he read, Jack noted that
most of "these diagnoses are more the creation of lawyers than
doctors."

The defendants had also requested that if the verdict was allowed
to stand, then the amount should be reduced to $95,368.98 because
CSX should not be able to recover any damages on RICO claims that
post-dated July 5, 2007. Stamp also denied that request.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Demolition of Yakima Troubled Spot
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Craig, writing for KimaTV.com, reported that efforts to
clean up a troubled neighborhood in Yakima, Washington, are
running into more problems. KIMA has shown you the code violations
along South 20th Street.

According to the report, code enforcement officers want to tear
down five buildings. KIMA learned a health hazard now gets in the
way.

"It's a pretty bad eyesore," said neighbor Jeremy Rixie.

"A lot of people are going inside of the buildings. We're having
police activity here," City Codes Manager Joe Caruso told KIMA.

This troubled spot along South 20th Street has made life difficult
for Yanet Bustamante and her family. It's right behind her
apartment. She feared for her children's safety one night she
heard gunshots coming from the property.

"Everybody down and we were like alright, it was scary," said
Bustamante.

Yakima's Code Enforcement Department has had the property on the
radar for a while.

The city wants to demolish the five vacant buildings. That's now a
problem after the Clean Air Authority found asbestos in one of
them.

"That's kind of scary because you don't know if it's cancerous. I
mean that's a big deal," said Bustamante.

It's a big deal that keeps the city from tearing it down.

"I'm worried about my safety, the safety of my family and I'm
worried it could spread," Rixie told KIMA.

"Could it potentially harm neighbors?" asked a KIMA reporter.

"No, it's all secured.  It's in roofing and it's in flooring built
in the linoleum. So if it's kept in place, which it is, just laid
out on the floor, it should be fine," responded Caruso.

Yakima still plans to go forward, but it has to thoroughly test
the property to see how much asbestos is there.

The price tag for the testing and cleanup is about 20-thousand
dollars. But, Yakima only has 30-grand set aside to take care of
all dangerous buildings this year. That could keep other cleanup
projects from getting done unless the city finds the money from
someplace else in the budget.

Yakima plans to start the asbestos testing on the property in a
couple of weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Fined for Failure to Protect Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Donohue, writing for Place North West, reported that an
asbestos expert has been fined after workers under his supervision
were exposed to potentially-deadly fibres at a college in Greater
Manchester, in England.

According to the report, Steven Kelly was prosecuted by the Health
& Safety Executive after three men were spotted without suitable
protective clothing in an area of Trafford College, Stretford,
where asbestos was being removed.

Trafford Magistrates' Court in Sale heard that Manchester-based
firm Winsulate had been hired to carry out asbestos removal work
during a refurbishment project at the college, the report related.

Kelly, 41, from Kirkby in Merseyside, was the supervisor on the
project but he ignored the company's procedures on working with
asbestos, and broke the law as a result.

The court was told HSE inspectors carried out an unannounced visit
to the college, on Talbot Road, during the evening on 12 December
2012. They witnessed three workers in the area of the college
where asbestos was being removed but without suitable protective
clothing or masks.

The inspectors discovered Kelly had sent the men into the
undercroft beneath the classrooms, which had been sealed off from
the rest of the building, to fix the temporary lighting. They were
wearing their own clothes instead of disposable clothing under
their overalls, and half masks instead of full-face respiratory
masks.

The men were also wearing lace-up instead of wellington boots,
which meant asbestos fibres could stick to their laces or get
inside their boots.

This led to them being put at risk of breathing in asbestos
fibres, and other fibres could have remained on their clothes when
they went home to their families in the evening.

Kelly is a fully-trained and qualified supervisor in licensed
asbestos removal but, despite this, several other issues were also
discovered on the site.

These included insufficient water for workers to properly sponge
down boots and masks to stop fibres becoming airborne, used
clothing discarded inside the enclosure, and a failure to carry
out daily checks on masks.

Kelly, of Burwell Close in Kirkby, was fined GBP790 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP250 after pleading guilty to a breach of the
Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to take reasonable
care of workers under his supervision.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Laura Moran, said:
"Asbestos is responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every
year but it only becomes dangerous when it is broken up and fibres
are released into the air.

"That's why asbestos can only be removed by specialist contractors
but, as the site supervisor, Steven Kelly put workers at risk by
not following the correct safety procedures.

"He simply should never have allowed three men to go into a
contaminated area while wearing their own clothes, and without the
correct protective clothing and respiratory masks.

"Workers, their families and anyone else who came into contact
with them would have been put at risk as a result of Mr Kelly
allowing the men to wear lace-up boots and the clothes they
intended to go home in.

"Thankfully, we were able to stop the work and make sure the
clothes were disposed of as contaminated waste."

Around 4,000 people die every year as a result of breathing in
asbestos fibres, making it the biggest single cause of work-
related deaths in the UK. Airborne fibres can become lodged in the
lungs or digestive tract, and can lead to lung cancer or other
diseases, but symptoms may not appear for several decades.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Explains Next Steps for Monticello Project
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eva McKend, writing for YNN.com, reported that Seth Piker is an
asbestos consultant. He owns Hudson Valley Environmental and was
hired more than a year ago by the Village of Monticello, in New
York, to test the materials inside the now demolished courthouse
on Pleasant Street.

"Because of the regulations being so strict and everything being
so regulated, the village needs certified people to do the work
and at every step there is a different license," said Piker, the
report related.

According to the report, when Piker was initially consulted, he
determined the asbestos in the building was not hazardous but it
was above the legal limit, more than one percent. So if the
village wanted to demolish the building, they would have to hire a
certified abatement contractor.

As Piker explained, every contractor and worker involved would
have to be certified as an asbestos handler by the state
Department of Labor. So now Piker has returned again, this time to
a write variance which he submitted to the state.

You can think of a variance almost as a permission slip, one that
would allow the village to hire a contractor.

All of this has become necessary since six of the contractors
originally working on the project were charged by the DEC for
illegal dumping, halting the project.

"I sent it to the state as an emergency. I'm waiting for the state
to send it back to me approved or get back to me with comments or
questions so they can approve it," said Piker.

Obtaining the variance will cost the village more than $2,000.

Piker says any contractor entering into a deal with the village
should know about the level of asbestos in the building because if
the state agencies get involved, ignorance is no excuse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wausau Sues R&Q Reinsurance for $520,000
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that in a newly filed suit,
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau is demanding more than
$520,000 in reinsurance proceeds from R&Q Reinsurance Co. for
Wausau's settlement of asbestos claims with its insured, The
Marley Co.

According to the report, the Oct. 9 complaint, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, seeks
payment under two facultative certificates in effect in the early
1980s.

According to the suit, R&Q issued two one-year facultative
reinsurance certificates to Wausau, effective Oct. 1, 1981, to
Oct. 1, 1982, and Oct. 1, 1983, to Oct. 1, 1984.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Close Beach" Call as More Fibro Wash Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gray, writing for KentOnline, reported that more asbestos
cement has been found washed up on a family beach, leading to a
call for the beach to be closed.

According to the report, the latest discovery at The Leas on
Sheppey, in the United Kingdom, was made by Kingsborough Manor
resident Barry Day, who said it was time to cordon off the popular
seafront while the issue was resolved.  He said: "Now all the
tourists have gone it's an ideal time to launch a proper search
and collect it all up."

Mr Day, 66, who lives at Hustlings Drive, said he was walking
along Minster beach when he spotted small pieces of asbestos.  He
claimed to have made further discoveries of the material at
Shellness beach.

Swale council was first alerted in August to fragments being
washed-up between The Playa and Minster Cliffs.  It said it had
consulted with Public Health England which advised the substance
was "a lower risk product" and unlikely to pose a significant risk
to health.

A spokesman confirmed temporary warning signs, which had been
removed due to weather damage, would be reinstated along the
promenade "as soon as possible".

Mr Day said a concentrated effort was needed to remove all traces
of the hazardous material from the Island's shoreline.  He said:
"From what I've seen at The Leas and Shellness, there must be
quite a bit out there.

"Asbestos is not something you can take chances with.

"If it breaks up, it can be quite dangerous."

Last month, the council confirmed 15 kilos of asbestos had been
collected along the beach.

A spokesman said: "Regular checks will continue in all areas where
the material has been reported to have been found to date, and
will be removed safely.

"This will continue until we are satisfied there is no further
need.

"As a precautionary measure we ask that members of the public
continue to avoid any suspicious material they may find on the
beach."

To report any findings, call the council on 01795 471850.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland County May Consider Banning Explosives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Simonson, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio News, reported
that the Ashland County, Wisconsin Board may consider a ban on
explosives that disturb asbestos in rock formations, including at
the proposed iron ore mine site.

According to the report, Ashland County Board Chairman Pete Russo
says he's getting lots of calls from citizens who are worried
about asbestos and mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by
airborne asbestos fibers. Recent reports by Northland College
geoscience professor Tom Fitz and the Department of Natural
Resources have found that asbestos fibers are in at least part of
the ore body that Gogebic Taconite hopes to mine.

The DNR says it needs more information before they know if that
ore body is dangerous, while Fitz calls the asbestos lethal.

Russo has called a special meeting of the Mining Impact Committee,
which will hear testimony from Fitz and the DNR. Then, he says,
the committee will consider an ordinance which would ban using
explosives on asbestos rock.

"If you're going to blast, if you do, you'd better have a way of
capturing that asbestos so it does not get in the air around here
and the air quality gets ruined," says Russo. "I don't know how
that's going to happen."

GTAC spokesman Bob Seitz says a county ordinance isn't needed,
saying there are protections in place when a company mines an area
that has asbestos deposits.

"What we would have to do is demonstrate the likelihood of running
into it, and then demonstrate what we would do for safety
precautions for the public and for workers," says Seitz. "If we
can't be safe that way, we don't get a permit."

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration and OSHA have
asbestos exposure guidelines, but are not available for comment
because of the partial federal government shutdown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up to Begin at Riverview Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Jo Ann Bobby-Gilbert, writing for The Review, reported that with
the recent transfer of the former Riverview Florist property in
Ohio, to the city's Community Improvement Corporation, steps have
begun on its clean up.

According to the report, Mayor Jim Swoger reported to City Council
that asbestos abatement is expected to begin this week on the
greenhouses that have fallen into disrepair on the property.

The report related that studies have shown asbestos is present
only in the caulking around the greenhouse windows and some pipe
coverings, and funding for its removal has been set aside.

Once the asbestos is removed, Swoger said, tear down of the
greenhouses can begin. No other environmental hazards were found
on the property, and the CIC has put up $1,500 to pay for mowing
and other immediate necessities.

Council passed several pieces of legislation, including an
ordinance adjusting appropriations to provide $13,000 for repairs
to doors at Central Fire Station.

The money will go toward materials only, with assistant Chief Jeff
Kreefer and firefighters from his crew providing all the labor in-
house.

Also passed were two ordinances authorizing the purchase of a
truck cab and chassis and a stainless steel truck bed for the
water department. As previously reported, the body will cost
$29,380 and the cab/chassis, $69,774.

Council heard from Ohio Avenue resident Linda Ziegler, who said
the city needs to make a better effort at keeping up its own
property before insisting that residents do the same, citing the
condition of the former Riverview Florist property and the city
car barn as examples.

Ziegler said she had driven by a Michigan Avenue property owned by
an at-large councilman that has television sets, furniture, tires
and other debris in the backyard, which she called "disgraceful,"
saying, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Although Ziegler did not name him, Councilman Ryan Stovall said
after the meeting she was referring to his late mother's home.

Stovall said he has been dealing with the bank over the deed since
his mother died in 2000 and the house is to go up for auction next
month. Admitting there was considerable debris on the property,
Stovall said he had arranged for someone to clean it up.

"Apparently, they didn't do it," he said, saying he hasn't gone
often to see the property.

Councilman Scott Barrett praised deputy Service-Safety Director
Dan Galeoti for the paving done on Eutaw Avenue, saying, "It's the
best you've ever prepped a street. It's not the best, but it's
good. He did a good job."

Barrett recently opposed a measure regarding the paving projects
because of his concern that the city fails to prep streets
properly prior to paving. He serves as road foreman for St. Clair
Township.

Swoger also commended Diorio Paving for its work on three streets,
including Eutaw.

Swoger also reported he has asked for a meeting with Columbia Gas
regarding the condition of Michigan Avenue following an excavation
by the company, saying, "It is absolutely unacceptable."

Councilman Sherrie Curtis said the same is true of Avondale after
the gas company finished a job there, saying, "It's a disgrace
they were allowed to get away with it."

Stovall said he has plans to revamp legislation, raising the bond
required for excavating city streets, saying the current $500 bond
is not sufficient, and Curtis said that bond was originally set to
pertain to residents who needed to excavate in front of their
homes, not for gas companies to "dig all over town."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Under Way at Wood County Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Brust, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reported
that asbestos removal at the former Wood County Holding Center, in
West Virginia, is underway.

According to the report, county officials said they anticipate the
removal process, then demolition of the Second Street structure
will start.

During an earlier inspection, asbestos was found in the floor
tiles of the former jail and possibly in the mastic, county
officials said.

Commissioners plan to have a parking lot constructed on the land
once the building has been razed.

Low bidder Empire Builders of Parkersburg was chosen to do both
the asbestos removal at a cost of $11,700 and the demo, for
$25,400.

Holding Center and Home Confinement Program personnel were
relocated to new headquarters at the Wood County Justice Center in
January 2012. The former holding center has been sitting vacant
since the move.

The center is a former jail. It's located next to the county
maintenance building, which sits at the corner of Avery and Second
streets and formerly served as the law enforcement building. The
sheriff's department was also moved to the justice center.

The commissioners reviewed a proposed land use plan from
Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell, which included a 17,000-square-foot
Urban Dog Park in addition to an hourly parking lot and green
space. Commissioner Steve Gainer said he previously brought up the
plans for the holding center property at a Downtown Task Force
Committee meeting.

"The idea is being proposed by the mayor to attract more people
into downtown," commission President Wayne Dunn said.

Newell proposed creation of 72 hourly parking spaces, a walkway,
green space and the dog park.

The mayor proposed entering an agreement with the county for help
in building and maintaining the lot and enforcement of parking.
According to the mayor's proposal, the revenue arrangement could
be geared so the city receives revenue for management and the
county receives revenue to recover the costs of establishing the
park. A solar powered parking kiosk, such as the one planned for
Seventh and Juliana streets would be installed. No cost estimate
for the dog park was included in the proposal. On days when jurors
are called to report, Newell suggested the lot be reserved for
jury parking only.

Prosecutor Jason Wharton suggested the commissioners wait until
the building is down to make a decision on the parking lot
configuration. The commissioners agreed.

The holding center was costing the county about $8,000 annually to
maintain plus insurance. County officials had repeatedly contacted
state and federal correctional officials about the possibility of
using the facility, but there were no takers.

Prior to being a holding center the building served as the county
jail from the time it was constructed in the 1970s until 2001 when
the regional jail authority was formed and all inmates serving
sentences were transferred to the North Central Regional Jail at
Greenwood, Doddridge County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glass, Fibro Sheets Flew Due to Cyclone Phailin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Press Trust of India reported that broken glass pieces, wood
shreds and asbestos sheets flew like killer projectiles in these
two adjoining cities, moments after the severe cyclone 'Phailin'
slammed into Gopalpur beach.

According to the report, the roads in these twin cities were empty
as strong wind howled across hitting closed doors and windows of
the houses deserted by the locals.

People living in Berhampur, the largest town in Ganjam district,
jostled in one corner of residential buildings as even concrete
structures shook by the combined battering of winds and heavy
rains.

Many vehicles in Berhampore toppled by the effect of the strong
winds about 45 minutes after the land fall of the cyclone.

Both the cities were running on power backups and you could hear
the screams of terrified women and children.

"We just wish the cyclone effect passes out soon . . . it is very
frightful," Ramesh Pattnaik, who runs a hotel in Berhampore told
PTI.

People staying in houses and hotels prayed and sought divine
intervention to end the gusty winds which have tossed everything
making them objects of critical injury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
an asbestos lawsuit has been filed against an electric company in
Missouri, alleging employees were exposed to a risk of asbestosis,
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related injuries during their
employment. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was
filed September 13.

According to the report, the lawsuit alleges Empire District
Electric Co. knew it was exposing employees at a power plant to
asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls but did not provide those
employees with adequate training or safety gear to handle the
hazardous materials. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that
employees were asked to remove dangerous materials, such as
asbestos insulation, in such a way that they would not be found.

According to the lawsuit, Empire knowingly exposed employees to
hazardous materials, "without implementing precautionary measures
to protect them from acquiring an occupational disease."

Employees were allegedly exposed to asbestos as it peeled and
flaked from pipes, ducts and wires around the plant. They were
also assigned tasks to deal with scrap and hazardous materials as
the plant was converted from coal to natural gas. The plaintiff,
Les Rider, was allegedly tasked with unwinding insulated wire from
large spools so they could be disposed of separately. "As Rider
unwound the wire, the insulation began to crack and flake off,"
the lawsuit alleges. "An inspection revealed that the insulation
was made of asbestos. Nonetheless, Rider and other Empire
employees were instructed to continue with their efforts to make
these materials 'disappear.'"

Rider claims that the actions of his employer either have or are
likely to cause injury to him and other members of the class. That
injury includes a "significantly increased risk of contracting
cancer and other diseases relative to what would be the case in
the absence of exposure to known carcinogens." The lawsuit claims
Empire knew or should have known about the asbestos in the plant
and that there was a risk that the asbestos would be released into
the air during the plant's conversion.

The lawsuit (case number 1390-CC00284, in the circuit court of
Jasper County, Missouri) seeks compensatory damages and medical
monitoring for class members to determine whether exposure to the
hazardous substances caused any illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Truck Loses Fibro on NSW Highway
-------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a truck has lost
several tonnes of asbestos before crashing into a guardrail in
Sydney's west, police say.

According to the report, a Mitsubishi tipper truck was driving
along the M7 at Eastern Creek before the crash unfolded.

As it travelled along an off-ramp, the truck allegedly lost a load
of asbestos waste, believed to be between three to five tonnes,
and crashed into a cement guard rail.

Emergency services closed the off-ramp while the asbestos sheeting
was hosed down and contained.

A police spokesman said whether the load of asbestos was secured
or not would be part of an investigation.

Police have warned motorists about the dangers of unsecured loads
leading to accidents and serious injury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillors Call for Answers Over Fibro Find
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grimsby Telegraph reported that council bosses are facing awkward
questions over their handling of the closure of Scartho Baths, in
Grimsby.

According to the report, the pool reopened on Oct. 11 after a
three-week closure prompted by the discovery of asbestos dust in
the main hall of the building.

And although councillors voted overwhelmingly in favour of
reopening the pool -- after air tests indicated it was safe to do
so -- many demanded to know why the problem had not been
identified before, the report related.  They asked who had been
responsible for inspecting the premises during the period between
2001 and April this year when SLM held the contract for running
leisure centres in the borough.

That responsibility has since been taken on by Lincs Inspire, a
not-for-profit company set up by the council, and on whose board
sits six elected members.

Speaking at a full council meeting, Councillor Alex Wallace (Lab,
Sidney Sussex) said: "It gives me no pleasure to say this but how
did we get to this position in the first place? Like many in this
room, I have worked with asbestos and I have seen the results of
it. It's painful and it's disgraceful.

"Were these premises never inspected prior to the SLM contract
expiring? If not, why not? Who was responsible for the why not?
Serious questions have to be answered here."

Councillor Philip Jackson (Con, Waltham) said: "There is a
question about who was responsible for the asbestos management
plan and who was responsible for undertaking inspections.

"Was it SLM under the contract they had with the council or did
the responsibility still remain with NELC as the owners of the
building?

"I would like to see the evidence that those inspections were
being undertaken. If they were being undertaken they were
obviously being undertaken in an incompetent manner."

Councillor Andrew De Freitas (Lib Dem, Park) said: "Someone has to
bear the responsibility for this fiasco.

"I share the grave concerns that if this material is still in that
building we need to be very careful about how we go about letting
the staff and members of the public back in."

But Councillor Ian Lindley said his colleagues should be "ashamed
of themselves" for "pointing the finger" calling for "heads to
roll".  He said: "Be thankful that we have highlighted a risk,
isolated the risk, closed the pool and acted promptly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands Stage Paris "Die-in" to Protest Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expatica.com reported that thousands of people staged a "die-in"
in Paris over authorities' failure to clear workplaces of
asbestos, which can cause fatal respiratory diseases after long
exposure.

According to the report, the protesters from all over France lay
down in the street outside Sorbonne University in Paris's Latin
Quarter to dramatise that asbestos exposure claims 3,000 lives per
year, according to organisers.  They had kicked off the march at
the Tour Montparnasse, one of the city's few tall buildings, where
inspectors have repeatedly found amounts of asbestos dust
exceeding allowable levels, the report related.

"Ten deaths each day, with no one held responsible or found
guilty," one poster read; "For criminal proceedings on asbestos"
read another in the march that ended at Paris's main courthouse.

The National Association of Victims of Asbestos called the march,
which was headed up by relatives of victims of asbestos exposure,
mainly widows holding pictures of their husbands.  The protest
aims to "show the public and political officials that the victims
of asbestos are still waiting for criminal proceedings," ANDEVA
said in a statement.

"It has been 17 years since we submitted the first complaints, and
there has still not been a criminal trial," ANDEVA vice president
Francois Desriaux told AFP.

"The asbestos risk is not ancient history, it still exists today,"
he said.

"The Tour Montparnasse should have been ridden of its asbestos
years ago, but between owners going round the rules and lax police
who have looked the other way and allowed the work to be
postponed, they are continuing to play with people's lives,"
ANDEVA said.

In August, Paris police threatened to evacuate the building, where
some 5,000 people work.

"Mobilisation is the only way to dent the authorities' passivity,"
said a woman who works for Amundi, a subsidiary of the bank Credit
Agricole, which evacuated its employees from the building in June
because of the danger of asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Shipyard Worker Sues Multiple Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliza Walker, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
retired shipyard worker who has been diagnosed with terminal
cancer caused by asbestos exposure has filed suit against an array
of asbestos miners, distributors and his former employers.

According to the report, Robert Dixon filed suit against the 3M
Company (The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Albert
Bossier, the executive officer of Avondale Industries, Anco
Insulations Inc., CBS Corporation, Dana Companies LLC, Eagle Inc.,
Ford Motor Company, Hennessy Industries Inc., Honeywell
International Inc., Hopeman Brothers Inc., International Paper
Company, The McCarty Corporation, Northrop Gruman Ship Systems
Inc., Reilly-Benton Company Inc. and Taylor-Seidenbach Inc. in the
Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Aug. 2.

The plaintiff claims that he was exposed to asbestos several times
during his career. From 1970 to 1973 he worked as a tacker and
shipfitter at Northrop Grumman Ship System's Inc, formerly known
as Avondale Shipyard's "Main Yard." From 1976 to 1982 he performed
daily maintenance for George Engine Company in Harvey, for Leson
Chevrolet from 1982 to 1987 in Harvey and from 1987 to date in
Jefferson Parish.

On Oct. 9, 2012, the plaintiff claims he was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma, an incurable and terminal cancer caused by
asbestos exposure.

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 Dixon 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 unspecified amount in damages is sought for medical costs, lost
earnings, mental sufferings and reduced quality of life.

The plaintiff is represented by Susannah Chester-Schindler of
Waters and Kraus LLP of Dallas, Texas.

The case has been assigned to Division D Judge Lloyd J. Medley.

Case no. 2013-07234.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lurks in Spots Around Fla. University
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Schweers, writing for The Gainesville Sun, reported that
before renovation could begin at the Reitz Union this fall,
workers in protective gear spent two hot summer months removing
9,050 square feet of asbestos-laden plaster coating from the
Colonnade at a cost of $182,000.

According to the report, the asbestos in the exterior coating was
discovered during a mandatory inspection required before any
renovation, remodeling or demolition work is allowed at the
University of Florida.

"Here at the University of Florida, we don't contain it -- we made
a conscious effort to remove it," said Curtis Reynolds, vice
president for business affairs at UF.

The goal, he said, is to "minimize the risk of exposure for
students, faculty and staff alike."

As one would expect at a university with a large number of
historic buildings, asbestos can be found all over the campus at
dozens of locations. Even after spending more than $30 million
over the past four decades removing asbestos deemed a health risk
by state and federal standards, small amounts remain on campus --
mostly in out-of-reach, unoccupied locations such as steam tunnels
and basements, and contained in materials such as lab tables and
floor tiles.

"I don't think there's a situation where we are exposing any
workers, students, faculty and staff to asbestos," said Bill
Properzio, director of Environmental Health and Safety at UF.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral that was
commonly used in building materials during the 19th and 20th
centuries for its low cost, strength, durability, soundproofing,
and resistance to fire, heat and chemical and electrical damage.

But when it became linked to asbestosis, cancer and mesothelioma,
the federal Environmental Protection Agency developed regulations
limiting the use of asbestos, especially in public buildings.

During the 1980s, the Florida Legislature provided around $22
million to the state university system to remove or abate asbestos
on campuses statewide, Properzio said.

His office at UF has a $5 million annual budget and is responsible
for administering all health and safety regulations, including
asbestos control and abatement.

"We removed a lot of asbestos, and we documented other asbestos
that we could find that was not friable, meaning flaking off and
causing problems," Properzio said.

He said he didn't have a readily available number of how much
asbestos was removed.

By the time the Legislature stopped funding asbestos removal at
the end of the 1980s, Properzio said, UF had removed all the most
dangerous materials.

What remains is an inventory of asbestos that is a problem only if
it becomes broken or damaged, Properzio said.

"Due to our initial abatements in the 1980s, and this periodic
review we do, we don't have any unsafe asbestos conditions,"
Properzio said. "This is not something that's lurking out there.
Only if you start tearing down walls and pulling up floors (can
you) create a problem."

UF's policy toward asbestos since then is akin to keeping a
watchful eye on a sleeping dog: Inspectors monitor the condition
of the remaining asbestos on campus, Properzio said. If it's in
good shape, they leave it alone. If it's damaged, they hire a
contractor to remove it.

How much asbestos has been removed since the targeted funding
disappeared would be difficult to calculate, Properzio said. "A
lot of the cost for asbestos identification and removal, when
required, was embedded in the overall project cost," he said.

A lot of that work was performed by the Campus, Health Care,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Housing physical
plants, and Environmental Health and Safety doesn't keep the files
that have that financial information, he said.

Tom Ladun, the industrial hygiene coordinator for UF, has kept
track of those project costs since he was hired in 2005. Since
2005, UF has spent $7.76 million on abatement projects, not
including jobs subcontracted under a general contractor or
construction manager contract, he said.

Once a year, around October and November, Ladun and a technician
go around campus to check on the condition of the remaining
asbestos. Their survey sheet has a list of 134 locations
currently.

They check floor tiles for wear and tear. They check for crumbling
insulation in boiler rooms and steam tunnels. They sample plaster
in library walls and fume hoods in chemistry labs. And they take
notes about the condition of the material, whether the building
has been renovated, and if repairs or removal is required.

When they checked the floor tile at Van Fleet Hall, for example,
inspectors noted the tiles were in good condition. But when they
saw borderline insulation damage at Yon Hall, they went ahead and
removed it, Ladun said, then labeled the new insulation as
asbestos-free for future inspectors. That job cost just less than
$3,000, he said.

And when friable asbestos was found in the fireproofing in the
Communicore basement two years ago, it was removed at a cost of
$190,000.

When a renovation, remodeling or demolition project is scheduled,
UF hires an asbestos consultant to conduct a more thorough
inspection -- pulling walls and lifting tiles to determine if any
asbestos exists that could get broken up and airborne, potentially
getting into people's lungs.

The consulting costs vary by factors such as the size of the area
surveyed, the scope of work and number of samples collected, Ladun
said.

A small, one-room project can cost between $1,000 and $2,000, he
said, while larger projects can run more than $10,000.

"Don't forget that the consultant is also sampling for lead paint
and PCBs in caulking in buildings constructed prior to 1978, so
that adds to the costs as well," he said.

It was such an inspection that uncovered previously undetected
asbestos in the Reitz Union Colonnade floor tile, caulking, pipe
insulation and walls, Properzio said.

"The big part was the textured coating on the exterior," he said.
"That had never been sampled before, so it was a discovery. A lot
of times we discover stuff we didn't know about."

Once that happens, UF must hire a certified asbestos removal
contractor, whose price can vary according to the size of the job
and the material being removed.

The $182,000 spent on the asbestos removal at the Reitz entailed
the contractor putting up plywood containment walls to box off the
Colonnade, setting up plastic tents and air monitors with negative
air-filtration systems to keep asbestos from getting into the
environment, and hauling the material off to a special landfill
that handles asbestos.

At one time, UF had in-house teams in almost every department,
Ladun said. But because of budget cuts, the university lost its
money for salaries and benefits and now hires outside contractors
only as needed.

"The cost of abatement came down so much that hiring a consultant
is almost as cheap as having people on staff, and there is less
risk," Ladun said.

Upcoming projects include removing floor tile from the fourth
floor of the Human Development Building in the Health Sciences
Center this month, and the removal of three air handlers in the
Dental Science Building in November, Ladun said. He said he hadn't
received estimates for those projects yet.

Also, IFAS has about a dozen small greenhouses around campus with
shelves that contain asbestos, which will be removed whenever
there is a break between research projects, he said. That will be
handled using in-house staff.

If inspectors come across more dangerous asbestos or if a major
renovation is scheduled in a building with asbestos, that asbestos
will be removed before it can cause any potential harm.

"Asbestos is only an issue when it becomes airborne," said Ladun,
who keeps a sealed vial of asbestos ore in his office. "Sitting on
a table, it's not hurting anybody. Blow it up, and it has
potential to get into the lungs and develop an asbestos-related
disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Firm Questions Protester's Role as Geologist
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Bergquist of the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel,
reported that Gogebic Taconite is questioning what role a state
employee played during a recent examination of a rock sample taken
from the site of a proposed $1.5 billion iron ore mine in northern
Wisconsin.

According to the report, Jason Huberty, a geologist at the
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and a frequent
protester at the Capitol, testified against controversial mining
legislation in 2012 that was written on behalf of Gogebic.

Huberty was given the rock by a geologist at the Department of
Natural Resources in July and, according to instructions by the
top official of the geological survey, had no role in its analysis
and carried it immediately to a co-worker for testing, the report
related.

The DNR said the rock was found to contain potentially harmful
asbestos-like mineral fibers that, if widespread, could present
the operator of a mine with questions about how to control
airborne particles.

Gogebic is proposing to construct an open-pit mine in Ashland and
Iron counties that, over time, could extend for about 4 miles.

"It raises questions about whether the survey is biased in this
area," said Bob Seitz, a spokesman for Gogebic.

The mining company is concerned that state officials hired Huberty
knowing of his opposition to mining legislation, Seitz said.

Huberty's areas of expertise, cited by the survey on its website,
are in general geology, geochemistry, mineralogy, identification,
and cores and samples.

"That's pretty much us," Seitz said.

The survey was founded in 1897 to "provide objective scientific
information about the geology, mineral resources, water resources,
soil and biology of Wisconsin," according to the agency's website.

State Geologist James Robertson, director of the survey, said the
examination of the rock sample was conducted properly, and he made
sure that Huberty played no role.

Huberty, who has a master's degree in geoscience from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, declined to comment.

In February 2012, Huberty testified in opposition to mining
legislation and expressed concern that waste rock would be
regulated as if it didn't contain sulfides, which can wash off a
mine site and harm local waterways through a process known as acid
mine drainage.  He told lawmakers he has a special interest in
iron ore.

"I probably know the most of these rocks than anyone in the room,"
he testified.

At the time, Huberty had been on the job as a limited-term
employee of the survey for about a week, Robertson said. He was
hired full time about a year later, in February 2013, after a
national search, because of his expertise in mineralogy and
geochemistry.

Robertson said he learned in June about Huberty's testimony on the
mining legislation.

"As soon as I found out, he was taken off the case, so to speak,"
Robertson said. "His usefulness on this one project has been
negated because I'm not willing to even risk the perception that
the survey is anything but objective."

                     Cited for protesting

On July 2, MediaTrackers reported that the geological survey had
hired Huberty, citing his mining testimony and his numerous
citations for protests at the Capitol, opposing the policies of
Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The demonstrations have been taking
place since early 2011.

Huberty has received more than two dozen citations for protest-
related activities at the Capitol, although some have been
dismissed, according records provided by state Department of
Administration.

The rock sample was taken from Gogebic's proposed mining site on
May 14 by geologist Philip Fauble of the DNR. Fauble and Huberty
are acquainted and have similar interests in the field of geology,
Robertson said.

Two sets of tests -- a type of an X-ray and an analysis using a
scanning electron microscope -- were performed on the rock by the
survey and a UW-Madison laboratory. The tests showed that it
contained grunerite and had a crystal structure that met the
definition for asbestiform, according to Robertson.

"It fits the definition of asbestos," said Ann Coakley, the top
mining regulator for the DNR. If present, the problem could be
possibly addressed in limits set in a state air permit, she said.

The discovery has raised red flags by mining opponents, who say
that the presence of asbestos-like material raises new questions
about the environmental consequences of mining iron ore.

                        Minnesota case

On Minnesota's iron range, the link between asbestos and mining
has long been debated.

In the early 1970s, asbestos-like fibers were found in Duluth's
water supply and were linked to taconite tailings from Reserve
Mining Co. that were dumped into Lake Superior.

In April, a long-awaited $4.9 million study by the University of
Minnesota showed a link between an increased risk of contracting a
fatal cancer known as mesothelioma and the length of time spent
working in the iron ore industry. The main cause of the disease
comes from exposure to asbestos.

But the study failed to conclude that dust from taconite was the
cause of mesothelioma. Researchers said future studies will
examine the role of dust.

                      More testing needed

In Wisconsin, the next step is additional testing, Coakley said.
That means core samples from from 13 drilling sites, some as deep
as 5,800 feet. Eight have been drilled so far. Also, a process
known as bulk sampling, which could start this winter to obtain
iron samples, will provide additional samples.

Seitz said he did not know when results will be available, but
it's the type of information that will be part of a formal mining
application.

Based on the company's review of reports on the geology of the
region, "we expect the minerals of the Gogebic iron range to be
similar to those of Minnesota's Mesabi iron range," where some
iron ore mined in the eastern portion of the range contains
fibers, Seitz said in an email. But he said the shape of the
fibers does not meet the regulatory definition of asbestos.

Suzanne Baumann of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency agreed.

"Fibers in the iron ore are found only the far eastern end of the
Mesabi iron range," Baumann said in an email. "These fibers do not
meet the regulatory definition of asbestos," because the fibers
are much shorter. But she said that fiber emissions and water
discharges from the mine there, Northshore Mining Co., are
regulated.

"The health risk of these fibers is not well understood, and there
are no traditional health-based standards," she said.

George Meyer is executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife
Federation and former secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources. The wildlife group has not taken a stance on the mine
but has opposed regulations backed by Gogebic that critics said
rolled back environmental protections.

Meyer said Gogebic's access to core samples from the 1950s by U.S.
Steel should have shed light on the extent of asbestos-like
grunerite in the area.

"Why didn't they know anything about this? That's probably the
nicest way of saying it," Meyer said.

Gogebic, which has an option on the mineral rights of the land,
has data from U.S. Steel core samples. But Seitz said none of it
details the possible presence of asbestos and instead focuses on
the iron content.

William Cannon, an emeritus geologist from the U.S. Geological
Survey, has hiked the region numerous times in his extensive study
of the range. He said he didn't think the asbestiform grunerite is
plentiful on Gogebic's site.

"But it would be very hard to say that, categorically, it can't be
there," Cannon said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village Can't Act on Collapsing Building
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Fries, writing for UticaOD.com, reported that a building
near Sauquoit Creek, in New York, had a collapsed roof, one wall
falling into the creek, and the other bowing out, ready to crumble
as well.

According to the report, these are the problems a passerby noticed
recently that prompted him to contact Public Eye about 2230 Oneida
St. in Clayville, concerned about public safety.

"Driving home the other day, I saw a few children in close
proximity of the building. It needs to be taken down!" the reader
wrote. "I would much rather read your article and put pressure on
who is responsible for this than read an article about someone
being hurt."

                             The issue

The wooden structure, located across from Clayville Manor in the
village, is owned by Utica resident Ryan Quinn and was purchased
in November 2010.

A call to the number listed for Quinn appeared to go to a fax
machine.

The 2013 tax rolls list Quinn as owing $4,195.89 in property taxes
as of Jan. 31.

Village Mayor Terry Dote said the roof collapsed in December 2012
from snow, "blasting the second floor walls, and a lot of it fell
into the Sauquoit Creek."

The village codes officer posted the building on Dec. 25, 2012, as
unable to be entered or occupied.

While some windows are boarded up, others on the first floor are
broken and doors are not secure and hang wide open.

Because of debris in the creek, the state Department of
Environmental Conservation also has gotten involved.

                             The future

The village has reached out to Quinn "on many occasions to try and
get him to close the building," Dote said, but they haven't heard
from the owner.

"The village doesn't have the funds to pursue litigation against
the guy to get him to tear the building down," he added. "We're a
tiny, little village; we have a very limited income."

Dote said because of the age of the building and since no one can
get in to do testing, the building is considered an asbestos
hazard and must be demolished with consideration as such.

State DEC officials said a letter was sent to the property owner
Jan. 15 in regard to the debris in the creek, but nothing has come
of things since.

"We do feel we need to do another inspection of the site," said
Stephen Litwhiler, DEC regional spokesman.

Meanwhile, Dote said the village is doing what it can. But because
of the lack of funds, especially with asbestos abatement costs,
they're at a stalemate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Insurance Payments Criticized
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Greenblatt, writing for Scripps News, reported that for
months, mysterious white flakes and construction dust fell on
Nancy Lopez's desk in the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas
City, Mo.

According to the report, no question the debris was worse after
renovation crews worked.  But really, the mess was getting out of
hand. On that Monday in 1983, Lopez grabbed a rag and started
dusting.

The impeccably dressed young administrative assistant finished
tidying her office and set to work. Unknowingly, she had brushed
off her desk, into the air and into her lungs deadly asbestos
fibers.

Those tiny fibers stayed with Lopez for decades, and, in 2009, at
age 54, she learned she was dying from mesothelioma, an asbestos-
caused cancer. She sued the construction company and the county
for negligence and punitive damages.

Lopez didn't realize her suit would eventually pit her against the
empire built by acclaimed investor and philanthropist Warren
Buffett. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. of Omaha, Neb., has
become one of the most powerful forces in asbestos and pollution
litigation in the world.

Berkshire's reach has grown so vast that if you or a loved one
files an asbestos- or pollution-related lawsuit in America, like
Lopez, you're likely to encounter a Berkshire subsidiary.

Scripps interviewed more than 20 sources -- some confidential --
reviewed dozens of lawsuits and spoke with former insiders, who
all allege the Berkshire-owned companies that handle its asbestos
and pollution policies -- National Indemnity Co. and Resolute
Management Inc. -- wrongfully delay or deny compensation to cancer
victims and others to boost Berkshire's profits. In multiple
cases, courts and arbitrators have ruled that the Berkshire
subsidiaries' tactics have been in "bad faith" or intentional.

Through 25 known deals, insurers like American Insurance Group,
CNA Financial Corp. and Lloyd's of London have paid Berkshire to
assume their risk for tens of billions of dollars in future
asbestos and pollution claims.

"I do believe we have the largest single exposure to asbestos and
pollution claims of any insurer today," Berkshire Hathaway
Reinsurance Division President Ajit Jain told Scripps via email.
He and Warren Buffett declined repeated requests for interviews.

Until Berkshire has to pay those claims, it can invest and
potentially profit from the money. And it gets to decide when
claims get paid.

Lopez attorney Louis Accurso said the number of policies
Berkshire's subsidiaries control could create a dangerous amount
of influence over payouts to victims like his client.

"Whenever there is a concentration of power like that you have
enormous potential for abuse," Accurso said.

Asbestos defendants often drag out court proceedings, Accurso said
-- a strategy he called "delay, deny until they die." Juries, for
their part, often award more money to sympathetic victims they can
actually see on the stand.

Nancy Lopez died before insurers controlled by Resolute "made a
single offer," Accurso said. Like many mesothelioma victims, Lopez
succumbed just 18 months after her diagnosis.

"Of all the cases in my career, what happened and how that played
out . . .  gave me the most anger I can ever remember," said
Accurso, who also delivered Lopez's eulogy.

Dozens of large corporations are angry, too.

Ford Motor Co., Estee Lauder Inc. and others allege wrongdoing by
Berkshire-owned National Indemnity and Resolute. These companies
bought commercial policies to protect against long-term claims for
pollution and health-related problems linked to their products or
services. They're suing for reimbursement of fines, legal fees and
payments of injury claims.

The idea of "float" is at the core of Berkshire's overall success.
In short, float is the money an insurance company gets to hold
between the time customers pay premiums and the time they make
claims on their policies.

And it is something that Warren Buffett celebrates in his well-
known annual letters to shareholders.

In his 2009 message he wrote: "Our float has grown from $16
million in 1967, when we entered the business, to $62 billion at
the end of 2009." By 2012, that number had grown to $73 billion.

Part of the growth has come from asbestos and pollution liability.
Fifteen years ago, Berkshire started acquiring those policies
because they offer so-called "long-tail float." Asbestos and
pollution policies take a long time to pay out because the hazards
they cover cause cancer and other illnesses that can take years or
even decades to manifest. That allows Berkshire's money to stay
invested longer and potentially generate bigger returns.

In 2011, Buffett wrote to shareholders: "We will profit just as we
would if some party deposited $70.6 billion with us, paid us a fee
for holding its money and then let us invest its funds for our own
benefit."

It is this long-term float that is raising concerns.

As a former claims executive, Robert Burns took his orders from
Resolute. In August of this year, he testified in Estee Lauder's
ongoing New York lawsuit that Resolute routinely based claims-
payment decisions on the company's financial goals, not the merits
of each case.

Burns declined an interview. But Scripps exclusively obtained a
copy of the recent video deposition in which Burns said under oath
Resolute President Thomas Ryan set "targets" that were tracked by
Berkshire executives.

"The entire operation was driven by the target numbers," Burns
testified. "They wanted to hit the projected numbers in the books
of business so they could maximize their return on investment."

Burns said company targets and projections ran 20 to 25 years into
the future, designed for Berkshire to ensure its rate of return on
its money.  And he testified that Ryan told him those targets had
to be hit for Ryan to get his bonus.

Ajit Jain told Scripps, "Mr. Ryan, as well as others who work at
the reinsurance division, are not paid based on a bonus structure;
compensation is based on a fixed salary that is reviewed each
year."

Jain did not respond to questions about any additional forms of
compensation or incentives Ryan received or may receive, and said
Ryan declined an interview.

Burns also testified that claims adjusters felt "extreme
frustration" when bosses balked at paying what adjusters viewed as
reasonable settlements. "We were told, 'You're not paying it. Find
a way to avoid paying it.' "

On one asbestos deal, Burns said, he was instructed "it was
cheaper to litigate than pay."  He gave similar testimony in a
Massachusetts trial between Celanese International Corp. and
Resolute over nonpayment of claims. In December 2009, the court
ruled Resolute had committed a "willful or knowing" act that was
"unfair or deceptive." The court awarded double damages against
Resolute, a ruling Resolute did not appeal.

In an email exchange with Scripps, Jain declined to say how many
bad-faith allegations have been lodged or settled against
Resolute, National Indemnity or the insurance companies they
manage asbestos and pollution claims for.

Berkshire's Jain said he was disappointed by the Celanese ruling,
but insists "few insurance organizations have a higher
reputational concern than we do. In administering these books,
then, we need to be vigilant to pay valid claims, protect valid
insurance policy defenses, and in the many instances where
reasonable minds differ, seek to achieve reasonable compromises
where possible."

But in courtrooms across the country, there are allegations that
Berkshire has little interest in compromise.

In Kansas City, Charles Lute and two fellow building engineers
sued the owner of the BMA Tower for injuries, after years of
working around an asbestos-filled fire retardant they were told
was "safe enough to eat for breakfast." Court documents say the
building's owner, Liberty Life Insurance Co., wanted to settle and
blamed Resolute when a mediated deal fell through. Resolute's
offer was so low, court documents say, Liberty paid the three men
at the higher level, without knowing if it would be reimbursed by
its insurer.

"Rarely in asbestos litigation are the injured victims and
asbestos companies on the same side," New York asbestos attorney
Joe Belluck told Scripps.

In 2009, a New York court ordered a "prompt" payment to Estee
Lauder. Three years later, Resolute cut a $5 million check. Estee
Lauder attorney John Schryber in a June 2013 interview said the
delay led N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Judge Carol
Edmead to allow the cosmetics giant to add an allegation: one of
"bad faith."

"What's going on here is a very sophisticated, legally oriented
regimen by insurance companies and a mastermind at business in
Warren Buffett," said Schryber of Dickstein Shapiro LLP in
Washington.

In a 2010 California ruling in favor of Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan
Bottling Co., U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson found a "pattern
of delays" and no evidence justifying why claims weren't paid
promptly.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with making money as long as
you do it fairly," said J. Robert Hunter, head of the Consumer
Federation of America's insurance division and former Texas
insurance commissioner.

"Where the Buffett thing goes wrong -- the only way they're going
to make money is to have them pay (claims) a little slower,"
Hunter said.

He points to Buffett's 2006 letter to shareholders in which
Berkshire's own chairman links the timing of claims payments to
potential profits.

"How will Berkshire fare?" Buffett wrote. "That depends on how
much 'known' claims will end up costing us and how many yet-to-be
presented claims will surface and what they will cost, how soon
claim payments will be made and how much we earn on the cash we
receive before it must be paid out. Ajit and I think the odds are
in our favor."

Hunter spotted another area of concern in Buffett's 2011
shareholder letter where he writes that Berkshire gets to invest
the float "for our own benefit."

Hunter says laws in most states require investment earnings from
the float be used "to make policies cheaper for people buying
insurance" and not go "to the benefit of the insurer, as Buffett
seems to be bragging about."

He cites a California rule that reads: " . . .  the commissioner
shall consider whether the rate mathematically reflects the
insurance company's investment income."

George Washington University law professor Lawrence Cunningham
cautions that float is an "inherent feature" of insurance, and
it's not unusual to see lawsuits in which policyholders or
claimants say an insurer or claims administrator acted in bad
faith by delaying payment.

Cunningham, who is also a Berkshire shareholder and has edited
several editions of "The Essays of Warren Buffett," said Berkshire
corporate culture rests on "unwavering commitment to integrity."

He said it would be "antithetical for the company to jeopardize
that reputation by wrongfully delaying or denying claims or acting
in any way inconsistent with faithful administration and payment
of claims."

According to Berkshire executive Jain, his division pays $1.4
billion annually for asbestos claims and expenses. And "as is the
case with any insurance company, the vast majority of claims are
settled without trials," he said.

But Berkshire will be back in court in late October, this time
against Ford Motor Co. over unpaid claims related to rollover
deaths. Schryber represents Ford, but declined to answer questions
about that case.

Nancy Lopez spent most of her shortened life -- she died at age 56
-- working in the Circuit Court in Kansas City. At her funeral in
October 2010, she was remembered as the "heart of the division."
But she never got her own day in court. The money her attorney
eventually won on Lopez's behalf went to her family more than a
year after her death.


                             *********

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  * * *