CAR_Public/131025.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 212

                             Headlines


AB VOLVO: Judge Upholds Six-State Sunroof Defect Class Action
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision in "Pain Clinic" Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Merger Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: "PHI" Suit Parties Currently in Discovery
BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Seek Approval for $100MM Settlement

BANKSIA SECURITIES: Receivers May Face More Suits Over Collapse
CARMAX INC: Calif. Court Flips Arbitration Ruling in "Fowler" Suit
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in Missouri
CNX GAS: Judge Allows Gas Royalties Class Actions to Proceed
DRIVEN SPORTS: Parker Waichman Files "Craze" Powder Class Action

ERNST & YOUNG: To Settle Lehman Audit Class Action for $99 Mil.
GENON ENERGY: Appeal From Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
GENON ENERGY: Delaware Suit Over Acquisition by NRG Has Ended
GENON ENERGY: One of Five Lawsuits Over Gas Prices Has Ended
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Tosses Third Amended Avandia Class Action

HSBC BANK: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Billing Disclosures
INFOSYS: Mulls Settlement in Class Action Over H-1B Visas
LGBT: Tea Party Leader Mulls Class Action Against "Homosexuality"
MORGAN STANLEY: Singapore Investors Can Pursue Class Action
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismissed SSD Product Quality Claim Suit

OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Proposed $7.5-Mil Settlement Under Negotiation
PILOT FLYING J: 91 Entities Opt-Out of Fuel Rebate Settlement
POLASH INDIAN: Failed to Pay Class Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
READING HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs Work During Lunch Breaks, Suit Says
RESIDENTIAL CRF: Sued by Facility Workers in Florida

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Properly Pay Supervisors, Suit Says
STREAMLINE SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Overtime Fees
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Expected to Appeal Consolidation Ruling
SMARTHEAT INC: Wants Suit Over Sale of Insiders' Shares Dismissed
ST GEORGE, UT: Residents Sue Over Unreasonable Search & Seizure

SUSHI DEN: 4 Women File Sexual Harassment Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objectors Won't Need to Post Bond
UNITED STATES: Disabled Queens Residents Entitled to New Hearings
WASHINGTON DC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Readers
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Ice Cream Calories Class Action

* Hawaii Sees Rise in Disability Claims & Labor Law Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cape Intermediate Settles Suit Over Poisoning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Remover Called in to Assist in Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Payment Plan to Help Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Law Claims Survive LIPA's Bid to Dismiss
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kidderminster Doctor's Surgery Closing for Work

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Deadly Dust in Manchester
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovators Playing Russian Roulette With Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royston Man Seeks Compensation for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Dangerous Fibers Found at Proposed Mine Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coolidge School Fibro Cleanup on Schedule

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Chemicals Found at Lindey Cleaners
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents, Students Concerned on Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Townsville Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined GBP20,000 for Exposing Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blaze in Roof of Worksop Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Rocks Won't Stop Wisconsin Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust May Delay Willow Road Widening Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Dumped in Maitland Streets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Scare at Latrobe Power Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro "Released" During Launceston Barn Fire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Dust Treated in Robert Lee Moore Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Faces Fibro-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fourth District Affirms Dismissal of Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Warning in Port Stephens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Caused Death of Ex-Steel Worker

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP60,000 for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Would Deny Justice to Wisconsin Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Eats Away Warren Demolition Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Removed at Former Holding Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Fine for Violating Cleanup Rules

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Consumption on the Rise in Asia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Site Earmarked for New Tesco
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolution Approved for Abatement in Troy Bldgs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Vernon Schools Set to Respond to Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 134 Pending Cases as of Aug. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC's Suit v. Aerojet Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Continues to Defend Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell to Pay NARCO PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Defend Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Circuit Affirms "Dela Rosa" Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling on Work Benefits Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Milwaukee's Bid to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Court Issues Statute of Limitations Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Ruling in Products Liability MDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Workers' Benefits Claims Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Bars "Bogerman" Wrongful Death Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran's Appeal Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont's Bid to Dismiss "Middleton" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed's Bid to Dismiss "Olds" Suit Granted


                             *********


AB VOLVO: Judge Upholds Six-State Sunroof Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that a New Jersey
U.S. District Court judge has denied Volvo's motion to reconsider
the six-state class-action status of a lawsuit filed over an
alleged defect in the automaker's sunroofs, which plaintiffs claim
allows water to flood their vehicles.  The class action lawsuit
covers Massachusetts, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, California and
Maryland.

"Defendants argue that this court should reconsider its opinion
that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of statewide
classes due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Comcast.  That
case involved a class of former and current subscribers of Comcast
who sought damaged for alleged violations of federal antitrust
laws. . . . However, this case is entirely distinguishable from
Comcast.  In Comcast, the damages theory was based on a model
designed by an expert that compared actual cable prices with
hypothetical prices that would have existed if the defendants had
not engaged in the alleged anticompetitive activities.  Here, the
damages issue is much more straightforward -- all class members
who purchased defendants' product were allegedly damaged by a
design defect," writes Judge Dennis Cavanaugh in his opinion.

". . . Defendants can not reasonably point to Comcast and argue
that because the Supreme Court rejected a flawed hypothetical
damages model in that case, certification in this case was
improper.  Further, in Comcast, the plaintiffs solely relied on
one expert to establish class-wide damages and the Supreme Court
found that expert's methodology to be unsound," he continues.
". . . Because this case is distinguishable from Comcast, this
court finds no reason to reconsider its opinion. Accordingly,
defendants' motion is denied."

The plaintiffs contend the "defect" sunroofs are on Volvo's S40,
S60, S80, V50 (model years 2004 to present), XC90 (model years
2003 to present) and V50 (model years 2005 to present).

"Plaintiffs allege that the sunroof drainage systems in these
vehicles harbored a defect which allows water to become entrapped
within the passenger compartment floorplans, causing  damage to
the vehicles, including interior components, carpets and safety-
related electrical sensors and wiring," according to the court
documents.

The suit was filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court by Joanne
Neale of Needham, Mass., and seven other owners.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision in "Pain Clinic" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss Pain Clinic of Northwest Florida, Inc.'s
second amended complaint, 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 December 27, 2012, Pain Clinic of Northwest Florida, Inc. filed
a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, against the Company.  On
January 29, 2013, a First Amended Complaint was filed in this
lawsuit through which the following three additional plaintiffs
were added: American Pain Care Specialists, LLC; Advanced Pain
Specialists, Inc.; and South Baldwin Family Practice, LLC.  The
four plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all similarly situated
physician-customers that purchased the MyWay product and seek
damages for various claims, including breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.  On February 5, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the lawsuit
during arbitration, and a motion to stay discovery during
arbitration, which were both denied by the trial court.  The
Company has appealed the denial of the motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss or stay the lawsuit during arbitration,
and is currently pursuing that appeal before Florida's Third
District Court of Appeal.  On May 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint, in which the plaintiffs dropped the
claim for breach of warranty, and added claims for tortious
interference with business relationships, violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. Section
501.201, et seq.), and violations of various other states'
consumer protection laws.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint on June 24, 2013, and the Plaintiffs
responded on July 16, 2013.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a merger-related
class action lawsuit, 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 May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
Glen Tullman, the former Chief Executive Officer, and William
Davis, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, by the
Bristol County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a
purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased
Allscripts common stock between November 18, 2010, and April 26,
2012.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Tullman and Mr.
Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or
omissions during the putative class period regarding the Company's
progress in integrating Allscripts' and Eclipsys' business
following the August 24, 2010 merger and that the Company lacked a
reasonable basis for certain statements regarding the Company's
post-merger integration efforts, operations, results and
projections of future financial performance.  A lead plaintiff has
been appointed and on January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  On March 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the lead plaintiff's amended complaint.  On May 9,
2013, the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and also filed a motion seeking leave to amend its
amended complaint, which was granted by the Court.  On May 28,
2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss and the Company replied on July 22,
2013.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: "PHI" Suit Parties Currently in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit filed by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. are currently in discovery, according to
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, 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 May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. ("PHI") filed a
class action Complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company.  The Complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011,
Allscripts or its agent sent advertisements by fax to the
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first
receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 ("TCPA").  The Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the
violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, and injunctive
and other relief.  Allscripts was served with the Complaint and
PHI's Motion for Class Certification on May 7, 2012.  The parties
await a decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case
of Holtzman v. Turza, which could address claims at issue in this
case.  However, the Court effectively lifted a previous stay for
discovery on March 28, 2013, even though a decision in the
Holtzman case has not yet been issued.  Allscripts filed its
Answer and Affirmative Defenses on April 19, 2013.  The parties
are proceeding with discovery.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Seek Approval for $100MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a
class of homeowners that accused Bank of America Corp. of unfairly
reducing the value of their homes asked a California federal judge
on Oct. 17 to approve a settlement in which the bank will restore
at least $100 million of home equity to the borrowers.

Homeowner Bryan Vess led a class of some 400,000 homeowners who
had accused the bank of using an automated system to assess the
value of their homes, according to the motion.  The class said its
home equity lines of credit were unfairly reduced or eliminated
when the values of their homes were reassessed by the automated
system, according to the suit.

The settlement will restore access to home equity lines of credit
-- loans that work like a credit card collateralized against the
value of the borrower's home -- for the class members.  The class
said BofA could end up restoring far more than the $100 million
proposed.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Vess wrote in the
Oct. 17 motion for approval.  "If the settlement is finally
approved, [BofA] will directly mail reinstatement forms to
approximately 80,000 additional borrowers with frozen or suspended
equity lines valued at hundreds of millions of dollars."

Mr. Vess first filed the class action in April 2010, alleging BofA
had automatically -- without actually assessing the properties --
reduced or eliminated the equity in the homes of certain
borrowers.

The automated valuations didn't take into account the actual
values of the homes, or the homes' individual characteristics,
Mr. Vess said in the complaint.

In February 2012, Mr. Vess filed an amended complaint, which the
bank initially moved to dismiss.  BofA withdrew that motion and
instead decided to settle with the class, according to court
documents.

The bank denies any wrongdoing and says the home equity lines of
credit were properly reduced according to the bank's procedures.
It was prepared to vigorously defend itself in court, according to
the Oct. 17 motion, but opted to settle instead.

The court preliminarily approved the BofA settlement in April
2013.

In discussing the settlement, the parties considered similar deals
reached with Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and other banks
that faced similar class actions, according to the motion.

In March, a California federal judge gave final approval to a
settlement worth up to $10.7 million between Citibank and a class
of 150,000 customers who accused the bank of wrongfully suspending
or decreasing the value of their home equity lines of credit based
on faulty valuations.

Under the deal, Citibank will restore between $317 million and
$654 million in home equity lines of credit, worth a projected
cash value of $3.17 million to $9.45 million.  U.S. District Court
Judge Maxine Chesney also approved $1.2 million in attorneys'
fees, but reduced the proposed $36,000 in incentives to the six
named plaintiffs, who will now receive $5,000 each, according to
court records.

In BofA's settlement, the bank has already restored some $26
million in home equity lines of credit and will reach out to at
least 80,000 more homeowners to include them in the deal,
according to the settlement.

The motion for approval called the projected $100 million in home
equity "conservative," saying the bank may end up paying far more.

Mr. Vess is represented by Alisa A. Martin and James R. Patterson
of Patterson Law Group LLP.

BofA is represented by Lisa B. Kim -- kim@reedsmith.com -- and
Miles M. Cooley -- mcooley@reedsmith.com  -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Vess v. Bank of America NA et al., case number 3:10-
cv-00920, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


BANKSIA SECURITIES: Receivers May Face More Suits Over Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that
receivers for the failed Banksia Securities Limited (BSL) finance
company have warned there might be more legal action taken over
the company's collapse.

In a circular to investors released on Oct. 18, receivers
McGrathNicol said they had completed their examination of BSL
directors and managers but were careful about releasing
information gained because "there may be litigation arising from
the failure of BSL".

The directors, auditors and trustee for BSL and the associated
Cherry Fund already face a class action by investors in the two
companies.

At the time of its collapse in October last year, BSL owed about
$660 million to about 16,000 investors throughout Victoria.

McGrathNicol has so far paid investors 70 cents in the dollar on
their investment and has said it hopes to pay another 10 to 15
cents in the dollar.

Further payments will depend on the success of the sale of Banksia
Mortgage Fund's (BMF) loan portfolio.

Both BMF and BSL were part of the Banksia Financial Group and BSL
had $54 million in loans to BMF.

The receivers said the sale process for the BMF loan portfolio was
"proceeding to expectations".

"Second-round due diligence with shortlisted bidders is under way,
and final offers are expected to be received in late October," the
McGrathNicol circular read.

"Subject to those processes, a further repayment (of at least a
further five cents in the dollar and possibly more) is expected in
early 2014.

"We will update debenture holders on the likely quantum and timing
of the next repayment, as well as any revision to the overall
repayment guidance, in late November."

McGrathNicol said it would provide a further update towards the
end of November when it had more information about the outcomes of
the sale process for BMF.


CARMAX INC: Calif. Court Flips Arbitration Ruling in "Fowler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal on March 26, 2013, reversed the
trial court's order granting CarMax, Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration regarding the sales consultant putative class lawsuit,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2013.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The
allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of
sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who
worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the
present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class
claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June
16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The
court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with
regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's
ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20,
2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling
in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with
the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the
plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act.

On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending
the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated
third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved
to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into
arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court granted on
November 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the California
Court of Appeal.

On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel
arbitration.  CarMax intends to pursue an appeal of this decision.

The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.  The Company said it
is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of
loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these
matters.

CarMax, Inc. (CarMax) is a holding company and its operations are
conducted through its subsidiaries. CarMax also wholesales used
vehicles. The Company is a retailer of used cars, based on the
408,080 used vehicles it retailed during the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2012 (fiscal 2012). As of February 29, 2012, it
operated 108 used car superstores in 53 metropolitan markets. In
addition, it is a wholesale vehicle auction operator. It sold
316,649 wholesale vehicles through its on-site auctions in fiscal
2012. As of February 29, 2012, the Company conducted weekly or bi-
weekly auctions at 52 of its 108 used car superstores. In
addition, it sells new vehicles at four locations under franchise
agreements with three new car manufacturers. In fiscal 2012, new
vehicles comprised only 2% of its total retail vehicle unit sales.


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces FLSA Violations Class Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Central Transport International, Inc., Case No. 4:13-
cv-02009 (E.D. Mo., October 9, 2013) is a collective action filed
to recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
other relief from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation for all
compensable hours worked by him and a group of other similarly
situated employees, Mr. Williams alleges.  He asserts that as a
result of the Defendant's timekeeping policies and practices, the
Defendant failed to properly record all hours he and those
similarly situated worked.

Glenn Williams is a resident of St. Louis, Missouri.

Central Transport International, Inc. is a Michigan corporation
with similar hub locations nationwide.  The Company's business is
to provide transportation and logistics services to 98 percent of
the major manufacturing areas in North America.  The Defendants
employed the Plaintiff starting October 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          34 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 207 34
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314)647-4300
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com


CNX GAS: Judge Allows Gas Royalties Class Actions to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
a federal judge wants the class-action lawsuits seeking millions
of dollars in natural gas royalties to continue despite attempts
by the two defendant energy companies to appeal the case to a
higher court.

U.S. District Court Judge James P. Jones ruled against the
requests by defendants CNX Gas and EQT Production to place the
lawsuits on hold as they await word on whether the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Richmond will hear their arguments.

"At this point I find that the relevant interests -- including the
plaintiffs and the defendants, as well as the public -- will be
best served by the determination of the issues presented by the
pending motions," Judge Jones wrote in an order filed in court
records on Oct. 16.

Still, an appeals court judge could stop the district-court
lawsuit in its tracks if he decides to hear the energy company's
arguments, legal experts said.

"That would take months while everything else is just stalled,"
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law, said of an appeals battle.

At the same time, experts are skeptical that an appeals judge
would consider overturning the class-action status before the case
concludes in district court with either a judge or jury issuing a
final decision.

"This kind of an appeal is very unusual," said constitutional law
expert Stewart Harris, at the Appalachian School of Law.  "Courts
are reluctant to grant it."

It was late in September when Jones certified the series of five
lawsuits for class-action status, with the potential to bring in
thousands more people from the coalfields region.

Soon after that, the landowner plaintiffs sought a summary
judgment declaring them and the potential class members to be the
owners of at least $30 million in royalties.

The landowners also asked for a sort of audit detailing all of the
gas the companies have siphoned, the profits collected and
production fees charged, and an explanation of the formulas used
to determine the royalties owed.

Days later, both CNX and EQT filed to have the class-action
certification overturned by an appeals court.

Judge Jones has yet to rule on the requests for summary judgment
or an audit.

Landowner lawyer Don Barrett agreed with the decision to keep the
3-year-old lawsuit moving forward as they await an appeals ruling.

"We've got clients all over Southwest Virginia . . .  who have
been impoverished and suffering for years . . . while money is
stuck in escrow," he said.

CNX declined to comment on this story.  EQT did not respond to a
request for comment.

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

The other cases involve a 20-year-old state law allowing energy
companies to siphon gas from coal seams without the owners'
permission.  With the gas in hand, the companies then dump a
percentage of the royalties into a closed escrow account and let
the owners of the gas rights battle the owners of the coal in
court for the cash.


DRIVEN SPORTS: Parker Waichman Files "Craze" Powder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, working with Philadelphia-based Seeger
Weiss LLP and Rochester, Mich.-based Oliver Law Group PC, on
Oct. 17 filed with U.S. District Court, Northern California, a
class action lawsuit against Driven Sports Inc. (Shantell Olvera
et al v. Driven Sports Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04830).  The lawsuit
stems from allegations that the sports supplement maker promoted
and sold a pre-workout powder called "Craze" that includes a
chemical similar to the illicit street drug methamphetamine, or
"meth."

According to the Complaint, pre-workout supplements, which compose
a highly competitive and profitable market, typically contain high
levels of stimulants, which has prompted many manufacturers to
continue increasing the level of stimulants in their products in
order to remain competitive in this segment of the supplements
market.  Driven Sports allegedly has tried to best its competition
by following a strategy that involves the "[spiking of its Craze
product] with a methamphetamine analog that is not declared on the
Product's label . . . " the Complaint alleges.

The Complaint also notes: "Plaintiff brings this action
challenging Defendant's mislabeling of the Product on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, under California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. 12.  Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant
to (1) cease marketing the Product using the misleading tactics
complained of herein, (2) conduct a corrective advertising
campaign, (3) restore the amounts by which Defendant has been
unjustly enriched, and (4) destroy all misleading and deceptive
materials."

An article published on Oct. 14, 2013, in the peer-reviewed
scientific journal Drug Testing and Analysis, a team of scientists
from the U.S. and the Netherlands tested Craze and claim they
found a chemical that's similar to methamphetamine.  They warned
that the chemical has never been studied in humans, that the
health risks are unknown and that the presence of this chemical is
not disclosed on Craze's label, according to the study.

The Complaint also quoted from The Drug Testing and Analysis
article that: "Pharmaceuticals and banned substances have been
detected in hundreds of purportedly natural supplements.
Recently, several athletes have been disqualified from competition
after testing positive for the methamphetamine analog N,a-
diethylphenylethylamine (N,a-DEPEA)."  The athletes claimed that
they did not knowingly consume the banned substance included in
their pre-workout supplement.  Three samples from different Craze
lot numbers were then analyzed to detect the presence and
concentration of N,a-DEPEA.  "Two labs independently identified
N,a-DEPEA in the supplement using ultra high performance liquid
chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to an LTQ Orbitrap XL mass
spectrometer and UHPLC-quadruple-time-of-flight mass (Q-TOF)
spectrometer, respectively.  The identity of N,a-DEPEA was
confirmed using nuclear magnetic resonance and reference
standards," the Complaint also quoted from the article.

"The Defendant describes Craze as a dietary supplement that is
legal and safe," said Jordan L. Chaikin, Partner at Parker
Waichman LLP.  "But we are charging that this is not the case; we
allege that the company knowingly spiked the supplement with a
dangerous chemical described as a methamphetamine analog -- and
they never mention it on the product label."

If you or someone you know has purchased the bodybuilding
supplement Craze, you may have valuable legal rights.  To discuss
your case with one of our lawyers, please view our Craze Workout
Supplement Class Action Lawsuit page or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-
800-529-4636).

Contact:

Parker Waichman LLP
Gary P. Falkowitz, Managing Attorney
Telephone: 1+ (800) LAW-INFO
           1+ (800) 529-4636
Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com


ERNST & YOUNG: To Settle Lehman Audit Class Action for $99 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rapoport, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that Ernst & Young LLP has agreed to pay $99 million to settle
investor class-action allegations that it turned a blind eye when
its audit client Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. misled investors
before the giant investment bank's 2008 collapse.

The investors and Ernst "have reached an agreement in principle"
to settle the litigation, the accounting firm and plaintiffs'
attorneys both said.  The two sides are in the process of drafting
a formal settlement agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys said in a
letter filed on Oct. 16 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The settlement, which was reported by legal publications, will be
subject to court approval.

Ernst said in a statement that it "denies all liability" in the
case and "chose to settle this claim to put this matter behind
us."

The litigation had claimed that Lehman's officials, underwriters
and auditors misled investors about its financial health, leverage
and risk management -- and exposure to risky mortgage and real-
estate assets -- when the bank sold the investors billions of
dollars in Lehman securities.  Those investors suffered big losses
when Lehman collapsed into bankruptcy in September 2008.

In particular, the investors alleged, Ernst & Young gave Lehman's
financial statements a clean bill of health even though the firm
knew the bank was using an accounting maneuver known as "Repo 105"
-- repurchase agreements that allowed Lehman to temporarily lower
its leverage -- to make itself appear healthier than it really
was.

In 2011, a judge dismissed some of the claims against Ernst, but
he allowed one claim to continue alleging that the audit firm made
misstatements in July 2008 about Lehman's compliance with
accounting rules when it was aware that the bank was using Repo
105 to temporarily move $50 billion in assets off its balance
sheet.

Lehman underwriters, officers and directors had previously agreed
to settle the class-action litigation.  The underwriters agreed in
2011 to a $426.2 million settlement, and Lehman's officers and
directors agreed to pay another $90 million.

It wasn't immediately clear on Oct. 18 whether the class-action
settlement would have any effect on the separate lawsuit that the
New York attorney general's office filed against Ernst in 2010,
making similar allegations.  That case is still pending, but last
December, a judge blocked the AG's office from seeking to recover
the $150 million in fees that Ernst received from Lehman.  The
ruling allowed the attorney general's office to continue pursuing
damages and restitution from Ernst on behalf of injured investors,
and the office is appealing the ruling blocking it from recovering
fees.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office could not
immediately be reached for comment.


GENON ENERGY: Appeal From Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit relating to emissions from GenOn Energy, Inc.'s Cheswick
generating facility remains pending, 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.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating
facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents.
GenOn disputes these allegations.  The Plaintiffs have brought
nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking
both damages and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class that consists of people who own property or live
within one mile of the plant.  In July 2012, GenOn removed the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  In October 2012, the court granted GenOn's motion
to dismiss, which the Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Third Circuit heard oral
argument on June 25, 2013.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc. --
http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and
other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy market
in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale generator
of electricity; and involves in asset management and proprietary
trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas transportation and
storage activities.  The Company generates electricity using coal,
natural gas, and oil resources.


GENON ENERGY: Delaware Suit Over Acquisition by NRG Has Ended
-------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. disclosed 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 consolidated class action
lawsuit in Delaware arising from its acquisition by NRG Energy,
Inc., has ended.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the acquisition
of GenOn.  NRG issued, as consideration for the acquisition,
0.1216 shares of NRG common stock for each outstanding share of
GenOn, including restricted stock units outstanding, on the
acquisition date, except for fractional shares which were paid in
cash.

GenOn was named as a defendant in eight purported class actions in
Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its agreement
for NRG to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn.  These cases
were consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware
and Texas and a federal court case in Texas.  The plaintiffs
generally alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as
conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
Plaintiffs generally sought to: be certified as a class; enjoin
the merger; direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties; rescind the acquisition and be awarded attorneys' fees and
costs and other relief that the court deems appropriate.  The
Plaintiffs also demanded that there be additional disclosures
regarding the merger terms.  On October 24, 2012, the parties to
the Delaware state court case executed a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported class action
lawsuit.  In March 2013, the parties finalized the settlement of
the Delaware action.  On June 3, 2013, the court approved the
Delaware class action settlement thereby ending the Delaware
lawsuit.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc. --
http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and
other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy market
in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale generator
of electricity; and involves in asset management and proprietary
trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas transportation and
storage activities.  The Company generates electricity using coal,
natural gas, and oil resources.


GENON ENERGY: One of Five Lawsuits Over Gas Prices Has Ended
------------------------------------------------------------
One of the five antitrust lawsuits over natural gas prices against
GenOn Energy, Inc., has ended, the Company disclosed in its
August 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

GenOn is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class action
lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada
and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the
California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC
investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural
gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The
lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses.  The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with GenOn.  In July 2011, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four
of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  In September 2012, the
State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is handling the remaining
case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for
Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn.  In
February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court.  On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the petition for certiorari, thereby, ending one of the
five lawsuits.  GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint Energy,
Inc. against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc. --
http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and
other energy services to wholesale customers in the energy market
in the United States.  It also operates as a wholesale generator
of electricity; and involves in asset management and proprietary
trading, fuel oil management, and natural gas transportation and
storage activities.  The Company generates electricity using coal,
natural gas, and oil resources.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Tosses Third Amended Avandia Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Garden State man who sued drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline over the
diabetes drug Avandia, but not over allegations that he was
injured by the pharmaceutical, has had his third amended complaint
dismissed by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, granted a motion on Oct. 15 by GSK to dismiss
plaintiff Richard V. D'Apuzzo's latest amended complaint in his
class action against the drug manufacturer.

Mr. D'Apuzzo alleged in his suit against the drug company that GSK
concealed the risks of Avandia use while promoting the drug's
safety, efficacy, and effectiveness through a "fraudulent and
deceptive marketing program."  This resulted in the plaintiff and
others purchasing Avandia instead of seeking alternative
treatments for diabetes, the lawsuit contended.

Mr. D'Apuzzo, who resides in New Jersey, claimed that his doctor
would have prescribed insulin or alternative treatments had the
physician known about Avandia's risks.  The man says he had to pay
a higher purchase price for Avandia, including higher amounts in
co-payments, and that others had found themselves in a similar
situation.  Mr. D'Apuzzo sought a refund of any monies he had paid
for Avandia, including the insurance co-pays.

The plaintiff's complaint contained claims for violations of New
Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, but most of the claims, Judge Rufe,
the federal judge, ruled, are barred by New Jersey's Products
Liability Law, which is the exclusive basis for any product
liability action defined as "any claim or action brought by a
claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory
underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of
an express warranty.

Therefore, all of Mr. D'Apuzzo's claims, Judge Rufe wrote, with
the exception of the express warranty claim, would have to be
brought under the Products Liability Law of New Jersey, and
"Plaintiff does not attempt to proceed under that statute."

In his express warranty claim, the plaintiff alleged that the drug
company stated on its labels and packaging to the plaintiff,
prescribers, patients and other consumers that Avandia would
provide assistance in the management of Type 2 diabetes in a "safe
and efficacious manner," the judicial memorandum states.

Mr. D'Apuzzo alleged that GSK breached this warranty by selling
and marketing Avandia that is not efficacious, as the
pharmaceutical fails to manage or reduce the risk factors for Type
2 diabetes, and actually increases serious injury or death,
constituting a material breach of the warranty.

Judge Rufe, however, wrote that those assertions fall
"significantly short of what is required; Plaintiff fails to
allege the exact text of the warranties, or the precise time
periods these warranties were in effect.

"Without such allegations," the judge wrote, "the claim cannot
stand."

In ruling in favor of GSK, Judge Rufe noted that the plaintiff has
had three attempts to file a complaint that states a cause of
action, yet he has failed to do just that.

"The Court finds it would be inequitable to permit any further
amendment, and the dismissal will be with prejudice," she wrote.


HSBC BANK: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Billing Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Oct. 18 tossed a proposed class action alleging HSBC Bank
USA NA made improper disclosures of interest rate fees on credit
card bills and wrongly assessed late fees, ruling the suit hadn't
stated a claim for which statutory damages could be recovered.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer granted HSBC's motion to
dismiss Bruce Schwartz's amended complaint, ruling none of
Schwartz's three allegations of Truth In Lending Act violations
presented a valid claim for relief.

Mr. Schwartz sued HSBC in February, claiming the bank had violated
TILA by improperly charging him a late fee on a timely made credit
card payment and by inaccurately or incompletely disclosing the
annual interest rate and balance subject to interest on several of
his monthly billing statements.  He sought to represent a putative
class of HSBC customers who claim to have experienced similar
issues.

According to Mr. Schwartz, the bank provided inconsistent
information on his statements as to whether certain annual
percentage rates were variable, and improperly represented on
several occasions that his purchase balance subject to interest
was zero.  However, he didn't claim HSBC had actually charged him
an incorrect APR and acknowledged he was billed consistent with
his card member agreement, according to Judge Engelmayer.

The judge found that the two "hypertechnical, inconsequential"
disclosure deficiencies Schwartz claimed in his complaint are not
ones for which statutory damages are available.

With respect to the alleged inconsistencies in HSBC's disclosure
of the APR rates, Schwartz misread the relevant statute, the judge
said.  The statute does not require disclosure of the variable or
fixed status of a periodic rate, but merely requires the
disclosure of the applicable rate, the balance to which it is
applied and the nominal APR, according to the order.

"Despite the contradictory statements as to whether Schwartz's
periodic rates were or were not variable, Schwartz does not allege
that his statements lacked, or misstated, any of these required
disclosures," the order said.

Mr. Schwartz had claimed HSBC's failure to list his balance
subject to interest as a number other than zero violated a
statutory provision requiring a creditor to disclose "the balance
on which the finance charge was computed and a statement of how
the balance was determined."  But in Mr. Schwartz's case, no
finance charge was computed because his outstanding balance was
subject to zero percent interest during the relevant period, Judge
Engelmayer said.

Moreover, the only balance for which a finance charge was computed
-- cash advances at 21.99 percent interest -- was listed
correctly, the order said.

Mr. Schwartz had further alleged that HSBC had wrongly imposed a
$19 late fee on a timely made payment in October 2012, but HSBC
reversed the late fee and credited that amount to Schwartz before
the lawsuit was filed, Judge Engelmayer wrote.

"Because there are no damages for Schwartz to recover on this
claim, this claim, too, must be dismissed," the order said.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Oct. 18.

Mr. Schwartz is represented by Brian L. Bromberg and Harley J.
Schnall.

HSBC is represented by Louis Smith -- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- and
Aaron Van Nostrand -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig LLP.

The case is Bruce Schwartz et al. v. HSBC Bank USA NA, case number
1:13-cv-00769, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


INFOSYS: Mulls Settlement in Class Action Over H-1B Visas
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thibodeau, writing for Computerworld, reports that one of
the largest users of H-1B visas, Infosys, is facing a federal
class action discrimination lawsuit filed against it by four
people, and may be close to reaching a potential multimillion
dollar settlement with the U.S. government over allegations it
misused visitor visas.

In the class action suit, four IT and sales people broadly claim
that Infosys, an India-based IT services provider, has a U.S.,
workforce that consists of "roughly" 90% South Asian, primarily
Indian, citizens.  The lopsided workforce is a result of
"intentional employment discrimination," the lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs use their own experiences to make the case.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in August by
Wisconsin IT professional Brenda Koehler, who claims she was
discriminated against when Infosys hired a Bangladeshi worker over
her.  The lawsuit was recently amended, adding three other workers
who allege discrimination in some manner.

Although filed as a class action, the lawsuit has not yet been
certified by the court as one.

One of them, Layla Bolten was employed by Infosys to work on the
District of Columbia's $49.5 million health benefit exchange
system for the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.  Infosys won a
contract for the project.

Ms. Bolten was hired as a tester, a lesser position than a test
lead post.  The "vast majority of 'test lead' positions were
filled by South Asian workers, individuals with "considerably less
experience with software testing," the lawsuit alleges.

Ms. Bolten sought a job promotion on multiple occasions, but says
Infosys promoted, South Asian workers instead, it says.  The
vendor also brought in less experienced visa holders to work on
the project, the lawsuit alleges.

Ms. Bolten was "harassed because she was not Indian, and her
supervisors excluded her from work conversations by speaking
Hindi," the lawsuit charges.

Another party to the lawsuit, Gregory Handloser, started working
at Infosys in 2004 as a sales manager, but claims that the company
in 2011 "began a concerted effort in the U.S. to purge non-South
Asian employees in favor of South Asians."

Mr. Handloser said Infosys began to set unrealistic sales goals
for him, denied his bonuses, and ultimately fired him.  Similar to
Ms. Bolten, he claims supervisors and co-workers excluded him from
work conversations by speaking Hindi.

Infosys wouldn't comment on the class action lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Infosys has also been a target of a federal government
investigation into its use of B-1 visas, or visitor visas.  In a
recent securities filing, the company said it had reserved $35
million to resolve this issue.  The total includes legal costs.

A settlement with the U.S. hasn't been announced.

The government case stems from a 2011 lawsuit brought by an
employee, Jay Palmer, who alleged that he was harassed at work for
refusing to help the company use B-1 visas for work that required
H-1B visas.  That case was thrown out by a federal judge by a
federal judge over Alabama state law technicalities.  Mr. Palmer,
a federal whistleblower, alleged that Infosys illegally used
foreign workers on client projects, and said he faced threats for
raising the issue.  Although the judge found Mr. Palmer's
allegations troubling, he concluded that the claims weren't
covered by state law.

In 2012, Infosys announced it was the target of a federal
investigation into its visa use and said the government had found
errors "in a significant percentage" of employment authorization
forms, or Form I-9 without explaining what those errors might be.

An Infosys spokesman, in an email said, that the company "is
engaged in discussions with the U.S. attorney's office and other
government departments regarding a civil resolution of the
government's investigation into the company's compliance with Form
I-9 requirements and past use of B-1 visas."


LGBT: Tea Party Leader Mulls Class Action Against "Homosexuality"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Edwards, writing for The Raw Story, reports that a tea party
leader and former Baptist pastor -- who believes that AIDS is
God's judgment against LGBT people -- has proposed filing a "class
action lawsuit" against "homosexuality."

At a Tea Party Unity event on Oct. 17, LGBT activist Peter
LaBarbera told group Chairman Rick Scarborough that Fox News
should be pushed to cover "these wonderful stories of happy men
and women who have left the homosexual lifestyle" like they
covered African-American conservatives.

"We need to work on our conservative, alternate media and say,
'Look, don't do the pro-gay thing, why don't you rather step out
and support these ex-gays?' We should encourage Fox News to tell
their stories," Mr. LaBarbera said.  "Fox is now telling the
stories of black conservatives because the other media is not
doing that, we should all get on Fox and say, 'Come on, tell these
stories, these wonderful stories of happy men and women who have
left the homosexual lifestyle.'"

Mr. Scarborough, however, had a different plan for fighting what
Mr. LaBarbera had called "the pro-gay thing."

"Peter, the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have
talked about this a little bit," Mr. Scarborough pointed out.  "I
just wonder if you've explored that, talked to anyone about it."

The former Baptist pastor opined that "homosexuality much more
likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer.  And yet the
entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put
into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry
was held accountable for that."

"Yeah I think that's great," Mr. LaBarbera agreed.  "I would love
to see it. We always wanted to see one of the kid in high school
who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay,
then he comes down with HIV.  But we never really got the client
for that."


MORGAN STANLEY: Singapore Investors Can Pursue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris and Andrea Tan, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that a group of Singapore investors who lost money on $154.7
million in credit-linked notes were allowed by a U.S. judge to
pursue their lawsuit against Morgan Stanley as a group.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said on Oct. 17 the
18 plaintiffs may represent a class of all investors who bought
any of seven series of Pinnacle Notes issued in 2006 and 2007.
The investors including the Singapore Government Staff Credit
Cooperative Society Ltd. sued in 2010, claiming the notes were a
"bait and switch" scheme designed to benefit Morgan Stanley at the
expense of customers.  They claim New York-based Morgan Stanley
invested their principal in high-risk collateralized debt
obligations, against which Morgan Stanley made short bets.  Morgan
Stanley didn't disclose that it was a counter-party to the
agreements, meaning that for every dollar the investors lost, the
bank gained a dollar, the investors claim.

Mark Lake, a Morgan Stanley spokesman, declined to comment on the
ruling.  The firm has denied all wrongdoing in connection with the
Pinnacle notes.

In 2011 Morgan Stanley failed to win a Singapore court order
blocking the investors from suing outside the Asian city.

The bank is facing a separate lawsuit in New York by Singapore's
Hong Leong Finance Ltd. over claims it deceptively sold the
Pinnacle notes.  Hong Leong had a distribution agreement with
Morgan Stanley to sell about $72.4 million of the notes.

Singapore's financial regulator in 2009 banned 10 firms from
selling structured investments such as Pinnacle Notes after
investors claimed they were misled about products tied to Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc.  The ban was lifted in 2010 after the
institutions boosted internal procedures of their advisory
services across all investment products.

The case is Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 10-cv-08086,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismissed SSD Product Quality Claim Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court on January 9, 2013, dismissed a product
quality claim case against OCZ Technology Group, Inc., with
prejudice, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended February 28, 2013.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, alleging that certain of OCZ's SSDs
sold after January 1, 2011, did not meet certain speed and storage
criteria and, as a result, the Company supposedly engaged in
certain deceptive practices and violated various laws. Among other
things, the suit sought unspecified actual and compensatory
damages, as well as punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement,
and injunctive and other equitable relief. On January 4, 2013, the
parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and
Release (the "Settlement Agreement"), as a result of which the
individual plaintiff dismissed the case and released OCZ of all
liability in connection therewith.  The Settlement Agreement also
contains an agreement by Plaintiffs' Counsel that they did not
intend to file any claim against OCZ in connection with any of the
claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the
lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice on January 9,
2013.

OCZ Technology Group, Inc. (OCZ) designs, manufactures, and
distributes solid-state drives (SSDs) and computer components. OCZ
designs and manufactures SSDs in a variety of form factors and
interfaces including Serial advanced technology attachment (SATA),
serial-attached small computer system interface (SAS), peripheral
component interconnect express (PCIe), as well as the development
of flash management software, caching and virtualization software.
The Company is also a provider of flash controller silicon and
firmware for SSDs. In addition to SSD technology, OCZ offers power
management products. The Company focuses on two markets: hard disk
drive (HDD) replacement format market and storage area network
(SAN) acceleration/replacement market. On January 9, 2012, the
Company acquired Sanrad Inc. On October 24, 2011, it completed the
acquisition of certain assets from PLX Technology, Inc. On March
25, 2011, it completed the acquisition of 100% interests of
Indilinx Co., Ltd.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Proposed $7.5-Mil Settlement Under Negotiation
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to OCZ Technology Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing filed
earlier this month with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2013, the
Company is negotiating a $7.5 million agreement, in principle and
subject to court approval, to settle a consolidated shareholder
class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired OCZ common stock and/or call options between July 6, 2011
and January 22, 2013.

On October 11, 2012, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. C-12-05265-RS) against the
Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief
Financial Officer. Between October 12, 2012 and November 6, 2012,
a number of similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the same defendants. The shareholder class
action lawsuits have been consolidated as In re OCZ Technology
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-12-05265-RS, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 5, 2013. The
amended class action complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired OCZ common
stock and/or call options between July 6, 2011 and January 22,
2013. The amended complaint generally alleges that OCZ and the
individual defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding OCZ's business and financial results and seeks
unspecified money damages and other relief. The parties have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class
action. The proposed settlement of $7.5 million will be funded by
the Company's D&O liability insurance. The settlement may include
an additional payment of the lesser of $6 million or 4% of net
proceeds in the event that the Company or any portion of it is
sold within six months of an executed settlement agreement. The
settlement is subject to negotiation of final documentation and
court approval. There can be no assurance that the settlement will
be approved by the Court.

Between October 29, 2012 and December 14, 2012, three purported
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors. OCZ is named as a nominal defendant. The federal
derivative lawsuits have been consolidated as In re OCZ Technology
Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-
12-05556-RS (the "Federal Derivative Action"), and a consolidated
shareholder derivative complaint was filed on February 13, 2013.
The consolidated derivative complaint asserts claims for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment and generally alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material information
regarding the Company's business and financial results and failed
to maintain adequate internal and financial controls. The
consolidated derivative complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

In May 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle of the
Federal Derivative Action. The settlement is subject to court
approval. The proposed settlement includes, among other things,
our implementation of certain policies and procedures and the
payment of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel, which will be
funded by OCZ's D&O liability insurance. There can be no assurance
that the settlement will be approved by the Court.

On November 13, 2012, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit,
captioned Briggs v. Petersen, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-235866, was
filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors. OCZ is named
as a nominal defendant. The Briggs complaint asserts claims for
various alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment
and generally alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and future business prospects. On February 22, 2013, the court
entered an order granting the Company's motion to stay proceedings
in the Briggs action pending the resolution of the Federal
Derivative Action. On December 18, 2012 and January 23, 2013, two
purported shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Armstrong v.
Petersen, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-238051, and Kapoosuzian v.
Schmitt, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-240033, respectively, were filed
in Santa Clara County Superior Court against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors. OCZ is named
as a nominal defendant and/or party in the Armstrong and
Kapoosuzian actions. The Armstrong and Kapoosuzian actions have
been stayed pending the resolution of the Federal Derivative
Action pursuant to a stipulation and order entered in each action,
respectively.

OCZ Technology Group, Inc. (OCZ) designs, manufactures, and
distributes solid-state drives (SSDs) and computer components. OCZ
designs and manufactures SSDs in a variety of form factors and
interfaces including Serial advanced technology attachment (SATA),
serial-attached small computer system interface (SAS), peripheral
component interconnect express (PCIe), as well as the development
of flash management software, caching and virtualization software.
The Company is also a provider of flash controller silicon and
firmware for SSDs. In addition to SSD technology, OCZ offers power
management products. The Company focuses on two markets: hard disk
drive (HDD) replacement format market and storage area network
(SAN) acceleration/replacement market. On January 9, 2012, the
Company acquired Sanrad Inc. On October 24, 2011, it completed the
acquisition of certain assets from PLX Technology, Inc. On March
25, 2011, it completed the acquisition of 100% interests of
Indilinx Co., Ltd.


PILOT FLYING J: 91 Entities Opt-Out of Fuel Rebate Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsnet5.com reports that a proposed settlement deal in a class
action lawsuit filed by truckers against Browns owner Jimmy Haslam
and his company is falling apart.  The report says 91 "entities"
representing trucking companies have "opted out" of the proposed
settlement that awaits final approval by a federal judge in
Arkansas.

At a hearing in Knox County Circuit Court on Oct. 18, Pilot Flying
J attorney Albert Harb said the companies have informed both Pilot
Flying J and the court that they do not wish to be part of the
proposed settlement.

Mr. Harb said 91 entities represents the total number of
representatives of trucking companies that have "opted out" of the
settlement  in notifications sent to the court but that 14 letters
are related to the same trucking companies.

Mark Tate, an attorney representing several trucking companies
that have "opted out" of the settlement said "truckers are
realizing they would rather rely on their lawsuits than trust a
contrived settlement drawn up by Mr. Haslam and Pilot Flying J ".

It's believed at least 8 trucking companies will continue to take
part in the settlement that offers trucking companies 100 percent
of fuel rebates that were shorted as well as 6 percent interest.

Mr. Harb also told a Knoxville judge on Oct. 18 that the deal has
also attracted several customers who had previously sued Pilot
Flying J.  Companies had until Oct. 15 to "opt out" of settlement
and pursue their own legal fights.


POLASH INDIAN: Failed to Pay Class Minimum Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Enrique Vasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Polash Indian Cuisine & Restaurant Inc., Mohammed
Ahmed, and Siraj Uddin Islam, Case No. 1:13-cv-07144-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2013) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay him his
lawfully earned minimum wages, Mr. Vasquez alleges.  He contends
that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants (i) unpaid
minimum wages, (ii) unpaid overtime compensation, (iii) liquidated
damages, (iv) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (v)
attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Vasquez is a resident of Queens County, New York.  He worked
for the Defendants as a non-exempt dishwasher, kitchen helper/food
preparer and delivery person.

Polash is a domestic business corporation organized and based in
New York.  Mohammed Ahmed is the president and owner, shareholder,
director, supervisor, proprietor and managing agent of Polash.
Siraj Uddin Islam is the chief executive officer and an owner,
shareholder, director, supervisor, proprietor and managing agent
of Polash.  Messrs. Ahmed and Islam jointly exercised control over
the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's employment in that
they have the power and authority to hire and fire employees, Mr.
Vasquez says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


READING HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs Work During Lunch Breaks, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Neifert and Evelyn Santoro, on their own behalf and for all
others similarly situated v. The Reading Hospital and Medical
Center, Case No. 5:13-cv-05927-JKG (E.D. Pa., October 9, 2013)
accuses violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the FLSA by
permitting them and the Class members to regularly perform work-
related tasks during their unpaid lunch breaks without ensuring
that they were properly compensated for their shortened lunch
breaks.

Amanda Neifert is a resident of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
She has worked as a Registered Nurse for the Defendant since 2004.
As a Registered Nurse, Ms. Neifert's primary work responsibilities
include providing patient care and monitoring, administering
medicine to patients, monitoring blood-work and patient test
results, responding to emergency situations and interacting with
other hospital employees and visitors.

Evelyn Santoro is a resident of Berks County, Pennsylvania.  She
has worked as a Surgical Tech for the Defendant since 1997.  As a
Surgical Tech, Ms. Santoro's primary work responsibilities include
managing trauma cases, providing patient care, responding to
emergency situations and interacting with other hospital
employees.

Reading Hospital is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in
Berks County.  The Company manages and operates a 735-bed hospital
facility that provides a wide range of healthcare services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          KOLMAN ELY, P.C.
          414 Hulmeville Avenue
          Penndel, PA 19047
          Telephone: (215) 750-3134
          E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net


RESIDENTIAL CRF: Sued by Facility Workers in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Dewitt, Brenda Roulhac, Bridgitte Draper and Melissa Cagle,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Residential CRF, Inc. and Frederick A. Schilling, Case No. 5:13-
cv-00341-RS-GRJ (N.D. Fla., October 9, 2013) is brought on behalf
of house managers and direct care aides employed in the
residential facilities operated by the Defendants.

The Defendants operate three residential facilities for
developmentally and mentally disabled adults in Bay County,
Florida.  These adults reside on the premises of the residential
facilities.  The Defendants operate similar facilities in Indiana,
where their principal offices are located.  The Plaintiffs have
worked and work as Direct Care Aides and House Managers in the
residential facilities operated by the Defendants in Bay County.
The Plaintiffs provide or have provided direct care to the
residents of the facilities.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have been and are required to
sleep at the residential facilities without adequate sleeping
facilities with private quarters, without enjoying an
uninterrupted night's sleep, and without payment for all time for
which they provide direct care during the sleep time period, and
without any reasonable agreement that takes into consideration all
of the pertinent facts.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants have regularly employed all their Direct Care Aides and
House Manager in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and have not
paid them at a rate of one and one half times their regular rate
of pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Bonnie Dewitt has been continuously employed by the Defendants
from July 2010 to present.  During her employment, Dewitt has held
the positions of Direct Care Aide and House Manager.  Brenda
Roulhac was employed by the Defendants from July 2002 until April
2013.  During her employment she held the position of House
Manager.  Bridgitte Draper was employed by the Defendants from
January 2010 until February 2012.  During her employment she held
the position of Direct Care Aide.  Melissa Cagle was employed by
the Defendants from September 2009 until February 2013.  During
her employment, Cagle held the position of Direct Care Aide.

Residential CRF, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation doing
business in the state of Florida and Bay County.  Frederick A.
Schilling is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the
Regional Manager and Chief Financial Officer of Residential CRF.
He oversees, manages and has operational control over the day-to-
day operations of Residential CRF in Bay County, including the
sleep time, pay practices and the rates of pay of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Clark Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
          623 Beard Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 222-4770
          Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
          E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

               - and -

          Sean Culliton, Esq.
          SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
          2108 Delta Way
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 385-9455
          Facsimile: (850) 906-9455
          E-mail: sean.culliton@gmail.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Properly Pay Supervisors, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisette Adams and Granville McCollough v. The City and County of
San Francisco and The City and County of San Francisco Sheriff's
Department, Case No. 3:13-cv-04689-MEJ (N.D. Cal., October 9,
2013) is a collective action seeking damages resulting from the
failure and refusal of the Defendants to pay its Sergeants,
Lieutenants, Captains, and Chief Deputy Sheriffs (collectively,
"Supervisors") for all compensable work they have performed at the
proper rate of pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, and the San Francisco Minimum
Wage Ordinance.

The Department has failed to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Supervisors for all compensable time spent engaged in
certain pre- and post-shift activities, the Plaintiffs allege.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert, the Department has failed to
pay Supervisors for the time they spend conducting and attending
meetings before their shifts, referred to as "musters;" the time
they spend before their shifts preparing for musters and for
meetings that occur immediately at the beginning of their shifts;
the time they spend after their shifts conferring with incoming
Supervisors; and the time they spend donning and doffing their
uniforms and equipment.

Lisette Adams has worked as a Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain
for the Defendants from 2005 through the present.  Granville
McCollough has worked as a Sergeant for Defendants from 2005
through the present.

The City and County of San Francisco is and at all relevant times
has been a public agency and an employer covered by the FLSA, the
California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order 4, the IWC Minimum Wage
Order, and the San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance.  The City and
County of San Francisco Sheriff's Department is and at all
relevant times has been a public agency and an employer covered by
the FLSA, the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order 4, the IWC
Minimum Wage Order, and the San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip C. Monrad, Esq.
          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          Elizabeth Morris, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: pmonrad@leonardcarder.com
                  akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  lmorris@leonardcarder.com


STREAMLINE SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Overtime Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamonte Allen, Cameron Mack, Matthew Nix, Otis Phillips, and
Trevor Weiland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Streamline Security Services, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-
06559-FPG (W.D.N.Y., October 9, 2013) accuses the Defendant of
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the proposed class proper
overtime wages.

From August 2, 2013, through August 21, 2013, the Defendant
employed the Plaintiffs as security guards or security personnel
at the 2013 PGA Championship event at Oak Hill Country Club in
Rochester, New York.

The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to be paid at least
one and one-half of their respective regular rates of pay for each
hour in excess of 40 hours that they worked in any workweek
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  They allege
that the Defendant regularly fails to pay its employees one and
one-half times their regular hourly work rate for any hours that
they worked in excess of 40 hours.

The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of New York.  They
worked for the Defendant during the 2013 PGA Championship.

The Company is a New York corporation headquartered in Brooklyn.
The Company provides security services in New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth Joel Katz, Esq.
          Nicole D. Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          137 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
                  ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Expected to Appeal Consolidation Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that the apparent skirting of
overtime pay laws that appears as work performed off the clock has
rarely seen a bigger challenge than that of plaintiffs who have
launched a class-action lawsuit against one of the nation's
leading call centers.  According to various legal briefs, there
could be as many as 51,021 potential class members.

Massive Call Center Lawsuit Granted Conditional Status As Class
ActionOn October 3, US Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham in US
District Court, District of Minnesota granted conditional
certification for a class-action lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime
and hours spent performing unavoidable work for which, it is
alleged, there was no remuneration (CASE 0:13-cv-00946-JRT-JJG).
Further, a motion by defendants Sykes Enterprises Inc. (Sykes,
also known as SEI) and Alpine Access Inc. to have proceedings
consolidated in the state of Florida was denied.

Attorneys expect SEI to appeal the consolidation ruling, as it
pertains to location.

According to various court records, SEI is a large call center
enterprise serving Fortune 1000 companies in North America and
more than 20 other countries.  SEI employs scores of call center
associates in both brick-and-mortar call center facilities in the
US, as well as associates who work from home.

At issue is the length of time it takes for customer service
agents (CSAs) to boot up and log in to their systems in order to
begin providing service for clients.  The boot-up and log-in
process has been variously described as lengthy -- and there are
also claims that the process can occur two or three times in any
given workday.

The allegations are that CSAs are paid once they are finally
logged in and begin the actual process of providing service to
clients, but that there is no overtime pay or pay of any kind for
the time CSAs spend booting up their systems and logging in.

A similar allegation is that CSAs are not paid for time they spend
closing a call with a client, even though their computer
workstation has timed out the session and logged out
automatically.  Pay is therefore calculated based upon log-in and
log-out tracking, but not for actual prior work performed to
facilitate the log-in, or for time spent with a client or client
file following automatic log-out.

As SEI operates call centers in several states, the non-payment
for work performed relates to California overtime law.

The proposed class-action lawsuit relates to the increase in so-
called "donning-and-doffing" lawsuits, whereby plaintiffs believe
that a requirement by an employer to don and then doff specific
gear and/or clothing in order to perform their job function should
be duly paid as part of the job function.

In the same way, plaintiffs in the proposed SEI class-action
lawsuit believe they should be paid from the moment they sit down
and begin the boot-up and log-in process, as required to perform
their duties.  Plaintiffs also hold they should be paid up until
the time they finish serving clients, rather than at the point
when the system logs out automatically.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs define their collective
action as involving "All current and former Customer Service
Associates of Sykes Enterprises, Inc. and Alpine Access, Inc. who
during the last three years were not paid for off-the-clock work
during their preliminary 'boot-up' time and postliminary 'call
completion' time."

Court documents also reveal that different timekeeping systems are
employed throughout the system, stemming from Sykes' 2010 merger
with ICT Group, and later through Sykes' August 2012 acquisition
of Alpine Access.

Sykes Enterprises Inc., headquartered in Florida, owns Alpine
Access Inc. as a wholly owned subsidiary. Alpine is based in
Colorado. Sykes, however, submitted a motion to have the proposed
class consolidated in the state of Florida, where Sykes has its
headquarters in Tampa.

However, in her ruling, Magistrate Graham considered that Sykes
operates 22 brick-and-mortar call centers in 11 states, with at-
home CSAs employed in 45 states of the Union.  As a result, the
Court did not feel there was sufficient advantage or cause to have
proceedings moved to Florida.

The lead plaintiff in the proposed class-action lawsuit resides in
Minnesota.

The lawsuit established that unskilled, non-exempt call center
positions typically pay between $8.00 and $11.80 per hour --
higher than the federal minimum wage, but an effective wage that
could drop to or even below minimum wage when unpaid wages or
unpaid overtime is factored in.

Plaintiffs also note that their allegations dovetail with the US
Department of Labor Fact Sheet #64, issued in July 2008, to alert
workers to abuses identified as being prevalent in the industry.
One such abuse, according to the lawsuit, is an employer's refusal
to pay for work "from the beginning of the first principal
activity of the workday to the end of the last principal activity
of the workday."

Given the three-year window identified in the lawsuit, together
with the inclusion of both current and former employees of
SEI/Alpine Access, the potential punitive class amounts to 51,021
persons.  SEI reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2011.


SMARTHEAT INC: Wants Suit Over Sale of Insiders' Shares Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat Inc., on May 8, 2013, filed a motion to dismiss a second
amended complaint alleging insider sales or management sales of
securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales,
which is subject to a ruling from the Court, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, the
Company's President, and Michael Wilhelm, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though
they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class
period. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013,
under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James
Jun Wang, Smartheat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and
Bialowons as defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two
counts against the Company, both for violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on the grounds that, among other
things, the plaintiffs did not, in fact, allege that a member of
the Company's senior management team had sold their shares. The
motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the Company is waiting on a
ruling from the Court.

SmartHeat Inc., is a designer, manufacturer and seller of clean
technology plates heat exchangers and related systems marketed
principally in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Company's
products are used in the industrial, residential and commercial
markets to improve energy utilization and efficiencies, and to
reduce pollution by reducing the need for coal-fired boilers. The
Company designs, manufactures, sells and services plates heat
exchangers (PHEs), PHE Units, which combine PHEs with various
pumps, temperature sensors, valves and automated control systems
in systems custom designed by its own in-house engineers, heat
meters and heat pumps for use in commercial and residential
buildings. It also designs, manufacture and sells spiral heat
exchangers and tube heat exchangers. It sells its products under
its SmartHeat and Taiyu brand names and also sells PHEs under the
Sondex brand name as an authorized dealer of Sondex PHEs in China.


ST GEORGE, UT: Residents Sue Over Unreasonable Search & Seizure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Spectrum reports that two St. George residents have filed a
class-action lawsuit against the City of St. George, Mayor Dan
McArthur and city code enforcement officers over alleged
violations of the U.S. Constitution's protections against
unreasonable search and seizure by government officers.

The lawsuit by Jake and John Rowley was filed on Oct. 18 in Salt
Lake City's federal court through attorney Aaron Prisbrey, who in
recent weeks has urged St. George officials to amend the code's
provisions that allow enforcement officers to enter people's yards
without first obtaining a court-approved search warrant.

The enforcement officers investigate nuisances such as unkempt
weeds, trash, inoperable vehicles or other issues that might be
regarded as threats to the community's safety, health or property
values.

In the Rowleys' case, the brothers allege code officer Jeff Cottam
leaned over a fence on John Rowley's property in January to take
photos of alleged violations in the yard, and issued a subsequent
warning that fines of $25 to $50 per day could be levied if John
didn't resolve the violations.

After the officer allegedly made return visits to John's yard and
John filed a Justice Court lawsuit seeking to stop the visits, the
brothers claim a second code enforcement officer, Malcolm Turner,
began targeting John's brother Jake in another section of the city
"as part of a retaliatory and selective effort orchestrated by
(the city) to cause harm" to the family.

The Rowleys claim Turner entered Jake's yard in May to take photos
of alleged violations without a warrant authorizing him to do so.

A court hearing earlier this month determined the photos taken
during the January investigation would not be allowed as evidence
because they violated Rowley's Constitutional rights.

The federal class-action lawsuit against the city seeks repayment
of attorney fees and "nominal, compensatory, and punitive
damages," as well as a declaration that three provisions of the
code are unconstitutional because they allow enforcement officers
to "enter upon any property or premises to ascertain whether the
provisions of this code . . . are being obeyed."

The lawsuit states that a resident can refuse to allow an
enforcement officer on his or her property and require a search
warrant, but there are no requirements for a search warrant if the
homeowner is not home at the time of the investigation.

City Councilman Gil Almquist said on Oct. 19 that state law allows
municipalities to "do certain things regarding code enforcement,
and that includes going on to people's property."

Organized response

Mr. Prisbrey helped organize the Citizens Against Incumbent
Tyrannical Servants (CAITS) Institute last month as a group
dedicated to ensuring the philosophy of a limited, accountable
government.

The organization's founding statement on its Facebook page takes
issue with McArthur, claiming that since he took office about 20
years ago, "the city has enacted tyrannical government via its
fear-inducing city ordinances.  Under the guise of community
aesthetics, Mayor McArthur's 'goon squad,' i.e., code enforcement
officers, have terrorized the law-abiding citizens of this
community."

An Oct. 17 statement by Mr. Prisbrey on the webpage notes that he
had met with McArthur, City Manager Gary Esplin and the city's
legal department about code enforcement and that Mr. Esplin had
stated his office makes him responsible for any related problems
instead of the mayor.

"I think I am on board with that," he stated, a day before the
lawsuit was filed.

The Facebook page notes Mr. Prisbrey was going on a deer hunt this
weekend, and he did not respond to phone calls by The Spectrum on
Saturday for comment about the lawsuit.  But the Internet page
states CAITS discussed two "non-negotiable" issues with the city
officials.

First: "The past requires making amends for the warrantless
property searches. . . . Our final offer on that point is that the
City reimburse all fines to those citizens whose property was
illegally searched," Mr. Prisbrey states.

Second: "We discussed the future and how to deal with revamping
the code. . . . The rights of the property owners have been, to
this point, subservient to the neighbor's.  We need to weigh the
conflicting rights and pass ordinances that take everyone's rights
into consideration, which will heavily favor the property owner,
not the guy up the street."

Mr. Prisbrey stated later that after speaking with City Attorney
Shawn Guzman about the closed-door city council session, he was
informed the council "agreed to put all ordinances on the table
for modification or repeal and we will consider the property
interests of everybody involved, most importantly the property
owner."

Mr. Prisbrey stated the council was also discussing reimbursements
but was awaiting further information from the legal department
before proceeding.

On Oct. 18, however, Mr. Prisbrey posted that he had run into
Almquist, who informed him that the matter of reimbursement had
not been discussed.  Mr. Prisbrey stated he felt deceived.  Two
hours later, he posted that the lawsuit had been filed.

Mr. Almquist said on Oct. 10 that since Mr. Guzman had already
spoken to Prisbrey, he made a sympathetic comment about how
disappointed Prisbrey must be that he didn't get everything he
wanted out of the meeting because nothing was decided on.

"We didn't have enough facts to judge on the case yet," he said.

Mr. Almquist said he can't discuss specifics about what occurred
in the council's closed session, which is standard for meetings at
which pending legal action is discussed.  But Mr. Almquist noted
that the council is still seeking clarity on what Mr. Prisbrey
wants as far as reimbursement -- what period of time would be
examined and how people would prove they were wronged, for
example.

"People think of all sorts of ways to extract the citizens' money
out of the city. . . . Now (he wants) people to come forward and
we don't have any way to corroborate their claims," Mr. Almquist
said.  "There are a lot of people glad we've been enforcing the
code. . . . One person might come into a meeting and say, 'I was
wronged,' and another might stand up and say, 'Thank heavens that
mess is gone.'"
City ordinances

Among publicized complaints residents have made about city
ordinances in recent months, some have referred to what they
perceived as the city's lack of enforcement.

When a boulder rolled off the rim of St. George's East Ridge and
crashed into the wall of a home on the plain below earlier this
year, injuring a resident who had been sleeping inside, neighbors
complained that city had failed in its oversight of building
permits and code enforcement.

Assistant to the City Manager Marc Mortensen said builders and
home buyers were warned about the potential hazard of rock falls
in the area, but acknowledged the incident had prompted the city
to send out a letter warning residents that they are in violation
of city code if they have water pipes hanging over the ridge rim
to drain water onto the slope below.  The rock fall was eventually
found to be the result of water flow from a broken pipe, not one
of the evident drainage pipes.  But some residents in the
neighborhood below the hill said they had been asking St. George
code enforcement to deal with the drainage pipes for several
years.

One complaint that occurs in election years is that candidates
don't abide by the city's sign ordinance and code enforcement
officers don't respond to the problem.


SUSHI DEN: 4 Women File Sexual Harassment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Parker, writing for The Denver Post, reports that four women
have filed a class-action complaint against the popular Denver
restaurant Sushi Den, claiming sexual harassment and
discrimination.  The federal class-action complaint was filed on
Oct. 17 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against
Sushi Den and Izakaya Den.

According to the complaint, female employees at the restaurants
located at 1487 S. Pearl St. are sexually harassed by male
employees, passed over for promotions and consistently insulted by
the owner in front of customers.

One of the owners allegedly tells female employees they are not as
smart as the males and that women lack "common sense," according
to the complaint.  There are no female sushi chefs at either
location and only one female manager, according to the complaint.

Male staff members say sexual remarks and tell sexual jokes around
the females, which has been reported to managers, but ignored,
according to the complaint.  In addition, the women claim, two
pregnant female employees were allegedly told to hide their
stomach because they looked "sloppy."

Lawyers with King & Greisen are representing the women.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Objectors Won't Need to Post Bond
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that objectors to the $1.6 billion class action settlement with
Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden acceleration defects won't be
forced to post a bond pending their appeals, according to a
tentative ruling by a federal judge in California.

Fourteen groups of objectors challenged the settlement, filing
appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The plaintiffs' steering committee, faced with increased costs and
a possible year's delay in distributions to 22 million class
members, asked that the objectors post $7.5 million in bonds
pending their appeals.  U.S. District Judge James Selna, in an
order issued on Oct. 21, rejected that request, which he called
"clearly improper."

Steve Berman of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, co-lead
counsel on the plaintiffs' steering committee, did not respond to
a request for comment, and Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner
declined to comment.

Meanwhile, several of the objectors have withdrawn their appeals.

The settlement, which Judge Selna approved on July 24, resolves
claims by thousands of consumers alleging lost value to their
vehicles following the 2010 recalls for sudden acceleration
defects.

In their request for bond payments, the plaintiffs' steering
committee had asked each of the 14 objectors to pay $536,326, for
a total of more than $7.5 million.  They cited increased costs for
briefing and settlement administration.

Judge Selna found that the maximum each objector group could be
forced to pay in a bond would be less than $1,000, "and allowing
for the possibility that this amount may be further reduced due to
a consolidated appeal process, the Court is unconvinced that
imposition of any bond is warranted."

On Sept. 13, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' steering
committee's request to consolidate the briefing of the appeals but
revised its order after two groups sought to file independently.
Opening briefs are due on Feb. 3.

Seven groups of objectors dismissed their appeals on Oct. 17,
Oct. 18 and Oct. 21.  Although none gave reasons, mediation
proceedings took place with objectors on Oct. 7, according to
Ninth Circuit filings.

Among the concerns of the remaining objectors is a $30 million
automotive research fund in the settlement.  The objectors claim
the fund does not address defects in the electronic throttle
control system of Toyota vehicles -- the dispute at the heart of
the litigation.  Some objectors also raised questions about the
agreement's $200 million in lawyer fees.


UNITED STATES: Disabled Queens Residents Entitled to New Hearings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TimesLedger reports that a judge in Brooklyn federal court Oct. 18
approved a class action settlement against the Social Security
Administration, which denied claims to more than 4,000 disabled
Queens residents, who are now entitled to new hearings, the Urban
Law Center said.

The center filed the class action suit in 2011 alleging that five
administrative law judges handling cases on Social Security
disability claims were biased when they denied the Queens
residents benefits between January 2008 and the present.

Chief Judge Carol Bagely Amon in U.S. District Court held hearings
before the settlement agreement with the class action members, who
were overwhelming in favor, the center said.  The nonprofit
defends the rights of the city's poorest and most vulnerable
citizens.

Under terms of the settlement, the five administrative law judges
will undergo new training and be monitored for 30 months.

"Thousands of disabled workers suffering from financial hardship
and declining health will now receive long overdue consideration
of their claims, said Emilia Sicilia, director of the Disability
Advocacy Project at the Urban Justice Center.


WASHINGTON DC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Readers
----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Choi, writing for The Hoya, reports that five taxicab drivers
are suing the District Government of D.C. in a class action
lawsuit in response to the city's decision to mandate credit card
readers and a new standardized rooftop informational dome light
for all cabs.

The lawsuit was filed Oct. 9 by lawyer Billy Ponds, who is
representing drivers Choudhary Azam, Tariq Mahmood, Waleed
Mohammed, Ahmed Djebbour and Mohammed Akram, seeking an exemption
from the regulations for a class of as many as 2,000 drivers.

The lawsuit alleges that the D.C. Taxicab Commission is violating
the constitutional rights of drivers and passengers through the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Taxicab drivers were required to have installed the Modern
Taximeter System, which includes driver identification, GPS
tracking and a credit card reader, and dome lights by Oct. 1,
after which point non-complying taxicabs would be impounded and
fined.  This was the third extension granted to taxicab drivers,
120 days after the original June 1 deadline.

The plaintiffs, however, argue that the problem with the MTS is
not the time frame or the deadline, but rather the policy itself.

First, the lawsuit claims that the new dome lights are a form of
age and disability discrimination.  Under the previous system, the
lights had the option of showing "Taxi" or "Call 911," and a
button within the cab would make the "Call 911" sign flash when
the driver was in distress, medically or otherwise, alerting
passerby to call emergency services.  The new lights, however, can
only be operated by a device that is located on the dome light on
the roof of the vehicle and does not include a "Call 911" sign.

"The fact that you have to turn it on and off outside -- that's
not even safe," Bereket Araia, a D.C. taxicab driver who has
worked in D.C. for four years, told WTOP.

There is an alternative dome light that can be operated from
within the taxicab, but the lawsuit claims that it is much more
expensive.

"The new dome light requirement presents a cost prohibitive
imposition upon the taxicab drivers with a disability and presents
an employment obstacle because of the higher cost of the proper
equipment to accommodate their disability," the lawsuit reads.

In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the dome light would make
operations difficult for all drivers over 40 years of age. All
plaintiffs are older than 40.

Although DCTC spokesperson Neville Waters declined to comment on
the lawsuit to The Hoya, he told Washingtonian magazine that the
new dome lights are connected to the MTS, which can send emergency
alerts directly to the D.C. Office of Unified Communications.

The lawsuit also finds fault with the MTS' GPS tracking system,
which collects trip data for all rides on a smart chip.  According
to the lawsuit, the smart chip reveals the identity of passengers
that pay by credit card or debit card, as well as their pick-up
and drop-off locations, which it claims is an unreasonable
encroachment of the Fourth Amendment's definition of the natural
right of privacy.  The MTS will also have real-time tracking of
the taxi's location at any time.

Another complaint is that, in addition to any charges from the
payment service providers themselves, the drivers must pay an
additional 25 cent surcharge to DCTC for each cash or credit card
transaction, which the lawsuit labels a "draconian measure."  If
the driver does not pay this surcharge within a designated period
of time, DCTC will automatically deduct the amount due from the
driver's account.  If the account has insufficient funds, DCTC
will turn off the driver's meter, preventing him from picking up
any passengers.

"If I make a mistake and press this button [to start a fare], I'm
paying for a fare I didn't collect," Mr. Araia told WTOP.

The lawsuit claims that no privately or publicly traded businesses
in Washington, D.C., are subject to this type of automatic payment
to a D.C. agency.  In addition, no other D.C. agencies
automatically download all financial transaction records from any
businesses in the area.  The plaintiffs say these regulations are
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth
Amendment.

This lawsuit is the latest step in an ongoing battle between
taxicab drivers and the DCTC regarding the MTS, which was a large
step in the DCTC's effort to modernize the District's taxicabs.

According to the Associated Press, Mayor Vincent Gray deemed the
lawsuit "disappointing and misguided."

The lawsuit's hearing was originally scheduled for Oct. 18, but
with the federal government's recent shutdown, it has been
delayed.

Mr. Ponds, the lawyer on the case, did not respond to multiple
requests for comment.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Ice Cream Calories Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Oct. 17 dismissed a putative class action brought
by Weight Watchers International Inc. consumers who say some of
the company's diet foods are deceptively labeled, ruling the
customers haven't rigorously tested the calorie counts on those
foods.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini rejected the consumers'
tests showing that Weight Watchers diet ice cream bars had upwards
of 20 percent more calories than listed on the label, saying they
didn't meet the standards outlined in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act.

Named plaintiff Amy Burke did not test the Weight Watchers ice
cream bars under the five methods the FDCA allows for calorie
counts, and thus could not show that the ice cream bars would have
fallen outside the 20 percent "safe harbor" allowance in all five
tests, according to the ruling.

"Instead, Burke cites generally to laboratory tests performed 'in
accordance to, and in compliance of, FDA guidelines,'" Judge
Martini wrote.  "Burke's allegations are insufficient to allege a
violation of the FDCA."

The decision granting Weight Watchers' motion to dismiss is a
setback to consumers alleging that the diet company used deceptive
labeling and advertising to take advantage of diet-conscious
consumers looking to lose weight.

Ms. Burke brought the suit in October 2012 after a segment on the
"Today Show" investigating low-calorie ice creams found some
Weight Watchers' products had 16 percent more calories than listed
on the label.  Ms. Burke sent samples of the products to "one of
the nation's largest and most respected food testing firms," which
found the ice cream had up to 36 percent more calories than
listed, according to the complaint.

Ms. Burke has 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Meanwhile, Judge Martini rejected Weight Watchers' argument that
Burke didn't have standing to bring a claim against the entire
diet bar line because she only claimed to have purchased two
specific types.  The judge found that the basis for Ms. Burke's
claims was the same for the entire line of diet products and that
class certification was the proper time to determine standing.

But the judge sided with Weight Watchers' claims that part of the
complaint was prejudicial because its citation of the "Today Show"
segment did not mention the show's conclusion that the discrepancy
in Weight Watchers' products was legal under the FDCA's "safe
harbor" provision.

"The court finds that the allegations about the segment are
potentially inflammatory, and confusing and collateral," the judge
wrote.  "If the motion to strike were not moot, the court would
grant it."

Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached
for comment on Oct. 17.

Ms. Burke is represented by Caroline F. Bartlett and James E.
Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and Mark
S. Reich -- mreich@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

The defendants are represented by Michael R. McDonald --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com  -- J. Brugh Lower --
JLower@gibbonslaw.com -- and Melissa Catherine Dehonny of Gibbons
PC and Carmine Zarlenga -- czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer
Brown LLP.

The case is Burke v. Weight Watchers International, Inc. et al.,
case number 2:12-cv-06742, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


* Hawaii Sees Rise in Disability Claims & Labor Law Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Blakely, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that the
state of Hawaii will continue to see an increase in disability
claims, class-action lawsuits related to labor law and more legal
conflicts between companies who try to parse terms of various
noncompete contracts so they can secure the best and brightest
talent.

Those were some of the takeaways from Pacific Business News' Human
Resources Breakfast Seminar on Oct. 18 at the Plaza Club. Click on
the photo for a slideshow of the event.

Panelists Judy Bishop, president of Bishop & Co.; Jayson Miller,
chief operating officer of ProService Hawaii; and Anna Elento-
Sneed, an attorney with Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, answered HR
questions and shared their insights about the sector in a
conversation moderated by Editor-in-Chief Kevin Bumgarner.

"My sympathies go out to you if you're stuck in litigation; it
seems like everyone right now wants to sue," said Ms. Elento-
Sneed.  "There has been times where we hardly did litigation, and
now everyone seems to go straight to court."

Cases typical on the Mainland have spread to Hawaii, she noted.

"What has happened is Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
has decided that, in Hawaii, people who file workers' compensation
claims are entitled to unlimited leave of absence with guaranteed
reinstatement to their job," Ms. Elento-Sneed said.  "And when
they come back, you must hire or terminate who you hired to
replace them. There is a case going up the system on appeal, and
it is at the first level of appeal."

A shortage of skilled labor is a big factor behind the uptick in
cases of employers suing each other as they fight over talent, she
added.  And, it has also meant that employers need to focus more
on strategic planning on such things as retaining and recruiting
talented employees.  However, such tasks crucial to a company's
internal strength have become "low on the to-do list" for human
resources professionals who are weighed down with administrative
tasks.

"The legal, regulatory environment is getting increasingly
complex," said Miller.  "There is a ton of stuff for HR
professionals to think about and worry about.  Hiring and
retaining great people is not easy . . . there is risk that you
get metered into HR tactical work and you don't get to the
strategic stuff."

Miller tested that hypothesis and asked attendees to respond to a
three-fold question: Do you agree that talent is one of the most
valuable assets of a company? Do you think hiring and retaining
talent is a challenge? Are you able to prioritize retaining and
attracting talent as part of your core business strategy?

Most all attendees raised their hands to the first two questions,
while only a few raised their hand to the last question.

"That's bad," he said, noting that what will define a successful
organization in the coming years is one that is able to keep
talented people to drive growth.

How to go about recruiting and retaining was a whole other topic
discussed on Oct. 18.  Pulling in the right people starts with
small things like avoiding jargon and business "buzz words" in job
descriptions, and knowing the right questions to ask while
conducting interviews.

"The No. 1 way to find employees is not calling recruiting firms,
not posting a job description -- it's networking," added
Ms. Bishop.  "Reach out to your networks."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cape Intermediate Settles Suit Over Poisoning
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a woman who has terminal cancer after making
asbestos "snowballs" with dust from a local factory as a child has
received a "substantial" payment from its parent company.

Caroline Wilcock grew up by an asbestos plant in Bowburn, County
Durham.  Now living in London, she said: "I feel I had a
responsibility to the community I grew up in to pursue my claim."

Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc -- previously known as The Cape
Asbestos Company -- settled out of court.

Miss Wilcock's claim stated she suffered from asbestos poisoning
between 1967 and 1983.

                            'Exposed'

The 51-year-old was diagnosed with the fatal lung condition
mesothelioma three years ago.

"My case establishes that the people of Bowburn were exposed to
the dangers of asbestos over forty years ago and were largely
unaware or unable to do anything to protect themselves and their
children," she said.

"I am angry that I and other children came into contact with
asbestos whilst playing in our village and around our homes and
feel certain that my case will not be in isolation."

Local knowledge gathered for the case included recollections of
children using asbestos dust on window ledges and cars for
"snowballs".

Others are said to have written messages in it, or used lumps that
fell from the plant's wagons as an alternative to chalk.

The firm that operated the factory no longer exists so Miss
Wilcock's claim was made against its successor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Remover Called in to Assist in Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Dunn, writing for Nelson Mail, reported that specialist sub-
contractors were brought in to assist with the demolition of
historic Dalton House, in New Zealand, because of the presence of
asbestos.

According to the report, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
manager Brandon Kay said the board knew their property contained
asbestos early on. Dalton House is part of Nelson Hospital, and
was built on Franklyn St in 1915.

The two-storey building housed nurses until the 1960s, after which
it was used for a variety of purposes. Staff were moved out of the
unreinforced masonry building after the 2011 Christchurch
earthquake and the board decided it was not possible to strengthen
it to the required standards.

The Historic Places Trust opposed the demolition of the category
two historic building last year, but a Nelson City Council
committee gave consent.

Mr Kay said the board brought in a consultant to inspect Dalton
House for asbestos and advise on its removal, saying this was a
priority during the demolition.

Richmond building company Anchor Construction was engaged to carry
out the demolition and brought in a sub-contractor who specialised
in asbestos removal to deal with the hazardous material as it
became accessible.

Mr Kay confirmed that all work on the site complied with the
Health and Safety in Employment Act and OSH regulations around
asbestos.

Ministry of Health resources say asbestos is a health risk when
inhaled as a fine dust. Larger fibres tend to be cleared by
protective mechanisms in the lungs and upper respiratory tract,
but fine asbestos fibres can become deposited in the lungs, or
penetrate further into the body.

Asbestos can cause asbestosis, or scarring of lung tissue;
malignant tumours in the intestines or lungs; thickening of the
membranes around the lungs and lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Offers Payment Plan to Help Families
------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center is now offering to the
families of any diagnosed victim of mesothelioma or asbestos
exposure related lung cancer, that worked in the building or
construction industries, a tailor-made financial compensation plan
that includes instant access to the nation's most skilled
mesothelioma or asbestos exposure lung cancer law firms. The only
requirement needed is an actual diagnosis of mesothelioma or
asbestos exposure from a medical doctor -- an asbestos exposure
notation must be included on the medical records.

For families that have this type of information, the lung cancer
asbestos victims center is offering to do the following:

   * Make certain the diagnosed lung cancer victim with
     mesothelioma or related asbestos exposure has instant assess
     to the nation's most skilled mesothelioma compensation
     attorneys, or asbestos exposure law firms with one call to
     866-714-6466. No other group offers this service.

   * Make certain the families of the diagnosed victim has a
     medical power of attorney.

   * Make certain the victim has access to the nation's leading
     mesothelioma or asbestos exposure lung cancer treatment
     centers.

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Our initiative is
not just about mesothelioma, it is about all types of lung
cancers. As long as the common denominator is exposure to asbestos
at the workplace, the center encourages diagnosed lung cancer
victims, or their family members, call the Lung Cancer Asbestos
Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.

Important note from the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center:

"According to the US Centers for Disease Control the following US
states have the highest incidence of lung cancer or mesothelioma:
California, New York, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, Washington, and Alaska."

High-risk workplaces for asbestos exposure include: US Navy,
shipyards, power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants,
oil refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing
facilities, construction work sites, railroads, automotive
manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops. With mesothelioma,
or lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure, the cancer may not
show up until decades after the exposure. As long as the victim or
their family members can prove evidence for the exposure to
asbestos, the center will do everything possible to help get what
might be significant financial compensation."

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

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

For attribution purposes the National institute of Health has very
good general information about lung cancer, and asbestos exposure:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/asb/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Law Claims Survive LIPA's Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has
refused to dismiss Labor Law asbestos claims against Long Island
Power Authority in light of testimony that the owner dictated what
type of insulation to use on its premises.

According to the report, in the Sept. 30 decision, the New York
Supreme Court for New York County found that the decedent's own
testimony that the "owner or general contractor" told him what
type of insulation to use during the course of his employment.

National Grid Generation, f/k/a Long Island Power Authority, moved
to dismiss the claims, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kidderminster Doctor's Surgery Closing for Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Tomaney, writing for The Shuttle, reported that a doctor's
surgery in Kidderminster, in Worcestershire, England, will be
temporarily closed and relocated after asbestos was found in the
building's cellar.

According to the report, GPs and practice staff at Linden Avenue-
based Stanmore House Surgery, which has a registered list of 8,000
patients, will be based at the Hume Street Medical Centre, Hume
Street, for about four weeks from November 4.

The temporary move will all essential maintenance work to be
carried out on the original site, the report related.

Dr Chris Chamberlain, one of the GP partners at Stanmore House
Surgery, said: "During recent maintenance work, asbestos was found
in the cellar at Stanmore House.

"The asbestos was immediately contained in-line with Health and
Safety Executive regulations and the cellar was closed off."

He said the move to Hume Street would "enable us to provide on-
going healthcare for our patients" and added: "I would like to
reassure everyone there is no danger to any patients who have
visited our surgery in recent months.

"The asbestos was identified and assessed on the same day and has
been safely contained until the removal work starts in November.

"During October, letters are being given out to patients and local
pharmacies will also be handing out information to patients
collecting their prescriptions so as many people as possible are
aware of our move to temporary accommodation."

Practice manager Shirley Mackay added: "We will be working hard to
maintain our service at all times, however we would ask patients
please be aware there may be some delays due to an increase in the
number of telephone calls."

She said doctors would be moving back into Stanmore House as soon
as all of the work was completed and confirmed the Health and
Safety Executive and Care Quality Commission had been informed of
the move.

From November 4, Stanmore House patients wanting to make an
appointment with their GP should call 07516 850104, 07516 850529
or 07516 851796.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Deadly Dust in Manchester
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Nicholls, writing for Safety Sign Supplies, reported that an
asbestos specialist has been fined after workers were exposed to
dangerous fibres at a Manchester college, in England.

According to the report, Steven Kelly was prosecuted by the Health
and Safety Executive after three men were seen without adequate
protective clothing in Trafford College, Stretford.

Winsulate attempted to remove asbestos but ignored the company's
procedures on working with the substance, the report related.

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."

Ms Moran explained that asbestos can only be removed by specialist
contractors, adding that Mr Kelly put workers at risk by not
adhering to safety procedures.

Roughly 4,000 people die annually due to breathing in asbestos
fibres, meaning it is the biggest single cause of work-related
deaths in Britain.

Fibres can become lodged in the lungs, causing lung cancer or
other diseases. ADNFCR-2754-ID-801649014-ADNFCR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovators Playing Russian Roulette With Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Nicolas, writing for 7News Adelaide, reported that experts
have warned that home renovators are not undertaking proper
precautions with asbestos and are not only putting themselves at
risk, but their families as well.

According to the report, while it is no longer manufactured in
Australia, asbestos remains a sleeping giant in a third of the
nation's homes.  There are fears a new generation of 'do-it-
yourself' renovators has no idea what they are disturbing, the
report said.

"A lot of young people are doing this and they need to know what
they are dealing with," asbestos removalist Wendy Tredinnick said.

Terry Miller from the Asbestos Victims Association was diagnosed
with asbestosis almost a decade ago after working at James
Hardie's factory in Adelaide's northern suburbs for 20 years.

His wife died 15 years ago from an asbestos-related lung disease.
She had never worked with the material, but was regularly washing
fibres out of her husband's clothes.

"You don't need much exposure," Mr Miller said.

"It's not just the person doing the job, it could be one of their
kids crawling on the floor, could be the wife breathing it in."

A survey of 1500 home renovators in New South Wales found only 12
per cent regularly wore respiratory devices - a trend experts say
reflects the country.

"Hardly a week goes by here that we don't get a phone call from
someone saying 'we just started doing this and pulled a sheet off
the bathroom wall and there's asbestos stickers on the back'," Ms
Tredinnick said.

Asbestos can be found under floor coverings, particularly on the
back of lino, behind walls and even as insulation in ceilings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royston Man Seeks Compensation for Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Dunne, writing for Royston Crow 24, reported that a man
exposed to asbestos more than 30 years ago is seeking compensation
after becoming ill, he believes, as a result of the exposure.

According to the report, Alan Kendall, 65, of Royston, in
Northhertfordshire, in England, was diagnosed with pleural
thickening, an asbestos related illness, in March and retired from
his job in July.  His job had involved breaking up large blocks of
asbestos into small pieces before feeding the material into a
hopper to be ground up and mixed with cement, the report related.
The asbestos material was eventually replaced by a safer
substitute material but he believes by this point the damage had
already been done.

His brother, Kenneth Jenkins, said: "I feel that his company has
let him down and that justice needs to be served. He was not given
the proper protection and his health was put at great risk. We
want him to get everything he deserves. Companies cannot be
allowed to treat their employees this way and just brush off their
responsibilities."

Mr Kendall was unavailable to comment due to his illness.

His lawyer, Andrew James, said: "He is currently suffering with
breathlessness and a dry cough and is now seeking to bring a claim
for compensation for the injuries that threaten to ruin his
retirement.

"He was never warned of the dangers of asbestos and the only mask
he was ever given was a paper style mask without any kind of
respiratory filter."

Mr Kendall is currently awaiting further tests to determine the
extent of the disease found in his lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Dangerous Fibers Found at Proposed Mine Site
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Simonson, writing for HaywardWI.com, reported that Northland
College Geoscience Professor Tom Fitz has found four more areas
with asbestos-like fibers in the Penokee Hills, in Wisconsin.

According to the report, Fitz initially found fibers a week ago in
an old U.S. Steel rock sampling site in Ashland County. He found
four more places within a third of a mile from the sampling site
with grunerite rock, all in Ashland County. Grunerite contains
asbestos-form fibers.

"Long, slender fibers of grunerite are dangerous, and that's what
this is," says Fitz, the report related.  "It hasn't been proven
to be dangerous but there is mineral in this rock that is
potentially hazardous if it becomes airborne. So precaution is
needed here."

Fitz says this was found in the bedrock, not loose rock, so it
couldn't be planted there.

Fitz also took pictures and made observations in three other old
rock sampling pits in the eastern area of the proposed mine in
Iron County. He didn't find any grunerite in that section.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe Environmental Director
Cyrus Hester was along on this hike. He says the additional
findings are a warning.

"There's going to be detailed investigation, as the DNR has
indicated previously, to characterize the distribution and
abundance of yet another mineral that could be a potential
environmental, or in this case, public health concern," says
Hester.

Meanwhile, because of the findings of asbestos-form fibers, the
Sierra Club is calling for an independent study of that rock
formation, and not just studies by mining company Gogebic
Taconite.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coolidge School Fibro Cleanup on Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghin Delaney, writing for PressConnects.com, reported that
school officials are increasingly confident that students
displaced by an asbestos discovery at Calvin Coolidge Elementary
School, in Shresbury, Massachusetts, can return in December.

According to the report, the cleanup is progressing on schedule,
and students and staff are expected to be back as originally
scheduled, officials reported at a board meeting.

"We're hoping, by the next board meeting, we'll have a move-in
date," said Karry Mullins, assistant superintendent for
administration, the report related.  The next board meeting will
be Nov. 19.

The Robinson Street building was separated into three sections for
cleanup after unsafe levels of airborne asbestos were confirmed in
the building in August. The front section of the building has been
cleared of asbestos, and workers are putting new carpeting and
ceiling tile into that section, Mullins said.

"We're happy with the progress," she said.

The temporary plan was put in place after disturbed asbestos was
confirmed in the basement crawl space of the building. Unsafe air
levels in the entire building, except the gym and the cafeteria,
were confirmed on Aug. 7. Officials sealed off the building that
day.

Until the building is ready to go, kindergarten students are
attending Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School, the closest
elementary school to Coolidge, about 1-1/2 miles away.

First-graders are at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School, about four
miles from Coolidge.

Students in grades two through four are with administrators at
Columbus School on Hawley Street, approximately two miles from
Coolidge.

Fifth-graders are attending East Middle School, about a half-mile
from Coolidge.

                        Independent audit

Meanwhile, an independent audit showed progress in the district's
finances, with a report citing only minor issues related to funds
for student clubs.

Cheryl DiStefano, a partner at Vieira and Associates, presented
the independent audit committee with the results in a meeting
prior to the regularly scheduled board meeting. She had no
management comments for the district as a whole, but had
recommendations on dealing with student clubs.

Several clubs and activities had no movement in terms of their
finances in the last fiscal year, DiStefano said.

"My recommendation is the district look into these clubs. If they
are not active clubs, they should be removed," she said.

Mullins reported district officials are meeting with school
officials to learn whether the clubs are active or whether
leftover funds from those clubs should be redistributed.

DiStefano said there were no reports of fraud or wrongdoing by the
district.

Board member Thomas Scanlon said he was satisfied to learn the
district made strides in overseeing its finances. Scanlon relayed
DiStefano's comments to the board during the regularly scheduled
meeting.

"We've been improving," he said. "These audits give us a feeling
of what's going on."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Chemicals Found at Lindey Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------
Kalia Baker, writing for WJFW.com, reported that a downtown
eyesore in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, will now cost the city even
more money.

According to the report, Lindey Cleaners has been vacant and
deteriorating since 2009.

Now, the worst type of asbestos found at the old cleaners is
causing more problems, the report related.

Asbestos isn't the only issue. Chemicals that were used at the
cleaners while they were in business are also very dangerous.

The cost to finish it is more than $4,000. Administrators want the
clean-up to happen without taking too much money from the city's
general fund.

The city hopes a state grant will help cover clean-up costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents, Students Concerned on Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Gibbs, writing for ABCLocal.com, reported that the health
of hundreds of students is under the microscope as Chapel Hill
High School, in North Carolina, is dealing with asbestos and mold.

According to the report, mold was removed from this school just
last month, which closed its library. Now, old floor tiles are the
latest concern. Both are raising questions about one of the school
system's oldest buildings.

"The sign on the door showed that asbestos was in the classroom
and it could potentially cause cancer and we weren't notified,"
said parent Robert Johnson, the report related.

The photo showed a classroom that was sealed off to students and
staff for fear of asbestos contamination. As a precaution, work
crews conducted air quality tests that showed no threat to
students or staff.

"I think they should notify us more frequently, especially when it
comes to asbestos," said Johnson. "They notified us of the mold
issue with the library, but they didn't notify of this issue."

The school system said it issues a notice of asbestos containing
materials at its schools every year but admits older school
buildings like Chapel Hill High have become a problem.

"The current Chapel Hill High opened in 1966. It has become an
expensive and challenging facility to sustain, as have many of our
older buildings," said the district in a statement. "It is in need
of substantial repairs. Our district has recently initiated a
community conversation regarding how we will move forward with
renovations and increasing student capacity in the coming years."

In the case of Chapel Hill High, it would cost the school system
at least $10 million to make a laundry list of repairs, and up to
$19 million to make repairs and new additions to the school. It
would also cost $47 million to tear down one of its oldest school
buildings to make way for a new one.

Meanwhile, asbestos removal will continue on the weekends only,
not when students are in school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Townsville Courthouse
---------------------------------------------------------
Allyson Horn, writing for ABC News, reported that the discovery of
asbestos has forced the Townsville, Australia Courthouse to close.

According to the report, the Department of Justice says the deadly
fibres were exposed during repair work to benches in several
courtrooms.

Legal cases have been adjourned until a later date, the report
related.  It is not known how long the closure will last.

David Mackie from the Department of Justice says efforts are in
place to keep disruption to a minimum.

"So my understanding at this point in time is there are three
matters in the District and Supreme Court over the next two days,"
he said.

"They'll be adjourned.

"The magistrates court, the high volume court, they're having
call-overs at the front of the building.

"A magistrate will intercept people as they come in and there'll
be call-overs for the next two days."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined GBP20,000 for Exposing Fibro Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo reported that a England firm has been fined
GBP20,000 after exposing nearly 200 workers and visitors to the
risk of dangerous asbestos fibres at its premises near Consett.

According to the report, Sunderland-based Romag also ignored
recommendations from its own safety advisors to cordon off a
contaminated area and arrange for an emergency clean-up by
specialists.

The Health and Safety Executive investigated the incident, which
was triggered by two fire alarm installers when they started some
work at the firm's Princess Building on Leadgate Industrial Estate
on July 12, 2011.

Consett Magistrates' Court heard on October 14 that the two
subcontractors, who had been told the building was free from
asbestos, unknowingly drilled through an asbestos insulation panel
while installing fire sensors.

They then used a domestic vacuum cleaner to clean up the dust and
debris and later used it in several parts of the building as they
put up the sensors, spreading asbestos fibres around the premises.

The court was told the asbestos disturbance was discovered the
next day but Romag Ltd failed to take any appropriate action for
at least nine days, even though its own health and safety advisors
had urged it to cordon off and lock down the area and arrange for
an emergency clean-up and air clearance test.

The HSE found the firm's delay in taking action led to 180 workers
and 16 visitors being put at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

When the clean-up was organised, a substantial amount of
contaminated material was collected.

HSE Inspector Paul Miller said: "Any company that intends to do
work to the fabric of a property built prior to the year 2000 must
ensure that they have taken all reasonable steps to check whether
asbestos is present before any work starts."

Romag Ltd, of Emperor Way, Sunderland pleaded guilty to breaching
the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The company was fined GBP20,000 and ordered to pay GBP12,638 in
costs.

Phil Murray, managing director of Romag, said: "After a full
review corrective action was taken to resolve the issue and
procedures are now in place to prevent any further incidents.

"Romag is committed to the health and safety of our staff,
visitors and external contractors on our premises and are
continually working to improve standards in relation to this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Blaze in Roof of Worksop Building
--------------------------------------------------------
Nottingham Post reported that fire crews tackled an asbestos blaze
in the roof of a derelict building in Worksop, Nottinghamshire,
England, on Oct. 14.

According to the report, the building in Clarence Road caught fire
at around 4pm. Flames engulfed the roof.

Two unidentified cylinders were found in the building as
firefighters rushed to keep the blaze under control.

Two fire crews from Worksop arrived at the scene and called for
back-up before four more engines arrived.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Rocks Won't Stop Wisconsin Mine
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ivey, writing for The Capital Times, reported that despite
what one geologist calls an "abundant" quantity of asbestos-like
mineral on the site, Gogebic Taconite has no plans to abandon
efforts to develop a $1.5 billion open pit iron ore mine in
northern Wisconsin.

According to the report, Bob Seitz, a spokesman for Gogebic
Taconite, said there are ways to address the release of any
asbestos during the mining process, where rocks are crushed and
the iron ore extracted with magnets. He says it could as simple as
using water to control dust at the site.

"If it's something we can handle and if we can demonstrate this to
the state and federal governments, then we can move ahead," says
Seitz. "We'll continue to do scientific testing as required by
law."

A pair of scientists have found at least 100 pounds of asbestiform
grunerite in two piles within an old test pit in eastern Ashland
County. The discovery is being called a game changer by mine
opponents and has brought calls for GTac to stop work on a project
supporters say could create hundreds of new jobs and boost the
Wisconsin economy.

Grunerite is commonly known as "brown asbestos" and has been
linked to lung disease in mine workers, according to a study in
Minnesota. Grunerite is also similar to asbestiform particles
found in the taconite tailings once dumped into Lake Superior by
Reserve Mining, one of the costliest environmental cleanups in
U.S. history in the 1970s.

Seitz is familiar with those issues but says mining operators in
Minnesota today are familiar with handling the hazardous material
and expects that similar procedures can work in Wisconsin.

"They treat it like any other workplace issue," he said. "It's
been found in parts of the Mesabi Range and they've dealt with it
there."

Concerns over the mine project have intensified in the past week
following a report in the Ashland Daily Press that UW-Madison
Geochemist Joseph Skulan and Northland College Geologist Tom Fitz
identified at least 100 pounds of grunerite on the mining site. It
is the same mineral identified by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey.

The Bad River Tribe, which has opposed the project from the
outset, has since accused GTac of covering up the issue as part of
its public relations campaign to build support for the project. In
July, the company wrote the DNR saying it did not think there was
any asbestos on the site, even though a staff geologist suspected
it following a site visit this spring.

"It's a deal breaker," said Bad River tribal chairman Mike Wiggins
in a statement. "Geologists and children could walk in there and
see it with the naked eye. This is a compelling, premeditation for
disaster, a disaster that would befall the Bad River Reservation
and non-tribal people of the Bad River Watershed."

The Penokee Hills Education Project has also called for the
project to be tabled because of asbestos issues.

Dave Blouin, a mining expert with the Madison chapter of the
Sierra Club, doesn't dispute there are ways to safely handle
asbestos at the mine site, but says those methods may be too
expensive to make the project financially viable.

"Even if you can engineer your way out of it, there are huge costs
involved," he says.

Moreover, given the glut of iron ore on world markets, Blouin
questions whether investors would ever take a chance at a
Wisconsin mine site where asbestos might prove a risk.

"There are much more attractive options out there if you are
looking for an iron play," he says.

The 2003 Minnesota study being cited by mining opponents concluded
that exposure to asbestos was the most likely cause of 14 of 17
cases of mesothelioma, a rare form of lung cancer. The study also
found that mesothelioma occurs at twice the expected rate among
the population of the northeastern region of Minnesota where the
Iron Range is located.

GTac spokesman Seitz says he is familiar with that study but noted
that spouses of mine workers did not appear to suffer any health
impacts, suggesting that any exposure to hazard materials is
limited to the mining site itself and can be managed.

GTac earlier said it did not believe asbestos was at the site,
based on exploratory work done by U.S. Steel several decades ago.
U.S. Steel had the mineral rights for the site in the 1950s but
never developed the mine, choosing instead to develop in Minnesota
where the ore body was closer to the surface.

Asbestos is a set of naturally-occurring silicate minerals that
became increasingly popular as a building material in the late
19th century for its sound absorption, resistance to fire and low
cost. It was widely used as electrical insulation and in building
insulation.

But in the early 20th century, researchers began to note lung
problems and early deaths in asbestos mining towns. Despite those
concerns, thousands of tons of asbestos were used in World War II
shipbuilding. Later studies found 14 deaths from mesothelioma per
1,000 shipyard workers.

As worker safety and environmental concerns increased in the
1960s, efforts began to reduce public exposure. By the late 1970s,
court documents proved that asbestos industry officials knew of
asbestos dangers since the 1930s but had concealed them from the
public, sparking lawsuits that continue today.

All European countries and much of the developed world have since
banned asbestos. The U.S. has tight regulations on asbestos but
not an outright ban, despite numerous attempts at legislation. It
is still used here in brake pads, automobile clutches, roofing
materials, vinyl tile and in some imported cement pipe and
corrugated sheeting.

While any mention of asbestos causes great concern in this
country, asbestos is still widely used in other places and is
commercially mined in Russia. The New York Times recently detailed
the asbestos industry in Russia, noting that the mines there are a
major health concern both for workers and those living nearby.

Russia has the world's largest geological reserves of asbestos and
mines about a million tons a year, exporting about 60 percent of
it. Demand remains strong for asbestos in China and India, where
it is still widely used in insulation and building materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust May Delay Willow Road Widening Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Robb, writing for Journal & Topics, reported that asbestos,
discovered on the Willow Road bridge, may delay completion of the
Willow Road widening project by several months.

According to the report, the Illinois Dept. of Transportation is
in the midst of widening Willow Road from just east of Waukegan
Road to the Edens Expressway. It will expand parts of the road
from one lane to two lanes in each direction.

Original schedules predicted a fall 2014 project completion date.
Schedules have not been updated said senior project managers.
Recently asbestos was found in an AT&T utility on the Willow Road
bridge over the North Branch of the Chicago River. Work has been
halted in the area until the asbestos can be abated, IDOT Project
Manager Beth Rahe said.

The bridge needs to be removed before new large storm and sanitary
sewer lines can be installed, Rahe said.

The bridge cannot be removed, nor new sewer lines installed until
the asbestos abatement is complete. Rahe said AT&T is in the
process of starting the bidding process on the abatement.

A best-case scenario would see the abatement work take place in
mid-November. Rahe cautioned schedules are still preliminary and
had not been updated.

Once the asbestos work is finished and the bridge is removed,
crews can begin installing very large storm and sanitary sewer
lines. Rahe said it could be December before that work begins.
Crews can work on the sewer installation project in some degree of
winter cold, although extreme conditions could halt work.

In some ways, Rahe said cold weather which solidifies mud can make
it actually easier in some ways for crews working deep in the
trench, protected from driving winter winds. Crews who are
supporting those deep in the trenches were Rahe's larger concern.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Dumped in Maitland Streets
-------------------------------------------------------
Belinda-Jane Davis, writing for The Maitland Mercury, reported
that a driver who dumped a truck load of deadly asbestos in two
suburban streets near Maitland, Australia, has put at least 50
lives at risk.

According to the report, police have appealed to the public for
information to identify the person who drove a tip truck into
Central Avenue in Tarro at 9.30pm on Oct. 15 and started releasing
building material onto the middle of the road.

Residents heard the noise and went outside to investigate which
startled the driver.  They were shocked to see the material being
dumped within metres of their homes and were immediately concerned
for their health and that of their children.

The driver became startled and sped out of the street with
asbestos hanging off the back of the truck.  The driver turned
onto Anderson Drive and then onto Woodberry Road where the rest of
the load was dumped.

Hazmat crews confirmed the material was asbestos when they arrived
after a triple-0 call from Central Avenue residents.  The crews
wore protective suits and breathing masks to clean up the mess and
it was disposed of correctly at a Newcastle City Council waste
facility.

NSW Environmental Protection Authority officials have repeatedly
said that illegally dumped asbestos poses a serious risk if the
fibres become airborne.

This is why EPA regulations state asbestos must be wetted and
sealed in heavy-duty plastic before it is taken to an appropriate
waste facility.

Central Hunter crime manager Detective Inspector John Zdrilic said
the driver had shown no concern for the health of residents in the
two streets.  He appealed for information to help police identify
the driver.

"The residents have possibly breathed in those particles and what
about the children?" he said.

Inspector Zdrilic said the asbestos particles could have been
carried through the air and there was no way of knowing how far it
had spread.

"We need anyone who saw this truck or knows who the driver was to
come forward," he said.

Environment Minister and Maitland MP Robyn Parker was concerned a
person had dumped the deadly material near peoples' homes.

She said  new laws were the strongest in the country and repeat
offenders could be given a two-year jail sentence.

The offence carries a penalty of $1 million for corporations and
$250,000 for individuals.

"Illegal dumpers have been put on notice by the NSW government --
we will not tolerate any behaviour that puts the health of the
environment or the community at risk," she said.

The EPA ran a campaign last year to try to tackle the unlawful
behaviour and now has the power to seize vehicles used for illegal
dumping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Scare at Latrobe Power Station
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Charalambous, writing for Latrobe Valley Express,
reported that 12 maintenance workers on a shut-down at Hazelwood
Power Station, in Victoria, Australia, may have been exposed to
asbestos, a union has revealed.

According to the report, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
organiser Steve Dodd said the asbestos was discovered after there
was a procedural failure associated with the removal of the
harmful fibre from a workspace at unit six.

"This area was supposed to be stripped of asbestos and guys were
sent up to work and the gear hadn't been packed up," Mr Dodd said.

"We're working on getting a streamline procedure in dealing with
asbestos in future."

It is understood workers were immediately cleared from the area of
the potential exposure and the incident has partly halted the
maintenance shut which began six weeks ago.

Mr Dodd said GDF Suez Hazelwood had dealt with the incident well.

"Hazelwood have stopped the job, they're assessing and making sure
procedures are followed in the future," he said.

"We've been out there meeting with Hazelwood, the contractor,
health and safety representatives and shop stewards for the last
two days trying to assist with the process."

A Hazelwood spokesperson said the gasket where the asbestos was
exposed was immediately sealed and air-sampling in the surrounding
found no evidence of airborne material.

"The union representing the workers was not satisfied with the
original sampling conducted on the material, which identified a
small amount of white asbestos," the spokesperson said.

"GDF Suez Hazelwood has arranged an additional sampling of
material found."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro "Released" During Launceston Barn Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Cornwall reported that asbestos "may have been released"
during a blaze at a barn in Cornwall, United Kingdom, the fire
service has said.

According to the report, firefighters were called to the building
at South Petherwin, near Launceston, at about 00:30 BST, on Oct.
16.

A Cornwall Fire Service spokesman said the fire had started in a
vehicle and spread to the barn, the report related.

He added that the potential asbestos release meant crews had to
"decontaminate equipment" after the fire was out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Dust Treated in Robert Lee Moore Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reanna Zuniga, writing for The Daily Texan, reported that exposed
asbestos in Robert Lee Moore Hall at the University of Texas was
treated, but many older UT buildings still have asbestos in their
insulation.

According to the report, the treatment was completed after the
fibrous material was found on the third floor, which could have
become a hazard to students and faculty.

Asbestos, a group of naturally occurring fibrous materials, was
used for insulation in many campus buildings built before the
1980s, the report related. It often makes up the insulation around
pipes and ceiling tiles and can be found in several types of glues
and caulks.

Chip Rogers, associate director in the department of Environmental
Health and Safety, said asbestos is not hazardous if it is
undisturbed.

"When the wood flooring warped in the RLM, they took it out and
found that there was a substance that is called black mastic under
it," Rogers said. "It is a tar-like substance that often has
asbestos in it, so we tested it and found that it did contain
asbestos."

Rogers said that if the floor had not warped then there would have
been no reason to remove the asbestos because there would not have
been a threat to human safety.

"Asbestos is only a problem if it is dry and in the air," he said.

Rogers said the University has a well-organized procedure for
handling asbestos and said it is usually just removed on an as-
needed basis to avoid student exposure.

"If the world was a perfect place, we could go through every
building," Rogers said. "But it is impossible to do that."
If inhaled, asbestos fibers can penetrate lung tissue and stay in
the body, which could lead to asbestosis, lung cancer or
mesothelioma.

Biology junior Karen Slater said she would not want to be in a
room that is polluted and said she is pleased the University
treats buildings for asbestos.

"The side effects of exposure to asbestos last a lifetime," Slater
said. "It's important to test the levels [of asbestos] and make
sure buildings are safe, and it's better to be safe than sorry."
Elena Capsuto, assistant director of campus and occupational
safety, said it is important to determine when asbestos is a
concern, but emphasized that asbestos is not as scary as people
make it out to be.

"We have procedures in place that we follow and comply with state
regulations," Capsuto said. "It's pretty standard, it's not
dealing with anything new. We make sure it is handled properly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Faces Fibro-related Cancer
-------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a woman whose husband and daughter died
from cancer caused by exposure to asbestos has been told she faces
the same fate.

According to the report, Barbara Fitt's husband John and daughter
Evelyn were both killed by mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer.

Now Mrs Fitt, 71, of Camberley, Surrey, has contracted the same
condition after allegedly breathing in fibres brought home on her
husband's work overalls.

The mother-of-two is to sue the factory where Mr Fitt worked.

Mr Fitt used to cut fireproof asbestos boards by hand while a
foreman at Cape building products in Uxbridge in the 1960s.

Mrs Fitt said: "I used to help John pick the large grains of
asbestos off his skin."  Her surviving daughter Yvonne Power, 49,
worked as a quality controller at the same firm and has been told
she too may contract the condition.

The Fitt family was given compensation for the deaths of Mr Fitt
in 1993 and of Evelyn, aged 45, in 1996.

                    'Very, very unusual'

Mrs Fitt's case is to be pursued by asbestos injuries solicitor
Adrian Budgen, who worked on both the family's previous cases
against Cape plc.

He said: "I've dealt with instances where two people in the same
family have had the disease but never three affected in this way.
It's very, very unusual."

Most people diagnosed with mesothelioma die within two years
because it does not respond well to treatment.

Mr Budgen said: "They are a very loving, close-knit family who
have been devastated by this disease."

A spokesman for Cape plc said: "Obviously we are extremely sorry
to hear of this case and very sad that the family has been
subjected to this disease in such a traumatic manner."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fourth District Affirms Dismissal of Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that Fourth District appellate judges praised Adams County Circuit
Judge Mark Drummond for stopping a "speculative and conjectural"
asbestos suit.

According to the report, Justices John Turner, Robert Steigmann,
and James Knecht affirmed Drummond's summary judgment order
against widow Virginia Bowles on Oct. 11.

Virginia's lawyers at Wylder, Corwin and Kelly in Bloomington
blamed Owens-Illinois and John Crane Inc. for the death of her
husband, Jerald Bowles.

"A plaintiff cannot present her case to the jury unless there is
sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the defendant's
conduct was a cause of the injury," Turner wrote.

"No testimony indicated decedent worked with John Crane products
or was around people who regularly did so.

"In an attempt to show decedent's exposure to Owens-Illinois
asbestos products, plaintiff's counsel has taken liberties with
the deposition testimony."

In an unusual twist at the end, Turner wrote, "In closing, we
commend the trial court for its thorough and reasoned order on the
motions for summary judgment."

Jerald Bowles died of lung cancer in 2009, at age 71.

Virginia sued 11 companies, alleging wrongful death and
conspiracy.   She claimed Jerald inhaled asbestos dust as a Navy
radioman from 1955 to 1976, on the USS Floyd B. Parks and other
ships.  She claimed asbestos dust came from gaskets John Crane had
made and from Kaylo, an Owens-Illinois pipe insulator that
witnesses saw in the boiler room.  She introduced depositions of
four Navy men and two experts, but the evidence didn't impress
Drummond.

The judge found no showing had been made that Jerald ever
installed or worked with asbestos that insulated pipes.  Drummond
noted a lack of evidence that pipes in the radio room or near
Jerald's bunk contained an asbestos product manufactured by Owens-
Illinois or John Crane.  He wrote that any claim that Jerald
inhaled asbestos from either manufacturer would be based on
speculation, guess, or conjecture.  He held that Virginia couldn't
show how often Kaylo was used or where and entered orders closing
the entire case.

Virginia appealed his judgment for Owens-Illinois and John Crane.
Her evidence didn't impress the Fourth District either.

"No evidence indicates the exact location where Owens-Illinois
products might have been installed or how frequently decedent was
in these locations," Turner wrote.

"No evidence indicates the pipes in the radio room where decedent
worked or the bunk where he slept contained Owens-Illinois
asbestos products.

"No one can say Owens-Illinois products were frequently used in
proximity to where decedent regularly worked."

Turner continued that even if Kaylo was on the ship, Virginia
hadn't shown where it was placed or that Jerald worked or slept in
areas where it was present.

"A claim that decedent was exposed to Kaylo during his time on the
Parks is wholly speculative," he wrote.

As for John Crane, Turner wrote that expert Richard Hatfield
showed the company's gaskets would have released asbestos dust
from routine maintenance.

"Hatfield's study might be of benefit to plaintiffs in some
asbestos cases but not this one," Turner wrote.

He wrote that witness John Rogers stated his work with John Crane
gaskets did not create dust when he worked with them.  He wrote
that Jerald didn't remove or install John Crane gaskets and that
he worked in radio central, not the boiler room.

John Crane expert Thomas McCaffery testified that the ventilation
system for the boiler room would be exhausted up the smokestack,
Turner stated.

"As plaintiff notes, each asbestos exposure case must stand on its
own facts," he wrote.

"In this case, however, plaintiff's claims that decedent was
exposed to asbestos containing products of John Crane, as well as
Owens-Illinois, is speculative and conjectural."

Andrew Kelly of the Wylder firm represented Virginia at oral
argument.

Matthew Fischer of Chicago represented Owens-Illinois, and Michael
Pollard of Chicago represented John Crane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Warning in Port Stephens
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Price, writing for Port Stephens Examiner, reported that
Port Stephens Council is warning people to be careful when it
comes to accessing fire damaged structures due to potential
asbestos concerns.

According to the report, officers from the council's environmental
health unit have been conducting assessments on damaged and
destroyed buildings in the Salt Ash area, following an Oct. 13
fire.

The purpose of the inspections is to educate affected residents on
the dangers of asbestos as well as highlighting any immediate
remediation needing to take place.

With the Hank Street Heatherbrae fire it is anticipated more
education work will take place in these areas in coming days and
weeks.

"Today's Salt Ash exercise was certainly worthwhile and it is
encouraging to see so many residents taking positive action at a
time when they have a lot else to focus on," group manager
development services Mike McIntosh said.

"Depending on the nature of contamination the property owners may
be required to engage the services of a licensed asbestos removal
contractor to obtain the necessary clearance certificate for the
site.

"There are also avenues of assistance available to those residents
who are low income earners or without insurance."

For more information, contact the Disaster Welfare Assistance
Hotline on 1800 018 444 or by


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Caused Death of Ex-Steel Worker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a former steel worker from
Hampshire, United Kingdom, died as a result of asbestos exposure,
a coroner has ruled.

According to the report, Southampton Coroner's Court heard that
Michael Dean had developed cancer in early 2012.

The court heard that it was a result of the 67-year-old's work as
a steel fabricator at the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard in
Southampton and Esso refinery in Fawley in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr Dean, from Drapers Copse in Dibden, was diagnosed with a
malignant cancer in June last year, and died at Oakhaven Hospice
in Lymington on August 23 this year.

Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP60,000 for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chester Chronicle reported that a multi-million pound company has
been fined GBP60,000 after exposing workers to potentially deadly
asbestos fibres.

Workers were refurbishing a furnace at the GrowHow plant, off
Grinsome Road in Ince, when they stripped away bricks disturbing
the potentially cancer-inducing substance, despite being told the
area was safe.

GrowHow UK Ltd -- which employs more than 550 staff at its
fertiliser company -- was fined GBP60,000 after pleading guilty to
one breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations Act and two
breaches of the health and safety regulations after failing to
carry out adequate checks at the Ince Marshes site.

The company, which has a pre-tax turnover of GBP93m, was also
ordered to pay GBP17,094 in prosecution costs, following the
incident which saw four staff and external contractors exposed to
the fibres during a maintenance shutdown on January 31, 2011.

Chester Crown Court heard that workers had been stripping down the
walls of the 50-metre-high primary reformer furnace as part of a
biannual refurbishment project for two days before a labourer
recognised the hazardous substance and the area was evacuated.

When the material, alongside piles of bricks and rubble in skips
from the furnace, was analysed it contained 20% of one of the most
hazardous forms of asbestos, Amosite (c), which can cause fatal
mesothelioma, lung cancer and debilitating asbestosis years after
the fibres are breathed in.

The Health and Safety Executive investigation found GrowHow had
failed to carry out an appropriate asbestos survey before allowing
the project to start, despite the demolition work being likely to
create large amounts of dust.

Workers had been breaking up rubble, putting it into sacks and
pouring it down a chute so the sacks could be reused, without
knowing the dust they were creating may have contained asbestos
fibres.

Once asbestos was discovered, the workers were ordered to leave
the site and all of their protective clothing and equipment was
bagged up and destroyed due to the risk of contamination.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Daniel Longdon said:
"Dozens of workers at GrowHow were exposed to potentially deadly
fibres because the company didn't carry out a risk assessment to
see if asbestos was present in the industrial furnace.

"They will have to live with the uncertainty for the rest of their
lives of not knowing whether they will develop lung cancer or
other diseases, such as mesothelioma, as a result. If GrowHow had
arranged a proper survey ahead of the work starting then the
asbestos would have been identified and a licensed contractor
could have been brought in to remove it safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Would Deny Justice to Wisconsin Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Johns, writing for The Cap Times, reported that the
Wisconsin Asbestos Victims Network is disappointed and troubled
with the vote the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Judiciary and
Labor took Oct. 9 to advance Senate Bill 13 out of committee. SB
13 would delay and deny justice for Wisconsin's asbestos victims.

According to the report, the Wisconsin Asbestos Victims Network
was formed to stand up for veterans and other asbestos victims to
fight Senate Bill 13. The coalition consists of a diverse group of
organizations that represent veterans, laborers, seniors, people
of faith and advocates. On behalf of these groups, we urge the
Wisconsin Senate to oppose this bill. SB Bill 13 puts in place
unnecessary delays, forces disclosure of filings with federal
personal-injury trusts and takes choice away from veterans and
other asbestos victims.

Asbestos is deadly, the report said.  Exposure causes many
devastating diseases, such as mesothelioma. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wisconsin ranks 14th
in mesothelioma deaths. When asbestos was first introduced and
used, the public had no idea the deadly effects it could have on
health, but the asbestos corporations did. Veterans were
unknowingly exposed to this product while serving their country.
Naval vessels and military barracks were often lined with the
product. Factory, foundry, mill, nursing home and construction
workers were often exposed to asbestos while on the job, but they
had no idea the harm that was being done to them.

Much of the work has been with veterans' organizations, like the
Wisconsin VFW and Military Order of the Purple Heart, because
asbestos affects veterans at an alarming rate. Veterans make up
8 percent of the population but account for 30 percent of all
mesothelioma deaths. Moreover, the Military Order of the Purple
Heart stated that it has not been past practice for them to get
involved in legislation that changes the Wisconsin judicial
system; however, in this case they felt they had to take a stand
to protect their members' rights. They noted, "Sometimes we simply
need to take a stand on behalf of our members when a proposed law
would detrimentally affect their constitutional right to a day in
court."

The Wisconsin VFW has officially opposed this legislation because
it "creates additional hurdles for veterans and their families.
Senate Bill 13 would only serve to prolong an excruciating and
time-intensive process. Delay for even one veteran suffering from
the fatal effects of mesothelioma is unacceptable -- justice
delayed is justice denied."

Mr. Johns said, "We have also spent much of our time listening to
asbestos victims and their families tell their heartbreaking
stories. A military veteran from Green Bay told us that the air
was so thick with asbestos dust he could not see the exit to his
work area while aboard the USS Benjamin Stoddert. A widow of an
asbestos victim from Racine, who was a veteran and factory worker,
said that it was unbearable to watch her husband of nearly 50
years suffer. The daughter-in-law of a mesothelioma victim from
Oconomowoc told us her mother-in-law "did everything right in
life." She worked at a nursing home taking care of sick people,
invited nearby college students over for meals to discuss their
faith and was named person of the year along with her husband in
her local community. She was exposed to asbestos at the nursing
home where she worked most of her life.

It is wrong to impede on the rights of veterans and other asbestos
victims to access justice. We should not protect the asbestos
corporations that knew long ago the deadly effects their product
could have on Americans.

Senate Bill 13 should not be scheduled for a vote. We urge all the
Wisconsin senators to stand with veterans and other asbestos
victims and oppose Senate Bill 13."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Eats Away Warren Demolition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay McCoy, writing for WFMJ.com, reported that the cost of
asbestos removal is eating away almost half of the state funding
Warren, Ohio, is using to knock down condemned homes.

"It just makes it a little more challenging and unfortunately
because of the additional money associated with having to satisfy
those regulations, you don't have an opportunity to do as many,"
Enzo Cantalamessa says, city safety director, the report related.

According to the report, the city now has $1.3 million in state
funding that will be spent on home demolitions, but Cantalamessa
says that money will only cover the cost to knock down 150 homes.
He says $700,000 will be spent on asbestos removal, while the rest
will go toward the wrecking ball process.

With asbestos assessments and removal fees ranging from $4,000 to
$25,000 per structure, Cantalamessa says 300 condemned homes on
the demo list will have to sit and wait.

Conversations are ongoing with the Ohio Attorney General's office,
the Ohio EPA and federal and state representatives to see if
variances could be granted to cut asbestos removal costs.

"We're hopeful that ultimately we can work through some of those
challenges, but if these are the cards we're dealt, that's how
we'll play the game," he says.

Senator Rob Portman used a Warren neighborhood as a backdrop to
tout legislation recently approved, allowing cities and land banks
to have access to $60 million allocated to the state for
demolitions.

Warren is waiting to learn if those funds could become the
monetary solution for problem properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Removed at Former Holding Center
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Brust, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reported
that workers were removing metals from the former Wood County
Holding Center, in West Virginia, in preparation for demolition to
begin.

According to the report, Wood County commissioners are still
discussing options for the Second Street property, which may
include possible lease or metered parking for the public or
designating some employee/juror parking.

During an earlier inspection, asbestos was found in the floor
tiles of the former jail and possibly in the mastic, which was
removed.

Low-bidder Empire Builders of Parkersburg was chosen to do the
asbestos removal at a cost of $11,700 and the demolition 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 is 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.

Last week the commissioners reviewed a proposed land use plan for
the property from Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell that 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 Wane Dunn said. Newell
proposed creation of 72 hourly parking spaces, 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Faces Fine for Violating Cleanup Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Hall, writing for Corvallis Gazette-Times, reported that a
mid-valley contractor is facing its third fine in the past two
years for violating state rules on asbestos cleanup projects, but
the company plans to fight the penalty.

According to the report, Albany-based Silver Star Group LLC, doing
business as Restoration Professionals & Consultants, has been
slapped with a $13,100 fine by the Department of Environmental
Quality for multiple reporting violations in connection with a
2011 demolition project in Newberg -- including filing what the
agency claims was a deliberately falsified report that masked
earlier violations.

Adam Blagg, who owns the business with his brother Cameron Blagg,
called the charges "a bunch of B.S." and said the company is
requesting a hearing to contest the penalty, the report related.

But Esther Westbrook, an attorney in DEQ's compliance and
enforcement division, said the charges are serious and a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor such as Silver Star/RPC should be
fully aware of the regulations.

"We do hold them to a higher standard," she said. "They're the
ones that are licensed and trained and should know the rules and
comply with them to a T."

DEQ officials previously penalized the Albany company in
connection with two other 2011 asbestos cleanups, one at a
Corvallis home and the other at Central Valley Christian School in
Tangent. The first case resulted in a $1,350 assessment (reduced
to $825 on appeal), the second in a $9,178 fine (reduced to $8,456
on appeal).

Westbrook said DEQ is pursuing a collection action for the second
fine, which has not yet been paid.

Rules governing the handling, transport and disposal of asbestos
are exceptionally rigorous because the material presents a
significant potential health hazard. Asbestos fibers that get into
the lungs can cause cancer and other fatal diseases.

The latest penalty levied against Restoration Professionals &
Consultants, issued last month, is based on multiple alleged
violations.

According to DEQ, the Albany company failed to document 500 square
feet of roofing material containing asbestos; named the Coffin
Butte Landfill near Corvallis as the disposal site when in fact
the toxic waste went to another landfill in Hillsboro; claimed
that it transported the material itself when in fact it was hauled
by Waste Management Inc.; and provided false or inaccurate
information on the number of containers of toxic material removed.

The most serious charge against RPC claims that the company
attempted to file a revised transport form that masked violations
on previous forms, which DEQ considers a flagrant breach of the
rules.

Blagg downplayed the severity of the charge, saying, "I think
that's just a paperwork snafu and it'll be worked out."  He also
claimed the DEQ is engaged in a personal vendetta against his
business and accused the agency of targeting contractors for fines
in order to fund its operations.

Westbrook dismissed those charges as totally unfounded and noted
that almost all fines collected by DEQ go to the state general
fund, not the agency.  She also said it is highly unusual for an
asbestos contractor to face three enforcement actions in a two-
year span.

"I would say that Silver Star's track record is worse than most."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Consumption on the Rise in Asia
------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that governments in Asia have been accused of
ignoring the dangers of asbestos, and allowing the ongoing use of
the hazardous building material.

According to the report, Sugio Furuya, coordinator of the Asian
Ban Asbestos Network, or A-BAN, has told Radio Australia's Asia
Pacific consumption among many Asian countries is still on the
rise, although countries like Japan, South Korea and Australia
have banned the use of asbestos.

"Asbestos consumption in Asia is accounting for 70 per cent of
global asbestos consumption," Mr Furuya said.

"More than 90 per cent of asbestos is used for construction
materials and the people touching asbestos are not informed about
[its] hazard."

Mr Furuya says the material is being used in the construction of
houses due to its low cost.

"Asbestos construction materials is only for factory or other
industrial use," he said.

"But now, asbestos cement is very easily used for residential
homes in rural areas in many Asian countries."

He says countries like India are intentionally ignoring the
dangers of asbestos.

"There's almost no regulation against asbestos in such countries
and asbestos victims are still invisible in many developing
countries," Mr Furuya said.

"[The Indian government] takes no action to prevent people from
asbestos exposure."

He says it is important to educate people in the region about the
dangers of the material.

"All people have a right to work and live in safe and healthy
way," he said.

"Safer alternatives are available everywhere, so it is not
[necessary] to use asbestos anymore."

Mr Furuya says Australia can help Asian countries stop using
asbestos.

"Australia has much experience and expertise to deal with
asbestos," he said.

"Australia can contribute . . .  to avoid an asbestos epidemic in
the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Site Earmarked for New Tesco
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Slater, writing for This is Local London, reported that
asbestos has been found in a building being cleared to make way
for a new Tesco supermarket -- just yards from a primary school
playground.

According to the report, demolition of the Sparrows Pub, in
Glengall Road, Edgware, in England, has been delayed after the
potentially toxic material was found in the ceiling two weeks ago.

But although the site backs directly onto the playground of Rosh
Pinah Primary School, Tesco has assured the Times Series it poses
no risk to the children.

Contractors removed traces of asbestos from the building before
the site opened in March -- but the supermarket revealed more was
discovered at the end of September -- seven months after builders
began work.

Although Tesco says the site is safe, a source told the Times
Series it is still dangerous.  He said: "In the last two weeks,
workers came across huge amounts of asbestos which had already
begun to separate - meaning it is dangerous.

"It was all sealed off to prevent the fibres from escaping. As the
playground backs directly onto it, there's a possibility children
could have been exposed to this as well.

"The whole ground floor is a contaminated zone and around 30 to 40
men who were doing the demolition of these walls have also been
exposed to it."

Tesco has informed the Health and Safety Executive and has now
employed licensed contractors to seal and remove the asbestos from
the building.

In a statement from Tesco, a spokesman said: "Asbestos containing
materials were removed from the site in March 2013.

"But in late September, further materials were discovered within
the fabric of the building. The site was immediately made safe and
a HSE licensed contractor is undertaking the removal work.

"The site does not pose risk to the public.

"Air testing, by two separate asbestos specialist consultants, has
indicated that there are no elevated airborne asbestos fibre
levels present within the building."

The asbestos was found in ceiling and wall tiles that were put in
to make a firebreak between the ground floor and the upstairs
residential quarters of the former pub.

Asbestos is widely used as insulation but is illegal in many parts
of the world as if the fibres are inhaled they can cause deadly
lung diseases.

A statement from Barnet Council said: "The whole site is enclosed
with an 8ft hoarding so residents cannot access it.

"You therefore cannot see the ground floor area but doors, windows
and bricks are now adequately sealed so the asbestos cannot
escape.

"There will be extensive and methodical works to remove asbestos
from the site in the next four to five weeks and any major work
occurs.

"We will be monitoring the site closely to ensure there is no risk
of exposure."

A spokesman for HSE said: "The Health and Safety Executive has
been made aware of concerns relating to asbestos on this site and
is making initial enquiries."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolution Approved for Abatement in Troy Bldgs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beam, writing for The Record, reported that the Troy Local
Development Corporation approved resolutions to begin asbestos
abatement of two buildings on the South Troy Waterfront, in New
York.

According to the report, three motions were unanimously approved
during a special meeting held by the LDC, as it will request a
declaration of demolition of the former Benzol building and a
former substation at the King Fuels site.

Both of the buildings do contain asbestos, and the LDC will
allocate $60,000 to perform an abatement. LDC Executive Director
and City Planning Commissioner Bill Dunne assured there would be
air monitoring would be conducted during the actual abatement.

Another motion approved the abatement of four other buildings on
the site, which Dunne said was an effort to rid the waterfront of
any buildings filled with asbestos.

In addition, the LDC also approved a motion to publish a request
for proposals for a consultant to help in planning the long-term
development of the waterfront with a focus on the former King
Fuels site and the Main Street area.

The passage of the motions was tied into a discussion that
continued during most of the meeting, which was focused on
redeveloping the South Troy waterfront

The need to move further with plans at the waterfront was sparked
by the proposed project for the former Scolite property and former
Bruno Machinery property by Valente Companies, the proposed South
Troy Industrial Roadway and proposals made to utilize the King
Fuels site.

Dunne also added that the Collar City Ramble, proposed by
Transport Troy, would utilize the roadway and the King Fuels site.

There was also a discussion about how to clean up the two parcels,
one being King Fuels site and another nearby property. The cleanup
of an area designated as a brownfield site would be performed by
National Grid in two phases, according to Dunne.

However, the cleanup has been delayed because some construction
debris, granite, brick, wood and other items, were illegally
dumped onto and have yet to be fully cleared from the site. Dunne
said the city was pushing for National Grid to begin the cleanup,
which would involve removing as much as 15 ft. of soil on one
parcel and 8 ft. on the other, as soon as possible, although the
company would rather wait until spring. The cleanup also requires
that a contractor drill approximately 35 ft. deep into the ground
and encapsulate the coal tar with a dry concrete mix. The process
is known as In Situ Stabilization.

Mayor Lou Rosamilia said the city has been in talks with National
Grid to start the cleanup in a different location and work toward
the King Fuels site, but that he is still waiting to hear back on
a decision.

Dunne said there is a need to move forward not only because of the
commercial business interest already expressed for the site but
also because of the $5 million in federal funding provided to
clean up the site, which could soon expire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Vernon Schools Set to Respond to Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Failla, writing for Mount Vernon Daily Voice, reported that
Cecil H. Parker Elementary School in Mount Vernon, New York, is
currently undergoing an inspection to ensure that the building is
asbestos free, in accordance with the New York State Health
Department.

According to the report, every three years the district has to
undergo an inspection, after damaged areas of the school were
investigated on Dec. 5, 2012, following an anonymous phone call to
the Westchester County Health Department.

According to the district, a week later an independent
environmental contractor was hired from Mount Vernon based Niche
Analysis Inc., which found no evidence of asbestos in any of the
damaged areas.

"It's nice that the school goes out of its way to make sure the
children are safe," Norma Ruiz, who has two children enrolled in
the district, said at dismissal. "[The district] doesn't have the
best reputation, but our kids are safe when we send them to
school."

Interim Superintendent Judith Johnson, who is entering her final
year as the head of the district, said they are prioritizing the
re-inspection. She added that the district would respond to the
report once the findings were presented to them.

"In a concerted effort to confirm building safety, the district
will respond to the future inspection report findings and
recommendations for all of our schools, including Parker
Elementary School," she said. "We are committed to following up on
the asbestos reports in a timely matter to ensure a safe learning
environment for students and staff."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 134 Pending Cases as of Aug. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 134 pending asbestos cases against GenCorp Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2013.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 134 asbestos cases pending as of
August 31, 2013.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
nine months of fiscal 2013 were $0.3 million.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC's Suit v. Aerojet Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by AMEC, plc, against GenCorp Inc.'s aerospace and
defense segment remains pending in a state court, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2013.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business
assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne
subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of 16
asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana,
and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and
expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those
liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to
indemnify the purchaser therefor.  Under the relevant purchase
agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified
liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the
sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing
liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the
purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against
it. Aerojet Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and
requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis
of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach
of contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County
Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-
General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Although AMEC
served the complaint on Aerojet Rocketdyne, Aerojet Rocketdyne was
granted an open extension of time in which to file a response in
order to facilitate additional sharing of information and
potential settlement negotiations. No estimate of liability has
been accrued for this matter as of August 31, 2013.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Continues to Defend Workers' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation is a party to a number of asbestos claims by
current or former employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the
workplace, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 27, 2013.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals
(collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like
exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss. The Company is
also party to a number of asbestos claims by current or former
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

An analysis of occupational claims is performed quarterly by an
independent third-party actuarial firm and reviewed by management.
Management performs a quarterly review of asserted asbestos
claims, and an analysis is performed annually by an independent
third-party specialist and reviewed by management. The objective
of the occupational and asbestos claims analyses performed by the
third-party actuarial firm and specialist (the "third-party
specialists") is to determine the number of incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") claims. The third-party specialists analyze
CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal
rates to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and
average settlement values for occupational and asbestos claims
reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using
CSX's employment records and industry data. From this analysis,
the third-party specialists provide an estimate of the IBNR claims
liability.

CSX Corporation (CSX), together with its subsidiaries, is a
transportation supplier. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services, including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. CSX's
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), provides
link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately
21,000 route mile rail network, which serves centers in 23 states
east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It has access to over 70
ocean, river and lake port terminals along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway. The Company's intermodal business links customers
to railroads through trucks and terminals. CSXT also serves
production and distribution facilities through track connections
to approximately 240 short-line and regional railroads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell to Pay NARCO PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is responsible for funding a portion
of payments for asbestos-related personal injury claims filed
against North American Refractories Company, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories Company
(NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products
(bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). We sold
the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to indemnify NARCO with
respect to personal injury claims for products that had been
discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement).
NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. NARCO and/or
Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal injury cases
asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO asbestos-
containing products. Claimants consist largely of individuals who
allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products
in an occupational setting. These claims, and the filing of
subsequent claims, were stayed continuously since January 4, 2002,
the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy protection.

Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business
manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with
the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("the Bankruptcy Court")
issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization (NARCO Plan of Reorganization). All challenges to
the NARCO Plan of Reorganization were fully resolved in the third
quarter of 2010. The NARCO Plan of Reorganization could not become
effective, however, until the Plan of Reorganization of certain
NARCO affiliates also became effective. The affiliates' Plan was
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by the District
Court during the first quarter of 2013 and became final on April
12, 2013.

On April 30, 2013, the NARCO Plan of Reorganization became fully
effective. In connection with its implementation, a federally
authorized 524(g) trust ("NARCO Trust") was established for the
evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO
asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a
permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future
individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all
asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be
made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust will review
submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with
established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the
Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet
to qualify for compensation including, among other things,
exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In
addition, Honeywell will provide input to the detailed controls
design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going audit rights to review
and monitor claims processor's adherence to the established
requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures and as a means
of detecting and deterring irregularities in claims.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to
certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date
of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second
quarter of 2013, we provided NARCO with $17 million in financing
and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. We also paid $40
million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to
certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully resolved during
the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings.

Once the NARCO Trust is fully operational, Honeywell will be
obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the trust
which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures,
subject to annual caps up to $150 million in any year, provided,
however, that the first $100 million of claims processed through
the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not count
against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of the
Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized.

Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding
obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously
approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement
agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is
to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130
million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust
operations ($62 million of which was paid during the third quarter
of 2013 and another $29 million of which has been approved and
will be paid during the fourth quarter of 2013) and, b) payments
due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during
the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for
the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to
qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and
Trust Distribution Procedures criteria, which amounts are
estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the
first two years of trust operations.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for the amounts, unsettled claims pending as of the time
NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the estimated value
of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against
the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the uncertainties
inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with
the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well as the stay of
all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout
NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018.
In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the
estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including trust
claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities based
on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing rates,
expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values.
Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of
the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing
products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims
filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort
system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims
experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO
asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in
the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate
of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to
estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly
accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts
and resulted in a range of estimated liability for future claims
of $743 to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this
range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly,
we have recorded the minimum amount in the range.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. At
September 30, 2013, a significant portion of this coverage is with
insurance companies with whom we have agreements to pay full
policy limits. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of
insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to
payment of current and estimated future claims. While the
substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some
of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been
considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made
judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are
reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings with our
insurers, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues
surrounding insurers and various judicial determinations relevant
to our insurance programs.

In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company ("Travelers")
filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York against Honeywell and other insurance
carriers that provide coverage for NARCO asbestos claims, seeking
a declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos
claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers
and the other insurance carriers. The other insurance carriers
asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations
regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims
under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then,
the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all
NARCO-related asbestos coverage issues with almost all of these
insurance carriers, including Travelers. Honeywell believes it is
entitled to the remaining coverage at issue. While Honeywell
expects to prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome is not
expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, financial position or operating cash flows.

Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO- related asbestos liabilities or assets to
be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no
assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether
there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given
the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review
our estimates periodically, and update them based on our
experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will
reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance
recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or
other developments that may impact insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services, control, sensing and security technologies
for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials,
process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy
efficient products and solutions for homes, business and
transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Continues to Defend Bendix Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to defend claims arising
from exposure to asbestos contained in its Bendix friction
materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "It is not possible to predict whether
resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will
increase, decrease or stabilize in the future.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos
claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years. We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future
NARCO-related asbestos claims liability.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
our interpretation of judicial determinations relevant to our
insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any
settlements reached with our insurers. Insurance receivables are
also recorded when structured insurance settlements provide for
future fixed payment streams that are not contingent upon future
claims or other events. Such amounts are recorded at the net
present value of the fixed payment stream.

On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance
receivables equal to approximately 37 percent of the value of the
underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are
gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies,
certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is
expected to decline for any future Bendix-related asbestos
liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may
also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future
insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations
relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict.
Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current
levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could
decline over the next five years to approximately 30 percent.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services, control, sensing and security technologies
for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials,
process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy
efficient products and solutions for homes, business and
transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Circuit Affirms "Dela Rosa" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Dela Rosa seeks review of a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board finding that his application for
disability retirement benefits was untimely.  Mr. Dela Rosa states
that he has suffered from other maladies resulting from different
causes, including exposure to asbestos and Agent Orange.

In a decision dated Oct. 15, 2013, a full-text copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/2676H0from Leagle.com., the United
States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, affirmed the Board's
decision because substantial evidence in the record supports the
decision.

The Federal Circuit also pointed out that a thorough review of the
record found no evidence, however, that any of the ailments
resulting from exposure to asbestos and Agent Orange rendered Mr.
Dela Rosa mentally incompetent at any point between his Nov. 28,
1988 separation date and the date that he filed for disability
benefits 22 years later.

The case is CESAR A. DELA ROSA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, Respondent, NO. 2013-3078 (Fed. Cir.).

JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Esq., Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of
Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were STUART
F. DELERY, Esq., Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E.
DAVIDSON, Director, and REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant
Director.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Affirms Ruling on Work Benefits Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision dated Oct. 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals of New
York affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that the Workers'
Compensation Law does not contemplate apportionment of death
benefits between work-related and non-work-related causes to
factor out non-work-related causes of death when making an award.

The appeal arises from a decision in the Appellate Division,
interpreting Section 16 of the Workers' Compensation Law, which
authorizes death benefits when a work-related injury or disease
"causes death."  The Appellate Division has interpreted the
statute to mean "contributes to death."  At issue on the appeal is
whether the Workers' Compensation Law requires apportionment of
death benefits between work-related and non-work-related causes
i.e., mandates the Workers' Compensation Board to factor out non-
work-related causes of death when making the award.

Antonio Hroncich was diagnosed with asbestosis and asbestos-
pleural disease resulting from his employment as a plumber's
helper and mechanic at the Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y.,
Inc.  He was later diagnosed with thyroid cancer, unrelated to his
work at Con Ed.  He died of thyroid cancer and his widow filed a
claim with the Board for death benefits from Con Ed.

The Court of Appeals held, "A review of the case law, including
this one, puts that question into serious doubt. Under a broad
reading of the appellate court's precedent, any tangential work-
related injury or disease that contributes in any way to the death
may result in a death benefit. This leads to two problems. First,
it lends itself to arbitrary determinations as to whether a
particular death has a "causally related" antecedent. Second,
there is no statutory basis for allowing "apportionment" in
Workers' Compensation Law 16 with respect to the cause of death,
and at the same time denying apportionment when fashioning an
award.

"Here, there is no dispute that the direct and primary cause of
the decedent's death was thyroid cancer, a condition totally
'unrelated to his work at Con Ed.'  The work-related injury may
have hastened the decedent's death, but that's all. The statute
doesn't provide for an award in such a case. No apportionment
should mean just that -- as to both the cause and, as the WCB
argues here, the award of benefits. The Legislature didn't write
the statute that way; why should the courts rewrite it?"

The case is IN THE MATTER OF GAUDENZIA HRONCICH, Respondent, v.
CON EDISON ET AL., Appellants, SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND,
Respondent, WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, NO. 145 (NY).
A full-text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 15, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/F6iulmfrom Leagle.com.

David W. Faber, Esq., for appellants.  Jill Singer, Esq., for
respondent Special Disability Fund.  Laura Etlinger, Esq., for
respondent Workers' Compensation Board. City of New York, amicus
curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Milwaukee's Bid to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Milwaukee Valve
Company moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
against it on the ground that there is no evidence to show that
plaintiff's decedent David L. Kelly was exposed to asbestos from a
product manufactured, sold or supplied by Milwaukee.

In a decision dated Oct. 8, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of
the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion, holding
that Milwaukee has not established that the original packing
supplied with its valves, which created dust when valve leaks were
being repaired by Mr. Kelly, was asbestos free.

The case is DAVID KELLY, as Executor of the Estate of DAVID L.
KELLY, Plaintiffs, v. AIRCO WELDERS SUPPLY, et al., Defendant(s),
DOCKET NO. 105643/08, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xSx5WEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Court Issues Statute of Limitations Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From approximately 1957 to 1988, Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, Inc.,
leased a property in Bozeman, Montana, that later became known as
the CMC Bozeman Asbestos Site. Between 1957 and 1977, Pacific
purchased at least 11 liability policies from Great American
Insurance Company.  The Montana Department of Environmental
Quality notified Pacific sometime in 1990 that it might be
potentially liable for the cleanup of asbestos contamination at
the Site.

Pacific requested that Great American defend and indemnify it from
all claims arising at the Site but Great American denied Pacific's
tender for defense and indemnity coverage.  Pacific filed a
complaint against Great American and other defendants in the
Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court alleging breach of
contract and bad faith claims handling practices.  Great American
moved for summary judgment, alleging that some of Pacific's claims
are barred by Montana's eight year statute of limitations for
actions founded upon a written instrument.  In its cross-motion
for summary judgment, Pacific argues that the statute of
limitations had not expired by the time it filed its complaint.
At issue before the United States District Court for the District
of Montana, Butte Division, is when the breach of contract claim
accrued and the statute of limitations began to run.

Chief District Judge Dana L. Chistensen held that according to
undisputed facts in the case, Pacific's breach of contract claims
accrued no earlier than April 27, 2005.  Thus the eight year
statute of limitations period had not expired on May 2, 2013, when
Pacific filed its complaint.  There being no genuine dispute as to
any material fact in the case, Pacific is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on Great American's statute of limitations
affirmative defense.

The case is PACIFIC HIDE & FUR DEPOT, a Montana corporation, n/k/a
Pacific Steel & Recycling, Plaintiff, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC., and
NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, N.O. CV 12-36-BU-DLC (D.
Mont.).  A full-text copy of Chief Judge Christensen's Order dated
Oct. 15, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/2XkpHrfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Affirms Ruling in Products Liability MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Harold Landes, George Conner, Walter J. Specht, and
Thomas Streber appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of their cases
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
comply with Administrative Order No. 12.

In an opinion dated Oct. 17, 2013, a full-text copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/zaw71ofrom Leagle.com, a three-judge
panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that because the
District Court adequately weighed the parties' arguments in
accordance with Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), and the Plaintiffs were given the
opportunity to cure any potential defects, the District Court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Plaintiffs' cases
pursuant to Rule 41(b).

The cases are IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.
VI) relating to Harold W. Landes, Jr., Appellant, No. 12-3822
George L. Conner, Appellant, No. 12-3823 Walter J. Specht, Jr.,
Appellant, No. 12-3824 Thomas Streber, Appellant, No. 12-3825 (3d.
Cir.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Flips Workers' Benefits Claims Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, claimant Lawrence Dow filed an application for workers'
compensation benefits, asserting that he had developed a lung
condition as a result of his exposure to asbestos while employed
by, among others, Silver Construction Corporation.  After a
hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge issued a decision
which, among other things, determined that claimant suffered from
a compensable occupational disease and that Silver was the last
private-sector "employer in whose employment claimant suffered his
last injurious exposure to asbestos."  Silver filed an application
with the Workers' Compensation Board for review.  The Board denied
the application, concluding that Silver failed to properly place
all necessary parties on notice of the application.  Silver now
appeals from that decision, as well as from the Board's subsequent
decision denying Silver's application for reconsideration and/or
full Board review.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, reversed, and held that an application for Board
review of a WCLJ's decision must be served upon all parties in
interest.

The Appellate Division pointed out that in this case the Board
determined that Silver failed to properly serve certain parties of
interest -- namely, the Special Funds Conservation Committee,
Barnaby Concrete, Rizzi Associates, Travelers Insurance Company
and Security Mutual Insurance Company. However, Silver served its
application upon counsel representing Travelers and Security
Mutual, and there is no assertion that these parties did not
receive notice of the application.  In fact, Security Mutual filed
a rebuttal to the application for Board review and did not claim a
lack of notice thereof or otherwise challenge the manner of
service.

As to Rizzi and Barnaby, all prior attempts to serve notice upon
these parties had been returned as undeliverable, rendering
service impossible and neither party had appeared in the
proceeding.  Finally, while Silver concedes that it did not serve
Special Funds, the record reflects that Special Funds had
previously disputed that it was an interested party and had
expressly indicated that it was not expecting notice of any future
proceedings.  Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division
agreed with Silver's contention that the Board erred in
determining that the application was not served upon all parties
of interest.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division remits the
matter to the Board to decide Silver's application for review.

The case is In the Matter of the Claim of LAWRENCE DOW,
Respondent, v. SILVER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant, and
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, et al., Respondent.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent, 514054 (N.Y. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Appellate Division's memorandum and order,
dated Oct. 17, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/C2JdRDfrom
Leagle.com.

Steven Weinberg, Esq. -- sweinberg@gottesmanlaw.com -- at
Gottesman, Wolgel, Malamy, Flynn & Weinberg, PC, in New York City,
for appellant.

George Tabor, Esq., in New York City, for Lawrence Dow,
respondent.

David Goldsmith, Esq., at Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, for
Travelers Insurance Company, respondent.  Mr. Goldsmith may be
reached at:

         David Goldsmith, Esq.
         STEWART, GREENBLATT, MANNING & BAEZ
         6800 Jericho Tpke
         Syosset, NY 11791
         Tel: (516) 433-6677


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Bars "Bogerman" Wrongful Death Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sandra Bogerman sued individually and on behalf of her
deceased husband, Ronald Bogerman, in New Jersey Superior Court,
Law Division, Middlesex County, on July 16, 2013.  The Complaint
alleges the wrongful death of Mr. Bogerman due to exposure to
asbestos while performing, among other things, brake repair for
the U.S. Air Force and at a facility in Riverdale, New Jersey.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Union Carbide Corporation
produced and sold material containing asbestos, which she claims
ultimately caused Bogerman's death on November 28, 2009.  The
Defendant removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and argued that the Plaintiff's claim for
wrongful death, having been commenced more than three years after
her husband died, is barred by the two-year statute of limitations
on those actions.

Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey held that courts in the district, to
consider the issue, have agreed that the discovery rule does not
apply to the New Jersey wrongful death statute because death is a
fixed event.  Because the wording of the statute of limitations
for survival actions is identical to that of the wrongful death
statute, and likewise commences at death, the same reasoning
applies to the Plaintiff's survival causes of action, Judge
Hochberg said.  The Plaintiff brought the claims more than two
years after Mr. Bogerman's death.  No opposition having been filed
despite the Court's diligent efforts to elicit a response brief to
draw to its attention any arguments sought to be raised by the
Plaintiff, Judge Hochberg ruled that the claims are barred by the
statute of limitations.

The case is BOGERMAN, etc., Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP.,
Defendant, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-5247 (FSH) (JBC)(D.N.J.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Hochberg's opinion and order dated Oct. 15,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/ZUkacBfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veteran's Appeal Junked for Lack of Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wheaton appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims, which affirmed the decision of the Board of
Veterans Appeals that there was not Clear and Unmistakable Error
in the Regional Office's findings relating to his claim for
service connection asbestosis.

The Regional Office had found in 1988 that Mr. Wheaton's claim,
which the RO "liberally" construed to include a claim for
asbestosis, was a residual of his service-connected tuberculosis.
The RO denied his claim for service connection asbestosis, but
granted service connection for tuberculosis at a rating of 20%
with an effective date of August 24, 1988, the date of Mr.
Wheaton's claim application.

In February 2003 Mr. Wheaton filed a petition to reopen his claim
to include post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, and
tinnitus.  In October 2003 the RO granted additional disability
compensation at a rating of 30%, based primarily on asbestosis
with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, effective as of
February 26, 2003.  Mr. Wheaton argues that he is entitled to an
effective date of 1988 for the additional compensation, because
the Regional Office committed CUE in its 1988 decision by failing
to correctly apply the law as it existed in 1988.

Mr. Wheaton's arguments are primarily that the VA doctor who
examined his lungs in October 1988 did not consider his in-service
asbestos exposure.  The examining physician's medical report dated
October 18, 1988 makes no reference to in-service asbestos
exposure.  Mr. Wheaton relies on a document that he states was
provided in October 1988, but that bears a VA stamp "received
November 30, 1988," as establishing his in-service exposure to
asbestos.  The Veterans Court deemed the argument of medical error
"speculative," and declined to find CUE in the 1988 decision.

On his appeal, the government states that the questions of whether
and how the Regional Office, the Board, and the Veterans Court
weighed medical evidence are questions of fact and thus are not
within our appellate jurisdiction.

The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, has carefully
reviewed all of Mr. Wheaton's arguments and determine that the
appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  The
Federal Circuit stated that issues of diagnosis or misdiagnosis,
and of whether and when evidence was provided to or considered by
a treating physician, are questions of fact, and review by the
Federal Circuit is not authorized.

The case is RICHARD A. WHEATON, Claimant-Appellant, v. ERIC K.
SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee, NO.
2012-7162 (Fed. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Federal Circuit's
decision dated Oct. 15, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/y6rFmN
from Leagle.com.

DAN CURRY, Esq., at Randles, Mata & Brown, LLC, of Kansas City,
Missouri, for claimant-appellant.  Mr. Curry may be reached at:

         Dan Curry, Esq.
         RANDLES, MATA & BROWN, L.L.C.
         406 West 34th Street, Suite 623
         Kansas City, Missouri 64111
         Tel: (816) 931-9901
         Fax: (816) 931-0134

L. MISHA PREHEIM, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of
Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief
were STUART F. DELERY, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and AMANDA R. BLACKMON,
Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of
Washington, DC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont's Bid to Dismiss "Middleton" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos-related personal injury action, defendant Maremont
Corporation moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross-claims against it on the ground that there is no
evidence to show that plaintiff Daryl Middleton was exposed to
asbestos fibers released from a product manufactured, sold,
supplied, or distributed by Maremont.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 8, 2013, a full-text copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/1PwSAzfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
the motion, holding that the Defendant's challenge to Mr.
Middleton's testimony on the ground that Maremont stopped
producing asbestos-containing mufflers and brakes prior to Mr.
Middleton working at Meineke Car Care Center is unavailing on this
motion.  Similarly unavailing is Maremont's position that Mr.
Middleton could not have been exposed to asbestos from one of its
mufflers because Mr. Middleton did not see the words "Asbestos
Wrapped" on the mufflers he handled, Judge Heitler said.

The case is DARYL W. MIDDLETON and BELINDA MIDDLETON, Plaintiffs,
v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS INC., n/k/a RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY, n/k/a
BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190367/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 007.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed's Bid to Dismiss "Olds" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel L. Real of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted Lockheed Martin
Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case PAUL
OLDS, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. Defendants, CASE NO. CV-12-08539 R
(MRWX)(C.D. Calif.).

Judge Real determined that all of the Plaintiff's causes of action
against the Defendant fail for lack of causation because the
Defendant presented undisputed evidence that Plaintiff was not
exposed to any asbestos-containing product for which the Defendant
may be liable.

A full-text copy of Judge Real's Decision dated Oct. 16, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/7shvLCfrom Leagle.com.

Deborah M. Parker, Esq. -- parker@glazieryee.com -- at Glazier Yee
LLLP, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant,
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION.


                             *********

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  * * *