---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 1, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 217

                             Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium Pay
AKP ENTERPRISE: Collective Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALAN MARKOVITZ: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Court Enters Ruling in ERISA Class Action
AMERICAN HONDA: Accords Have Defective Ball Joints, Suit Says

APOTEX INC: Rochon Genova Files Class Action Over Actos Risk
AUSTRALIA: Black Tuesday Bushfire Class Action Nears Settlement
AVMED INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $3 Million
BLAND FARMS: Court Reduces Atty. Fees in "Ojeda-Sanchez" Suit
BLOOMBERG LP: Intervenors Appeal Claims Dismissal in "EEOC" Suit

BRITISH COLUMBIA: School Boards to Refund Tuition Under Settlement
BUTLER INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Civil Penalties
CANADA: Judge Allows "Sixties Scoop" Class Action to Proceed
CAROLINA PLASTERING: November Hearing in Stucco Class Action
CATALYST PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

CHINA VALVES: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit
CINTAS CORP: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $500MM Settlement Gets Tentative Approval
CVS CAREMARK: Bid to Relate "Howard" Case to "Ortiz" Case Denied
DIEBOLD INC: Sued by CS Engineers Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

DIRECTV LLC: District Court Ruling in Technician's Suit Overturned
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Gonzales" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Service Technicians File Overtime Class Action
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: RICO Claims in Avandia Class Action Can Proceed
GOLD CROSS: Wisconsin Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

GOOGLE INC: Gmail Scanning Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Seek Court Nod on Gmail Ruling Appeal
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Omits $25 Fee From Advertised Rates, Suit Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 27,500 Genesis Sedans Over Brake Issue
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accused of Selling Defective Gynemesh Products

JP MORGAN: Appeals Denial of Arbitration Motion in "Lloyd" Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Escapes Securities Class Action
LENOVO INC: Parker Waichman Files Suit Over Defective Notebooks
MADISON-KIPP: Judge Approves $4.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Cardioplegia Blamed on 2 Children Deaths
NOKIA INC: "Romero" Suit in California Dismissed With Prejudice
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Settles Sandusky Cases for $59.7 Million
PILOT CORPORATION: Order Denying Stay in "Wright" Suit Affirmed
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

PRICEENERGY.COM INC: Violates Racketeering Act, Suit Claims
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settlement of Crest Toothpaste Buyers Suit OK'd
RALPHS GROCERY: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Court Rules
SAN LUIS AMBULANCE: Faces Suit in California Over Unpaid Wages
SHAI MOR-YOSEF: Faces NIS13MM Class Action Over Rihanna Concert

SHINNECOCK FISH: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
SOURCE AWNINGS: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
SPECIALTY MEDICINE: Recalls 98 Unexpired Sterile Medications
STANLEY FARMS: Court Certifies Collective Action in "Tomason" Suit
TRANS UNION: Court Grants Limited Discovery in "Larson" Class Suit

TREASURY WINE: Faces Potential Class Action Over US Disclosure
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Toll Discounts Not Unconstitutional, Ct. Rules
UNITED STATES: Law Firm Drops Flood Suit v. Army Corp of Engineers
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Warranty Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products PI Committee & FCR File Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation Plan Has Fatal Flaw, Court Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $500,000 of Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Has $266.3MM Liability at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Awaits Ruling in W.Va. Class Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $2.42-Bil Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend Filter Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $835.3MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had $152.1-Mil Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13-Mil

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Recorded $600,000 Pre-Tax Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Aqua-Chem Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Dismisses 7 Inmate Complaints

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Bldg. Owner's State Law Claim Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Award of Benefits to Miss. Firefighter Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk "Brown" Suit Partially Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's 2nd Bid to Junk "Sweredoski" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Fails in Bid to Dismiss Alliance Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Enters Orders Joining Cases for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "Stanley" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Owner Inks Clean-Up Deal With Gov't, State
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keble College Says Fibro Not Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Lanarkshire Family Fears Fibro in House

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Charged With Polluting Air
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Boiler Fitter Dies of Industrial Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumping in Gwydir Worse Than First Thought
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Shuts Down MFB Fire Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Panel Considers Fibro Issues at Penokee Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazelwood Fibro Scare Forces Change
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Danger at Molly Stark Is Cancer-Causing Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Launched Research Program
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Obligation Warning in Northern Tasmania
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warn of Exposure After Contractor Fine

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIOSH Says Too May Lives Still Lost to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears After Hatherleigh Market Blaze
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Aircraft Workers to Call About Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipping in Hounslow "Worst in England"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Further Delays GBP2.5-Mil. Watersports Hub

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Still Battling Suits Over Filter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bushfire Increases Danger of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RTHS Planning Projects, Fibro Will Be Removed


                             *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tariq Lackings, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ABM Industries Incorporated, Case No. 4:13-cv-02983
(S.D. Tex., October 9, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and seeks unpaid wages and overtime premium pay.

New York-based ABM is an employer qualified to do business in
Texas and employs more than 50 regular employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lashawn A. Williams, Esq.
          L.A. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 622-9171
          Facsimile: (855) 418-5391
          E-mail: lwilliams@lawilliamslegal.com


AKP ENTERPRISE: Collective Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohiuddin Ali Ansari, And All Others Similarly Situated v. AKP
Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Budget Food Store #2; 59 Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Star Corner 1; Garner Street Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Star
Corner 2; Hussain Ent. L.L.C. d/b/a Sinton Food Mart; K R Ent, LLC
d/b/a 6625 Food Mart d/b/a King Fuels; North Enterprises, LLC
d/b/a King Fuels Food Store; Nuh-Aid Enterprises, Inc.; P.K.
Business Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Budget Food Store #2; Pin Oak
Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Pin Oak Shell; Royal Petroleum Texas, L.L.C.
d/b/a Mason Road Food Mart; Shamikh Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Budget
Food Store; Shaniz Corporation, Inc.; Z & S Enterprises, LLC d/b/a
Fuel Express d/b/a Fuel Express #2; Nooruddin Rahim Bhai; Saeed
Karim Ali; and, Shamsuddin Karim Ali, Case No. 4:13-cv-02980 (S.D.
Tex., October 9, 2013) is a collective action to recover unpaid
overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AKP Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Budget Food Store #2 is a validly
existing Texas limited liability company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


ALAN MARKOVITZ: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
WXYZ reports that three former and current exotic dancers are
filing a class action lawsuit against a number of Detroit adult
night clubs.  Included in the suit are The Coliseum, Flight Club
and Penthouse Club, among others.

The dancers are accusing club owner Alan Markovitz of refusing to
pay minimum wages, unlawfully demanding a portion of gratuities
and deducting employee wages through rents, fines and penalties.
They say he got away with it by classifying the employees as
independent contractors making them exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Michigan Minimum Wage Law.

Lead counsel for the dancers Megan Bonanni says, "The dancers are
bringing this action on behalf of themselves and the other members
of the proposed class of night club employees who were
intentionally misclassified as independent contractors despite the
fact that they were treated as employees.  This is an illegal pay
scheme designed to increase the nightclub's profit margins at the
expense of basic employee rights."

The group of plaintiffs also include waitresses, shot girls and
others.  Co-counsel for the group says several other night clubs
throughout the country illegally classify exotic dancers as
independent contractors to avoid paying fair wages, Social
Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance.


ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Court Enters Ruling in ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the ERISA action captioned CHESEMORE v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS,
INC., the court has resolved all pending claims save one, a
relatively recent claim that defendant Karen Fenkell is a
gratuitous transferee under ERISA Section 502(a)(3).  Before the
court are currently two, unrelated motions. In the first motion,
Karen Fenkell moves to dismiss this remaining claim against her.

In the second motion, nominal defendant Alliance Holdings, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan moves for clarification of the
court's June 4, 2013, opinion and order on the appropriate
remedies in this case.

Having reviewed Alliance ESOP's motion and respective responses by
plaintiffs and defendant David Fenkell, District Judge William M.
Conley:

* denied Ms. Fenkell's motion to dismiss;

* granted in part and denied in part Alliance ESOP's motion for
   clarification of the court's June 4, 2013, opinion and order on
   the appropriate remedies in the case; and

* granted Alliance ESOP's motion for leave to file a reply brief.

Judge Conley said the court will amend its remedies order to allow
class members the option of receiving their respective allocations
of the $7.8 million cash award from the alliance ESOP in cash or
Alliance stock.  If any members select stock, the court will
appoint an independent fiduciary to value their stock and manage
the stock allocation.  Finally, in addition to addressing the two
motions, the court would like the parties' input as to whether it
should direct entry of a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) on all claims except for the remaining claim against Ms.
Fenkell.

Judge Conley ordered the plaintiffs to submit to the court on or
before October 30, 2013, a proposed notice to class members
describing the cash or stock option. Defendants have until
November 15, 2013, to respond with any objections to the proposed
notice.  The parties must also submit briefs on or before October
29, 2013, responding to the court's proposed entry of judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

The case is CAROL CHESEMORE, DANIEL DONKEL, THOMAS GIECK, MARTIN
ROBBINS, and NANETTE STOFLET, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID B. FENKELL, PAMELA KLUTE, JAMES
MASTRANGELO, STEPHEN W. PAGELOW, JEFFREY A. SEEFELDT, TRACHTE
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN, ALLIANCE
HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN, A.H.I., INC., ALPHA
INVESTMENT CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, JOHN MICHAEL MAIER, AH
TRANSITION CORPORATION, and KAREN FENKELL, Defendants;
PAMELA KLUTE, JAMES MASTRANGELO, and JEFFREY A. SEEFELDT, Cross
Claimants,
v.
ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., and STEPHEN W. PAGELOW, Cross Defendants,
NO. 09-CV-413-WMC, (W.D. Wis.)

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/tyCGE5from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Accords Have Defective Ball Joints, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
07700-JFW-VBK (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2013) alleges that Honda
Accords (2008-12) and Crosstours (2010-12) have defective ball
joints.

American Honda is a California corporation headquartered in
Torrance.  The Company is the U.S. sales, marketing and
distribution subsidiary of its Japanese parent company, Honda
Motor Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Rachel Adi Naor, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  ran@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          SANDERS VIENER GROSSMAN LLP
          2101 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 3290
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (800) 708-6000
          Facsimile: (602) 288-6981
          E-mail: robertm@justiceforyou.com


APOTEX INC: Rochon Genova Files Class Action Over Actos Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 25, 2013, the law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a
class action on behalf of users of generic versions of diabetes
drug ACTOS (pioglitazone hydrochloride) against generic
manufacturers and distributors Apotex Inc., Sandoz International
GmbH, and Sandoz Canada Incorporated.

Pioglitazone, under the brand name ACTOS, was approved for sale in
Canada in August, 2000 to control blood sugar levels in people
with Type 2 (non insulin-dependant) diabetes.  A June 2011 study
reported to the FDA found a clear link between pioglitazone and
increased bladder cancer risk.  The risk for bladder cancer was
found to be 30% higher among those whose duration of pioglitazone
use was 12-24 months and 50% higher among those with greater than
24 months' exposure.  Health Canada subsequently commenced a year-
long review and, in April 2012, following that review, the product
monographs of ACTOS and its generic versions were updated to
reflect the increased risk of bladder cancer, but the drugs remain
on the market.

The class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges, among other things, that the defendants knew or
ought to have known that their generic versions of ACTOS, namely
APO-Pioglitazone and Sandoz Pioglitazone, materially increase the
risks of bladder cancer and failed to disclose those risks in a
timely manner and have failed to recall the drug.

The proposed Representative Plaintiff for users of APO-
Pioglitazone is a 77-year old retiree from Val Caron, Ontario.
After more than five years taking pioglitazone, which included
Apotex's version for three years, three cancerous tumours were
discovered in his bladder.  "I never would have taken ACTOS or any
generic version of it had I known that it would increase my
chances of developing bladder cancer; I would have asked my
physician to treat my diabetes with some safer alternative."

The proposed Representative Plaintiff for users of Sandoz
Pioglitazone is a 52-year old resident of Lorne, New Brunswick.
He was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in March 2012
after using pioglitazone for several years, including Sandoz
Pioglitazone for two years.  "My family and I were very upset when
I was diagnosed with bladder cancer and I was shocked when I later
learned that my years of taking pioglitazone to control my
diabetes may have contributed to my cancer diagnosis.  Given the
serious risk of bladder cancer, these drugs should be taken off
the market."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiffs and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.


AUSTRALIA: Black Tuesday Bushfire Class Action Nears Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fewster, writing for The Advertiser, reports that a
multi-million dollar class action lawsuit over the 2005 Black
Tuesday bushfires is on track for an out-of-court settlement,
lawyers have revealed.

The Supreme Court was on Oct. 28 told parties involved in the suit
-- including the Country Fire Service and the man whose ute
started the blaze -- had reached an "in principle" agreement to
end the dispute.

Justice Malcolm Blue also heard there would be an opportunity for
more than 40 potential plaintiffs who "opted out" of the class
action to "opt back in" and be compensated.

In November last year, The Advertiser revealed a group of Eyre
Peninsula graziers, led by Robert Proude, was suing the CFS and
ute-owner Marco Visic for compensation.

The 2005 fires killed nine people, burned 77,000ha and destroyed
93 homes.

Mr. Proude subsequently filed Supreme Court action against
Mr. Visic and the CFS, claiming the total value of his destroyed
property, including 2205 sheep, was AUD1,862,795.

In December, other graziers were granted permission to join the
lawsuit as a class action -- together, they claimed the CFS
mismanaged its response to the fires.

Mr. Visic filed papers agreeing with that assertion, saying any
compensation should come out of CFS coffers and not his wallet.

In June, the CFS asked the court to throw out the case, saying the
fires were beyond anyone's capacity to control.  It claimed it and
its volunteers were therefore not liable for the damage caused.

In July, Justice Malcolm Blue dismissed that application, saying
the question of whether the CFS owed a duty of care to bushfire
victims was too complex to be answered outside of a full trial.
Since then, the parties have repeatedly met behind closed doors in
unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter.  The matter was
scheduled to go to trial in February.

On Oct. 28, lawyers for all parties told Justice Blue a settlement
had been formulated, with only the precise wording of the
agreement still to "be hammered out".  They asked the matter be
adjourned until this week for finalization, and for the filing of
applications allowing potential plaintiffs to opt back into the
class action.

Justice Blue agreed and adjourned the matter.


AVMED INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law Technology News, reports
that don't go leaving those company laptops around.  That's one
hard lesson that an insurer in Florida recently found out.
According to Ali Saikali on Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP's Data
Security Blog, AvMed Inc. is facing a $3 million proposed
settlement for a class action.

The case stems from two stolen laptops out of AvMed's conference
room in their corporate office.  The computers contained personal
information of around 1.2 million customers, according to
Mr. Saikali.  Their customers filed a class action against the
insurance company for failing to secure their personal
information.

Though the district court in Florida initially dismissed the
lawsuit, the 11th circuit court reversed the decision and held
that "the plaintiffs had in fact suffered cognizable injuries."
The logistics of the settlement are convoluted, but Mr. Saikali
notes that the most interesting part -- and perhaps the most
valuable to lawyers who advise clients on privacy and data
security -- is that the court ordered mandatory security awareness
and training programs for all company employees, as well as
training on laptop use and upgrading all laptops with security
mechanisms.

Mr. Saikali says that the order provides "a roadmap for what
companies should do to minimize the risk of similar litigation."
It looks like AvMed took one for the team.


BLAND FARMS: Court Reduces Atty. Fees in "Ojeda-Sanchez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case DAVID OJEDA-SANCHEZ, et al., and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLAND FARMS, et al., Defendants, NO.
6:08-CV-96, (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs moved the Court for
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
Plaintiffs provided the Court with a proposed lodestar calculation
based upon hours worked and comparable legal billing rates.  The
Defendants argue that the proposed attorney's fees are
unreasonable in light of the limited recovery by the plaintiffs
measured against the original damages demand.

District Judge B. Avant Edeifield agrees that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to attorney's fees, but says the lodestar calculation
must be reduced because of the Plaintiffs' limited results in the
suit.

For this reason, the Court grants in part attorney's fees to
Plaintiffs in the amount of $90,288.

A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/aqX6gDfrom Leagle.com.


BLOOMBERG LP: Intervenors Appeal Claims Dismissal in "EEOC" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff-Intervenors Tanys Lancaster, Janet Loures, and
Marina Kushnir appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit from the part of the Opinion and Order that
terminates their claims entered on September 9, 2013, in the class
action lawsuit captioned Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 07-cv-8383 (S.D.N.Y., September 27,
2007).

The appellate case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 13-03861 (2d Cir., October 9, 2013).

The class action lawsuit alleges that Bloomberg demoted and cut
the pay of female employees after announcing pregnancies, and
after taking their maternity leave.

The Intervenors-Appellants are represented by:

          Milo Silberstein, Esq.
          DEALY SILBERSTEIN & BRAVERMAN, LLP
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 385-0066
          Facsimile: (212) 385-2117
          E-mail: msilberstein@dealysilberstein.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Thomas H. Golden, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA: School Boards to Refund Tuition Under Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Sherlock, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that millions
of dollars in tuition fees paid for academic summer school courses
in 2004, 2005 and 2006 will be refunded under a settlement reached
in B.C. Supreme Court on Oct. 25.

Under the settlement, parents who paid tuition for summer school
remedial and graduation completion courses will be mailed a claim
form allowing them to choose either a 70% refund or a 100% credit
toward tuition in other courses.  A 25% legal fee will be deducted
and paid to Poyner Baxter LLP, which represented the plaintiffs.

This deal ends a class-action suit against the Vancouver board of
education started in 2009 by North Vancouver parent Sarah Riazi,
who paid for her son to take science and English in a Vancouver
summer school.

A similar class-action suit was launched by Coquitlam parent
Debra Helem, who paid for her daughter to take a summer school
math class.  That suit named as defendants all of the school
boards in British Columbia who charged tuition fees for summer
school courses leading to graduation.

In each case, the plaintiff argued that charging fees for these
courses was illegal in B.C.  Both cases were settled on Oct. 25.
In all, 20 districts have agreed to make refunds to the thousands
of families who paid tuition fees for high-school students to take
academic courses.  Those districts are Vancouver, Vernon,
Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey, Delta, Richmond, New
Westminster, Burnaby, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, North
Vancouver, West Vancouver, Powell River, Prince George, Greater
Victoria, Okanagan-Skaha, Campbell River, Mission and Cowichan
Valley.

The Vancouver board of education's secretary-treasurer,
Rick Krowchuk, said the agreement could cost his district as much
as $4 million, depending on how many people claim refunds and how
many choose to take a credit toward a course instead.

"We're hopeful that the end result . . . won't have a significant
financial impact on the VSB," Mr. Krowchuk said, but added that
thousands of students would have taken summer school courses in
that time period.

Mr. Krowchuk said the province is also contributing to the
refunds, but he did not say how much.

Ministry of Education spokesman Scott Sutherland said the ministry
could not comment under the terms of the agreement.  He did say
that for 2013, "government will have provided an estimated C$14.6
million to school districts to help about 48,000 school-age
students take summer learning courses," Mr. Sutherland said.

The application to certify the class-action lawsuit was filed in
2009, two years after then-education minister Shirley Bond ordered
school districts to stop charging tuition for students attending
summer school for academic credit. She said the fees -- which
ranged from C$200 to C$500 a course -- were illegal.  She ordered
districts to refund all such fees in 2007.

The class-action suit argued that if the fees were illegal in
2007, they were also illegal in preceding years (subject to the
statute of limitations).


BUTLER INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Civil Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neona Chastain, Janie Hahn, Patricia Harris, Lisa Payton And Jill
Townsend, individually as well as on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Antonia "Toni" Cam, Georgi Cam and Butler Investments,
Inc., d/b/a Canby Pub & Grill, Case No. 3:13-cv-01802-SI (D. Or.,
October 9, 2013) a class action lawsuit under state and federal
wage and hour, tort and civil rights laws for certain present and
former employees of CP&G to recover unpaid wages, civil penalties,
pre- and post-judgment interest, back pay, economic damages,
noneconomic damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Butler Investments, Inc. is an Oregon corporation doing business
as Canby Pub & Grill.  At one point, Butler Investments and the
restaurant it operated were owned and operated by Thomas Joseph
Butler III, on property owned by the Cams.  In approximately mid-
2011, the Cams apparently bought Butler Investments and the Canby
Pub & Grill from Mr. Butler.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          240 Sixth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2931
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


CANADA: Judge Allows "Sixties Scoop" Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Ball, writing for Indian Country, reports that a class-
action lawsuit against the Canadian government on behalf of tens
of thousands of indigenous children who were seized and moved to
white families in an adoption wave known as the "Sixties Scoop"
can now proceed after being approved by an Ontario judge.

The decision was handed down after several previous lawsuits in
Canada failed, and as attention in the U.S. focused on the Baby
Veronica custody case.

"[The] harm done was profound and included lasting psychological
and emotional damage," said Justice Edward Belobaba in rejecting
the government's arguments and summarizing his rationale for
certifying the case, which affects at least 16,000 children in
Ontario alone.

The Sixties Scoop followed a similar pattern across Canada, as the
federal government signed funding agreements with the provinces
that extended provincial child and family welfare services onto
First Nations reserves.  For example, in Ontario, the Crown signed
the Ontario-Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement on
December 1, 1965.  That lasted until the end of 1984, when a new
federal law, the Child and Family Services Act, made
"aboriginality an important factor in child protection and
placement practices," Justice Belobaba said in his September 27
decision.

The class action is being represented by Beaverhouse First Nation
Chief Marcia Brown Martel, who was seized from her Ojibwe family
and adopted into a community where she was the only Native.

"It is in the power of the Government of Canada to right this
wrong, to change how our Canadian systems work with aboriginal
communities, to take the apology they offered and stand by it, and
have it be a cornerstone to a new relationship -- a dynamic,
fulfilling relationship -- to extend the apology to more than just
fine words," she told Indian Country Today Media Network. "It
needs action."

Currently, she added, there are "more than just the survivors to
contend with.  Every community that lost children to the Sixties
Scoop has parents and extended family also affected by the loss of
their loved ones.

"I was swept from my family, my community, my siblings, my
extended family, my ability to function as an aboriginal person at
all," she said, "I had nothing as a young person, to say, 'Yes, I
am First Nations,' other than the color of my skin and my hair.
That's all I had left."

As the only aboriginal person in a non-Native community, she felt
completely alone in her struggles even into adulthood.

"Personally, it was a very, very lonely time in my life," she
said.  "You start searching as a young adult to find your
community.  I'm very fortunate: I remembered my name as Sally
Susan Mathias.  Some may be so young that they would never
remember their birth name.  You don't know where to begin.  It is
an extremely difficult process."

According to Sixties Scoop survivor Ernie Crey, who co-authored
the 1998 book Stolen from Our Embrace (Douglas & McIntyre) with
Suzanne Fournier and founded an aboriginal-run child welfare
agency in British Columbia, Canadian aboriginal child welfare
policies differ significantly from those in the U.S.

"It's a patchwork quilt here in Canada, versus what's true in the
U.S. in the way of child protection," Mr. Crey explained.  "There
isn't a National Indian Child Welfare Act in Canada, or anything
even remotely like it, either.  That goes back to the Sixties,
when the Department of Indian Affairs refused to legislate child
protection under the Indian Act.  They abandoned the field to each
province. That's what precipitated the Sixties Scoop."

As some residential schools began to close around the same time,
the change in child protection "created a perfect storm," Mr. Crey
said.  "That's when the social workers from each province
literally . . . descended on the communities and apprehended
children en masse."

Advocates have described the Sixties Scoop as "identity genocide
of children."  But many point out that even today there are more
aboriginal children in Canada's child welfare system than ever
attended residential schools.

"We're basically warehousing thousands and thousands of children
in long-term care," Mr. Crey said.  "We're confining them to
foster care."

In another prominent case, First Nations Child and Family Caring
Society director Cindy Blackstock and the Assembly of First
Nations have taken the issue of unequal funding for aboriginal
child services to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Ms. Blackstock cited recent statistics that 48% of children in
foster care are aboriginal -- even though they make up less than
8% of Canada's children.

"We're looking at thousands and thousands of kids who are being
raised away from their families," she said in an earlier
interview.  "One of the big lessons that all of us should have
learned, and certainly the government should have learned, from
residential school, is that children need to grow up in their
families.  Then they learn the culture of themselves and their
people."


CAROLINA PLASTERING: November Hearing in Stucco Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarita Chourey, writing for Savannah Now, reports that the news
media, a past town hall meeting, and attorneys' community outreach
make up an offshoot dispute arising from a years-old legal battle
over Sun City home construction.

In November, the S.C. Court of Appeals will hear an aspect of the
class action lawsuit affecting potentially thousands of Sun City
property owners who may have faulty stucco on their homes.  At
issue: The alleged "promotional activities" of the Sun City
homeowners' legal team.

South Carolina State Plastering's appeal challenges last year's
circuit court denial of an injunction aimed at restricting
communication from the attorneys to the homeowners who make up the
class.  Attorneys for the plastering company also suggested local
news media had been used as a tool of the side representing
property owners.

The company argued it's not trying to exercise a monopoly over
communication with homeowners, but instead level out a tilted
playing field.  Among those listed as third-party defendants are
Del Webb Communities, Inc., Pulte Homes, Inc., and Kephart
Architects, Inc.

Attorneys for the Sun City homeowners pushed back against the
appeal and said just as the defendants had been contacting Sun
City residents, "offering to perform spot or patch repairs in
exchange for an agreement of the homeowner to opt-out of the class
action."

In documents filed in February, the Sun City attorneys argued the
company was trying enact a one-sided ban on information.  They
said, "it has relied on the irrelevant and sometimes just plain
inaccurate themes (argued at the trial court) in an attempt to
stop any relevant information regarding this litigation from
reaching the potentially 4,000-plus homeowners at Sun City who
have defective stucco systems installed on their homes."

But in challenging the court's refusal to restrict communication,
the company attorneys pointed to a conflict of interest.  They
said the homeowners' side has a financial incentive to gather as
many people to the class as possible.

"They may, and by such actions as holding 'town meetings' and
seeking press coverage of developments in the litigation, have
encouraged maximum participation in the (suit)," argues the
company attorneys.

"Such participation may not, however, be in the best interest of
some homeowners who may be encouraged to join."

The role of local news media also figured into the company's
objections. Attorneys suggested journalists may have been used by
the side representing Sun City property owners.

"Obviously, the fact that a reporter's name is on a story does not
preclude the possibility that the story was planted or stimulated
by some action of an interested attorney," reads a footnote in a
company brief.

In 2010, the state Supreme Court tossed out an earlier decision
when it ruled that a lawsuit filed by Anthony and Barbara Grazia
in 2007 could be a class action suit.  That created the
possibility that scores of other Sun City homeowners might be
compensated for defective stucco.

The couple's allegation, according to records, is that "the stucco
exteriors had common and typical problems inherent to their design
and installation that would require identical remediation across
the class, namely, stripping the homes of the existing stucco and
recladding with a properly installed stucco system."


CATALYST PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Oct. 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
stock of Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. during the period
between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013, inclusive seeking
to recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the Catalyst class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne,
Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Catalyst and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading information about the
Company.  The Complaint asserts that Catalyst failed to disclose
during the Class Period that one of its competitors has already
been manufacturing a drug biologically equivalent to Firedapse --
a drug Catalyst has claimed to be developing and marketing -- and
providing it to patients to treat Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic
Syndrome free of charge, through a compassionate use program.  The
lawsuit asserts that the disclosure of this adverse information
caused Catalyst's share price to fall, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 24, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or at jhorne@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CHINA VALVES: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE CHINA VALVES TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Lead
plaintiff Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. and plaintiff Joseph
Gibbons filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
(CCAC) after the Court dismissed Bristol's amended complaint in
full.

The Court now considers motions of defendants China Valves
Technology, Inc., its named officers and directors (Individual
Defendants), and the Company's auditors, Moore Stephens Wurth
Frazer and Torbet, LLP, to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.

Bristol and Mr. Gibbons alleged that China Valves and the
Individual Defendants improperly failed to disclose material facts
concerning the related party nature of two of the Company's
acquisitions and a third transaction, and materially overstated
China Valves' financial results in the registration statement made
effective on December 14, 2009 and in the subsequent prospectus
supplements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. They alleged also that the Auditor
Defendants are liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for material misstatements made
in the audit opinions that were incorporated in at least some of
the Offering Documents.

District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted in all respects the Auditor
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.  The motion of China Valves and the Individual
Defendants is granted to the extent that:

1. Claim I is dismissed as to Jianbao Wang and, except insofar as
   it relates to China Valves' alleged failure to disclose the
   FCPA investigation into Changsha Valve, as to China Valves and
   all other Individual Defendants.

2. Claim II is dismissed as to China Valves except insofar as it
   relates to China Valves' alleged failure to disclose the FCPA
   investigation into Changsha Valve.

3. Claim III is dismissed as to Bin Li and, except insofar as it
   relates to China Valves' alleged failure to disclose the FCPA
   investigation into Changsha Valve, as to all other Individual
   Defendants.

4. Claim IV is dismissed as to China Valves and the Individual
   Defendants, except insofar as it relates to the alleged failure
   to disclose the alleged related-party nature of the Changsha
   Valve transaction.

5. Claim V is dismissed as to Bin Li and, except insofar as it
   relates to the alleged failure to disclose the alleged related-
   party nature of the Changsha Valve transaction, as to all other
   Individual Defendants.

The case is In re: CHINA VALVES TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION,
MASTER DOCKET 11 CIV. 0796 (LAK)( S.D. N.Y.).

A copy of the District Court's October 21, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/vvkQWffrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. are
William Bernard Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, and:

   Byron T. Ball, Esq.
   THE BALL LAW FIRM, LLP
   10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1550
   Los Angeles, CA 90024
   Tel: (310) 446-6148
   Fax: (310) 441-5386

Alfred Robert Pietrzak -- rpietrzak@sidley.com -- Joel M. Mitnick
-- jmitnick@sidley.com -- Daniel A. McLaughlin --
dmclaughlin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant China Valves Technology, Inc. and Individual Defendants

Lawrence A. Steckman -- lsteckman@evw.com -- EATON & VAN WINKLE
LLP Attorneys for Defendant Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and
Torbett, LLP


CINTAS CORP: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Castro accuses Cintas Corporation No. 3 of failing to pay
its workers' overtime wages in a class action lawsuit filed on
October 15, 2013, in the Santa Clara County Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, Ca 95023
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Diversity Law Group, P.C.
          550 South Hope St., Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, Ca 90071

The case is M. Castro v. Cintas Corporation No. 3, Case No. 1-13-
CV-254588, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara
County.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: $500MM Settlement Gets Tentative Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Bank
of America Corp.'s Countrywide unit won tentative final approval
of a $500 million securities class-action settlement with
investors in its devalued residential mortgage-backed securities.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, at
a hearing on Oct. 29 in Los Angeles, set aside objections from the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which had argued as receiver of
19 failed banks that the accord disproportionately favors a
subclass of the investors.

"I'm going to have to write something," the judge said, the report
related.  "Nothing is final until the court has written an order."

The settlement resolves claims that Countrywide, the largest U.S.
mortgage lender when it was taken over by Bank of America in 2008,
misled investors in offering documents about the quality of the
home loans that were pooled for the securities, the report said.
Many of the securities had been given the highest credit ratings
and lost value when they were cut to junk during the collapse of
the U.S. housing market.

"I think this a very, very significant case," Judge Pfaelzer told
the lawyers who filed the first class-action cases against
Countrywide as far as back 2007, the report further related.  "It
was really a very enterprising thing for you to do."

The case is Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial
Corp., 10-00302, U.S. District Court, Central District of
California (Los Angeles).

                   About Countrywide Financial

Based in Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial Corporation
(NYSE: CFC) -- http://www.countrywide.com/-- originated,
purchased, securitized, sold, and serviced residential and
commercial loans.

In mid-2008, Bank of America completed its purchase of Countrywide
for $2.5 billion.  The mortgage lender was originally priced at $4
billion, but the purchase price eventually was whittled down to
$2.5 billion based on BofA's stock prices that fell over 40% since
the time it agreed to buy the ailing lender.


CVS CAREMARK: Bid to Relate "Howard" Case to "Ortiz" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Howard v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 13-4009 (NC), have
filed an administrative motion to relate their case to Ortiz v.
CVS Caremark Corporation, a putative class action against CVS
Caremark and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., for off-the-clock work by non-
exempt employees.

The Defendants in Howard opposed the motion to relate.  Plaintiffs
in Ortiz do not oppose the motion.

In an October 15, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/PEQMOHfrom
Leagle.com, Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denies the
Howard plaintiffs motion to relate that case to Ortiz.

"There is some overlap between the classes, since some non-exempt
pharmacy employees in the putative Howard class allegedly
performed uncompensated off-the-clock interstore transfers that
would also put them in the Ortiz class," says Judge Laporte.
"However, the limited overlap of some class members is not enough
to reach the "substantial similarity" threshold," she added.

The case is ELIZABETH ORTIZ and GAIL MILLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS
CAREMARK CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, NO. C-12-05859(EDL),
(N.D. Cal.).


DIEBOLD INC: Sued by CS Engineers Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Litton, an individual, on behalf of himself, on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, and as a Private Attorney General
v. Diebold, Incorporated, a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CIV524776 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.,
October 17, 2013) alleges that the Company failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages to its customer service engineers.

Diebold provides integrated self-service delivery and security
systems and services primarily to the financial, commercial,
government, and retail markets worldwide.  The Company offers
self-service solutions, including automated teller machines,
check-cashing machines, bulk cash recyclers, and bulk check
deposit, as well as self-service software solutions consisting of
various applications that process events and transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


DIRECTV LLC: District Court Ruling in Technician's Suit Overturned
------------------------------------------------------------------
In DIRECTV, LLC v. ARNDT, John Arndt, Jeremy McMichen, and Stephen
Peacock (the Technicians) appealed a district court order granting
DIRECTV, LLC's petition to vacate an arbitration award under
Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the District Court Order saying the arbitrator's award
may have been ugly, and could have been mistaken, incorrect, or in
manifest disregard of the law, but those are not grounds for
vacating the award under Section 10(a)(4).

The case is DIRECTV, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN ARNDT,
STEPHEN PEACOCK, Defendants-Appellants, JEREMY McMICHEN,
Defendant, NO. 13-10033.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 22, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Fu2cKHfrom Leagle.com.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: "Gonzales" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller issued an order dismissing the
action captioned YOLANDA GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL
CARE HOLDINGS, d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA;
FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC.; AMERICAN ACCESS CARE OF SAN DIEGO,
LLC; and AMERICAN ACCESS CARE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV2488 JM, (S.D. Cal.).

In her complaint, Ms. Gonzales alleged eight state law wage and
hour claims.  She brought the alleged wage and hour claims on her
behalf and on behalf of six subclasses consisting of all former,
current, and prospective non-exempt employees of Defendants who
(1) did not receive an accurate timekeeping record; (2) worked
between five and ten hours without receiving the required meal
break or compensation; (3) worked more than ten hours without
receiving a second meal break or compensation; (4) did not receive
required rest periods or compensation; (5) did not receive an
accurate itemized wage statement; and (6) did not receive timely
payment upon termination of employment.

Defendants Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. d/b/a Fresenius
Medical Care North America, Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc.,
American Access Care of San Diego, LLC, and American Access Care
of Southern California, LLC moved to dismiss the Complaint for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Miller ruled that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the action without prejudice. The Clerk
of Court was instructed to close the file.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/bbDVTsfrom Leagle.com.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Service Technicians File Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that General Electric
Co. was hit with a putative class action in Florida federal court
on Oct. 25 by a group of service technicians who say they weren't
compensated for overtime hours accrued while working off the clock
to service company vans, to receive and confirm parts, and during
lunch breaks.

The lawsuit further raises allegations that the plaintiffs' direct
manager threatened and intimidated them not to submit accurate
time cards that reflected their actual hours worked.  The
plaintiffs, who have worked for GE repairing consumer appliances
in Florida as nonexempt employees since October 2010, are seeking
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"In direct violation of the FLSA and the applicable law requiring
compensation for work performed during a continuous workday,
defendant GE through its policies, practices and communications
advised plaintiffs and those similarly situated that the time they
spent on defendant GE's computer system in the morning before
their first call, the time thereafter spent driving to their first
service call of the day, as well as the time spent driving from
their final service call of the day and the time spent on
defendant GE's computer after they had returned home was not
compensable time," the complaint says.

In addition to the 21 named plaintiffs, the complaint says there
are similarly situated current and former service technicians in
Florida and throughout the United States who also worked off-the-
clock hours and were similarly not compensated.

Every day, plaintiffs and other technicians log on to their
computers and connect with GE's computer system to get their daily
service calls, information regarding those calls and information
regarding the parts, and to read and respond to emails and fulfill
their job duties.

The plaintiffs also receive parts and are required to confirm
receipt and to organize and place the parts into their service
vans.  Those duties are all performed off the clock, according to
the suit.

GE directed the plaintiffs to take a once-daily, one-hour unpaid
lunch break, which combined a one-half hour lunch and two daily
15-minute breaks.  However, due to high levels of customer calls
scheduled and the threat of discipline, the technicians were not
able to perform all of their scheduled service calls and take the
daily one-hour lunch, but instead performed work during their
lunch break for GE.

The lawsuit further alleges that GE knew, particularly through
direct manager Chris Miller, that it was not possible for the
technicians to perform their daily duties and take a one-hour
lunch break without working overtimes hours.

Because working overtime hours caused a reduction in the daily
revenue goal of GE, it was well known by Miller that the
plaintiffs were performing substantial work off the clock every
week in order to meet GE's daily revenue goals, according to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs seek overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of the action.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on Oct. 25.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert D. Soloff and by Alan
Eichenbaum of Law Firm of Alan Eichenbaum PA.

Counsel information for GE wasn't immediately available on
Oct. 25.

The case is Rolando Alvarez et al. v. General Electric Co., case
number 13-cv-62333, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: RICO Claims in Avandia Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that RICO claims brought against GlaxoSmithKline for its marketing
of the diabetes drug Avandia have cleared a hurdle in federal
court in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held that the claims brought as a potential class
action by the benefit funds of three labor unions under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act can proceed
against the pharmaceutical giant.  She dismissed claims for unjust
enrichment.

"In short, all three complaints allege that through its public
statements and marketing efforts, GSK engaged in deceptive
behavior with regard to the safety of Avandia, even after the
Nissen study was published, and it took steps to avoid detection
of their deceptive behavior," Judge Rufe said, referring to an
article published by Steven Nissen and Kathy Wolski in the New
England Journal of Medicine.

In 2007, the study reported the likelihood of heart problems
associated with people taking Avandia in order to control their
blood-sugar levels, according to the opinion.  Later that year,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required GSK to include a
"black box" warning to the Avandia label alerting people to a
possible increased risk of heart attacks.

GSK's effort to minimize the potential risks associated with its
drug ultimately caused the unions to pay more for diabetes
medication because they had covered Avandia, which was more
expensive than alternative medications, the plaintiffs argued.

"The complaints allege that GSK intended to mislead PBMs and TPPs,
so that they would include and prioritize Avandia on their
formularies and cover prescriptions for Avandia without
restrictions," Judge Rufe said.

TPPs are third-party payors, like the unions, and they typically
have PBMs, or pharmacy benefit managers, that prepare a list of
drugs that should be covered, called a formulary.  Formularies are
based on research about the safety and efficacy of various drugs,
according to the opinion, so if pharmaceutical companies conceal
information about a drug's side effects, the PBM won't be able to
take that into account when creating a formulary.

"Here, the TPPs opted to include Avandia on their formularies,
sometimes at a higher preference level than competing drugs, and
covered Avandia prescriptions at the favorable, formulary rate,"
Judge Rufe said, explaining that GSK had marketed Avandia, first
approved by the FDA in 1999, as a safe and effective treatment for
Type 2 diabetes.  Heart disease is a major cause of death for
patients with Type 2 diabetes, so reducing that risk is one of the
primary goals for diabetes medication, she said.

Since Avandia was first introduced, GSK had been aware of and the
FDA had been keeping track of research into heart problems
associated with the drug.

"Early on, plaintiffs allege, it was clear that certain adverse
events, such as fluid retention, edema, and congestive heart
failure, were associated with Avandia use," according to the
opinion, and in 2001, the FDA requested that a warning that fluid
retention could occur be attached to Avandia's packaging, the
opinion said.

It wasn't until six years later when the Nissen article was
published, before which GSK had gotten a copy of the report and
prepared a marketing campaign to restore consumer confidence in
Avandia, according to the opinion.

"Despite acknowledging, in internal documents, that the results of
the Nissen study were similar to the results of GSK's own
findings, GSK publicly challenged the methodology of and the
conclusions reached by the Nissen study," according to the
opinion.

It is that kind of concealment that led to Avandia's inclusion on
many third-party payors' formularies, the plaintiffs argued, which
led to them paying a premium for that drug over other diabetes
drugs.

"Absent GSK's conduct, plaintiffs allege, many patients would have
been prescribed metformin, another effective medication for
diabetes treatment, which plaintiffs claim is significantly
cheaper and carries less risk than Avandia," Judge Rufe said.

"The TPPs would then have covered the cost of prescriptions for a
less expensive drug, at substantial savings to them," she said.

The judge addressed in a footnote GSK's argument that some
diabetes drugs are in the same price range as Avandia and some
doctors choose to prescribe a combination of two less expensive
drugs with the total cost being comparable to Avandia.  "While the
court recognizes that this may be true, that argument is more
relevant to summary judgment or the calculation of damages; here,
at the pleading stage, plaintiffs' claims of injury are
sufficient," Judge Rufe said.

The judge did find, however, that the plaintiffs failed to reach
the standard for pleading a claim of unjust enrichment under
Pennsylvania law.

While the plaintiffs alleged that GSK's retention of the money
paid to it for Avandia when it hid the risks associated with the
drug was unjust, they didn't allege that Avandia injured a
beneficiary, that Avandia didn't perform as advertised, or that
their beneficiaries were told to throw out their Avandia when they
learned about the risks, Judge Rufe said.

"Therefore, based on the allegations before the court, it appears
that plaintiffs have received the benefit of their bargains," she
said.


GOLD CROSS: Wisconsin Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Frank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Gold Cross Ambulance Service, Inc., a Domestic Corporation,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01149 (E.D. Wis., October 9, 2013) is brought to
obtain relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Gold Cross Ambulance Service, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation that
provides ambulance services in the Fox Valley/Northeastern
Wisconsin Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          200 South Executive Drive, Suite 101
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


GOOGLE INC: Gmail Scanning Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Sindhu Sundar and Allison Grande, writing
for Law360, report that plaintiffs in the Gmail account-scanning
class action on Oct. 24 asked the judge overseeing the case to
certify several proposed classes of consumers who allegedly were
harmed by Google Inc.'s analysis of users' emails without
permission.

The plaintiffs, who accuse Google of analyzing content in Gmail
accounts without the consent of message senders or recipients, say
they satisfy all requirements for class certification under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Plaintiffs' factual and legal claims establish a 'common
contention' or 'central question' -- whether Google engaged in the
unlawful interception, reading and use of the class members' email
messages during the relevant time period.  These common
contentions involve statutory violations with statutory elements,
and the answer to any question on statutory elements will 'likely
generate a common answer 'apt to drive the resolution of this
litigation,'" the motion for class certification said.

In addition to arguing that questions of law or fact are common to
the classes, the plaintiffs say their claims are typical of the
classes they seek to represent.

Some of the named plaintiffs have Google Apps accounts, which
Google treats for all material purposes as Gmail accounts, and
they seek to represent classes who have allege the same injury
caused by the same conduct by Google.  Others maintain Gmail
accounts and seek to represent a class of minor Gmail account
holders who have suffered the same injury caused by the same
conduct.  Still others are non-Gmail users who have exchanged
emails with users and claim the same injury caused by the same
conduct.

"As to each named plaintiff and putative class member, Google
applied its uniform content extraction and acquisition practices
to their email exchanges with Gmail users.  In doing so, Google
violated plaintiffs' and class members' privacy rights, entitling
them to statutory damages and injunctive relief," the motion said.

Google Inc. has asked the California federal judge overseeing the
case for permission to immediately appeal a ruling that upheld
most claims in the class action.

In its motion for certification for interlocutory review, the
search engine giant argued that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's
Sept. 26 order allowing the plaintiffs' claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act to proceed warranted
immediate review by the Ninth Circuit to clear up murky issues
about how two exceptions to the 1986 statute apply to technologies
that did not exist when the law was enacted.

The plaintiffs have objected, arguing that the search giant has
not raised a real dispute between the circuits about the
interpretation of the federal Wiretap Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Wyly-Rommel PLLC, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris PC, Golomb & Honik
PC, Slocumb Law Firm LLC and Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland
PC, among others.

Google is represented by Michael G. Rhodes, Whitty Somvichian and
Kyle C. Wong of Cooley LLP and Kathleen M. Sullivan of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The case is In re: Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, case number 5:13-
md-02430, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Seek Court Nod on Gmail Ruling Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
Google are urging U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to allow the
company to appeal legal questions at the center of email privacy
suits that are closing in on the company.

In a controversial September ruling, Judge Koh struck down
Google's defenses to claims that it violated the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and state privacy laws by
scanning Gmail messages to help sell ads.  At a hearing on
Oct. 29, Google lawyer Kathleen Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan pressed Judge Koh to certify her order for
interlocutory review, arguing that the judge had tackled novel
legal questions which could reshape technology companies'
interactions with users.

"It is important not just for getting this case right but for
getting other cases right that are going to determine the course
of business in the Valley," said Ms. Sullivan.  She pointed to a
similar suit filed against Yahoo Inc. the week after Judge Koh's
order.

Judge Koh questioned whether granting Google's request for an
immediate appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit would advance or delay the litigation.  The case,
Judge Koh noted, is proceeding at a brisk pace, and she is set to
hear the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in January.

Judge Koh referenced the Ninth Circuit's review this year of an
interlocutory appeal Google filed in another privacy fight.  In
that case, Google asked the appeals court to reconsider a 2011
ruling from U.S. District Judge James Ware over data collected
during its Street View mapping project.  Earlier this year, the
Ninth Circuit ruled against Google and endorsed the district
judge's findings that the company can be sued under the federal
Wiretap Act for sniffing out data from home Wi-Fi networks.

"More than two and a half years later, we're still no closer to
the termination of the litigation," Judge Koh said.  "In fact, I
think we might be further away."

Ms. Sullivan told Judge Koh that speed should not be the only
consideration.  "The point here . . . is to try to get the guiding
law right in advance," she said.

Judge Koh found in September that scanning messages to help sell
ads does not fall under an "ordinary course of business" exemption
for electronic communications service providers under federal and
state wiretap laws.  She also rejected the company's argument that
users had agreed to the practice, finding that Google's terms of
service and privacy policy were too vague to add up to consent.

Insisting that no other courts have ruled contrary to Judge Koh's
conclusions, plaintiffs lawyer Nancy Tompkins of Kerr & Wagstaffe
argued that the law is already clear enough.  To the extent that
there are questions as to what the 1986 Electronic Communications
Privacy Act means for email providers like Google, the company
chose to wade into uncertain terrain, she added.

"We believe that Google did the math and took the risk and decided
that it wasn't willing to risk giving up the revenue it might give
up if it told its customers what it was planning on doing," she
said.

Chiming in over the phone, interim lead counsel Sean Rommel --
srommel@wylyrommel.com -- of Texas-based Wyly Rommel insisted that
Congress did not mean to give Internet companies free rein to
define their businesses, though the law was made before email was
prevalent.

"Google can't be operating under the ordinary course of business
if its self-imposed limitations are being violated or it is
committing what we assert is essentially fraud on the community,"
he said.

Lawyers for Google warned in their motion seeking certification
for interlocutory review that Judge Koh's order could have dire
consequences for Silicon Valley companies.  Responding to the
"doomsday scenario," Judge Koh suggested that companies like
Google could simply clarify their privacy policies, especially if,
as Google contends, users already accept that their emails will be
automatically processed.

"What is the harm to the Valley . . . of a more explicit consent
provision?" Judge Koh asked.

But Ms. Sullivan said such a simple solution is not on the table.

"This is a case about statutory damages on a massive scale," she
said.  "We would submit that the policies were already plenty
clear."


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Omits $25 Fee From Advertised Rates, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide deceptively omits a $25 per night "resort fee"
from its advertised room rates, a class action claims in Oahu
Circuit court.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 27,500 Genesis Sedans Over Brake Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Hyundai said on Oct. 21 it is recalling about
27,500 Genesis sedans in the United States from the 2009 to 2012
model years to address a potential brake issue.

Hyundai said it is recalling the cars, which were built from
April 1, 2008, through March 16, 2012, to replace the brake fluid.

The company had already initiated a service campaign in March to
replace the brake fluid in the affected cars as they were brought
into the dealers.  The fluid had been replaced in about 60
percent, or about 40,000, of the vehicles, a spokesman said.

However, after receiving word that U.S. safety regulators had
opened an investigation into an estimated 40,000 Genesis cars from
the 2009 model year, Hyundai decided to recall the rest, the
company said.  Letters will be mailed to the affected owners
starting next month.

Owners will be instructed to bring their cars to Hyundai dealers
for brake inspection and changing of the brake fluid with a
replacement fluid that contains an anticorrosive additive, the
Hyundai spokesman said.  There will be no cost to the owners.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened the
preliminary evaluation after receiving 23 consumer complaints
alleging reduced brake effectiveness, according to documents filed
online.  Several complaints said the problem was diagnosed as a
faulty antilock brake system module.

In one complaint NHTSA received, a consumer in Florida alleged
that her brakes did not work, resulting in a crash into another
vehicle stopped at a red light.  In another complaint, the
consumer reported responding to the same problem by using the
parking brake, which caused the driver to lose control.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accused of Selling Defective Gynemesh Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela G. Early and Charles Early v. Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon,
Inc., and Ethicon, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-00064-GFVT (E.D. Ky.,
October 16, 2013) accuses the Defendants of selling defective
Gynemesh products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          Matthew L. White, Esq.
          Doris A. Kim, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          713 E. Market Street, Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 805-1800
          E-mail: mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com
                  mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com
                  dkim@grayandwhitelaw.com


JP MORGAN: Appeals Denial of Arbitration Motion in "Lloyd" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase investment Services Corp.
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit from a memorandum order denying their motion to compel
arbitration and granting a motion for conditional certification.

The appellate case is Lloyd, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et
al., Case No. 13-03963 (2d Cir. October 9, 2013).

The original case, Lloyd, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-9305 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2011), challenges
the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of classifying their
employees, whose primary duties involve selling securities and
other financial products at Chase branches ("Financial Advisors"),
as exempt from the overtime requirements of state and federal
laws.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
                  daaron@outtengolden.com
                  jms@outtengolden.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6642
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: tlinthorst@morganlewis.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Escapes Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reports that
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was released on Oct. 28 from one of
the many securities class actions brought against it after its
collapse when the Second Circuit ruled that an amended complaint
drawn up by the class was barred by the statute of limitations and
the statute of repose.

The plaintiffs originally claimed that the forms they signed to
purchase securities from Lehman failed to disclose that the
company had a 30:1 gross leverage ratio.  But the plaintiffs'
amended complaint alleged not that Lehman had lied about the ratio
but, but that it had hidden transactions so as to obscure the true
ratio.

In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court's
ruling that the amended complaint was barred because it was
written more than a year after the original and that, in any case,
the new claims did not relate to the original claims.

"Appellants' original complaints alleged material omissions
regarding Lehman's exposure to [collateralized debt obligations]
and its leverage ratio," the opinion said.  "The consolidated
amended complaint reverses course and is based on an entirely new
theory encompassing different conduct."

The plaintiffs, a group of eight individuals who allegedly bought
Lehman debt securities between November 2005 and November 2007,
filed separate putative class actions in October and November
2008, alleging that the relevant offering documents had not
revealed Lehman's CDO assets or its 30:1 gross leverage ratio.

Even though Lehman had reported the ratio in its SEC forms, the
plaintiffs asserted that the information was missing because it
was not included in the prospectuses, according to the Second
Circuit.

But when the plaintiffs combined their cases and filed a
consolidated amended complaint in November 2011, they alleged that
Lehman materially misstated its leverage ratios in SEC forms that
were incorporated by reference into the offering documents, and
that these ratios were false because they were manipulated through
Repo 105 transactions, the Second Circuit said.

According to the appellate court, the original complaints
contained no mention that this accounting treatment had caused the
bank to misstate its leverage ratio.

The Second Circuit also dismissed the plaintiffs' original
complaint concerning Lehman's CDO exposure, finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to allege when Lehman acquired the CDOs that
it would have been required to disclose, how much it held at the
time of the offerings, or how much was sufficient to be material
to an investor at the time of the challenged offerings.

"The consolidated amended complaint is simply barren of
allegations regarding the circumstances at the time of any
offering challenged by the appellants," the court said.

Judges Debra Ann Livingston, Gerard E. Lynch and Christopher F.
Droney sat on the panel for the Second Circuit.

Appellants are represented by Allen Carney of Carney Williams
Bates Bozeman & Pulliam PLLC and by Roy L. Jacobs --
jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com -- of Roy Jacobs & Associates.

Appellees are represented by Mitchell A Lowenthal, Victor L. Hou,
Roger A. Cooper, Jared M. Gerber, and David E. Haller of Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

The case is Caldwell et al. v. Berlind et al., case number 13-156,
in The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


LENOVO INC: Parker Waichman Files Suit Over Defective Notebooks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, working with Washington, D.C.-based
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, on Oct. 22 filed with the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia a class action lawsuit against
Lenovo Inc. (Michael Wheeler et al v. Lenovo Inc., Case No. 13-
0007150).  The lawsuit stems from allegations that the company
sold defective notebook computers using deceptive marketing
practices in the process.

According to the Complaint, consumers bought the Lenovo IdeaPad U
Series Ultrabook notebook computers believing the products were
capable of working at standard wireless (Wi-Fi) speeds, from
standard ranges.  However, contrary to Lenovo's promotional
materials that supported such Wi-Fi-related claims, these
Ultrabook notebook computers were unable to connect to Wi-Fi
and/or obtain Wi-Fi speeds fast enough to allow for basic mobile
Internet browsing when near a Wi-Fi networking source, according
to court documents.  The lawsuit further alleges that the
computers contain an inherent defect that prevents them from
offering basic Wi-Fi functionality.  Consequently, the lawsuit
charges, these IdeaPad Ultrabooks are unfit for their intended
purpose of wireless and/or mobile computing, and are unable to
perform as Lenovo's marketing materials and warranties imply.

The Complaint further alleges that Lenovo responded to charges of
a defect in the notebook series by admitting to the existence of
an unidentified hardware defect, which it described as being the
cause of the problem.  The Complaint notes that, according to
Lenovo, IdeaPad U Series Ultrabooks manufactured after July 23,
2012, were given a hardware design update to fix the defect.
However, computers in the series still have the defect, according
to the Complaint.  In addition, the Complaint highlights that the
Defendant knew of the defect while it was putting updated
computers on the market and launching promotional campaigns to
help support sales.

If you or someone you know has purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad notebook
computer, you may have valuable legal rights.  To discuss your
case with one of our lawyers, please view our Lenovo IdeaPad
Ultrabook Class Action Lawsuits page or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-
800-529-4636).

Contact:

Parker Waichman LLP
Jordan Chaikin, Partner
1+ (800) LAW-INFO
1+ (800) 529-4636
Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com


MADISON-KIPP: Judge Approves $4.6-Mil. Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb on Oct. 28 approved a $4.6
million settlement of an environmental lawsuit against Madison-
Kipp by a group of its neighbors.

Under the class-action settlement reached in July, the 32 homes,
which abut Kipp's plant along South Marquette and Waubesa streets,
will receive money and pollution control equipment and Kipp will
replace the top one foot of soil from their yards with clean fill.

Two homeowners opted out of the class, one before the settlement
was reached and the other after receiving notice of the class
action settlement.

The settlement is similar to one for $2.6 million that involves 52
other neighboring homes that was approved last month in Dane
County Circuit Court.

In both cases, neighbors alleged that contamination from the East
Side manufacturing plant has lowered property values.  Kipp
continues to deny the allegations. A state environmental lawsuit
is still pending.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that a
federal judge on Oct. 25 denied a motion from the NCAA to dismiss
an antitrust lawsuit pertaining to the use of college athletes'
names and likenesses.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, sets the stage
for another key ruling that is pending in the case, whether to
certify the case as a class action.

Video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and the nation's leading
collegiate trademark licensing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.,
have reached a proposed settlement in the case.  That leaves the
NCAA as the lone defendant in a suit whose named plaintiffs are a
group of current and former college football and men' basketball
players, including former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon.

If the case is granted class-action status, many more plaintiffs
could join the case and the damages at stake could be in the
billions of dollars.

Michael Hausfeld, a lead attorney for plaintiffs, reiterated his
willingness to discuss a settlement with NCAA lawyers and
officials, saying the Oct. 25 decision "may finally convince or
influence them to pull their heads out of the sand."

The NCAA's chief legal officer Donald Remy issued a statement in
which he said, in part, the association expects "to seek judgment
in our favor . . . in our upcoming summary judgment motion" -- a
request for a favorable ruling without a trial.

Judge Wilken's basic ruling on Oct. 25 -- that none of the NCAA's
three arguments "provides grounds for dismissing Plaintiffs'
claims at this stage" -- was not surprising.  The case has been
going for about 4 1/2 years, and plaintiffs' arguments are given a
great deal of leeway on these types of dismissal motions at this
stage.

However, what Judge Wilken wrote in support of her ruling carries
some potentially troubling signs for the NCAA.  In the course of a
24-page opinion, Judge Wilken indicated that the case should not
be bound by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA has relied
upon to preserve its amateurism system.  In addition, she let
stand the plaintiffs' contention that NCAA rules forbidding
schools from offering money to recruits for their labor or for the
commercial use of their names and likenesses restrains competition
for the athletes and results in lower compensation for the
athletes than would otherwise exist in a more competitive market.

"These allegations are sufficient to state a Sherman (Antitrust)
Act claim," she wrote.

Sports law icon and antitrust expert Gary Roberts -- former dean
of the Indiana University law school in Indianapolis -- said that
part of Judge Wilken's opinion is "something that I think will
undoubtedly give the NCAA some serious concern."

"If the judge considers the market in which Alabama and LSU and
Ohio State compete for the top athletic talent to be a relevant
labor market for anti-trust purposes," Mr. Roberts said, "that
fundamentally undercuts the very foundation upon which the NCAA
rests" at least for football and men's basketball.

Meanwhile, the judge also raised questions about the applicability
to this case of the 1984 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Board of
Regents, a case that was about control of college football TV
rights but the opinion on which included the statement that "in
order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA's)
'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend
class and the like."

The NCAA has relied upon this language in defending its amateurism
system and has successfully used it many prior legal cases.

However, Judge Wilken wrote in the Oct. 25 ruling that the case
"does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes
must be barred, both during their college years and forever
thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the
commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses.

"Although it is possible that the NCAA's ban on student-athlete
pay serves some procompetitive purpose, such as increasing
consumer demand for college sports, Plaintiffs' plausible
allegations to the contrary must be accepted as true at the
pleading stage."

Judge Wilken also wrote that the Supreme Court "never even
analyzed the NCAA's ban on student-athlete compensation under the
rule of reason nor did it cite any fact findings indicating that
this ban is the type of restraint is 'essential if the (NCAA's)
product is to be available at all'.  More importantly, the Court
never examined whether or not the ban on student-athlete
compensation actually had a procompetitive effect on the college
sports market."

In a footnote, she added: "Even if the Court had examined the
compensation ban under the rule of reason, Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged that the 'business of college sports' has
changed dramatically over the three decades since Board of Regents
was decided."

This has been an important underlying part of the plaintiffs'
case.

"The only entity that ever believed that Board of Regents
presumptively immunized any NCAA restraints was the NCAA itself,"
Mr. Hausfeld said on Oct. 25.

Mr. Remy indicated that the NCAA is far from ready to abandon the
Board of Regents case language.

"We continue to believe the rules establishing the revered
traditions of college sports are fully consistent with the
antitrust laws, as the United States Supreme Court and other
courts have repeatedly made clear," his statement said.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Cardioplegia Blamed on 2 Children Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that the
defunct drug compounding company blamed for 64 deaths nationwide
and 16 in Tennessee from a fungus-tainted steroid is now being
blamed for the deaths of two Nevada children who were administered
a different drug from the same company during open heart surgery.

In the two nearly identical suits filed in U.S. District Court in
Nevada, the parents of the two children charge that a heart
medication called cardioplegia led to the deaths in September of
last year.  Both had undergone surgery at the Sunrise Hospital and
Medical Center in Las Vegas.

The hospital, its pharmacist, and the owners of the now-defunct
New England Compounding Center are named as defendants in the
cases.

According to the court filings, Zacharie Rood-Sucharzewski, 6, was
administered the drug on July 12 of last year and died on Sept. 6.
His father, Alan Suchsrzewski, was not informed that the heart
drug their son had been administered had been recalled until Oct.
18.

In the second case, Ari Thomas Gomez, 4, was administered the same
drug on Aug. 14, 2012, and died on Sept. 24, nine days after his
fourth birthday.  His mother, Katrina Eldreth, according to the
complaint, was not informed that her son had been treated with the
same recalled drug until she received a letter from Sunrise dated
Oct. 18.

The suits charge that the hospital and its pharmacist were
negligent in purchasing the drug from NECC, which had a history of
regulatory troubles.

The Nevada suits follow the filing of several dozen suits on
behalf of victims and their survivors who contracted fungal
meningitis after being injected with a tainted steroid at
Tennessee health facilities.

Besides the owners of NECC, the suit names as a defendant a sister
company owned by the same principals and another company that
performed sterility tests on NECC products.

In addition to negligence, the suits charge violations of Nevada's
product liability law.

The recall of cardioplegia and all other drugs shipped by NECC
came after federal inspectors found widespread fungal and
bacterial contamination in the company's Framingham, Mass.,
headquarters.


NOKIA INC: "Romero" Suit in California Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice Ruben
Romero's class action lawsuit against Nokia, Inc., et al.  Nokia,
Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of the Finnish parent company, Nokia
Corp.

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") on behalf of himself, the
Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan ("the plan"), and a
class of all participants in the plan for whose individual
accounts the plan invested in the Nokia Stock Fund ("the fund")
from January 19, 2012 through the present.  The Defendants in the
case are Nokia, Inc.; Nokia Retirement Savings and Investment Plan
Committee (along with individual committee members Billie
Hartless, Brian Miller, Arto Sirvio, Mario Viamin, Bob Burns,
Denise Doyle, Kate Harmon, and Susan McFarlane; and plan
administrator Linda Fonteneaux); and members of the Nokia board of
directors (Chris Weber, Oliver Puech, Todd D. Leitstein, Benjamin
C. Adams; along with Mario Viamin and Arto Sirvio (who are also
members of the plan committee)).  The Plaintiff asserts three
causes of action (labeled as "counts"): (1) failure to prudently
and loyally manage the plan and assets of the plan; (2) failure to
monitor fiduciaries; and (3) co-fiduciary liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Michael Stuart Strimling, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
                  mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          James G. Flynn, Esq.
          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: jflynn@hfesq.com
                  rharwood@hfesq.com
                  tkorkhov@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
                  rizard@izardnobel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gidon M. Caine, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008
          Telephone: (650) 838-2060
          Facsimile: (650) 838-2001
          E-mail: gidon.caine@alston.com

               - and -

          Howard Douglas Hinson, Esq.
          Emily Seymour Costin, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          The Atlantic Building
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
          E-mail: doug.hinson@alston.com
                  emily.costin@alston.com

The case is Romero v. Nokia, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-06260-
PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).


PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Settles Sandusky Cases for $59.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Pennsylvania State University has agreed to pay $59.7 million to
settle 26 cases involving individuals who were allegedly sexually
abused at the hands of Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football
coach at the school.

The announcement confirms what was reported over the summer by The
Legal that the university settled with the majority of plaintiffs
who said they had been abused by Mr. Sandusky.  Mr. Sandusky was
convicted in June 2012 on 45 of 48 counts of child sexual abuse.

According to an announcement from the university, 23 of the
settlement agreements are signed and three have been agreed to in
principle, with the final documentation expected to be completed
in the next few weeks.  The university also confirmed that it
received a total of 32 claims from alleged victims, and said that
some have been rejected as being without merit.

"On behalf of my law firm's seven clients, I can say that they are
pleased to close this chapter and they're also pleased to see that
there's public recognition that the claims that they had were
valid," said Matthew Casey of Ross Feller Casey.  "They can now
get on with their lives."

While Penn State announced the number on Oct. 28, the university
confirmed in July that its board approved tentative settlements
with some of the claimants, but planned to hold off on announcing
the number until it settled with everyone.  More than 15 lawyers
represented the plaintiffs.

All of the victims who testified against Sandusky in the criminal
case negotiated with Penn State.  The man known as Victim 2, who
Mike McQueary, a former assistant coach, said he saw Mr. Sandusky
molest in a shower in 2001, also negotiated with the university.
Others, including a man named Travis Weaver, who went public after
testimony closed in Sandusky's trial, and Matt Sandusky,
Sandusky's adopted son, sought settlements with Penn State as
well.

It is The Legal's policy not to publish names of victims, except
in cases where they themselves have made a public statement out of
court.

In August, Michael K. Rozen of Feinberg Rozen in Washington, D.C.,
and New York told The Legal that the claims could be divided into
three tiers for determining value.

According to Mr. Rozen, the highest-valued category encompassed
claims alleging abuse after February 2001, when Mr. McQueary
reported to Penn State officials that he witnessed Sandusky raping
Victim 2 in a university locker room shower.  The second-highest
category encompassed those claims that fell between 1998, when
allegations of abuse by Sandusky were investigated but ultimately
dropped, and the Mr. McQueary incident, Mr. Rozen said.  The
lowest category, meanwhile, included those claims that came before
the 1998 investigation, according to Mr. Rozen, who did not
immediately return a call for comment on Oct. 28.

Penn State has also been battling its primary insurance carrier,
Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co., over
coverage during the relevant time period.  The litigation is over
the extent to which PMA has to cover Penn State in both defense
costs and damages payouts.  The insurance case came just months
after Sandusky and two former Penn State administrators were
criminally charged and as civil claims against the university by
Sandusky's accusers came to be seen as increasingly likely.  A
third administrator has since been criminally charged in
connection with the Sandusky scandal.


PILOT CORPORATION: Order Denying Stay in "Wright" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. PILOT CORPORATION
appealed a Magistrate Judge's decision denying their motion
requesting a stay on three grounds: (1) a class action (of which
class the plaintiff is a member) has been tentatively resolved,
with a fairness hearing scheduled for November and final approval
anticipated thereafter; (2) the MDL Panel then had pending a
motion to consolidate and transfer a number of similar actions,
including this one; and (3) a criminal investigation into the
conduct underlying the plaintiff's claims is ongoing. On appeal,
Pilot invokes only the first of these reasons, thereby effectively
abandoning the second and third.

According to Chief District Judge William H. Steele, Pilot focuses
its energy on disagreeing with the Magistrate Judge's assessment
of the predicted prejudice to each side should a stay be granted
or denied.  But the question before the Court is not whether the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning can be nitpicked but whether her
order denying a stay is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, he
says.

"On the evidence and argument presented, her decision to deny a
stay is neither. The Magistrate Judge's order is affirmed,"
concludes Judge Steele.

The case is WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., etc., Plaintiff, v. PILOT
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0352-WS-N,
(S.D. Ala.).

A copy of the District Court's October 21, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/7c5OgWfrom Leagle.com.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Oct. 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Pretium Resources,
Inc. who purchased PVG common stock, call options or sold put
options, during the period between January 9, 2012 and October 21,
2013, seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.

To join the Pretium class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Pretium, certain of its officers and directors, and Silver
Standard Resources, Inc. in connection with Pretium's fraudulent
statements about the probable mineral reserves at the Valley of
Kings ("VOK") zone.  On October 22, 2013, the Pretium announced
Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd., one of the companies dealing
with Pretium bulk sample update, withdrew from the Program before
any results from the processing of the bulk sample were available.
In withdrawing from the Program, Strathcona advised Pretium that
". . . there are no valid gold mineral resources for the VOK Zone,
and without mineral resources there can be no mineral reserves,
and without mineral reserves there can be no basis for a
Feasibility Study."  They also advised that ". . . statements
included in all recent press releases [by Pretium] about probable
mineral reserves and future gold production [from the Valley of
the Kings zone] over a 22-year mine life are erroneous and
misleading."  As a result of this adverse news, Pretium's share
price dropped, causing investors damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 24, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


PRICEENERGY.COM INC: Violates Racketeering Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spadafore Oil Company, et al., filed a class action lawsuit
against PriceEnergy.com, Inc., Exousia Advanced Materials, Inc.,
Evergreen Global Investments Ltd., Able Energy, Inc., Wayne
Rodrigue, Robert Roddie, Clifford Roth, and Robert Frost alleging
violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Spadafore is a Massachusetts corporation based in Loeminster,
Massachusetts.

PriceEnergy is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in Rockaway.
PriceEnergy is an Internet-based company that acted as a heating
oil broker.  PriceEnergy is a subsidiary of Exousia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Berman, Esq.
          HARTMANN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, LLC
          65 Route 4 East
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Telephone: (201) 441-9056
          E-mail: mberman@hdrbb.com

               - and -

          Eric P. Schutzer, Esq.
          THE SCHUTZER GROUP, PLLC
          330 Seventh Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 714-0700
          E-mail: ericschutzer@theschutzergroup.com

The case is Spadafore Oil Company, et al. v. PriceEnergy.com,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-05994-KM-MAH, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settlement of Crest Toothpaste Buyers Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Procter & Gamble must refund hundreds of thousands of
consumers who say they were deceived into buying Crest Sensitivity
toothpaste in the last two years, a federal judge ruled.

Edward Rossi says he chose to buy Crest Sensitivity Treatment &
Protection toothpaste over a less expensive one at a CVS store
near his home in Bergen County, N.J., because the "New!" product's
advertising and labeling allegedly promised "relief within
minutes" and said it would "stop tooth pain, fast."

But those promises were false and unsubstantiated, Rossi claimed
in a class action against the Procter & Gamble (P&G) in December
2011.

The stannous fluoride toothpaste is essentially identical to Crest
Pro-Health, but for its slightly different coloring additive and
price, according to the complaint.  While a 4.2-ounce tube of the
new bottle cost $6.99, the older product sold for $3.99.

P&G's marketing "tricks purchasers into paying a 75 percent price
premium over comparable products that do not claim to provide
rapid relief, but require weeks of use to reduce tooth
sensitivity," Rossi said.

Rossi also claimed that the Better Business Bureau's National
Advertising Division reported that "no competent and reliable
scientific evidence" supports P&G's product descriptions.

Several other consumers filed related suits, and U.S. District
Judge Jose Linares in Newark refused to dismiss Rossi's case in
July 2012.

After the parties entered into a global settlement in January
2013, Linares conditionally certified the class and granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Judge Linares issued final approval on Oct. 3, noting that the
notice-program website had received more than 93,000 visits as of
Aug. 19 with only one objection filed.

That objector did "not explain how or why he believes that class
counsel has failed to sustain its burden of proof as to the Rule
23 requirements," the unpublished ruling states (emphasis in
original). "Without providing reasons in support of his conclusory
statement, this court is not in a position to assess -- in any
meaningful way -- the merits of his argument."

The judge later added: "The absence of any meaningful objections,
combined with the size of the class recovery, the sound notice
program, and the real risks associated with taking this matter to
trial all indicate that the settlement ought to be approved. The
court therefore grants the motion for final approval of the
settlement reached in this matter."

Every class member who submits a valid claim form will receive
either the purchase price actually paid, or $4, according to the
ruling.  Eligible consumers include all persons in the United
States who bought Crest Sensitivity toothpaste between February
2011 and March 2013.

Judge Linares separately awarded class counsel $700,000 in
attorneys' fees and nearly $13,000 for out-of-pocket costs, plus
$1,500 incentive awards to each named plaintiff.

The law firms Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello;
Bursor & Fisher; and Faruqi & Faruqi were certified as class
counsel.

Procter & Gamble, ranked No. 27 on the Fortune 500, reported about
$84.17 billion in revenue in 2012-13.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Lynn Del Medico, Esq.
          Marissa J. Cohen, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-3658
          Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
          E-mail: jdelmedico@jonesday.com
                  mjcohen@jonesday.com

The case is Edward Rossi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. The Proctor & Gamble Company,
Case No. 2:11-cv-07238-JLL-MAH, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.


RALPHS GROCERY: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that over the last
year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first killed
and then revived a California state law that provides an escape
hatch from compulsory arbitration.

On Oct. 28 the Ninth Circuit declared the law dead -- again.

A three-judge panel ruled that California's Broughton-Cruz
doctrine, which forbids the compulsory arbitration of claims for
public injunctive relief, can't be reconciled with the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark 2011 decision AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion.

Though a different panel of the court reached the same conclusion
18 months ago, an en banc panel withdrew that decision earlier
this year, saying the case could be decided without reaching the
issue.  All that did was delay the inevitable, as a new three-
judge panel, this time led by Judge Richard Clifton, again plunged
the dagger on Oct. 28.

"A rule that precludes an arbitrator from fashioning injunctive
relief is similar to the Supreme Court's illustrative list of
preempted state rules in Concepcion," Judge Clifton wrote in
Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges.  Language in Concepcion "strongly
suggests even where a specific remedy has implications for the
public at large, it must be arbitrated under the [Federal
Arbitration Act] if the parties have agreed to arbitrate it."

But the news wasn't all bad for plaintiffs on Oct. 28.  The same
panel that decided Ferguson also ruled that a compulsory
arbitration agreement between Ralphs Grocery Co. and its employees
"shocked the conscience" and was therefore unenforceable.  That
decision bolstered a ruling from the California Supreme Court last
week which said that the doctrine of unconscionability remains
viable in the wake of Concepcion.

"Federal law favoring arbitration is not a license to tilt the
arbitration process in favor of the party with more bargaining
power," Judge Clifton wrote in Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

                      'Clearly Irreconcilable'

The California Supreme Court established in Broughton v. Cigna
Health Plans and Cruz v. Pacificare Health Systems that claims for
injunctive relief on behalf of the general public cannot be forced
into arbitration.  The Ninth Circuit recognized the Broughton/Cruz
rule for California cases in 2007, in Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers.

Last year a Ninth Circuit panel led by Judge Stephen Trott ruled
the Broughton-Cruz doctrine had been overruled by Concepcion.  But
in rehearing the case en banc, Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote that it
wasn't necessary to reach the issue because the plaintiffs in that
case, students at a failed school for helicopter pilots, were
seeking only to enjoin a bank from collecting on their debts.

The Ferguson case decided on Oct. 28 has similar facts.  Students
at vocational schools owned by Corinthian Colleges brought class
actions alleging that the school misled them about future
employment opportunities.  Corinthian allegedly targeted veterans
and military personnel so that they could obtain tuition through
federal financial aid programs.

The students sought to enjoin the school from continuing to
recruit other students through alleged misrepresentations, putting
the Broughton-Cruz issue squarely in play.  The result was the
same as Judge Trott's initial decision in the helicopter case.
"We conclude that the portion of Davis applying the Broughton-Cruz
rule is clearly irreconcilable with subsequent United States
Supreme Court decisions concerning the FAA," Judge Clifton wrote.
That meant not only Concepcion, but the American Express v.
Italian Colors decision from the U.S. Supreme Court last June.

"The Broughton-Cruz doctrine was an example of a state-created
impediment to the enforceability of certain types of arbitration
agreements," said Tyler Green, associate chief counsel for
litigation at amicus curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  "We're
pleased that on Oct. 28 the Ninth Circuit followed the U.S.
Supreme Court's many recent cases teaching that the Federal
Arbitration Act preempts such state-law impediments."

James Sturdevant, one of the attorneys for the helicopter
students, said the American Express decision left the Ninth
Circuit little choice.  "That was like the final shoe with a ton
of bricks on top," said Mr. Sturdevant, a former president of
Consumer Attorneys of California who was not involved in the
Corinthian Colleges case.

Judge Clifton further held that an arbitrator can award injunctive
relief -- if the arbitration agreement so provides.  If the
arbitrator concludes he lacks that authority, plaintiffs can
return to district court, Judge Clifton wrote, though he reserved
judgment on what should happen then.

Judges Richard Tallman and Consuelo Callahan concurred.

Albert Chang of San Diego's Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini
argued the case for the students.  Peter Homer of Miami's
HomerBonner argued for Corinthian Colleges, which also was
represented by Reed Smith and Herron, Jacobs & Ortiz.

                     Unconscionable Agreement

The same panel did not look kindly on a Ralphs Grocery employment
contract that required employees to pay half of the arbitrator's
costs up front.  The contract also set up a process for picking an
arbitrator that, according to the Ninth Circuit, meant that Ralphs
would get the choice most of the time.

Ralphs, which also was represented by Reed Smith, argued that the
contract wasn't procedurally unconscionable.  Noting that it asked
applicants to "please" sign and date it, Ralphs argued
Zenia Chavarria wasn't actually required to sign the contract to
get her job as a deli clerk.

Clifton sarcastically dismissed that argument. "That Ralphs asked
nicely for a signature is irrelevant," he wrote.

Substantively, the troubling aspect of the agreement was the
arbitrator fee provision.  "Ralphs' term requires that the
arbitrator impose significant costs on the employee up front,
regardless of the merits of the employee's claims, and severely
limits the authority of the arbitrator to allocate arbitration
costs in the award," Clifton wrote.  "Ralphs has constructed an
arbitration system that imposes non-recoverable costs on employees
just to get in the door."

Glenn Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone Law
Group argued the case for Ms. Chavarria.  Reed Smith's Steven Katz
-- skatz@reedsmith.com -- argued for Ralphs.


SAN LUIS AMBULANCE: Faces Suit in California Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie M. Javine, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. San Luis Ambulance Service Inc., a
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:13-cv-
07480-BRO-SS (C.D. Cal., October 9, 2013) is a class, collective,
and representative action brought to recover unpaid wages and
penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9.

San Luis Ambulance Service, Inc. controls and operates businesses
and establishments in locations within the state of California,
county of San Luis Obispo, which employs Emergency Medical
Technicians and Paramedics, and provides ambulance-services that
provide Critical Care Transport and Advanced Life Support to its
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
          Erica Flores Baltoaano, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          1411 Marsn Street, Suite 102
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  efb@bbemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN
          5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-9900
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
          E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
                  fschmidt@bollaw.com


SHAI MOR-YOSEF: Faces NIS13MM Class Action Over Rihanna Concert
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globes, reports that a NIS13 million
lawsuit has been filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, with a
request to have it recognized as a class-action suit, against the
producers of Rihanna's performance in Tel Aviv, Shai Mor-Yosef and
Guy Beser.

The petitioner, Liron Shor, who was at the performance, claims,
"The producers did not provide the full value for the show, and
pocketed large sums of money."  He claims, "The show began an hour
and ten minutes late, during which time the audience stood and
waited for the singer with great frustration, and feeling of
insult and anger."

Mr. Shor adds, "In view of the failure of the value, the purpose
of the lawsuit is to compensate the audience, which is why this
suit has great public importance."

Rihanna's performance, on Oct. 22, has been called by members of
the audience, "Utterly improvised," "scandalous", and "shameful".
One person said, "We feel cheated and deceived."


SHINNECOCK FISH: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny De Los Santos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shinnecock Fish Packaging Co., Inc., d/b/a
Dean's Seafood and Roger Dean, Case No. 2:13-cv-05597-LDW-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., October 9, 2013) seeks to remedy the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff's overtime premium pay as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shinnecock Fish Packaging Co., Inc., is a New York corporation
based in Bayshore, New York.  Mr. Dean is the Company's president.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
          3 School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: stevenjmoserpc@gmail.com


SOURCE AWNINGS: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amado Varona Montalvan and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Source Awnings, LLC, Conquest Financial
Management Corp. d/b/a Source Outdoor and Frank Rivero, Case No.
1:13-cv-23657-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2013) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act related to unpaid overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Source Awnings is a limited liability company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Conquest Financial
Management Corp. is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dade County.  Frank Rivero is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of the Defendant Companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SPECIALTY MEDICINE: Recalls 98 Unexpired Sterile Medications
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Behnan and Gannett Michigan, writing for Detroit Free
Press, report that a South Lyon compounding pharmacy is recalling
98 unexpired sterile medications out of "an abundance of caution"
after contamination was discovered in one of its products at a
Michigan hospital, the facility's spokesman said on Oct. 21.

Specialty Medicine Compounding Pharmacy learned Saturday that
particulate matter of some kind was discovered in vials of a
dextrose-based intravenous solution dispensed to a Henry Ford
Health System hospital.

No illnesses have been reported at that hospital from the
contaminated product, which has been removed.  Dextrose-based
intravenous solution is an intravenous (IV) solution used to
supply water and calories to the body.  It is also used as a
diluent for other IV medications.

Testing is underway to determine what the contamination was.

"Very little is definitive right now.  We don't know what the
particulate is," said David Ball, spokesman for Specialty Medicine
Compounding Pharmacy.

The recalled compounded products -- two or more medicines combined
for individual purposes -- were purchased by about 80 people,
mostly in southeast Michigan, between July 1 and Saturday,
Mr. Ball said.  The recalled products include 79 for humans and 19
for pets.

Those who purchased the recalled products are being notified by
mail and will be reimbursed for unused medications, Mr. Ball said.
The company is also telling anyone with those products to stop
using them and contact the doctor if health problems that could be
linked to use of the medications are experienced.

Unused medication can be sent back or returned in person at the
pharmacy, 350 S. Lafayette St.  The company is not recalling its
non-sterile products, such as creams, gels and throat lozenges.

This is the first recall for Specialty Medicine Compounding
Pharmacy, which has 12 employees and was established in 1999 as
South Lyon Family Pharmacy.  In 2002, it became Specialty Medicine
Compounding Pharmacy.

The facility, which only produces compounded medicines for
Michigan residents, is accredited through the Pharmacy Compounding
Accreditation Board, a national professional association, Mr. Ball
said.

"We are committed to working cooperatively with state and federal
health officials to resolve this issue as quickly as possible,"
said Kenny Walkup, president of Specialty Medicine Compounding
Pharmacy.  "We apologize for the inconvenience that this voluntary
recall may cause our valued customers, but their safety is
paramount."

The facility is an example of the type of smaller compounding
pharmacies that some lawmakers hope to hold harmless as they write
regulations for larger compounders

Congress and the state Legislature are working to create
requirements for larger compounding pharmacies like the former New
England Compounding Center that produced tainted steroid
injections linked to last year's nationwide fungal meningitis
outbreak.

That outbreak resulted in 750 infections nationwide and 64 deaths.
In Michigan, 264 people were infected, resulting in 19 deaths.


STANLEY FARMS: Court Certifies Collective Action in "Tomason" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY TOMASON et al., and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. R.T. STANLEY, JR., et al., Defendants, NO. 6:13-CV-42, (S.D.
Ga.), Sherry Tomason and the other plaintiffs, all former farm
workers at Stanley Farms, allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
Act, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 that stem from how Stanley Farms
pays the people who pick its produce.

Before the Court are (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (2)
Plaintiffs' Motion For Conditional Certification of an FLSA
Collective Action; and (3) Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend.

District Judge B. Avant Edenfield holds that for purposes of
conditional certification, Plaintiffs have shown that other farm
workers have similar job duties and pay provisions to those
Plaintiffs complain about. Because Plaintiffs have also shown the
existence of farm workers who wish to opt in to this action, the
Court conditionally certifies Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiffs
may represent any class member who opts in to this case unless and
until Defendants successfully move for decertification.

According to Judge Edenfied, Plaintiffs' motion to certify is
granted. Plaintiffs proposed notice is approved and Defendants are
ordered to provide last known permanent addresses, full names, and
the last four digits of the social security numbers for all farm
workers they employed from 2010-2012. Plaintiffs have 120 days
from receipt of that information within which to provide potential
opt-in plaintiffs with the proposed notice.

Finally, says Judge Edenfield, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is
granted because the proposed changes to the complaint do not cause
Defendants any prejudice.  Count III of the amended complaint,
however, fails to state a claim and remains dismissed.

A copy of the District Court's October 16, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/C3BR5Yfrom Leagle.com.


TRANS UNION: Court Grants Limited Discovery in "Larson" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DOUGLAS LARSON, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant,
CASE NO. 12-CV-05726-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action
under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act,
California Civil Code section 1785.1 et seq.  Plaintiff Brian
Larson asserts that he received a consumer credit disclosure from
defendant Trans Union, LLC that contained incomplete and
inaccurate information. He has alleged two causes of action: (1)
Trans Union failed to provide Larson with all of the information
in his consumer credit file in violation of CCRAA sections 1785.10
and 1785.15; and (2) Trans Union provided an inaccurate consumer
credit report in violation of CCRAA section 1785.14.  At the
hearing held on September 26, 2013, Larson requested discovery to
determine whether there is any additional information in his
consumer credit file that Trans Union failed to disclose.

District Judge William H. Orrick grants limited discovery. The
parties have until December 31, 2013 to complete this discovery,
and Larson must file any amended complaint no later than January
15, 2014, says the Court.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/yplTEIfrom Leagle.com.


TREASURY WINE: Faces Potential Class Action Over US Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Greenblat, writing for BusinessDay, reports that litigation
funder IMF is calling for aggrieved shareholders to sign up for a
possible court action against Treasury Wine Estates, the owner of
a portfolio of leading and iconic wine brands such as Penfolds,
Wolf Blass and Lindemans, claiming "deceptive and misleading
conduct" over disclosures around its troubled US business.

Treasury Wine Estates, the world's largest pure-play winemaker,
shocked markets and investors in July when it admitted an
oversupply of poor and unwanted wine in the US would trigger a
$160 million write-down and include a $35 million charge to
destroy past-its-date wine stocks.  The profit warning and write-
off saw Treasury Wine Estates shares plunge more than 12% and
later led to the ejection of its chief executive, David Dearie.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has linked arms with IMF in the possible
case against Treasury Wine Estates.  In a joint statement from the
litigator and law firm, they said this morning the class action
would allege that Treasury Wine Estates misled the market and
breached its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to the
financial impact of over-stocked US distributors.

In a statement to BusinessDay on Oct. 28 a Treasury Wine Estates
spokesman said: "TWE advises that no proceedings have been served
against the company at this time.  TWE strongly denies any
allegations of wrong doing and will defend any class action
proceedings vigorously".

Institutional investor on board

IMF already have at least one shareholder in Treasury Wine Estates
who has signed up to the class action and to kick-start the
process. The investor is an institutional shareholder, BusinessDay
has learned, but it is unclear at this stage if the institution is
local or overseas based.

Under class action rules, IMF will require at least seven former
or current shareholders signed up to move to the next stage of the
class action. It is believed IMF has already attracted a number of
investors to its burgeoning case.

BusinessDay has also learned that IMF first began to inquire into
Treasury Wine Estates after its shock profit downgrade and write-
off in July, picking up on market disquiet and investor rumblings
through its contacts.

IMF does not take on borderline cases and internally, the
litigation funder is referring to the claims of deceptive and
misleading conduct against Treasury Wine Estates as "egregious".

IMF said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange this
morning it was acting on behalf of current and former shareholders
in Treasury Wine Estates.

"The claims related to alleged misleading and deceptive conduct
and allege breaches by Treasury Wine Estates of its continuous
disclosure obligations in connection with the performance of its
United States operations between 17 August 2012 and 14 July 2013
inclusive, although that period may ultimately be extended or
shortened."

Investors shrugged off the news, pushing up TWE shares 2% to $4.62
in early trade.

IMF said in its statement that investors who bought shares between
2012 and 2013 may be eligible to participate in its claim.

                        Disclosure Issues

IMF investment manager Simon Dluzniak said the core issue related
to alleged inadequate disclosure of issues associated with
excessive inventory held by Treasury's US distributors.

"By not disclosing the possibility of a material write-down when
we allege it should have, the company caused shareholders to
suffer financial loss," Mr. Dluzniak said.

"In the US wine market, the ban on producers selling directly to
retailer outlets means that all of Treasury Wines' products must
pass through third-party distributors.  The level and make-up of
inventory held by Treasury's distributors is critically important
in this action."

Mr. Dluzniak said Treasury Wine Estates had repeatedly assured
investors that inventory levels at its US operations were being
managed.

"Treasury Wines' management told the market on multiple occasions
throughout the 2013 financial year that the company's earnings
would grow whilst it adequately managed its US distributors'
inventory levels.

"We allege that the market was not told that the US distributor
inventory levels of some brands were so high that Treasury Wines
was at risk of having to destroy excess stock or give rebates or
discounts to the distributors for excess, aged and deteriorating
inventory."

In an interview with BusinessDay Mr. Dluzniak said the litigation
funder had began to look at Treasury Wine Estates after picking up
on investor discontent following from the winemaker's shock
downgrade in July.

"Through our connections in the market we had been informed there
has been a bit of disquiet around the 15 July writedowns, so both
ourselves and Maurice Blackburn undertook some investigations into
what we see as the potential breach of disclosure obligations."

Mr. Dluzniak said IMF had one shareholder already signed up to the
class action case.

"We have a client," he told BusinessDay on Oct. 28.

"As to whether they are a current shareholder [in Treasury Wine
Estates] I don't know but they are a shareholder who under the
funding agreement and the class action is run is a shareholder
that bought shares in the period [August 17 2012 and July 14
2013]."

Mr. Dluzniak said the funding it was preparing to throw at the
case was material for it, with the litigation funder not taking on
"border line cases".

"We say it's bad, we have a policy within IMF that we don't fund
what we call border line cases.

"We haven't funded a shareholder case for a couple of years now,
so we are very strict on the view that we are only going to fund
shareholder claims where we believe the conduct has been
egregious.

"We would say it's egregious."

Maurice Blackburn NSW managing principal Ben Slade said the case
highlighted the very serious responsibility listed companies have
to disclose material information to the share market.

"Evidence suggests that Treasury Wines knew, or should have known
by 17 August 2012 that large write-downs were inevitable,"
Mr. Slade said.  "On that day Treasury Wines projected earnings
growth when it must have been able to work out that massive write
downs were on the horizon."

Mr. Slade said that investors who buy shares in listed companies
are protected by the Corporations Act, which requires companies to
act honestly and to inform the market of material facts that might
impact on their share price.

If those fundamental protections are breached, shareholders who
suffer loss have a right to seek compensation.


TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Toll Discounts Not Unconstitutional, Ct. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick DiVito at Courthouse News Service reports that toll discounts
for certain New York residents crossing certain bridges are not
unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled.

In February 2006 three New Jersey residents and a Queens resident
filed a class action against the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, its chief Jay Walder; and the Triborough Bridge and
Tunnel Authority, as well as its chief James Ferrara.  They
challenged the constitutionality of the agency's policy to offer
E-ZPass users living on Staten Island, the Rockaways and Broad
Channel discounts on crossing the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, the
Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge and the Marine Parkway-Gil
Hodges Memorial Bridge.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer disagreed, however, that the
agencies restricted the right to travel.  "The tolls on the
bridges here are not, in an absolute sense, so high as to
constitute more than a minor burden on travel," Engelmayer wrote.

Riva Janes and the other plaintiffs "have not demonstrated that
such a toll presents more than a minor restriction on travel," the
judge added.  Because the Verrazano is the longest suspension
bridge in the United States, "a higher charge for use of such a
facility, in one of the most expensive cities in the world, is not
unreasonable," the decision states.  "It does not shock the
conscience."

Staten Island residents who use the E-ZPass pay $6.36 per trip
across the Verrazano, which connects Staten Island with Brooklyn.
Nonresidents with an E-ZPass pay $10.66.  Staten Islanders who do
not use the E-ZPass system pay $8.53, while nonresidents without
an E-ZPass pay $15.

For residents of the Rockaways and Broad Channel, the tolls over
both the Marine Parkway Bridge and the Cross bay Bridge are $1.31
for those residents using an E-ZPass.  A nonresident using an E-
ZPass pays $2. Residents who pay cash pay $1.79, while non-
residents who pay cash pay $2.50.

"Plaintiffs point to no case, within this circuit or beyond, in
which a differential toll policy has been held in an 'invidious
distinction' so as to require application of strict scrutiny,"
Engelmayer wrote.  "Instead, in every case of this type, courts
have held that a differential toll policy does not violate the
right to travel."

Englemayer had caught the case after U.S. District Judge Barbara
Jones certified the class in October 2011.  Last year, he narrowed
the scope of that class because it was so broad that it included
dead people.

In his final order, Englemayer found that the class failed to
show, "by any measure or metric, a significant effect on
interstate travel so as to merit application of strict scrutiny or
a serious basis to believe that the policy meaningfully implicates
out-of-staters' fundamental right to travel.

"To the contrary, the plaintiffs admitted in discovery that, for
the most part, the undiscounted toll rates have not prevented them
from traveling those very routes," Engelmayer wrote.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Palmer Bell, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
          110 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 838-3333
          Facsimile: (212) 838-3735
          E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com

               - and -

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey Alan Klafter
          Michael John Palitz
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 997-5656
          Facsimile: (914) 997-2444
          E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  SLesser@klafterolsen.com
                  jak@klafterolsen.com
                  mpalitz@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Harley Jay Schnall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
          711 West End Ave.
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 678-6546
          Facsimile: (212) 678-0322
          E-mail: schnall_law@hotmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven Craig Herzog, Esq.
          Joshua David Kaye, Esq.
          Melissa Courtney Monteleone, Esq.
          Walter Rieman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (NY)
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3317
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0317
          E-mail: sherzog@paulweiss.com
                  jkaye@paulweiss.com
                  mmonteleone@paulweiss.com
                  wrieman@paulweiss.com

The case is Janes, et al. v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel
Authority, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01427-PAE-HBP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).


UNITED STATES: Law Firm Drops Flood Suit v. Army Corp of Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Johnson, writing for KTIV, reports that a Missouri law
firm has dropped a class-action lawsuit against the U-S Army Corps
of Engineers for the 2011 flood.  The suit against the federal
government alleged the flood was the result of mismanagement by
the Corps; that they knew releasing water from upstream reservoirs
would cause downstream flooding.

Estimates put the flood's cost at more than two-billion dollars.
Home and business owners in five states, including many in
Siouxland, joined the lawsuit, hoping to get back money they spent
to repair and replace their property.

This week, they received this letter, which KTIV obtained from one
of those Siouxland plaintiffs, from the Murphy, Taylor, Siemens,
and Elliott Law Firm, stating they no longer believe the flood was
foreseeable.  The firm claims they spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars to acquire scientific research, internal Corps emails, and
other evidence to prove their case.  However, they determined the
Corps could have not done anything differently to avoid the flood.

Here is an excerpt from that letter:  "Although the decision of
the Supreme Court in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United
states has opened the door for flood victims to pursue a claim for
the taking of private property for a public purpose under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, certain facts must still
be proven for flood victims to be entitled to compensation.  Based
up on our detailed investigation, one of those fact issues now
appears to be problematic.  That issue is forseeability, which
means that the flood was foreseeable to the Corps or some other
federal agency at a time when alternative action could have been
taken to avoid or significantly minimize its impact.  Our initial
examination of this issue led us to a preliminary conclude that
forseeability could be proven.  However, further review indicates
to us that the question is much more troublesome than previously
thought.

It is not enough to show that, in hindsight, the Corps should have
known to release more water prior to March 1, 2011.  A federal
statute prohibits an action for flood damages where the Corps was
negligent in its management of the reservoir system.  We must
essentially prove that the Corps deliberately managed the
reservoirs in a manner that sacrificed one man's property to
protect some other public interest."

The firm believes it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date when
this type of forseeability was present prior to the onset of
record rainfall.  They point out that there are federal lawsuits
pending that could shed more light on this issue, and the level of
forseeability required to give rise to a claim.  The issue may not
be dead, other attorneys have already begun to contact Siouxland
flood victims.  Murphy, Taylor, Siemens, and Elliott say the
plaintiffs have two years to file a new lawsuit.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Warranty Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge refused on Oct. 25 to dismiss most of a proposed class
action accusing Whirlpool Corp. of falsely labeling its
refrigerators as Energy Star compliant, ruling that the placement
of a program logo on the product served as a warranty.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley sustained claims for breach of
express warranty and violation of California consumer protection
law.  He dismissed claims for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The dismissed allegations cannot be re-pled, since plaintiffs
Kyle Dei Rossi and Mark Linthicum have now had multiple
opportunities to back up the claims with facts and have failed
each time, the judge said.

The Energy Star program, which is overseen by the U.S. Department
of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, identifies
products that meet certain levels of energy efficiency.  The
Whirlpool-made refrigerators purchased by Dei Rossi and Linthicum
carried the program's logo, but they were later determined not to
comply with its requirements.  The duo allegedly would not have
bought the refrigerators if they knew the products were not Energy
Star compliant.

Whirlpool argued that the placement of the logo on the
refrigerators did not constitute an express warranty, but in
upholding the claim, Judge Nunley said the company had no
suggestion for what the logo could mean, other than that the
product met the program's requirements.

"Simply put, the court cannot fathom any other reason for affixing
the logo in such a manner," the judge said.

Whirlpool also contended that the plaintiffs did not specify the
exact terms of the warranty, but Judge Nunley pointed to their
allegation that the program certifies that an Energy Star
refrigerator is at least 20% more efficient than the federal
minimum standards for energy efficiency.

"It would be nonsensical for this court to impose stricter
pleading requirements on plaintiffs than is required and
articulated by the Energy Star program itself," he said.

The plaintiffs' claim for violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act survives because if their allegations are true,
Whirlpool either lied about the refrigerators' energy efficiency
or put the logo on the products without ensuring it was deserved,
according to the judge.  It does not matter that the plaintiffs
bought the products from a third-party vendor and not from
Whirlpool, he said.

Their Unfair Competition Law allegation survives because they laid
out the conduct they believe was unfair, among other reasons,
Judge Nunley said.  The judge sustained their False Advertising
Law claim because they specified the date, place and medium of the
advertisements they relied on, he said.

The implied warranty claim fails, however, because Messrs.
Dei Rossi and Linthicum do not allege that the products failed to
fulfill their ordinary purpose, refrigeration, according to Judge
Nunley.  He tossed the Magnuson-Moss claim because the logo was
not alleged to have guaranteed the warranty over a specific time
period, a requirement under the statute, he said.

Antonio Vozzolo -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi
LLP, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said that
despite the dismissal of two of the claims, he was pleased by the
ruling overall.  The suit is only the second Energy Star
refrigerator advertising case to proceed past the dismissal stage
nationwide, he said.

In July, a New Jersey federal judge allowed most claims to proceed
in a pair of consolidated proposed class actions against Samsung
Electronics America Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers Inc. over their
allegedly mislabeled "Energy Star" refrigerators.  Mr. Vozzolo
represents one of the plaintiffs in that case.

A similar suit against LG Electronics USA Inc. in New Jersey was
dismissed, however, as was another action against Whirlpool in
Ohio federal court.

An attorney for Whirlpool could not be immediately reached for
comment on the ruling.

Messrs. Dei Rossi and Linthicum are represented by Antonio Vozzolo
and Andrea Clisura -- aclisura@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi
LLP and by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- of Bursor &
Fisher PA.

Whirlpool is represented by Galen Bellamy -- bellamy@wtotrial.com
-- and Sean Saxon -- saxon@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP and by Bradley Benbrook -- brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
-- of Benbrook Law Group PC.

The case is Dei Rossi et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., case number 2:12-
cv-00125, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products PI Committee & FCR File Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Third Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement was submitted by the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Future Claimants' Representative for Specialty Products Holdings
Corp. dated Oct. 15, 2013.

The Third Amended Disclosure Statement clarifies that the Plan is
not a Plan for Bondex International, Inc.

The Third Amended Plan provides that: (i) SPHC and the Reorganized
SPHC Companies will be separated from their non-Debtor direct or
indirect parent Bondex International as well as all Bondex
International Affiliates and all Asbestos PI Trust Assets will be
contributed to the Asbestos PI Trust; (ii) Reorganized SPHC will
be managed and/or sold for the benefit of holders of all Claims
that are not paid in Cash, subordinated, cancelled or otherwise
treated pursuant to the Plan; (iii) all of SPHC's Causes of Action
will survive; (iv) Asbestos PI Trust Claims against SPHC will be
channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust in accordance with the Asbestos
PI Trust Distribution Procedures; and (v) current SPHC Equity
Interests will be cancelled, annulled, and extinguished.

The Amended Plan contemplates the establishment of an Asbestos PI
Trust, which will be funded with the Asbestos PI Trust
Contribution.

Reorganized SPHC will be managed and/or sold for the benefit of
holders of all claims that are not paid in Cash, subordinated,
cancelled or otherwise treated pursuant to the Plan.  Current SPHC
Equity Interests will be cancelled, annulled, and extinguished and
new SPHC stock will be issued.

The Amended Plan reiterates that holders of Allowed General
Unsecured Claims against SPHC (Class 3) and Allowed Intercompany
Claims against SPHC (Class 5) will receive: (i) Pro Rata share of
Cash equal to the Allowed amount of the claim; or (ii) other
treatment as the Plan Proponents and the claim holder will agree.

The Third Amended Disclosure Statement also provides updates on
the progress of SPHC's Chapter 11 proceedings.

It is also revealed that the Plan Voting Agent is Logan & Company,
Inc., at 546 Valley Road, in Upper Montclair, New Jersey 07043.

A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement dated Oct. 15, 2013,
is available for free at:

      http://bankrupt.com/misc/SPECIALTYPRODUCTSds1015.PDF

                       Previous Objections

As earlier reported by The Troubled Company Reporter, the second
amended version of the Plan proposed by the PI Committee and the
FCR was met with objections from, among others, the Debtor and a
couple of Ohio state agencies.  The Objectors asserted the Plan
documents do not contain adequate information and have provisions
that violate the Bankruptcy Code.

                     About Specialty Products

Cleveland, Ohio-based Specialty Products Holdings Corp., aka RPM,
Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc.  The
Company is the holding company parent of Bondex International,
Inc., and the direct or indirect parent of certain additional
domestic and foreign subsidiaries.  The Company claims to be a
leading manufacturer, distributor and seller of various specialty
chemical product lines, including exterior insulating finishing
systems, powder coatings, fluorescent colorants and pigments,
cleaning and protection products, fuel additives, wood treatments
and coatings and sealants, in both the industrial and consumer
markets.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 10-11780) on May 31, 2010.  Gregory M. Gordon, Esq.,
Dan B. Prieto, Esq., and Robert J. Jud, Esq., at Jones Day, serve
as bankruptcy counsel.  Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., and Zachary
I. Shapiro, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger, serve as co-
counsel.  Logan and Company is the Company's claims and notice
agent.  The Company estimated its assets and debts at $100 million
to $500 million.

The Company's affiliate, Bondex International, Inc., filed a
separate Chapter 11 petition on May 31, 2010 (Case No. 10-11779),
estimating its assets and debts at $100 million to $500 million.

On May 20, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order estimating
the amount of the Debtors' asbestos liabilities, and a related
memorandum opinion in support of the estimation order.  The
Bankruptcy Court estimated the current and future asbestos claims
associated with Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty Products
Holding at approximately $1.17 billion.  The estimation hearing
represents one step in the legal process in helping to determine
the amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation Plan Has Fatal Flaw, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that a reorganization plan for Plant Insulation Co.
addressing asbestos claims was rejected yesterday by the U.S.
Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

According to the report, the company's Chapter 11 reorganization
was approved in March 2012 when the bankruptcy judge in San
Francisco wrote an 83-page opinion overruling objections lodged
against the plan by insurance companies that didn't settle.

Plant filed for bankruptcy reorganization in May 2009 to resolve
asbestos personal-injury claims arising from products it stopped
selling and installing around 1972, the report related.  It was an
insulation contractor installing, servicing and removing
fireproofing and insulation materials.

Formerly known as Plant Asbestos Co. and Asbestos Co. of
California, Plant sold the business in late 2001 and since then
has been engaged only in managing asbestos liability.

Creating a trust to handle asbestos claims, the plan was
unanimously accepted by asbestos claimants while opposed by
insurance companies that didn't settle. The district court upheld
the bankruptcy judge and approved the plan.

In a 34-page opinion by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found one fatal flaw in the
plan and set aside confirmation.

Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, dealing with asbestos
bankruptcies, requires that the trust created for asbestos victims
must control the reorganized company which in turn must continue
in business to provide a revenue stream for claims arising in the
future.

In the Plant case, the trust would control the post-bankruptcy
company only by exercising a warrant or foreclosing stock. Judge
O'Scannlain said the "contingencies" didn't comply with the
section. He said that "a mere right to purchase shares ordinarily
will not suffice."

Judge O'Scannlain said there was no compliance with Section 524(g)
because the plan didn't give control of the company to the trust,
"either after confirmation or at any point where control would
meaningfully benefit the trust."

The appeals court upheld other contentious aspects of the plan.
Among them, the circuit concluded that barring nonsettling
insurance companies from suing for contribution didn't violate the
statute given provisions in the plan to protect the nonsettling
insurers.

When Plant went into Chapter 11, it described the assets as
insurance policies and proceeds from settlements. There was no
debt aside from asbestos liabilities.

The appeal is Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Plant Insulation
Co., 12-17466, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San
Francisco).

San Francisco, California-based Plant Insulation Company
manufactured insulation products and services.  The Company filed
for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No. 09-31347)
on May 20, 2009.  Michaeline H. Correa, Esq., Peter J. Benvenutti,
Esq., and Tobias S. Keller, Esq., at Jones Day, represent the
Debtor in its restructuring effort.  The Debtor estimated assets
and debts ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $500,000 of Expense
----------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded $0.5 million of expense, net of
insurance recoveries, for asbestos matters, 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: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known. Costs related to such matters were not material to the
periods presented.

Some of these claims and lawsuits allege health problems resulting
from exposure to asbestos. For the three months ended September
30, 2013, no expense was recorded and for the nine months ended
September 30, 2013, $0.5 million of expense, net of insurance
recoveries, was recorded for asbestos matters. These charges were
included in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the
accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. We also expect
that additional asbestos-related claims will be brought against us
in the future. However, the Company believes our liability
exposure related to those additional future claims cannot
currently be estimated because of numerous uncertainties,
including the number of such claims and lawsuits and the costs of
defending and settling them, possible adverse judgments in amounts
greater than previously experienced, and possible changes in the
laws and process governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Ltd. Has $266.3MM Liability at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Ltd.'s estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$266.3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2013.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

As of September 28, 2013, there were approximately 1,800 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,100 claims outstanding as of
September 28, 2013. This amount is not adjusted for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect
defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would ultimately
reflect our current estimate of the number of viable claims made
against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we assumed
responsibility in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In
addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending
against third parties for which we have been provided an
indemnification.

Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $266.3
million and $278.9 million as of September 28, 2013 and December
31, 2012, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $130.1 million and $131.0
million as of September 28, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

Pentair Ltd., formerly Tyco Flow Control International Ltd., is
global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection
partner. The Company operates in three segments: Water & Fluid
Solutions, Valves & Controls, and Equipment Protection & Thermal.
Water & Fluid Solutions is a provider of water management and
fluid processing products and solutions. Valves & Controls is the
manufacturers of valves, actuators and controls. Valves & Controls
segment's products, services and solutions address applications in
the general process, oil and gas, power generation and mining
industries. Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of
products focused on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a
provider of electric heat management solutions. On September 28,
2012, Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger)
with Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012,
the Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Awaits Ruling in W.Va. Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., awaits ruling from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the purported class action
lawsuit pending in a West Virginia court, according to the
Company's the Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders"). The bankruptcy court
issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies. Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future. Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the settlements. The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and
ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment
interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the
district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found
that the conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of
the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing
of contribution claims against TPC. The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Second Circuit took
place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, from time to time has been named as a
defendant in direct action cases in Texas state court asserting
common law claims. All such cases that are still pending and in
which SPC has been served are currently on the inactive docket in
Texas state court. If any of those cases becomes active, SPC
intends to litigate those cases vigorously. SPC was previously a
defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court, which
have been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and
appellate courts. From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries
have been named in similar individual direct actions in other
jurisdictions.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products.
The Company's Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering individuals' personal
risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $2.42-Bil Reserves at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had net asbestos reserves of $2.42
billion, 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 believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements).

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

In the third quarter of 2013, the Company completed its annual in-
depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:

   * continued high level of litigation activity in certain
     jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious
     asbestos-related illness;

   * while overall payment patterns have been generally stable,
     there has been an increase in severity for certain
     policyholders due to the continued high level of litigation
     activity;

   * continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
     activity; and

   * the absence of new theories of liability or new classes of
     defendants.

While the Company believes that over the past several years there
has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the
Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from
asbestos claims.

The Home Office and Field Office categories, which account for the
vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, experienced a slight increase in the number of
policyholders with open asbestos claims at September 30, 2013
compared with September 30, 2012, while net asbestos-related
payments in these categories decreased slightly in the first nine
months of 2013 compared with the same period of 2012. Payments on
behalf of policyholders in these categories continue to be
influenced by the high level of litigation activity in a limited
number of jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious
asbestos-related injury continue to target defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters
of 2013 and 2012 resulted in $190 million and $175 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves.
In both 2013 and 2012, the reserve increases were primarily driven
by increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the
Home Office category and by higher projected payments on assumed
reinsurance accounts. The increase in the estimate of projected
settlement and defense costs resulted from payment trends that
continue to be moderately higher than previously anticipated due
to the impact of the current litigation environment.
Notwithstanding these trends, the Company's overall view of the
underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from
recent periods and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with
respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.

Net asbestos paid losses in the first nine months of 2013 were
$145 million, compared with $167 million in the same period of
2012. Net asbestos reserves were $2.42 billion at September 30,
2013, compared with $2.45 billion at September 30, 2012.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products.
The Company's Personal Insurance segment writes a range of
property and casualty insurance covering individuals' personal
risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Continues to Defend Filter Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco continues to defend lawsuits arising from
alleged exposure to asbestos contained in their filters, according
to Lorillard, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of October 17, 2013, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 60 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2011, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$30 million in settlements to finally resolve 122 claims,
including the Lenney case.  The related expense was recorded in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income. Since January 1, 2011, verdicts have been
returned in the following four Filter Cases: Lenney v. Armstrong
International, Inc., et al., tried in the Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County; McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco
Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit
Court, Division Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v.
Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton
Company, et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In the Lenney trial,
the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for
compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, but it
determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to an award of
punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or Hollingsworth & Vose.
Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. The final judgment entered by the trial court awarded
plaintiffs a total of approximately $1.1 million in compensatory
damages, damages for loss of consortium and costs from Lorillard
Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose. Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose noticed an appeal to the California Court of
Appeals. In 2012, Lorillard Tobacco reached agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve plaintiffs' pending claims, and any claims
they might assert in the future, for an amount that is included in
the total for settlements reached since January 1, 2011. The jury
in the McGuire case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered final judgment in May
2012. Plaintiff's appeal is pending in the Kentucky Court of
Appeals. On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case
returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose,
and the court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June
17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate
District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final
judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request. On September 13, 2013,
the jury in the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as
to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded
$8 million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. As of October 17, 2013, judgment has not yet been
entered. As of October 17, 2013, 31 Filter Cases were scheduled
for trial or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial
dates are subject to change.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Had $835.3MM Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's total asbestos-related liabilities was $835.3
million, 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.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-
Ireland) are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in
state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large
number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The
vast majority of those claims have been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane)
and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos
contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or
Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither
IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The
methodology used to project the Company's total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims
relied upon and included the following factors, among others:

   * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
     forecast of the population likely to have been
     occupationally exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
     likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as
     mesothelioma and lung cancer;

   * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non
     malignancy claims against it and the historical ratio
     between the numbers of non-malignancy and lung cancer claims
     filed against the Company;

   * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
     to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against
     the Company based on such epidemiological and historical
     data and the Company's most recent three-year claims
     history;

   * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of
     disease claimed;

   * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history
     to determine the average settlement and resolution value of
     claims, by type of disease claimed;

   * adjustments to the future average settlement value of
     claims, to take into account both inflation and the age of
     the claimant population; and

   * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
     likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
     future.

At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, over 80 percent of
the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy claims,
many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and
the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value
against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in
the legal and judicial treatment of such claims.

At September 30, 2013, the Company's total asbestos-related
liabilities was $835.3 million and the total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries was $315.6 million.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New
Jersey and Trane was $126.2 million and $189.4 million at
September 30, 2013, and $125.5 million and $194.8 million at
December 31, 2012, respectively.

The total (costs) income associated with the settlement and
defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries for
the three and nine months ended September 30 were $1.2 million and
$(8.7) million, respectively.

IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within
discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in
2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos
liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded
within continuing operations.

Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most
of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for
approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance
receivable as of September 30, 2013. Most of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane
remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November
2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin,
relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos-related liabilities.

In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory
judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to
defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are
several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies
that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim
defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's
unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims
that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding
defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery,
and raised various coverage defenses.

The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded
that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of
recovery because of the following factors:

   * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
     IR-New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other
     companies in recovering under their insurance policies,
     including Trane's favorable settlement;

   * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
     terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

   * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New
     Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had
     been the subject of prior litigation.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information. The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results. Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.
The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery.

Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR-
Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions,
Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security
Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the
design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of
industrial and commercial products that include Club Car,
Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30,
2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the
Hussmann business. On December 30, 2011, it completed the
divestiture of its security installation and service business,
which was sold under the Integrated Systems and Services brand in
the United States and Canada, to Kratos Public Safety & Security
Solutions, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Had $152.1-Mil Insurance Receivables
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company recorded a total of $152.1 million
insurance receivables, 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: "We categorize the product liability losses
that we experience into two main categories, single incident and
cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims are
discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they occur
and involve observable injuries and, therefore, more quantifiable
damages. Therefore, we maintain a reserve for single incident
product liability claims based on expected settlement costs for
pending claims and an estimate of costs for unreported claims
derived from experience, sales volumes and other relevant
information. Our reserve for single incident product liability
claims was $4.0 million at September 30, 2013 and $4.4 million at
December 31, 2012. Single incident product liability expense
during the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 was not
significant. We evaluate our single incident product liability
exposures on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the reserve
as new information becomes available.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. We are presently named as a defendant in
2,775 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
us. We are unable to estimate total damages sought in these
lawsuits as they generally do not specify the injuries alleged or
the amount of damages sought, and potentially involve multiple
defendants.

Cumulative trauma product liability litigation is difficult to
predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any given
cumulative trauma lawsuit will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case; and even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is difficult to reasonably estimate the
amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These amounts are
highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of the
relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit.

Because of these factors, we cannot reliably determine our
potential liability for such claims until late in the lawsuit. We,
therefore, do not record cumulative trauma product liability
losses when a lawsuit is filed, but rather, when we learn
sufficient information to determine that it is probable that we
will incur a loss and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We record expenses for defense costs associated with
open cumulative trauma product liability lawsuits as incurred.
We cannot estimate any amount or range of possible losses related
to resolving pending and future cumulative trauma product
liability claims that we may face because of many factors. As new
information about cumulative trauma product liability cases and
future developments becomes available, we reassess our potential
exposures.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, there were 2,775
open claims.

With some common contract exclusions, we maintain insurance for
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We have purchased
insurance policies from over 20 different insurance carriers that
provide coverage for cumulative trauma product liability losses
and related defense costs. In the normal course of business, we
make payments to settle product liability claims and for related
defense costs. We record receivables for the amounts that are
covered by insurance. The available limits of these policies are
many times our recorded insurance receivable balance.

Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of
our insurance receivables, including the outcome of negotiations
with insurers, legal proceedings with respect to product liability
insurance coverage and the extent to which insurers may become
insolvent in the future.

Our insurance receivables at September 30, 2013 totaled $152.1
million, of which $2.0 million is reported in other current assets
and $150.1 million in other non-current assets. Our insurance
receivables at December 31, 2012 totaled $130.0 million.

Additions to insurance receivables represent insured cumulative
trauma product liability losses and related defense costs.
Uninsured cumulative trauma losses during the nine months ended
September 30, 2013 and 2012 were $1.4 million and $7.3 million,
respectively.

Our aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and
administrative and defense costs for the three years ended
December 31, 2012, totaled approximately $99.7 million,
substantially all of which was insured.

We believe that the increase in the insurance receivable balance
that we have experienced since 2005 is primarily due to
disagreements among our insurance carriers, and consequently with
us, as to when their individual obligations to pay us are
triggered and the amount of each insurer's obligation, as compared
to other insurers. We believe that our insurers do not contest
that they have issued policies to us or that these policies cover
cumulative trauma product liability claims. We believe that our
ability to successfully resolve our insurance litigation with
various insurance carriers in recent years demonstrates that we
have strong legal positions concerning our rights to coverage.

We regularly evaluate the collectability of the insurance
receivables and record the amounts that we conclude are probable
of collection. Our conclusions are based on our analysis of the
terms of the underlying insurance policies, our experience in
successfully recovering cumulative trauma product liability claims
from our insurers under other policies, the financial ability of
our insurance carriers to pay the claims, our understanding and
interpretation of the relevant facts and applicable law and the
advice of legal counsel, who believe that our insurers are
required to provide coverage based on the terms of the policies.

Although the outcome of cumulative trauma product liability
matters cannot be predicted with certainty and unfavorable
resolutions could materially affect our results of operations on a
quarter-to-quarter basis, based on information currently available
and the amounts of insurance coverage available to us, we believe
that the disposition of cumulative trauma product liability
lawsuits that are pending against us will not have a materially
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
condition, or liquidity.

We are currently involved in insurance coverage litigations with
various of our insurance carriers.

In 2009, we sued The North River Insurance Company (North River)
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that North River breached one of its
insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owed to us and that
it engaged in bad-faith claims handling. We believe that North
River's refusal to indemnify us under the policy for product
liability losses and legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to
Pennsylvania law and we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions
necessary to collect all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and
motions for summary judgment on certain issues have been submitted
to the court. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.

In 2010, North River sued us in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment
concerning their responsibilities under three additional policies
shared with Allstate Insurance Company (as successor in interest
to policies issued by the Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance
Company). We asserted claims against North River and Allstate for
breaches of contract for failures to pay amounts owed to us. We
also alleged that North River engaged in bad-faith claims
handling. We believe that North River's and Allstate's refusals to
indemnify us under these policies for product liability losses and
legal fees paid by us is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law and
we are vigorously pursuing the legal actions necessary to collect
all due amounts. Discovery has concluded and motions for summary
judgment on certain issues have been submitted to the court. A
trial date has not yet been scheduled.

In July 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of Delaware seeking declaratory and other relief from the
majority of our excess insurance carriers concerning the future
rights and obligations of MSA and our excess insurance carriers
under various insurance policies. The reason for this insurance
coverage action is to secure a comprehensive resolution of our
rights under the insurance policies issued by our insurers. The
case is currently in discovery. We have resolved our claims
against certain of our insurance carriers on some of their
policies through negotiated settlements. When a settlement is
reached, we dismiss the settling carrier from this action in
Delaware."

Mine Safety Appliances Company is engaged in the development,
manufacture and supply of products that protect people's health
and safety. The Company's line of safety products is used by
workers worldwide in the fire service, homeland security, oil and
gas, construction and other industries, as well as the military.
Its product offering includes self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBAs), gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection,
respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection and
ballistic helmets. The Company also offers consumer and contractor
safety products through retail channels. Its safety products
integrate any combination of electronics, mechanical systems and
advanced materials to protect users against hazardous or life
threatening situations. Its Safety Works, LLC joint venture
provides a range of safety products and gloves to the North
American do-it-yourself and independent contractor market through
various channels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability at $13-Mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related
aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between
$8,000,000 and $13,000,000, 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.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $8,000,000 and $13,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
September 30, 2013. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $10,400,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2013.
The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoinG broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,400,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

The Company is also involved in other unresolved legal actions
that arise in the normal course of business. The most prevalent of
these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product
design, manufacture and performance liability. The Company's
estimation of its product-related aggregate liability that is
probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles approximates $5,900,000, which has been
reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements
as of September 30, 2013. In some cases, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss because there is insufficient information
regarding the matter. Management believes that the potential
additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the
financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the
effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to
earnings in a future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In August 2012, it
sold its Gaffey division of Crane Equipment and Service Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Recorded $600,000 Pre-Tax Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded a $0.6 million pre-tax charge during
the three and nine months ended September 27, 2013, 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.

Due to a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma and
lung cancer claims and higher settlement values per claim that
have occurred and are expected to continue to occur in certain
jurisdictions, partially offset by lower claims and lower
settlement values per claim in other jurisdictions, the Company
recorded a $0.6 million pre-tax charge during the three and nine
months ended September 27, 2013, which was included in Selling,
general and administrative expense in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations. The pre-tax charge was comprised of an
increase in asbestos-related liabilities of $10.8 million
partially offset by an increase in expected insurance recoveries
of $10.2 million.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

The Company is also involved in various other pending legal
proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of the Company's
business. None of these legal proceedings are expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flow of the Company. With respect to these
proceedings and the litigation and claims, management of the
Company believes that it will either prevail, has adequate
insurance coverage or has established appropriate reserves to
cover potential liabilities. Any costs that management estimates
may be paid related to these proceedings or claims are accrued
when the liability is considered probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. There can be no assurance, however, as to
the ultimate outcome of any of these matters, and if all or
substantially all of these legal proceedings were to be determined
adverse to the Company, there could be a material adverse effect
on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flow of
the Company.

A full-text copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available
at http://is.gd/naGRht

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid-
handling and fabrication technology products and services to
commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden
and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's
products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler,
Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech,
Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has
production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers
customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer
needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V.
In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012,
Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the
Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Awaits Ruling in Aqua-Chem Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company is awaiting a decision in the lawsuit
relating to asbestos-containing products manufactured Aqua-Chem,
Inc., 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.

The Company states, "We are involved in various legal proceedings.
We establish reserves for specific legal proceedings when we
determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is
probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.
Management has also identified certain other legal matters where
we believe an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or
for which no estimate of possible losses can be made. Management
believes that the total liabilities to the Company that may arise
as a result of currently pending legal proceedings will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company taken as a whole.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, our Company owned Aqua-Chem,
Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"). During that
time, the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance
coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and
future costs for certain product liability and other claims. A
division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that contained
gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers. Several
years after our Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its
first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the
gaskets. Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos
lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000
active claims pending against it. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem
notified our Company that it believed we were obligated for
certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos
litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that our Company reimburse it for
approximately $10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-related
expenses. Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a
continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and
expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable
insurance or for which there is no insurance. Our Company disputes
Aqua-Chem's claims, and we believe we have no obligation to Aqua-
Chem for any of its past, present or future liabilities, costs or
expenses. Furthermore, we believe we have substantial legal and
factual defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into
litigation in Georgia to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed
in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action
against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance
companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and
liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and
reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their
obligations. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with
several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will
pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from
the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24, 2007, the
Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment
regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the
insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other
things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to
policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement. The Company and Aqua-Chem continued
to negotiate with various insurers that were defendants in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation over those insurers'
obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem for the asbestos-
related claims. The Company anticipated that a final settlement
with three of those insurers (the "Chartis insurers") would be
finalized in May 2011, but such insurers repudiated their
settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the Company
filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce the
coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain a
declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's
interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation. In February 2012, the parties filed and
argued a number of cross-motions for summary judgment related to
the issues of the enforceability of the settlement agreement and
the exhaustion of policies underlying those of the Chartis
insurers. The court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment that the 2011 settlement agreement and 2010 term sheet
were not binding contracts, but denied their similar motions
related to the plaintiffs' claims for promissory and/or equitable
estoppel. On or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a
mutually agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major
issues: exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense.
On or about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of
the estoppel claims and all of the remaining coverage issues, with
the exception of one disputed issue relating to the scope of the
Chartis insurers' defense obligations in two policy years. The
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and
Aqua-Chem on that one open issue and entered a final appealable
judgment to that effect following the parties' settlement. On
January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of
the trial court's summary judgment ruling. Whatever the outcome of
that appeal, these three insurance companies will remain subject
to the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation.

The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount or range
of reasonably possible loss it may ultimately incur as a result of
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The Company believes
that assuming (a) the defense and indemnity costs for the
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem in the future are in the
same range as during the past five years, and (b) the various
insurers that cover the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem
remain solvent, regardless of the outcome of the coverage-in-place
settlement litigation but taking into account the issues resolved
to date, insurance coverage for substantially all defense and
indemnity costs would be available for the next 10 to 15 years."

The Coca-Cola Company, incorporated on September 5, 1919, is a
beverage company. The Company owns or licenses and markets more
than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling
beverages but also a variety of still beverages, such as waters,
enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and
coffees, and energy and sports drinks. It owns and markets a range
of nonalcoholic sparkling beverage brands, which includes Coca-
Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. The Company's segments include
Eurasia and Africa, Europe, Latin America, North America, Pacific,
Bottling Investments and Corporate. In September 2012, it acquired
approximately 50% equity in Aujan Industries' beverage business.
In January 2013, Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Company announced
that it had been acquired by the Company. Effective February 22,
2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in Fresh Trading Ltd.
Effective February 22, 2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in
Fresh Trading Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos-containing products, 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: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. Although
infrequent, from time to time we have tried cases, one of which
resulted in an unfavorable ruling during the quarter. The impact
of the verdict is not material, and we intend to vigorously
contest the ruling. We established a loss reserve and related
insurance receivable based on the reasonably estimable and
probable outcome of the case. While unfavorable rulings, judgments
or settlement terms regarding these matters could have a material
adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is
remote.

Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and
manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral
to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials
in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in
three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes
long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump
systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts
and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which
includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and
related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD),
which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves,
actuators and controls and related services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain of its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due
to asbestos exposure, 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: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have filed
responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges to
jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and,
therefore, available information regarding the nature of all
pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect final
disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating
results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a provider of offshore contract drilling
services to the international oil and gas industry. As of December
31, 2011, the Company owned and operated an offshore drilling rig
fleet of 77 rigs, including rigs under construction. As of
December 31, 2011, its rig fleet included seven drillships, 13
dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs, seven moored
semisubmersible rigs, 49 jackup rigs and one barge rig. Its
customers include national and international oil companies. On May
31, 2011, the Company completed a merger transaction (the Merger)
with Pride International, Inc., (Pride), ENSCO International
Incorporated, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary and predecessor
of Ensco plc (Ensco Delaware), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc (Merger Sub).
Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub merged
with and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity and an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Dismisses 7 Inmate Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
separate decisions dismissing seven complaints filed by inmates
alleging, among other things, being exposed to asbestos while
incarcerated.  The complaints were dismissed for failure to state
a claim.

The cases are:

   * ANDRE E. JONES, # R-61348, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS,
     Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-692-MJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
     copy of the Sept. 16, 2013, memorandum and order penned by
     Judge Michael J. Reagan is available at http://is.gd/Wbr504
     from Leagle.com.

   * IRIS HAWK, # M-32092, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
     CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-694-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A
     full-text copy of the Sept. 24, 2013, memorandum and order
     penned by Judge G. Patrick Murphy is available at
     http://is.gd/B2xNpBfrom Leagle.com.

   * CYRANO GLASS, No. R25170, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RANDY DAVIS,
     Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00799-MJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
     copy of the Sept. 25, 2013, memorandum and order penned by
     Judge Michael J. Reagan is available at http://is.gd/t6gpGC
     from Leagle.com.

   * KOREONTAE HARDY, # M-36872, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
     CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-699-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A
     full-text copy of the Oct. 1, 2013 memorandum and order
     penned by Judge G. Patrick Murphy is available at
     http://is.gd/Jbyodafrom Leagle.com.

   * DENNIS LEWIS, # B-58535, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS,
     Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00696-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
     copy of the Oct. 2, 2013 memorandum and order penned by Judge
     Phil Gilbert is available at http://is.gd/YDcfe2from
     Leagle.com.

   * ANTONIO V. CARDONA, # R-01037, Plaintiff, v. RANDY DAVIS,
     Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-894-GPM (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
     copy of the Oct. 7, 2013 memorandum and order penned by Judge
     G. Patrick Murphy is available at http://is.gd/RBx0wsfrom
     Leagle.com.

   * JOHN HOLCOMB, # K-52197, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN PARTY,
     Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-1006-MJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
     copy of the Oct. 21, 2013, memorandum and order penned by
     Judge Michael J. Reagan is available at http://is.gd/a6tQv1
     from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Bldg. Owner's State Law Claim Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims while retaining jurisdiction
over federal claims filed by a building owner against the Town of
Schroeppel and other government employees.

The building owner filed a complaint against the Town seeking
declaratory judgment that the Town and its employees negligently
administered a local law, which governs the demolition of a
building.  The building owner alleged that she obtained a permit
from the Town Code Enforcement Office for the demolition of her
building but was slapped with a stop work order by the code
enforcement officer of the Town on the grounds that an asbestos
survey had not been conducted prior to issuance of the demolition
permit.

Judge D'Agostino remanded the building owner's state law claim to
the New York State Supreme Court for adjudication.  The District
Court retains jurisdiction over the federal claim, and stayed the
case pending resolution of the State law claim.

The case is BRENDA RIANO, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SCHROEPPEL, by the
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SCHROEPPEL, consisting of PATRICK J.
NUGENT, Town Supervisor, PAUL M. GILBERT, Town Councilman, RICHARD
P. KLINE, Town Councilman, WILLIAM GODFREY, Town Councilman,
WILLIAM W. VANDYKE, Town Councilman, ROBERT DALTON, Code
Enforcement Officer of the Town of Schroeppel, and PAUL D. CASPER,
JR., former Town Supervisor of the Town of Schroeppel, Defendants,
NO. 5:13-CV-352 (MAD/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge
D'Agostino's memorandum-decision and order dated Oct. 18, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/btvJWefrom Leagle.com.

NEIL M. GINGOLD, ESQ., Attorney for Plaintiff.  TERRY RICE, ESQ.,
RICE & AMON, at 4 Executive Boulevard, in Suffern, New York,
Attorneys for Defendants.  Rice & Amon may be reached through
telephone at (845)357-400.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Award of Benefits to Miss. Firefighter Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Jackson, Mississippi, appeals the order of the Circuit
Court of Hinds County, which affirmed the award of permanent
partial workers' compensation benefits to Sam Sandifer by the
Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission.  Sandifer was a
long-time firefighter for the City and was diagnosed with
respiratory disease indicative of asbestosis.  The administrative
judge and the Commission found substantial evidence linking
Sandifer's illness with his employment.

On appeal, the City argues that Sandifer failed to show a direct
causal connection between his employment as a firefighter and his
illness.  Further, the City claims the statute of limitations had
expired, barring any award of benefits to Sandifer.

Finding no error with the Commission's decision, however, the
Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed.

The case is CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, Appellant, v. SAM
SANDIFER, Appellee, NO. 2012-WC-00197-COA (Miss. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 22, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/lhjfOLfrom Leagle.com.

LARA E. GILL, Esq., and PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN, Esq., Attorneys
for Appellant. TIMOTHY W. PORTER, Esq., PATRICK MALOUF, Esq., JOHN
TIMOTHY GIVENS, Esq., and ROBERT ALLEN SMITH JR., Esq., Attorneys
for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk "Brown" Suit Partially Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered a decision and order dated Oct. 17, 2013, granting in part
and denying in part Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment dismissing an asbestos-related personal
injury action.

Judge Heitler dismissed Plaintiffs' Labor Law Section 241(6) claim
against Con Edison, holding that there is no evidence presented by
the Plaintiffs to sustain the same.  Judge Heitler denied Con
Edison's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs'
Labor Law Section 200 claims against it, finding that testimony of
witnesses indicated that Con Edison was keenly positioned to
"avoid or correct [the] unsafe condition" that is alleged to have
contributed to Harry E. Brown's injuries arising from exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

The case is HARRY E. BROWN and PHYLLIS BROWN, Plaintiffs, v. BELL
& GOSSETT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 007 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yDcXqEfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's 2nd Bid to Junk "Sweredoski" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Crane Co. filed a motion for leave to renew its motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the asbestos-related
personal injury action captioned ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, AND
INDIVIDUALLY RECOGNIZED AS SURVIVING SPOUSE, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC.,
et al., C.A. NO. PC-2011-1544 (R.I. Super.).

In essence, Crane requests that the Superior Court of Rhode Island
reconsider its March 7, 2013 Decision denying Crane's motion for
summary judgment against Plaintiff Rosie K. Sweredoski.  After
reconsideration, Judge Alice Bridget Gibney declined to alter her
original ruling, holding that, despite the out-of-state case law
presented by Crane, which are inapplicable in the case, the Court
again found that the Plaintiff has demonstrated material questions
of fact suitable for jury determination.

In the decision dated March 7, 2013, Judge Gibney found, among
other things, that the Plaintiffs have presented evidence
sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with regard to their
claims against Defendant for strict products liability, negligent
failure-to-warn, and breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

A full-text copy of Judge Gibney's Decision dated Oct. 21, 2013,
is available at http://is.gd/VbUXM9from Leagle.com.

Robert J. Sweeney, Esq., For Plaintiff.  David A. Goldman, Esq.,
Kendra A. Christensen, Esq., For Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Fails in Bid to Dismiss Alliance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, McGraw-Edison Company sold its Laundry Products and
Kitchen Appliance Divisions to Raytheon Company.  The asset
purchase agreement between the two companies provides that McGraw-
Edison retains responsibility for "all liabilities with respect to
any claim for damages on account of alleged or actual injury to
person or property allegedly or actually resulting from the
possession or use of any products manufactured or sold by the
Divisions" "with respect to claims made for any such injury or
loss occurring, or allegedly occurring through [October 31,
1979]."

Several corporate transactions have occurred since the 1979
Agreement.  First, in 1985, Cooper Industries plc purchased
McGraw-Edison, thereby assuming McGraw-Edison's contractual rights
and obligations to Raytheon.  In 1998, Alliance acquired
Raytheon's commercial laundry business, thereby assuming
Raytheon's contractual rights and obligations to Cooper.  Finally,
sometime before May 21, 2012, Eaton acquired Cooper.

In August 2012, Julius D. Sanders and his spouse filed a Third
Amended Complaint against Alliance, as a successor in interest to
Speed Queen, and 15 other defendants.  In the complaint, it is
alleged that Sanders repaired commercial washers and dryers from
the 1950s through sometime in the 1980s, and that he contracted
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from a variety of
products he came into contact with, including, allegedly,
commercial dryers manufactured by Speed Queen.

On November 14, 2012, Alliance demanded in writing that Cooper
assume all defense and indemnification obligations relating to the
Florida State Court Action.  Cooper agreed "to assume the defense
and pay the indemnity (if any) only with respect to allegations of
exposure through October 31, 1979. . . ."  Cooper, however, on
June 11, 2013, sent a letter regarding the Florida State Court
Action, stating that "[a]fter additional review and investigation,
[Cooper] denies your request to defend and indemnify [Alliance] in
this matter."  The reason given is that Alliance is not a named
party to the 1979 Agreement and Cooper did not consent to
assignment, as the 1979 Agreement requires.  The letter states,
"Cooper therefore will not continue defending Alliance in this
matter, and its counsel will withdraw immediately."

Alliance filed its first complaint in the matter on June 16, 2013.
Eaton moved to dismiss, alleging a failure to plead facts
establishing diversity jurisdiction.  Alliance filed its amended
complaint on July 26, 2013.  Eaton moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion is currently before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Eaton's motion proceeds as follows: first, Eaton maintains that
the complaint fails to state a claim because it fails to plead
actions by Eaton. The crux of Eaton's argument is that the proper
defendant to this action is Cooper, Eaton's wholly-owned
subsidiary. Second, Eaton argues that it is entitled to dismissal
of each count of the complaint as a matter of law.

In an order dated Oct. 21, 2013, District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller
of the denied Eaton's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to
plead facts establishing diversity jurisdiction.  Judge J.P.
Stadtmueller adds that whether the facts ultimately show that the
1979 Agreement bound Eaton to defend Alliance, or that the parties
formed a contract in their exchange of letters about the defense,
or neither, Alliance has pleaded the existence of a contract, that
Eaton had an obligation to defend, and that Eaton injured Alliance
when it failed to satisfy its obligation.

The case is ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiff, v. EATON
CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-687-JPS (E.D.Wis.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Stadtmueller's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/IpBNDJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Enters Orders Joining Cases for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George J. Silver of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered decisions dated Oct. 17, 2013, on two orders to show cause
moving for the consolidation of asbestos-related personal injury
actions in the New York asbestos litigation case.

In the first decision, Judge Silver held that the actions filed by
William N. Barton, Patrick W. Lowden, and Francis J. Smith will be
tried jointly.  The actions filed by Robert D. Freeman, Francis
Marino, and Theodore Pendergast will also be tried jointly.  The
actions filed by Charles W. Dietrich, Robert C. McDonald, and
Ronald B. Yetter, will be tried jointly.  All parties are required
to appear for a pre-trial conference on November 26, 2013.

The plaintiffs in the actions are moving by order to show to
consolidate the cases into two groups, one consisting of
plaintiffs Dietrich, Lamberty, Marino, McDonald, Pendergats and
Yetter (the mesothelioma group) and one consisting of plaintiffs
Barton, Lowden and Smith (the lung cancer group) for joint trial.
The Defendants oppose the motion and raise common and individual
arguments against joint trial.

In the second decision, Judge Silver held that the actions filed
by Daniel Carlucci, Andre Krekora, and Michael Lightsy, are to be
tried jointly.  The actions filed by Louis Fishbein, Morton
Frieder, Jose Perez, and John Ryan, are to be tried separately.
All parties are to appear for a pre-trial conference on October
29.

The cases are part of the October 2012 In Extremis Trial Group.
The plaintiffs in the actions are moving by order to show for a
joint trial of the actions on the ground that the actions present
common issues of law and fact.  The Defendants oppose the motion
and raise common and individual arguments against joint trial.

The cases subject to the first decision are WILLIAM N. BARTON
CHARLES W. DIETRICH ROBERT D. FREEMAN ANGEL LAMBERTY PATRICK W.
LOWDEN FRANCIS MARINO ROBERT C. McDONALD THEODORE PENDERGAST
FRANCIS J. SMITH RONALD B. YETTER, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODS. CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NOS. 102900-2004, 115214-
2003, 100867-2004, 100988-2004, 101357-2004, 116830-2003, 111778-
2004, 104850-2004, 118280-2003, 116648-2003, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Silver's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/dKzr48from Leagle.com.

The cases subject to the second objection are DANIEL CARLUCCI
LOUIS FISHBEIN MORTON FRIEDER ANDRE KREKORA MICHAEL LIGHTSY JOSE
PEREZ JOHN RYAN, Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., INC., et al.,
NEW YORK Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190486-2011, MOTION SEQ. NO. 10,
NO. 190486-2011., 190160-2012, 190212-2012, 190395-2011, 190518-
2011, 190422-2011, 190493-2011 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Silver's Decision is available at http://is.gd/MBina4from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss "Stanley" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Stanley, a boiler engineer who worked at a number of
Midwestern power plants throughout the 1960s, died of mesothelioma
on March 9, 2013.  He filed a lawsuit with his wife after his
diagnosis but before his death seeking damages in negligence for
his exposure to asbestos dust and fibers while on the job.  Two of
the remaining defendants -- Ameren Illinois Co. and MidAmerican
Energy Co. -- currently own power plants at which Peter Stanley
claims he was exposed; a third, EECI Services Inc., was the
general contractor during the construction of one of MidAmerican's
plants; the fourth, Sargent & Lundy LLC, designed two of the
plants.  These four defendants all move for summary judgment.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Oct. 22, 2013, Judge John
J. Tharp, Jr., of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted summary
judgment in favor of all four defendants.

With respect to Ameren, Judge Tharp stated, "The Court can find no
authority under Illinois law to suggest that the presence of the
plant owner's employees on site, and their oversight of the
progress of the work under the specifications in the construction
contracts, is sufficient to amount to control over the operative
details of the work. Therefore, the plaintiff's evidence does not
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Ameren
(CIPS) retained control within the meaning of Section 414 of the
Restatement. Therefore, as a matter of law, Ameren did not owe a
duty to Stanley under the retained control exception to the
limited liability of an employer of independent contractors."

With respect to MidAmerican, Judge Tharp found scant evidence,
holding that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to prove that
MidAmerican owed a duty to warn or protect Stanley against the
asbestos at the construction site.  Similarly, with respect to
EECI, Judge Tharp said the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient
evidence from which it can reasonably be concluded that control
exercised by Ebasco, predecessor of EECI, exceeded general
oversight -- the control with creating specifications and ensuring
compliance with them.  Furthermore, Judge Tharp said the
Plaintiff's claims against Sargent & Lundy and Ameren relating to
the installation of insulation during the plants' construction are
covered under, and barred by, the statute of repose.

The case is CHRISTINE STANLEY, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of PETER STANLEY, Plaintiffs, v.
AMEREN ILLINOIS CO., MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO., SARGENT & LUNDY LLC,
and EECI SERVICES INC., Defendants, NO. 12 C 06073 (N.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Tharp's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/cuznojfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Owner Inks Clean-Up Deal With Gov't, State
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hemingway, writing for Burlington Free Press, reported that
the owner of a former asbestos mine straddling Lowell and Eden has
finalized an agreement with the U.S. government and State of
Vermont to help cover some ongoing costs of pollution controls at
the 1,540-acre site over the next 10 years.

According to the report, in papers filed at U.S. District Court in
Burlington, the owner, Vermont Asbestos Group, also agreed to
pursue $3,560,160 in insurance money, funds that could end up
helping to pay for ongoing maintenance and operation of pollution
controls at the mine.

"Settling defendant shall not use the site, or such other real
property, in any manner that EPA or the state determines will pose
an unacceptable risk to human health or to the environment due to
exposure to (asbestos) waste material," the document, called a
consent degree, stated, the report related.

The company, separate from any insurance money, will pay another
$50,000 from its own revenues to the state over the next 10 years.

Asbestos was extracted from open pits at the mine property along
the side of Belvidere Mountain for more than 80 years. The
substance was used for years in a number of applications, from
roofing to floor tiles to insulation and brake pads.

After scientists determined airborne asbestos fibers were a cause
of cancer, the market for the material declined. The Eden-Lowell
mine closed in 1993, leaving behind 30 million tons of tailings,
or asbestos-laced debris.

In the years since, rainwater has washed some of the tailings into
two nearby brooks and polluted a once pristine wetlands. The state
has estimated a total cleanup of the site would cost $250 million,
but plans to have the land declared a Superfund site, were soundly
rejected by voters in Lowell and Eden in 2012.

John Schmeltzer, an analyst with the waste division of the state
Environmental Conservation Department, said the settlement will
not solve the long-term environmental problems the mine poses, but
is a first step.

"We don't know what we're going to get in money from those
insurance policies," he said. "We know we're not going to get
anything adequate to generate a long-term solution to the site."

Schmeltzer said work done at the mine in the last nine years has
managed to temporarily stop the spread of pollution from the
tailings piles, but worries that major storm events could wrack
havoc at the site.

The state has estimated it would take close to $29 million just to
construct a long-term mitigation system for runoff from the
tailings.  The agreement charges Vermont Asbestos Group
withmaintaining the site, under the watchful eye of a state
project manager.

"They have met all the responsibilities they've been asked to do
so far," Schmeltzer said.

Howard Manosh, president of Vermont Asbestos Group in Morrisville,
did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keble College Says Fibro Not Threat
----------------------------------------------------
James Walsh, writing for Cherwell, reported that Keble College,
Oxford, in the United Kingdom, on Oct. 19 confirmed that its
vacation storage units are safe for students and staff to use,
after conducting an asbestos survey.

According to the report, Keble College Bursar, Roger Boden, has
emphasised that the dangerous building material was properly
managed at all times and never posed any risk to students. Use of
the units for storage purposes will now continue as normal.

Speaking to Cherwell, Mr Boden said, "As a routine part of this
risk management we have commissioned surveys for the presence of
asbestos of the units that are used for vacation storage. I am
entirely satisfied that these areas are safe, both for our
students and our staff. Managing the asbestos risk in buildings is
a major long-term task that most owners of buildings face. There
are comprehensive rules as to how the risk is to be managed."

A Freedom of Information request submitted by Cherwell has also
revealed that at least four other colleges have asbestos or
asbestos containing materials (ACMs) on site, at no risk to staff
or students. These include Exeter, St Johns and St Edmund Hall,
who confirmed that they have 31, 23 and 130 student rooms
containing asbestos respectively. Queen's College also said that
they were aware of low risk asbestos sheeting within college
property. All other colleges either confirmed that they have no
asbestos on-site, or have yet to respond to the request.

Like many 20th century buildings, asbestos was used in the
construction of the storage space as a fireproofing and insulation
material. Asbestos related risks on University and College
property are managed by the Estates Service, which develops
individual Asbestos Management Plans for individual colleges, as
required by law. The University Administration and Services
department also keeps a comprehensive asbestos register for all
asbestos and asbestos containing materials (ACM).

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website,
"Asbestos materials in good condition are safe unless asbestos
fibres become airborne, which happens when materials are damaged."
Most colleges carry out annual surveys of asbestos in consultation
with specialist companies who provide expert asbestos removal
services. Students moving into rooms containing asbestos must be
legally be informed of this fact in writing. Since undisturbed
asbestos poses no health risk, the presence of the material cannot
be used by students as grounds to request new accommodation.

One second-year Keble student, who wished to remain anonymous,
said, "It isn't really a problem that I worry about. Builders and
workmen are the ones most at risk. It's a case of out of sight,
out of mind."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: North Lanarkshire Family Fears Fibro in House
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motherwell Times reported that North Lanarkshire Council, in
Scotland, has moved swiftly to assure a distraught Carfin woman
there's no deadly asbestos left in her "shambles" home.

But Jeanie Brown -- whose daughter and grand-daughter live with
her -- says she should never have been moved into the Clapperhow
Road house in the first place, the report related.  She said: "I
was moved here in December, and we've had nothing but trouble
since.

"The floor in the bathroom turned out to be rotten, and was
pressing down on the hall ceiling below.

"Then they discovered asbestos, and we all had to leave the house
for three days during the daytime.

"They said we should spend that time in the homeless unit -- but
we should have been offered proper accommodation.

"On one of the days when we were out from 8.45am till 5pm I took
(grand-daughter) Cadence to Wetherspoon -- and the rest of the
time we had to stay with my mum, who is unwell."

She added: "I assumed after that everything would be fine, but we
were left in a total mess and with quite a lot of questions that
needed answering."

The hall ceiling was ripped down and has been covered with
polythene for around eight weeks -- a plasterer who arrived found
he wasn't able to complete the work, she said, and had to call
off.

Ms Brown said: "But what worries me most is that some asbestos is
still in the cavity beside the first batch, and I've been told
that as it hasn't been disturbed it will be sealed in.

"But the cavity has clearly been forced open during the work on
the rot, and surely must have been disturbed."

But Des Murray, property services manager, said: "The bathroom
floor was badly damaged by rot and required a lot of work to make
it secure.

"During the repairs, our contractors discovered previously unknown
Chrysotile (white) asbestos in the floor space.

We take a safety first approach will all our repairs and our
specialist contractors fully inspected the area and removed the
asbestos.

"Due to the extent of the works, and the safety considerations,
the repairs have taken longer than originally anticipated but are
scheduled to be completed by October 21."

The council is adamant all asbestos has been removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Charged With Polluting Air
--------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Davidson, writing for FOX Carolina, reported that an
Anderson, South Carolina, man is in trouble with the federal
government, the U.S. Attorney's office says Scott William Farmer
is facing several air pollution charges.

According to the report, officials say he knowingly released
asbestos, a lung cancer causing pollutant into the air. According
to his indictment, it all happened when he hired a crew to help
him strip an old mill site of metal for money.

Mother and daughter Leslie Debereaux and Caprice Walker have lived
across from the old Haynesworth Mill in Anderson for quite some
time. They say it was months ago they began noticing some strange
activity.

"They were banging over there at 2 or 3 a.m., hours people are
supposed to be asleep," said Walker. "So that raised an alarm, it
didn't seem right, something wasn't right."

An indictment was filed by the U.S. Attorney's office that
confirmed their fears.

Not only do officials say illegal activity took place at the mill,
but the alleged actions spread asbestos into the air and put a lot
of people's health at risk.

The man in charge of the construction work, Scott William Farmer,
37, now faces nine charges.

Officials say he failed to conduct an inspection for asbestos
before he began stripping the site, he also didn't alert the state
of his construction plans. According to the indictment, even after
DHEC attempted to intervene and gave Farmer four verbal cease and
desist orders, he continued working on the site without taking
proper precautions.

The indictment says DHEC tested the area, and found asbestos in
the materials from the site. They alerted Farmer of their findings
but say he continued to keep his crews working in the area.
Further tests by DHEC confirmed that Farmer and his crews work had
spread the dangerous pollutant.

The indictment says asbestos was "dropped, thrown or otherwise
inappropriately disturbed." Farmer and his crew's work on the site
began in October 2012 and ended in April of 2013.

The woman who live just yards from the mill said they witnessed
workers attempting to take metal from the site using uhauls and
SUVs, with no idea how dangerous it was.

"They were just out there with no masks, tearing metal and stuff
up and tearing the metal down," said Debereaux.

Now, the woman is worried for the health and future of their
neighborhood.

"I have two children in my house, yes I'm concerned, I'm very
concerned," said Walker.

They say they just can't believe a man knowingly spread asbestos
into the air next to their home on several occasions.

"That's not right, I feel like he should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law because that's unacceptable," said
Walker.

Scott William Farmer could face up to 15 years in prison and a
$250,000 fine for the nine federal charges he faces.

The state has also filed three charges against him, those carry a
maximum of 17 years in prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Boiler Fitter Dies of Industrial Disease
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Taylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a
retired boiler fitter who saw asbestos "flying around everywhere"
has died as a result of industrial disease.

According to the report, Keith Biggs worked at Derby-based Perkins
Boiler Makers for 12 years between 1959, when he left school, and
1971.

An inquest heard how the 69-year-old was "continuously exposed" to
the deadly dust during that time.

In a statement read out at his inquest and made during a civil
claim while he was still alive, Mr Biggs, of Loscoe, told how he
would cut through sheets of asbestos before fitting them to
boilers.  He said he also used to pick up sheets of asbestos and
watched the dust in the air.

Louise Pinder, deputy coroner, reading out Mr Biggs' statement,
said: "He said he used a circular saw to cut the asbestos sheets
to size so they fitted to the boiler.

"He said he was provided with a flimsy dust mask but would remove
it so he could see what he was doing when he was cutting the
asbestos.

"He said he could see dust flying around everywhere in the air,
there was no extraction device.

"His statement said he would then collect the asbestos sheets,
which were stacked in piles."

The inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard
how Mr Biggs, of Lake Avenue, was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in September 2011.  He collapsed and died at home on
August 15 this year and the cause of death was given as
mesothelioma.  The court heard how, after leaving Perkins Boilers,
Mr Biggs worked for Denby Pottery and then an engineering firm but
he was not exposed to asbestos at either firm.

Miss Pinder, reading out Mr Biggs' statement, said: "He said he
never wore gloves, carrying the asbestos sheets into the boiler
shop.

"He said he would brush the dust off his hands and on to his
overalls and said he was not the only worker using asbestos in the
shop. He said asbestos dust would be flying around the yard."

Under new rules, coroners no longer record a verdict but instead
"reach a conclusion".

Miss Pinder said she was satisfied from what she had read in Mr
Biggs' statement and from his medical records that she could reach
a conclusion that he died as a result of industrial disease.  Miss
Pinder said: "It is clear that he constantly handled asbestos
during his employment between 1959 and 1971."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumping in Gwydir Worse Than First Thought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kerrin Thomas, writing for ABC News, reported that the Environment
Protection Authority says alleged illegal asbestos dumping in
Warialda, between Moree and Inverell, in Australia, is worse than
first thought.

According to the report, Northern Director of the EPA, Gary Davey,
says the Authority has launched an investigation and spoken to
concerned residents and former Council workers.  It comes after 10
cubic metres of soil containing bonded asbestos pipe fragments was
dumped on Gwydir Shire Council-owned land.

Although Council self-reported a breach in asbestos disposal
regulations, Gary Davey says the EPA has made other disturbing
discoveries.

"Largely around maintenance work where a pipe may have burst,
Council has come in, often at night, they've excavated material,
and then that material, some of which has contained asbestos, has
then been dumped," he said.

"So there were about nine potential sites that were reported to us
[and] EPA staff visited three of those sites and, in fact. did
find pieces of asbestos in those gully areas."

The Environment Protection Authority says informants have come
forward to provide evidence of illegal asbestos dumping in the
Warialda area.

Gary Davey says the Authority is aware of at least nine sites,
three of which have now been tested.

"There are still some areas that we haven't checked [and] what we
will be doing now is requiring Council to employ an accredited
hygienist," he said.

"That hygienist will assess those sites and, with Council, develop
an appropriate clean-up plan for all of those sites."

Gary Davey says Council will then need to refer its proposed
asbestos removal plans to the EPA.  He says the Environment
Protection Authority will then ensure those plans are properly
implemented.

The EPA says because its investigation into the alleged illegal
dumping is ongoing it is yet to determine if fines, or a
prosecution, will be levelled against Gwydir Shire Council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Shuts Down MFB Fire Station
-------------------------------------------------------
News.com reported that a major metropolitan fire station has been
forced to shut down after asbestos was discovered at the site.

According to the report, Eastern Hill Fire Station Number One on
Albert St, in East Melbourne, has closed after the dangerous
material was discovered in the ceiling of its executive offices.
Air quality monitoring was initiated immediately after the
inspection, but detected no asbestos in the air.

An MFB spokesman said the station would be closed until further
notice while the removal was conducted and further inspections are
undertaken.  There will be decisions made about health checks for
staff if exposure is discovered during the investigation.  The MFB
said the closure would not affect fire services in the area, with
Station One trucks launching from four other nearby metro
stations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Panel Considers Fibro Issues at Penokee Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Olivo, writing for Ashland Daily Press, reported that members
of the Ashland County Mining Impact Committee heard nearly an hour
and a half of testimony and comment regarding the presence of
asbestos at several locations in the Penokee Hills of Ashland
County, in Wisconsin, where Gogebic Taconite plans to mine for
iron ore.

According to the report, the asbestoform mineral in question is
grunerite, a mineral that was once used as a fire retardant in
thermal insulation products, asbestos insulating board and ceiling
tiles. It is also known to be a potent carcinogen, a cause of the
aggressive lung cancer mesothelioma.

Committee members heard a large group of people who jammed the
County Board Room, unanimously asking them to take strong action
on the question of asbestos at the mining site.  They also heard
from Northland College Associate Professor of Geoscience Tom Fitz
who discussed the geology and implications of asbestos in the
proposed mining area.

Fitz said the area in question was the Ironwood iron formation, an
area rich in iron ore in the form of magnetite. Also present was
magnetite in quartz and the mineral grunerite, which he said was
one of six minerals used commercially and given the generic name
"asbestos."  Fitz said there was some debate about the
characteristics needed to produce the dangerous form of asbestos.
He said the grunerite present at the Bulk Sample #4 site was no
doubt the mineral grunerite, and had the same characteristics as
asbestos, which is known to cause mesothelioma.

"It is potentially a health hazard and precautions should be
taken," he said.

Fitz said the mineral was readily recognizable under a hand lens,
and that follow-up testing using a scanning electron microscope
and x-ray diffraction analysis confirmed the preliminary
identification.  Fitz noted that grunerite had been found in four
locations, including Bulk Sample Site #4. He said it was possible
that it could be found at other sites, but that he had not
personally checked out other locations. He said he was working
with company officials to visit other areas. He did say that some
of the bedrock he had looked at did not show grunerite.

Many of the comments made by those attending the meeting were
actually in the form of questions aimed at Fitz, and University of
Wisconsin Geochemist Joseph Skulan, who also attended the
committee meeting.  Fitz said it was possible that the entire ore
body could be heavily contaminated with grunerite.

"There isn't any reason to believe that it is just on the
surface," he said. "If you see it in four different places it is
likely to be found in other places."

Fitz noted that grunerite was created in situations where iron and
silica have been exposed to metamorphic forces, such as the heat
of magma intrusions.  Fitz said the minerals could have been
formed nearly two billion years ago. He noted that grunerite is
known to exist to the east of the current four sites where it has
turned up.  Fitz also noted that grunerite is the same material
that was at the root of the reserve mining controversy in
Minnesota, where a long drawn-out lawsuit resulted in reserve
mining of Silver Bay, Minn., halting the practice of dumping
taconite tailings into Lake Superior after it was determined that
those tailings were contaminated with finely ground asbestoform
particles.

One speaker, Joe Rose, a Bad River resident said contamination of
the air and water with asbestoform particles was inevitable.

"The waters travel through the rivers to the Bad River. Grunerite
will reach the waters in this mountaintop removal procedure," he
said. "It will affect every stage of the Bad River."

Rose noted that the Bad River was a primary spawning ground for
sturgeon as well as the location for the largest stand of wild
rice on Lake Superior. He said he also feared that it would affect
artesian and other wells in the area.

Bad River Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins accused GTAC of "sitting on
the evidence" and asserted that GTAC spokesman Bob Seitz had
responded to the disclosure of the presence of grunerite with
attacks aimed at the two geologists. He said there had also been
attacks by state legislators on members of the state geological
survey.  He also noted that GTAC was privy to hundreds of rock
core samples taken years ago by United States Steel Corp (US
Steel) Fitz said those core samples could go a long way towards
determining how extensive the presence of grunerite was in the
proposed mining area.

"We need to have good science, people need to see those rocks, not
just GTAC," he said.

That was an opinion Skulan agreed with.  He noted that from the
1950s to the 1970s, US Steel had drilled about 250 cores in the
region. He said if that the information contained in those cores
was made available, it would "probably" be adequate to provide
conclusions about the extent of the amount grunerite in the
proposed mining area.

In addition to asbestos, the issue of sulfides was clearly a topic
of concern at the session. Fitz noted that there was a catch-22
quality to the problems of handling mining tailings, because
tailings with asbestos in them are best handled as a wet product,
because finely ground tailings could easily be dispersed into the
air, while tailings with sulfides in them would be subject to
sulfuric acid leaching if the were wet, and thus needed to be
handled dry.

Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Chairman Mick Isham said Fitz was "a
great example of the professors at Northland" and said that the
concerns of the mine were shared by all people in the area.

"We all breathe equally, and so we share equally this huge
environmental health hazard that could happen if this mine goes
through."

Support for Fitz also came from Northland College President
Michael Miller.  Miller noted that as a careful researcher, Fitz
had had all of his findings verified.

"That is what you can expect from Northland College," he said.
Following public comment, committee members indicated they wanted
answers.

Committee member Joyce Kabasa said she believed GTAC was "not
close to safe mining."

Where do we go from here? What has to be done for safe mining to
take place?" she asked.

Fellow member Jim Oakley said he believed that the committee could
require the release of the US Steel core sampling information
under the zoning ordinance or bulk sampling requirements.

Charles Ortman said he thought the committee should pass a
requirement that no disturbance of naturally existing asbestos
should be allowed.

Committee member Donna Williamson said that the asbestos and
potential release of sulfuric acid could be dealt with as a public
health hazard, subject to Ashland County Health ordinances.

"The county has the responsibility to label what happens in a mine
that releases these toxins into our air and water as a public
health hazard," she said.

Committee member Ray Hyde said whatever the county did, it had to
be done with the firm backing of science, not emotion.

"I do know if our ducks are not in a row, being emotional will
cost us money, and will get you absolutely nowhere when it comes
to public health," he said.

Meanwhile, Ann Coakley, the Department of Natural Resources
director of the Waste Materials Management Group said her agency
was still waiting for GTAC to provide additional information on
bulk sampling.

"The ball is in GTAC's court; we received a bulk sampling plan in
June and had some comments and received a revised one in July and
my staff made comments back in August, and we are waiting for GTAC
to give us their revised bulk sampling plan, and we expect that in
the coming month or so, so we haven't made a decision yet. We need
to have the answers to about 10 questions before we can make a
decision."

Coakley indicated that the DNR could not make a decision based on
the information they have so far, noting that GTAC had to meet EPA
rules and needed information to determine if the firm would need
an air permit or not.

The committee agreed to meet again in the Ashland County
boardroom. At that time they will review the human health hazard
ordinance, review the proposed bulk-sampling ordinance in advance
of the next county board meeting, and consider possible actions to
deal with asbestos issues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazelwood Fibro Scare Forces Change
----------------------------------------------------
Latrobe Valley Express reported that workers on a maintenance shut
at Hazelwood Power Station have been able to return to work
following an asbestos scare.

According to the report, twelve workers may have been exposed to
the harmful fibre in a unit six workspace on 12 October, according
to the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

A GDF Suez Hazelwood spokesperson said the gasket where the
asbestos was exposed was immediately sealed and initial sampling
of the material identified a small amount of white asbestos, but
air-sampling in the surrounding area found no evidence of airborne
material.

At the request of the union, further independent sampling was
conducted and no asbestos was detected.

The workers returned to the area following the results.

AMWU organiser Steve Dodd said the union had negotiated changes to
contractor UGL's asbestos procedure as a result of the incident,
which would include increased communication with the union and
occupational health and safety representatives to make sure work
spaces were clean.

The newly negotiated procedures were put to the test, when further
traces of asbestos were found on the turbine floor and boiler
areas.

A subsequent quarantine and further monitoring saw the workers
return to work later that evening.

"We've put some rigour into it where they have to supply all test
documentation to the union," Mr Dodd said.

"They have to go back and give a debrief to the workplace and an
inspection of the site will be conducted by the union and health
and safety representatives prior to anybody going back on the job.

"We believe this will stop any miscommunication or any flaws in
the process of dealing with asbestos issues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Danger at Molly Stark Is Cancer-Causing Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Monsewicz, writing for CantonRep.com, reported that vandals,
particularly young people, are breaking into the deteriorating
Molly Stark Hospital, in Ohio, especially in October when most are
looking for a "real" haunted house.

According to the report, maintenance workers return to the five-
story building three or four times a week to replace wooden panels
covering the broken windows.

Scrappers, juvenile delinquents and ghost hunters are the primary
culprits.

"The worst possible thing is someone, maybe even some high school
kid, gets in there and falls and gets injured or even dies," said
Robert Fonte, director of Stark County Parks, which owns the
property at 7900 Columbus Road NE. "It's a safety issue."

                               THE DANGER

Fonte said his agency went into the buildings years ago to remove
whatever materials scrappers hadn't already stolen.

Environmental Protection Agency specialists told park officials
that the scrappers are the primary reason cancer-causing asbestos
is now airborne in the building and that no one should enter
without a respirator.

Chief Park Ranger Dan George said the biggest problem is curious
youngsters, not ghost-hunting enthusiasts. Earlier this month, a
park ranger caught a group of teens carrying an extension ladder
on the property.

"They were also carrying bookbags with tools to remove the boards
on the windows and they had respirators," he said. "The (actual)
ghost-hunting groups have been very respectful. They've made
formal requests. They just want to be inside. Teenagers don't care
about that asbestos. They just want to get inside that building."
George said he has witnessed young people scale the second- and
third-floor balconies on the front of the building, balconies that
overlook asphalt.

"There's no power in there. The building is a well-constructed
building, but the inside is in very bad condition. I'm not so sure
they think it's that big of a crime. The parents will take the
attitude -- about 50 percent of the time -- that 'Really? This is
a crime?' Yeah, it's a crime."

Trespassing is typically a misdemeanor that could mean 30 days
behind bars. Yet, George said, most violators know they face only
a fine. Caught inside the building, however, they also face a
breaking and entering charge and resulting felony record.

"It's going to get worse this month," George said, noting that
Halloween is near. "It's already a lot more active. Molly Stark is
really high up on the list of places that ghost-hunters want to
get into."

When the park rangers aren't there, Stark County sheriff's
deputies preside. Deputies have addressed more than 260 incidents
at Molly during the past decade, Capt. Tim George said.

While rangers routinely find trespassers with tools on the
property, they've also run into groups of people wearing identical
T-shirts bearing the names of paranormal organizations.

In most cases, the parks chief said, they don't try to get in.
"They are just looking at the building," he said, adding that
people from out-of-state also have driven up to him, asking about
the building after seeing it on a website touting paranormal
potential.

Any haunting history is a myth, said Todd Clark, history
programmer for Stark Parks.

"There are a lot of misunderstandings about the buildings. A lot
of people confuse Molly Stark with the old Massillon State
psychiatric hospital," he said.

"When older buildings are abandoned and unused, they develop their
own local lore. There are a lot of rumors that (Molly is) haunted.
It's become a rite of passage for the paranormal groups. The ghost
hunters are looking to hear the screams of tortured patients. But
that's not Molly Stark. They're looking for Massillon State."

                        ONE SUGGESTION

Greg Feketik is the senior founder of Tri-C Ghost Hunters, which
has teams of paranormal investigators in Cleveland, Columbus and
Canton. He wonders if the hospital could be renovated into a
tourism site, like the Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield where
he volunteers for ghost hunts.

"Molly is intriguing because of its history, the architecture, the
size and because there've been a number of deaths there. When you
add all that stuff together, it just screams 'ghosts,' " Feketik
said. "It would make a ton of money. That's what happened to the
Mansfield Reformatory. They were originally going to tear it down
and then this group of people in the area came together and raised
the money and look what they turned it into. That place is just
totally awesome."

Feketik and the Mansfield Reformatory Preservation Society's web
site at www.mrps.org said the group not only operates ghost hunts,
the old prison has been the site of several music videos, movies
and TV shows, including the Travel Channel's "Ghost Adventures."
The society's "ghost hunts" cost $70 per person and one can
average about 100 people, the web site said.

"Too bad that doesn't happen with Molly Stark. It'd be a shame for
them to tear it down," Feketik said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Launched Research Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Morris, writing for The Center for Public Integrity, reported
that in the spring of 2005, Georgia-Pacific Corp. found itself
facing nearly $1 billion in liability from a product it hadn't
made in nearly three decades: a putty-like building material,
known as joint compound, containing the cancer-causing mineral
asbestos.

According to the report, named in more than 60,000 legal claims,
Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific sought salvation in a secret
research program it launched in hopes of exonerating its product
as a carcinogen, court records obtained by the Center for Public
Integrity show. It hired consultants known for their defense work
to conduct studies and publish the results, with input from the
company's legal department -- and is attempting to keep key
information hidden from plaintiffs.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission had banned all asbestos-
containing joint compound as of 1978, and Georgia-Pacific, maker
of a widely used version called Ready-Mix, had raised no
objection. But in 2005, as asbestos-related diseases with long
latency periods mounted, the company revisited the issue with one
aim: to defend lawsuits filed by people like Daniel Stupino, a
part-time renovation worker who died last year of mesothelioma, a
form of cancer virtually always caused by asbestos exposure.

Under its research program, Georgia-Pacific paid 18 scientists a
collective $6 million, documents show. These experts were directed
by Georgia-Pacific's longtime head of toxicology, who was
"specially employed" by the company's in-house counsel to work on
asbestos litigation and was under orders to hold "in the strictest
confidence" all information generated.

This framework, taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook
hatched years earlier, allowed Georgia-Pacific to control the
science and claim all communications as privileged -- not subject
to discovery in litigation. A New York appeals court held recently
that the communications "could have been in furtherance of a
fraud," an allegation the company has denied.

Some of the researchers hired by Georgia-Pacific sought to
re-create versions of Ready-Mix and a dry joint compound that
contained asbestos in the 1970s. Others tried to estimate
historical worker exposures to dust from sanded compound. Still
others exposed laboratory rats to the reformulated materials,
employing suspect protocols; they reported that asbestos fibers
were cleared quickly from the rodents' lungs and posed no cancer
threat, a theory many experts reject.

Thirteen company-funded articles were published in scientific
journals. A Georgia-Pacific lawyer offered pre-publication
comments, casting doubt on the objectivity of the science.

The Atlanta-based company's research program fits into a broader
pattern chronicled this year in the Center for Public Integrity
series Toxic Clout: Industry's use of well-paid experts to
minimize the hazards of toxic chemicals and fend off liability,
regulation, or both.

A spokesman for Georgia-Pacific, Greg Guest, declined to answer
questions about the project, referring a reporter to court
pleadings. In one document, the company says it "properly
commissioned studies to explore scientific issues that repeatedly
arise in joint compound litigation, disclosed its role in the
studies themselves, and submitted them to the technical rigors of
scientific peer review by qualified scientists who were neither
affiliated with nor selected by Georgia-Pacific."

Now owned by Koch Industries Inc., Georgia-Pacific has refused to
turn over certain study-related documents to plaintiffs in
thousands of asbestos cases from the five boroughs of New York
City, which have been consolidated in a Manhattan court. The
company contends the materials are protected under attorney-client
privilege and as attorney work product. These protections can be
forfeited, however, amid evidence that a client engaged in a
"fraudulent scheme."

In a unanimous decision in June, a New York appeals court found
reason to believe Georgia-Pacific had perpetrated such a scheme
and ordered the company to hand over the documents to a judge for
in camera inspection. Guest said Georgia-Pacific had not decided
whether to appeal.

"There's something extremely smelly about claiming attorney-client
privilege for something that is being claimed at the same time as
good science," said Sheila Jasanoff, a professor at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who has written
extensively about litigation-driven research. "Legal
confidentiality protections should not be placed around good
science."

The company is trying to "rewrite history," said Linda Reinstein,
co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, a
victims' advocacy group. "Georgia-Pacific funded junk science in
an attempt to contest the known facts about asbestos and negate
its culpability in this man-made disaster," said Reinstein, whose
husband, Alan, died of mesothelioma.

                  Decades later, a deadly killer

The dangers of asbestos were first noted more than a century ago
by British factory inspectors. In the 1920s, writes Barry
Castleman, an asbestos historian and environmental consultant,
"The lung-scarring disease asbestosis was named and described in
detail in reports of totally disabling and fatal cases." Reports
of lung cancer among asbestos workers surfaced in the 1930s and
mesotheliomas -- incurable malignancies usually found in the
membrane surrounding the lungs -- began to appear in the 1940s.

It was around this time that drywall -- and, by extension, joint
compound -- became exceedingly popular among builders trying to
meet the demands of the post-war boom in America. "Low cost
housing went into mass production in 1947-1948," researchers with
New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine wrote in a 1979 article.
"Wallboard sections were soon manufactured to fit standard room
dimensions, enabling a worker to construct living quarters within
a few hours. Drywall construction was also considered superior [to
lathing and plastering] because of its adaptation to soundproofing
and fire codes."

Manufacturers began adding fire- and heat-resistant asbestos to
joint compound as a reinforcing agent. The practice continued well
into the 1970s, even as evidence of the mineral's carcinogenicity
mounted.

Georgia-Pacific got into the joint compound business relatively
late, acquiring Bestwall Gypsum Co. in 1965. It sold Ready-Mix, a
paste that could be applied directly to walls, as well as a dry
mix, to which water had to be added. The products contained
between 2 and 7 percent chrysotile -- white -- asbestos, mined in
Canada. Both products were asbestos-free by 1977.

By the mid-1960s, investigators like Mt. Sinai's Irving Selikoff
had proved conclusively that asbestos was a cruelly efficient,
though slow-acting, killer. Having already found high rates of
lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma among asbestos insulation
workers, Selikoff and his colleagues began looking at drywall
installers.

In a series of papers published from 1975 to 1979, they reported
that sanding, sweeping or mixing joint compound could yield fiber
counts up to 12 times higher than what was allowed under federal
law. "Fiber concentrations generated by sanding were similar to
those measured in the work environment of asbestos insulation
workers," they wrote.

In July 1977, having found "an unreasonable risk of injury of
certain types of cancer, such as mesothelioma and lung cancer,"
the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it intended to ban
asbestos-containing joint compound. In a letter to the
commission's chairman, a Georgia-Pacific vice president said the
company supported the ban, noting that "we ceased using asbestos
in our product and switched to a substitute."

The ban became effective in January 1978. The damage inflicted by
asbestos, however, can take decades to appear. Microscopic fibers
sent airborne by activities such as sanding dried joint compound
can trigger lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. "There is no
safe level of exposure known," says the Environmental Protection
Agency.

The government crackdown came too late for Daniel Stupino, a
transplanted Uruguayan who began renovating New York apartments
part time in 1974 and earned extra cash that way for nine years.

In a 2011 trial, Stupino testified that he regularly used Georgia-
Pacific joint compound, among other brands, to seal joints between
sheets of drywall. When he sanded it, he said, it was "like a snow
. . . that penetrate[d] all over . . . in my body, my head, you
know, my clothes."

"What would you have done if you had seen a warning back then that
breathing the dust from the joint compound is dangerous?" asked
Stupino's lawyer, Jerry Kristal.

"Not use it," Stupino replied.

In the spring of 2010 Stupino began feeling "weak, tired," he
testified. "I didn't know what [it] was, no idea. I thought it was
stress."

A CT scan revealed fluid in his lungs. "He make a hole between two
ribs and he put [in] a drain," Stupino said of his pulmonologist.
What came out looked "almost like blood."

The spirit-breaking news came shortly thereafter. The doctor told
Stupino, "You have cancer, and it's malignant. And I say, 'My
God.' And [the doctor said], 'Remember what you did 20, 30 years
ago. Remember what you did.'"

Stupino had a lung removed in January 2011, then endured
chemotherapy and radiation treatments that were "like hell," he
testified. "I have almost permanent pain."

He said he'd once dreamed of retiring at 65 and traveling with his
wife, Anna.

"Can you tell us what your dreams are now?" Kristal asked.

"I don't have them," Stupino said.

Stupino's case against Georgia-Pacific settled mid-trial. He died
of mesothelioma on Dec. 14, 2012, just shy of his 64th birthday.

Chrysotile asbestos, the only type imported to the United States.
More than 2.3 million pounds entered the country from Brazil in
2012.

                     Wikimedia Commons

More than 107,000 people die of asbestos-related diseases each
year, the World Health Organization estimates. "All types of
asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and
ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs)," it warns.

In all, 55 countries -- but not the United States -- have banned
all forms of the mineral.

Big business is still pushing back.

"Unfortunately," said John Dement, a professor at the Duke
University School of Medicine who has studied the lung-ravaging
effects of asbestos for 40 years, "litigation-driven research has
really corrupted a lot of the science by presenting unbalanced
information."

                       Tobacco playbook revised

The model for Georgia-Pacific's plan to lock away the details of
scientific studies in its lawyers' offices had been developed
decades earlier by the tobacco industry.

Cigarette manufacturers Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. and
British American Tobacco Co., among others, were "very concerned
about the threat of products liability lawsuits," researchers
wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1995,
and took steps to "avoid the discovery of documents that might be
useful to a plaintiff . . .  These steps included efforts to
control the language of scientific discourse on issues related to
smoking and health [and] to bring all potentially damaging
internal scientific documents under attorney work product and
attorney-client privilege."

The so-called crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege
played a key role in the $6.6 billion settlement of Minnesota v.
Philip Morris et al., in 1998. The case, one of several brought by
state attorneys general attempting to recoup public funds spent on
smoking-related illnesses, accused the tobacco companies of
deceptive marketing and suppression of science. The Minnesota
settlement was reached shortly after the judge ordered the
defendants to release some 40,000 documents over which they'd
claimed privilege.

In April 2005, Georgia-Pacific, which would be acquired by Koch
Industries for $21 billion later that year, hired John Childs as
its chief litigation counsel. Childs had been in private practice
in Chicago and Minneapolis and decided to "repot" himself in
Atlanta, he told the publication Corporate Counsel in 2008. "My
role," Childs said, "was to develop and design an in-house defense
to the asbestos litigation."

On Aug. 22, 2005, Childs sent a letter to Stewart Holm, then
Georgia-Pacific's director of toxicology and chemical management,
who had been with the company since 1992. The letter confirmed
that Holm had been "specially employed . . . to perform expert
consulting services in connection with pending and anticipated
litigation concerning alleged exposure to asbestos."

Holm's duties, Childs explained, would be "separate and distinct
from your duties as a regular employee of GP, and your work will
be directed solely by GP's in-house counsel." Holm was to mark all
his notes, memoranda and reports "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL--
PREPARED AT DIRECTION OF COUNSEL IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION."

In a court filing, Georgia-Pacific said there was nothing improper
about the arrangement. "It is simply sound practice to insure that
an in-house consulting expert is aware of the protections
available under the law and his duty to maintain the
confidentiality of litigation-related work," the company said.

Holm, who'd done no previous work on asbestos, set about designing
a research strategy. He began by reviewing the medical literature.
"I found virtually no material whatsoever on worker exposure to
joint compound resulting in disease," he testified in a 2011
deposition.

Now chief scientist for the American Forest & Paper Association,
Holm declined an interview request, as did Childs.

At Childs's behest, Holm conceived a plan that required outside
help to implement.

In January 2006, Georgia-Pacific contracted with David Bernstein,
an American-born toxicologist based in Switzerland, to oversee
animal tests. It also hired the consulting firms Exponent and
Environ to gauge the accuracy of decades-old studies, like those
done by Mt. Sinai, showing high fiber counts associated with the
sanding and sweeping of joint compound.

The consultants were known for their litigation defense work.
Exponent and Environ -- paid $3.3 million and $1.5 million,
respectively, by Georgia-Pacific -- specialized in exposure
reconstruction in product-liability lawsuits. Exponent scientists,
for example, had been retained by automakers in litigation with
mesothelioma victims who claimed they'd gotten sick after being
exposed to asbestos during brake work. The scientists' position:
grinding or otherwise tinkering with brakes couldn't produce
enough fiber-laden dust to cause disease.

Bernstein, who declined to comment for this article, had directed
asbestos inhalation experiments on rats for Union Carbide and a
Brazilian mining company. The tests, he reported, had shown that
fibers found in chrysotile, the only type of asbestos sold in
recent years, were cleared quickly by the rats' lungs and
therefore unlikely to cause cancer.

Bernstein, who had been a tobacco industry consultant before
turning to asbestos, discussed his "biopersistence" theory in a
2007 trial. There are two families of asbestos, he explained:
chrysotile and amphiboles. Under the microscope, chrysotile fibers
look like flimsy, rolled sheets of paper; amphibole fibers like
solid rods. "The work I've done shows that [chrysotile] rapidly
disintegrates in the lung, goes away, whereas the amphibole fibers
persist and stay and cause disease," Bernstein said.

His findings have been welcomed not only by asbestos defendants,
including Georgia-Pacific, but also by producers seeking to
maintain or expand sales in developing countries, as the Center
for Public Integrity reported in 2010.


By 2007, the Georgia-Pacific research program, approved by Childs,
was in full swing. The first step was to try to re-create both wet
and dry asbestos-containing joint compound since, Holm said in his
deposition, no usable amounts of actual product could be located.

The re-created compound was applied to wallboard, allowed to dry
and then sanded. The dust was shipped to a laboratory near Geneva,
where Bernstein supervised a series of rat experiments. Lab
workers wore "moon suits" to protect themselves from asbestos
fibers.

In a pilot study, the rats were divided into three groups of 14
and confined in tubes for five days, six hours a day. The control
group breathed filtered air. The second group breathed chrysotile
fibers, the third a mixture of chrysotile and aerosolized joint
compound particles.

The rats were killed after exposure and their lungs and pleural
tissue were examined. The "chrysotile exposed lungs had the same
appearance as the filtered-air controls," Bernstein and his co-
investigators reported. No obvious lung damage, in Bernstein's
view, translated to little or no cancer risk.

In a later experiment, one group of rats inhaled re-created Ready-
Mix containing chrysotile. Another group inhaled amosite asbestos,
part of the amphibole family. The rats exposed to chrysotile
showed "no pathology in either the lung or the pleural cavity,"
Holm testified in his deposition. Those that breathed amosite
showed "both inflammation as well as fibrosis in the lung, and
showed inflammation also in the pleura."

In field and chamber studies, Exponent and Environ researchers
tried to determine if intense worker dust exposures reported in
the 1970s had been overstated.

Exponent scientists prepared and analyzed airborne samples of re-
created joint compound using what they described as more modern
methods than were available decades ago. Samples prepared with the
older technique yielded fiber counts "significantly greater" than
those prepared with the newer one, they reported.

The implication: conditions for drywall workers in the 1970s may
not have been as dire as the Mt. Sinai team indicated. An Exponent
vice president, Angela Meyer, declined to comment on the firm's
work for Georgia-Pacific.

Environ was hired to develop and validate models predicting
breathing-zone concentrations of dust, Fred Boelter, a Chicago-
based principal with the firm, said in a telephone interview. Such
exposure estimates couldn't be made from data found in the 1970s-
era literature and constituted an "important, missing piece of the
puzzle," he said.

Environ's work "helped address questions about where the exposures
occurred historically so we can answer questions about disease or
claimed injury," Boelter said, adding that "I don't really care
whether I'm working for one side or the other" in litigation.

Asked whether Environ had been chosen to generate pre-determined
results and infuse them into the scientific literature, Boelter
said: "I can tell you that motivation would fall on deaf ears in
my case and was not the motivation that influenced what we sought
to publish. Nobody had ever done what we had done, and that filled
a gap within the literature."

The goal, he said, is to protect workers from hazards. "Bad
science does not protect anybody," he said.

              Company research into scientific journals

The Georgia-Pacific consultants began publishing their findings in
peer-reviewed journals in 2008. Jerry Kristal, a lawyer with New
York-based plaintiff's firm Weitz & Luxenberg, noticed that Holm,
the Georgia-Pacific toxicologist, was listed as a co-author on the
first paper, in Inhalation Toxicology.

Kristal, who'd been trying asbestos cases since 1987, already knew
of Bernstein's animal experiments on chrysotile, which had yielded
good results for industry. Kristal served notice on Georgia-
Pacific to depose Holm and produce documents underlying the joint
compound studies.

The Holm deposition took place in Atlanta over three days in June
2011. Here, details of the secret research program were revealed.

Under Kristal's questioning, Holm acknowledged that the preferred
method of testing fibers for carcinogenicity in humans is a two-
year animal inhalation study -- not a five-day study of the sort
overseen by Bernstein in Switzerland. Although the two-year test
was endorsed by an expert government panel -- of which Bernstein
was a member -- in the mid-1990s, Bernstein decided with the
company's blessing that the five-day test would be "predictive of
causing disease," Holm said.

He declined, on advice of his lawyer, to say why the longer study
wasn't done.

Holm and Kristal debated whether proper disclosure had been made
in the journal articles. The first paper on Bernstein's animal
work, for example, said the research had been "sponsored by a
grant" from Georgia-Pacific. In fact, Holm admitted, Bernstein was
under contract with the company -- initially for 350 and later for
400 Swiss francs an hour -- and ultimately was paid the equivalent
of $850,000.

There was no indication in the first paper and the three that
followed, moreover, that Bernstein had testified as an expert
witness for Georgia-Pacific in 2007. This led to a clarification,
submitted by Holm to Inhalation Toxicology in October 2011, and a
public apology from the journal's publisher. Holm's clarification
stated that the studies described in the articles had been
commissioned by the company in response to joint compound
litigation.

One of Bernstein's papers, Kristal learned, was twice rejected by
the journal Toxicological Sciences. A reviewer wrote, "The report
will be helpful for those wanting to use or sell the commercial
product (if such people still exist); otherwise, there is little
new information provided by the paper."

Outside the legal arena, scientists were picking away at
Bernstein's biopersistence theory, which holds that chrysotile
fibers are removed so quickly from the lungs that they can't cause
cancer.

David Egilman, editor-in-chief of the International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health and a consultant for
asbestos plaintiffs, wrote in 2011 that "the key question is not
how long the fibers remain in the target organ, but rather, do the
fibers persist long enough to induce the disease (e.g., induction
of mutations when cancer is the outcome of interest)? The answer
to this question is clearly yes."

In an interview, Dement, of Duke, said it's wrong to assume that
cancer must be presaged by fibrosis, or scarring, of the lung,
which Bernstein said he hadn't found in the rats. It's possible
that chrysotile is less potent than amphiboles for production of
mesothelioma, as Bernstein contends, but this doesn't mean
chrysotile is safe, said Dement, who has testified for plaintiffs
in asbestos cases. There doesn't appear to be any meaningful
difference between the two in terms of causing lung cancer, he
said.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, while performing animal
inhalation tests on man-made fibers for the North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association, Bernstein and other
investigators needed a "positive control" -- a substance likely to
produce harmful effects.

Their choice: chrysotile, which, according to a 1993 paper,
triggered pulmonary fibrosis in the rats as well as mesothelioma
and "significant increases in lung tumors."

Nonetheless, Bernstein maintains today that white asbestos is all
but harmless if used under controlled conditions. After the
Georgia-Pacific project, he was paid about $200,000 by the
International Chrysotile Association, a trade group for asbestos
producers, to revisit the issue, the group's treasurer testified
in a 2013 deposition.

His conclusion, which the association shared with skeptical health
authorities, was published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology in
January. While "heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can
produce lung cancer," Bernstein and his co-authors wrote, "low
exposures . . . do not present a detectable risk to health."

                Legal push to unveil secret research

The discovery battle stemming from the Georgia-Pacific research
program began in April 2011, when plaintiff's lawyer Kristal
sought a broad range of documents in connection with the upcoming
Stewart Holm deposition. Georgia-Pacific produced some but
withheld others, claiming they were privileged. Kristal pressed to
get everything.

The matter went before Special Master Laraine Pacheco, who handled
discovery disputes and pretrial settlement conferences in the New
York City asbestos litigation. On June 15, 2011, Pacheco
recommended that the trial judge, Sherry Klein Heitler, hold an in
camera review of internal communications and raw data underlying
studies identified on a "privilege log" by Georgia-Pacific.

The company moved to vacate the recommendation. Heitler denied the
motion.

"Georgia-Pacific cannot use its experts' conclusions as a sword
while at the same time attempting to shield the public from
information which affects the veracity of its experts'
conclusions," the judge wrote in her decision on Dec. 7, 2011.

Heitler noted that a Georgia-Pacific lawyer, Mary McLemore, had
offered input on some, and possibly all, of the 13 published
articles. "The court is concerned that Georgia-Pacific's attorney
would be involved in any discussions concerning the content of
these purportedly objective scientific studies by Georgia-
Pacific's consulting experts," she wrote.

Georgia-Pacific continued to resist. In a brief filed with the
appeals court on Nov. 8, 2012, it called Kristal's fraud
allegations "baseless" and accused him of embarking on a
"boundless fishing expedition.

"There is no rule anywhere that would preclude a lawyer from
reviewing, commenting on, or discussing the research of her
scientific consultants," outside lawyers for Georgia-Pacific
wrote. "Nor is there anything untoward about the fact that such
research was eventually published in the scientific literature.
. . . Publication in the scientific literature subjects work-
product studies to the scrutiny of the independent scientific
community, a process helpful to judges, juries, and the search for
scientific truth."

Writing for the plaintiffs on Dec. 10, Weitz & Luxenberg lawyer
Alani Golanski alleged that Georgia-Pacific had attempted to
"seed" the literature with papers spawned by "methodologically
skewed, litigation-driven research."

The company hired a "small army of pre-screened defense
consultants," whose disclosures in their publications failed to
note the major roles "special employee" Holm and lawyer McLemore
had played in the shaping of the studies, Golanski wrote.
Bernstein's characterization of his hourly contract as a "grant,"
he wrote, was intended to "perpetuate a fraud upon the public."

On June 6 of this year, the appeals court sided with Heitler in a
5-0 decision. Despite Holm's and McLemore's "extensive
participation" in their development, "none of the [published]
articles disclosed that [Georgia-Pacific's] in-house counsel had
reviewed the manuscripts before they were submitted for
publication," the court found. "Two articles falsely stated that
'[Georgia-Pacific] did not participate in the design of the study,
analysis of the data, or preparation of the manuscript.' "

Holm's clarification to Inhalation Toxicology in October 2011
"failed to acknowledge its in-house counsel's participation and
did not make clear" that Bernstein had testified as an expert
witness for Georgia-Pacific prior to publication of his first
joint compound paper in 2008, the court said. "The foregoing
constitutes a sufficient factual basis for a finding that the
relevant communications could have been in furtherance of a
fraud."

Jonathan Ruckdeschel, a lawyer from Ellicott City, Md., who has
sued Georgia-Pacific in Maryland and Florida on behalf of asbestos
victims, called the court's ruling "incredibly rare. In my 16
years of practicing law, I have never seen a court enter an order
like this."

The decision prompted an editorial this month in the Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, which published two of the Exponent papers
funded by Georgia-Pacific. "While these revelations do not in any
way prove that the data used in the two Annals papers were
fraudulent or that the authors' conclusions were not legitimately
based on the data, they do challenge the principles of free and
open scientific inquiry," chief editor Noah Seixas wrote, noting
that the journal was reviewing its conflict-of-interest policies
for authors.

Thus far, Georgia-Pacific hasn't used any of the 13 published
articles in the New York asbestos litigation, nor has it asked any
of the authors to testify about them.

The extent of the company's asbestos liabilities no longer can be
found in Securities and Exchange Commission filings; Georgia-
Pacific was taken private after being acquired by Koch Industries
almost eight years ago. Spokesman Guest declined to say how many
cases are pending.

Ultimately, Georgia-Pacific may be forced to share everything with
the New York plaintiffs. Should that happen, its effort to "deny
the undeniable," as Ruckdeschel put it, could come into sharper
focus.

The appeals court "ordered that the rock be lifted up," he said,
"so we can see the true extent of the manipulation of science."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Obligation Warning in Northern Tasmania
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Brady, writing for The Examiner, reported that a sharp eye
will be kept on workplace hazards as Northern Tasmania, Australia,
launches its annual awareness-based WorkSafe Tasmania Month.

According to the report, WorkSafe Tasmania will held two weeks of
free work health and safety events in Launceston until November 1
as part of the event.

Asbestos in the workplace has been an issue on the forefront of
public safety concerns after some telecommunication pits were
found to house the dangerous material.

Management of the substance is a duty held by employers, and
should have a proper action and safety plan, according to Injury
Prevention and Management  Safety occupational hygienist Richard
Jackson.

''As a hygienist my job is to assess risk and quantify it and
determine what people are exposed to,'' Mr Jackson said.

''If you are going to have any removal done, the first thing the
people who own or conduct the business need to have in place is an
asbestos register, and also an asbestos management plan.''

He said the plan must detail how asbestos is managed in the
workplace and include an established time frame to have it
removed.

''Once people are aware of it then they can take it upon
themselves to manage it accordingly,'' Mr Jackson said.

''WorkSafe week is a really good way of getting that information
out there.''

A program of events is available online at www.worksafe.tas.gov.au
or by calling 1300 366 322 -- registration can be done online up
to an hour before the event.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warn of Exposure After Contractor Fine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trafford Magistrates' Court (Case Reference S20131110) heard that
Steven Kelly, aged 41, of Kirkby, ignored the company's procedures
of working with asbestos, whilst carrying out asbestos removal at
Trafford College.

During a Health and Safety Executive unannounced visit to the
college, it is alleged that inspectors identified three workers
fixing the temporary lighting in the undercroft, an area of the
college where asbestos was being removed, but they were not using
suitable equipment clothing or masks.

According to the HSE' Press Release, it is believed that the
employees were wearing their own clothes under their overalls and
half masks instead of full respiratory masks. As a result, the
three workers have been put at risk of asbestos exposure.
Potentially, the fibres -- as well as dust -- could have remained
on their clothes throughout the day.

It is alleged that, more issues were discovered on the site by
HSE, such as insufficient water to sponge down boots and failure
to carry out masks checks daily.

Commenting on the news, Tom Fairclough, Executive at Asons
Solicitors, said that:

"According to the Health and Safety Executive's press release, Mr
Kelly is a qualified and trained asbestos contractor, despite
this, no adequate safety measures were allegedly in place at
Trafford College and employees were allowed to enter a sealed off
area without adequate equipment."

"Here at Asons, we strongly believe that no one should suffer
because of negligence from an employer. Those who have experienced
similar working conditions, or suffer from an asbestos related
illness, should not hesitate to make an asbestos claim."

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Laura Moran said:

"Asbestos is responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every
year but it only becomes dangerous when it is broken up and fibres
are released into the air.

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

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

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

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

Asons Solicitors have a dedicated team of industrial disease
specialists, dealing with cases of asbestos related diseases and
giving people legal advice, particularly in the area of asbestos
related diseases. Exposure to asbestos can be deadly, and Asons
urge anyone who feels they may have been exposed to asbestos
fibres to consult their GP immediately for a consultation, and
contact an industrial disease specialist for legal representation.

Asons Solicitors suggest that if someone would like to learn more
about the asbestos compensation process, or if they would like to
better understand the condition, that information is available at
http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an expert helpline on 01204 521 133

                      About Asons Solicitors

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.

For further information contact:
Email: info(at)asons(dot)co(dot)uk
Website: http://www.asons.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIOSH Says Too May Lives Still Lost to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.BLR.com reported that a new National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study found that asbestos
exposure is robbing Americans of hundreds of thousands of years of
productive life.

According to the report, research published in the American
Journal of Industrial Medicine found that more than 427,000 years
were lost from 1999 to 2010 due to early deaths from mesothelioma
and asbestosis. These are the two most deadly diseases caused by
exposure to asbestos. Because asbestos was once a common element
in building and insulation products, both diseases continue to be
threats for those who have worked in construction or industrial
settings.

NIOSH researchers found that life years lost to mesothelioma and
asbestosis changed little between 1999 and 2010 despite strict
government guidelines for using and handling asbestos. The
researchers concluded that despite improved treatments and
diagnostic tools, trends in these diseases should continue to be
carefully monitored.

Mesothelioma, which kills an estimated 2,500 people in the United
States each year, is an aggressive cancer that spreads across
internal body membranes and is highly resistant to standard
treatment. Asbestosis is a form of lung scarring caused by
exposure to microscopic shards of asbestos.

Know the facts about workplace asbestos exposure

   * According to OSHA, there is no safe level of exposure for any
     type of asbestos fiber.

   * Asbestos exposure as short in duration as a few days has
     caused mesothelioma.

   * Where there is exposure, employers are required to protect
     workers by establishing regulated areas, controlling work
     practices, and instituting engineering controls to reduce
     airborne levels.

   * Employers are also required to use administrative controls
     and provide for personal protective equipment.

   * Medical monitoring is required when legal limits and exposure
     times are exceeded.

Exposure to asbestos hazards is addressed in specific OSHA
standards for the construction industry, general industry, and
shipyard employment. Airborne levels of asbestos are never to
exceed legal worker exposure limits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears After Hatherleigh Market Blaze
-----------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that a cattle market blaze in
Hatherleigh, England, has prompted asbestos concerns in the town.

According to the report, police are currently investigating what
caused the blaze, which took eight fire crews to tackle in the
early hours of the morning of Oct. 21.

The fire service received several calls just before 3.40am on
Oct. 21 reporting a number of cattle sheds on fire at Hatherleigh
Market in Lairage Field.

Crews from Hatherleigh and Okehampton initially went to the scene,
but called for assistance from further crews from North Tawton and
Torrington, and an incident command vehicle from Ilfracombe.

A number of single story buildings in the 100 by 50 metre plot
were on fire, but crews managed to contain the fire to one corner
section of one of the buildings.

Western Power also went to the plot to disconnect the electricity
supply.

After more than an hour and a half, crews managed to extinguish
the fire using four hose reel jets and an open water supply.

Approximately 8% of the building was severely damaged by the fire.

The building's roof contained asbestos, and the site has now been
cordoned off as a precaution.

Police are now investing the cause of the blaze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Aircraft Workers to Call About Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We know that when
many people hear the words "mesothelioma" or "asbestos exposure"
lung cancer, they think of US Navy Veterans, shipyard,
construction, power plant, or oil refinery workers. In reality,
commercial or military aircraft manufacturing workers and
aerospace workers make up a significant number of the diagnosed
victims talk with every month.

In more than half the cases it's not the diagnosed victim of
mesothelioma or lung cancer asbestos victims we talk with.
Surprisingly, we have found that the adult son or daughter call on
the behalf of the diagnosed victim because their parent is too
sick. We encourage these types of calls to us at 866-714-6466,
because it gives us the opportunity to instantly put the diagnosed
victim, or their family members, in instant contact with the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma compensation attorneys and
asbestos exposure law firms."

Important note from the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center:
"Because the average age of the asbestos exposure related lung
cancer we talk to is in their late 60's, or early 70's, we
encourage the adult daughter or son to call us anytime at 866-714-
6466.

US states with significant aerospace, or aircraft manufacturing
facilities:

* California
* Washington
* Florida
* Colorado
* Arizona
* North Carolina
* Ohio
* Virginia
* Kansas
* Georgia
* Missouri
* Texas
* Nevada

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Aside from
aerospace and aircraft manufacturing facilities, other high-risk
workplaces for asbestos exposure include: US Navy, shipyards,
power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil
refineries, mines, smelters, demolition construction work sites,
railroads, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake
shops."

With mesothelioma or lung cancer directly caused by exposure to
asbestos, symptoms may not show up until decades after the
exposure. The Victims Center has found that many victims never
smoked and also may not connect their mesothelioma, or lung cancer
to asbestos exposure. As long as the victim, or their family
members, can provide sufficient answers to our questions about
exposure to asbestos, the Center will do everything possible to
help them get what might be significant financial compensation."
For more information please call the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims
Center 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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipping in Hounslow "Worst in England"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cumber, writing for Get West London, reported that Hounslow
is the fly-tipping capital of England when it comes to asbestos,
according to new figures which are disputed by the council.

The report related that highly toxic building material was
illegally dumped in the borough 1,334 times last year, the latest
government statistics show.

That's nearly 14 times as much as in the next worst local
authority, Doncaster, where there were 98 such incidents during
2012/13, the report said.

However, the council says it is investigating inaccuracies with
the figures. It claims the fact there have been just 15 reports of
asbestos being dumped in the borough so far this year shows there
was a problem with how the 2012/13 statistics were recorded.

Deputy council leader Colin Ellar said: "Like many other outer
London boroughs, Hounslow suffers from flytipping because we have
more open spaces than inner London boroughs.

"That said, we will not relent in our pursuit of flytippers and if
they are caught, we will fine them."

Hounslow also topped the list for the number of single black bags
and single items being dumped, and, somewhat bizarrely for a
London borough, the number of agricultural incidents, 710 of which
were recorded.  It was the seventh worst in England and third
worst in the capital when it came to the number of illegally
discarded animal carcasses, at 222.

In total, there were 13,934 flytipping incidents across the
borough last year, the 10th highest figure in London.

Hounslow Council spent just under GBP550,000 clearing up illegally
dumped waste during 2012/13, the 14th highest amount in England
and the seventh most in the capital, according to the figures
published last Tuesday (October 15) by the Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

The council spent a further GBP34,000 investigating a total of
1,030 incidents, the statistics show, but failed to take further
action in a single case, issuing no fines and launching no
prosecutions.

The council put the high number of black bag incidents down to
their being wrongly recorded as fly-tipping rather than waste
being put out for collection on the wrong day.  It also said 18
fines had been issued for litter offences during the period in
question, although these were not reported to DEFRA.

Nationally, local authorities took enforcement action more than
425,000 times and prosecuted offenders on over 2,200 occasions,
leading to a conviction in nearly 99 per cent of cases.

The Government's report says a high number of fly-tipping
incidents does not necessarily mean a local authority is
performing poorly. It may be a sign the council is taking the
issue seriously and being rigorous about identifying cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Further Delays GBP2.5-Mil. Watersports Hub
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nadal, writing for Bucks Free Press, reported that a
dangerous substance at Marlow Rowing Club's headquarters has
further delayed the new GBP2.5m watersports hub.

According to the report, asbestos has been discovered in greater
quantities than expected at the clubhouse, which was wrecked by
fire in August 2011.

Asbestos-related lung cancer is one of four main diseases the
mineral can cause, according to the Health and Safety Executive.

Demolition work at the site under Marlow Bridge is now slated for
October 28.

It was due to start a fortnight ago but was put on ice after a
potentially dangerous gas pipe was found.

Edward Philips, club secretary, said: "The rowing club site is a
complex one, not least because of the Grade I listed bridge and
all the utilities that go across it.

"Nasty surprises are inevitable in a build, but knowing that a
punch is coming makes it no less painful or unwelcome.

"Finding more asbestos than initial surveys suggested and the
unusually stringent demands from the gas utilities were shocks but
we can overcome them and demolition should now start towards the
end of October."

In September the builders were aware that there was asbestos that
required careful removal. This delayed the original demolition
start date of September 28.

Officials from National Grid said that until a monitoring device
can be installed on the gas pipe to check vibration levels, the
work would need delaying.

The project, helped by a GBP1 million grant from Sport England, is
scheduled to take about ten months to complete.

The new state of the art centre will be a base for training
Paralympic rowers and canoeists vying to become gold medal winners
at future games.

The club was chosen earlier this year by British Rowing as a
centre for the development of an elite plan for para-rowing.

About another GBP200,000 is needed in donations for the rebuild.

Anyone wishing to help raise funds for the club can email:
fundraising@marlowrowingclub.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Still Battling Suits Over Filter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Myron Levin, writing for FairWarning.com, reported that it's hard
to think of anything more reckless than adding a deadly carcinogen
to a product that already causes cancer -- and then bragging about
the health benefits. Yet that's precisely what Lorillard Tobacco
did 60 years ago when it introduced Kent cigarettes, whose
patented 'Micronite" filter contained a particularly virulent form
of asbestos.

According to the report, smokers puffed their way through 13
billion Kents between March 1952 and May 1956, when Lorillard
changed the filter design. Six decades later, the legal fallout
continues -- just last month, a Florida jury awarded more than
$3.5 million in damages to a former Kent smoker stricken with
mesothelioma, an extremely rare and deadly asbestos-related cancer
that typically shows up decades after the initial exposures.

Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose, the company that supplied the
asbestos filter material, face numerous claims from mesothelioma
sufferers, both factory workers who produced the cigarettes or
filter material and former smokers who say they inhaled the
microscopic fibers. (The companies insist that hardly any fibers
escaped.) There's been a burst of new lawsuits in the last few
years, according to SEC filings, possibly because a mesothelioma
patient these days is almost certain to be asked by his doctor or
lawyer, "Did you happen to smoke Kents in the 1950s?"

While there's no official count, records and interviews suggest
that mesothelioma claims since the 1980s number in the low
hundreds at least. Lorillard's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission show that it settled 90 cases during a recent
period of just over two years, and that another 60 are still
pending. Lorillard officials did not reply to emails and calls for
this story, and H&V declined interview requests--company lawyer
Andrew McElaney did, however, point out that the companies have
won most of the cases that went to trial.

Lorillard, based in Greensboro, NC, is America's third-leading
cigarette maker, with a market share of nearly 15 percent and 2012
sales exceeding $6.6 billion. Established in 1760 as the P.
Lorillard Co., it is one of the nation's oldest continuously
operated companies. It also owns the electronic cigarette-maker
blu eCigs, which recently created a buzz with commercials
featuring TV personality Jenny McCarthy and actor Stephen Dorff.

"Micronite" one ad boasted, is "a pure, dust-free, completely
harmless material that is so safe, so effective, it actually is
used to help filter the air in operating rooms."
Kent was Lorillard's response to the health scare of the early
1950s, when the link between smoking and lung cancer began drawing
wide attention. Tobacco companies scurried to roll out filters to
calm jittery smokers and keep them from quitting in droves. The
health benefits would prove illusory, but the switch to filters
averted the potential loss of millions of customers. "The
industry's own researchers admitted that filters did nothing to
make cigarettes safer," notes Robert Proctor, a Stanford
University historian whose 2012 book, Golden Holocaust, covers Big
Tobacco's tactics in painstaking detail. "Philip Morris scientists
in 1963 admitted that 'the illusion of filtration' was as
important as 'the fact of filtration.'"

Lorillard named its first filtered cigarette for Herbert A. Kent,
briefly its president, and aggressively touted the superiority of
the Micronite filter, a blend of cotton, acetate, crepe paper, and
crocidolite asbestos -- sometimes called "African" or "Bolivian
blue" asbestos because of its bluish tint.

The risk of deadly lung disease for heavily exposed asbestos
miners and plant workers was already well documented, but asbestos
also was known as an effective filter material, dense enough to
stop minute particles and gases. Lorillard learned of the use of
crocidolite in gas masks made for the Army Chemical Corps. Under
its contract with H&V, Lorillard assumed sole responsibility for
any "harmful effects.'' It launched Kent at a press conference at
New York's Waldorf-Astoria, touting the Micronite filter as "the
greatest health protection in cigarette history."

Playing on the public's gee-whiz faith in science and technology,
Kent ads told a glamorous, if vague, back story of how the quest
for a new filter "ended in an atomic energy plant, where the
makers of KENT found a material being used to filter air of
microscopic impurities."

"What is 'Micronite'?" another ad asked. "It's a pure, dust-free,
completely harmless material that is so safe, so effective, it
actually is used to help filter the air in operating rooms of
leading hospitals."

The marketing blitz included ads in medical journals and Kent gift
boxes for physicians, accompanied by "Dear Doctor" letters talking
up the advantages for "patients whom you have felt obliged to
advise to cut down or cut out smoking."

The filter material was produced at H&V plants in Massachusetts
and shipped to Lorillard plants in Kentucky and New Jersey. For
H&V workers, the results were catastrophic: One woman, Elizabeth
Jacobs, buried her husband and brother, both H&V workers, who died
of mesothelioma and asbestosis, respectively. Jacobs herself would
die of mesothelioma at age 54. Her only known exposure to asbestos
came from laundering her husband's dusty work clothes.

Of the 33 former plant workers studied, 28 had died--18 from
asbestos-related illnesses. Four of the five survivors  also had
been stricken.

The plant was a "dust-creating monster," James A. Talcott, an
oncologist who coauthored a study of H&V filter workers, told me.
Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989,
Talcott's study tracked the health status of 33 former employees
of the company's West Groton plant. By the time the paper came
out, 28 of them had died -- more than triple the expected number
based on life expectancies -- 18 of them from asbestos-related
illnesses. Four of the five surviving workers had been stricken as
well. Dozens of Lorillard workers also died of mesothelioma--an
exhibit in a Louisville court case listed 34 victims by their
initials.

While plant workers clearly were exposed, how much asbestos Kent
smokers inhaled has been a far more contentious subject. Internal
documents highlight Lorillard's anxieties that its customers were
breathing asbestos. An April 1954 letter from Lorillard's research
director to the company president states that researchers had
found "traces of mineral fiber" in the smoke: "We are embarked
upon a program of attempting to work out a method for the
elimination of the presence of such fibers." That September, an
H&V official sent a memo discussing the need "to find a way of
anchoring asbestos . . .  All efforts are to be exerted to solve
the asbestos-dust-in-Kent smoke problem."

In another memo two months later, H&V's president stated: "It is
Lorillard's belief that asbestos must be eliminated from the Kent
cigarette as soon as possible because of a whispering campaign
started by their competitors of the harmful effects of asbestos."
As a result, H&V would "discontinue that part of our research
program devoted to the fixing of asbestos fibres and direct the
entire attention of the program toward the complete elimination of
asbestos."

Lorillard nevertheless continued using asbestos in its filters for
another 16 months, and sold existing stocks of Kents for several
more.

The filter litigation is hardly Lorillard's biggest challenge. It
depends on its popular Newport menthol brand for nearly 90 percent
of sales, and the Food and Drug Administration is considering
whether to restrict the use of menthol in cigarettes.

Lorillard also faces some 4,500 lawsuits by individual smokers in
Florida, thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling that made it
easier to sue for smoking-related harms. Yet whil the filter
lawsuits are but a small fraction of that, Lorillard fights them
fiercely. "They litigate hard," says Timothy F. Pearce, a lawyer
with Levin Simes in San Francisco who tried a filter case in 2011,
and won. "It's no small undertaking to be in a trial with them,"
he says. "They had like 13 lawyers" working the case.

Lorillard and H&V have won 17 of the 23 filter cases that went to
trial. They insist in court that little or no asbestos leaked from
Kent filters, and so plaintiffs must have gotten mesothelioma in
some other way. Despite the nervous tone of the internal letters
and memos, they say that tests of Kent smoke in the early '50s
never found more than three fibers per cigarette. The smokers'
exposures were "very, very low," Kevin H Reinert, Lorillard's
director of regulatory science policy, testified in a deposition
in April. "I don't believe it increased the risk." Plaintiffs have
found this hard to challenge, since Lorillard failed to preserve
most of its original test reports.

When tests of old Kents revealed far more asbestos in the smoke
than Lorillard claimed, its lawyers countered that the Kents were
old, the results unreliable.

Plaintiff experts who tested cigarettes from old packs of Kents
have found abundant asbestos fibers in the smoke. Lorillard and
H&V claim that the tests were unreliable because the cigarettes
have deteriorated with age.

The companies' first line of defense, though, has been to convince
juries that plaintiffs didn't smoke Kents in the first place --
they just say they did because they have a bad memory, or maybe
they are shading the truth. To undermine their credibility,
defense lawyers and investigators fan out around the country to
track down and interview family members, school chums, Army
buddies -- anyone who might have known the plaintiff in the 1950s.

Because it can be hard to establish the brand of cigarette a
person smoked decades ago, the strategy often succeeds. It failed,
however, in the case of 76-year-old Don Lenney, who not only won
in court, but is still alive nearly four years after his
diagnosis. (Mesothelioma victims often die within a year.)

Lenney, a former insurance agent in Northern California, says he
started smoking in high school, and soon switched from unfiltered
brands: "The Kent Micronite filter was supposed to be the healthy
alternative, so I started smoking Kents."

Diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2009, Lenney had his left
lung removed and underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
He also sued Lorillard and H&V. "They attacked my credibility as
far as whether I had actually smoked Kent cigarettes," Lenney
recalls. Their investigators "were very pushy," he adds. "They
would knock on somebody's door and just ask to interview them
. . . without even calling first to set up an appointment."

In March, 2011, a state jury in San Francisco found Lorillard and
H&V liable. The judge later ordered them to pay Lenney and his
wife about $1.1 million in damages and costs. The companies
appealed, and the case was settled out of court.

Dimitris O. Couscouris, a Los Angeles-area resident with
mesothelioma, did not fare as well. Lorillard mounted a relentless
attack on his credibility, suggesting that he had evaded the draft
during his teenage years in Australia, and had once improperly
received unemployment benefits.

"The trial ended up being more of an attack on my client. "Almost
like a 'blame the victim' type thing."

Defense lawyers also seized on a statement by a witness who said
Couscouris had become too sick to walk. They sent a private
investigator to spy on Couscouris at home -- the private eye
videotaped him and his wife getting into their car and making a
few stops, including at a Marie Callendar restaurant and a
shopping mall.

In October, 2012, a Los Angeles jury found that Couscouris had
failed to prove he'd smoked Kents. "The trial ended up being more
of an attack on my client," says Trey Jones, Couscouris' lawyer.
"Almost like a 'blame the victim' type thing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bushfire Increases Danger of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------
Nyngan Observer reported that the New South Wales is is currently
experiencing one of the worst fire seasons in 10 years which has
damaged or destroyed properties across the state.

Accordiing to the report, in response, WorkCover NSW is waiving
the five-day asbestos removal work notification timeframe to allow
immediate clean-up of asbestos debris.

WorkCover NSW Work Health and Safety Division general manager John
Watson said under usual circumstances, the legislation required a
five-day waiting period before asbestos was removed.

"This five-day timeframe allows for WorkCover to review the
adequacy of safety systems and site arrangements", Mr Watson said.

However WorkCover is fast-tracking assessments to ensure fire
damaged asbestos can be removed as soon as possible.

"Residents are being urged to seek out information on the
potential risks of being exposed to asbestos and how to safely
manage asbestos when cleaning up after the fire", he said.

"As firefighters and other emergency services workers assess the
damage, and residents begin to repair or rebuild, we want to make
people aware of the danger of asbestos.

"We must ensure that all sections of the community are aware of
the dangers of asbestos and that asbestos debris is safely managed
and the health of the community is protected.

"Residents should be aware that fire-affected homes may contain
fire damaged asbestos materials which need to be safely removed."

Before tackling the clean-up:

1. Avoid disturbing asbestos materials and keep any asbestos
debris wet until it can be safely removed.

2. The Asbestos Awareness website www.asbestosawareness.com.au has
information on the types of the asbestos materials commonly found
in homes.

3. Be aware of asbestos materials in your surroundings. A person
conducting demolition of residential premises must ensure that all
asbestos that this likely to be disturbed by the demolition is
identified and safely removed.

4. Notify WorkCover of any emergency demolition work involving
asbestos before the work is commenced.

5. Use only a qualified asbestos removalist licensed by WorkCover
to ensure asbestos is safely and properly removed.

6. Fire damaged asbestos materials can only be cleaned up by
holders of a Class A asbestos removal licence.

7. Air monitoring, clearance inspections must be carried out by an
asbestos assessor licensed by WorkCover.

8. Asbestos removal licence holders can be found on the WorkCover
website or by contacting WorkCover on 13 10 50.

9. All fire damaged asbestos material to be removed needs to be
notified to WorkCover by the removalist.

The five-day notification timeframe will be waived for premises
affected by fire.

For more information on safely managing asbestos, contact
WorkCover on 13 10 50 or visit our website at
www.workcover.nsw.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RTHS Planning Projects, Fibro Will Be Removed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Bajek, writing for Rantoul Press, reported that Superintendent
Scott Amerio presented at a board meeting future capital projects
Rantoul Township High School, in Illinois, is planning in the next
couple of  years.

According to the report, Amerio reported he is hoping the district
can get security fencing around the campus, a project that would
cost about $60,000 from the Health, Life and Safety fund.

The fence would be from the east wing to the industrial technology
building,  another section from the industrial to the agriculture
building, and a more decorative one from the west wing to the
agriculture building.

"What's taking them awhile to do it is from a building
perspective, we need to get them to where we want them," Amerio
said. "The one between the east wing and industrial building,
because we're going to put a drive gate put in there, and it's
back far enough so people can pull off 136 and back in, so they're
off the road.

"They would enter on a keypad a code for the drive gate to open
up. The drive gate also needs to be attached to the fire alarm
system so if it goes off, the gate will open so people can get
out."

Amerio said the other entrances would be pedestrian gates where a
key card would be needed to open them. A panic button on the
inside will also be available in case of an emergency.

To pay for it, Amerio said the health, life and safety and capital
budgets  have to be changed a bit.

"We paid some things from H, L, S that needs to be moved to
capital development, but it will help us get down to that
(mandatory) 85 percent threshhold we need to get down by this
December," Amerio said.

Another project was doing the back parking lot, which is torn up
and having drainage issues. Amerio has talked to Chief Building
Inspector Dan Culkin if asphalt or concrete would be better in the
repavement.

"Asphalt would be cheaper, but concrete would be better quality,"
Amerio said. "Maybe the determining factor would be what kind of
equipment you could get back there underneath that corridor. We
need to check with the village about drainage issues to see where
that storm water runs."

The boys varsity locker room and the hallway that runs the length
of the weight room wall need their lockers replaced. There are no
lockers with vents in the locker room.

"We could replace them with vented ones, which is about $16,460,"
Amerio said. "We can do all the labor ourselves, which will save
money with taking them out and putting them in."

That item will be placed on the agenda on a later date, Amerio
said, and will be on campus hopefully by Christmas break.

A possible summer project is addressing the hallway along the
weight room, which will cost around $24,000.

"We hope to have two lockers on top of each other, 3-foot locker
on each level, and run the whole length," Amerio said.

The boys locker room and the officials locker room are lacking a
good hot water heater.

"That water heater is tied to the boiler," Amerio said. "If that
boiler isn't running, there's no hot water, which Mr. (Todd)
Wilson could attest to as he works out in the morning and there's
no hot water in the shower."

Amerio said they are looking to put a traditional heater down
there, but the district would have to do asbestos abatement, which
is more costly. Other options include a tankless water heater or
an electric one.

RTHS is looking to moving the maintenance area by the house on the
corner of Congress and Seaver for about $75,000.

Replacing the stage curtains in the main gym will be done and
Amerio said would cost "a good chunk of change."

RTHS completed replacing the ceiling and floor tile at the south
end of the second and third floors in the east wing this summer.

Amerio said during the 2014 and 2015 summers, the school hopes to
get all the asbestos out of the building.

"Floor tile has asbestos, so taking out the floor tile and
replacing it, we can use (health-life-safety) money," Amerio said.
"Ceiling tile in those areas do not have asbestos in them, so we
can't use (health-life-safety) money, but it's easier to replace
them."

The classrooms are the last part of the project, but the district
doesn't have to worry about the science classrooms as they were
completed a few years ago.

"One of the main goals is to get all the asbestos out of the
building," Amerio said.

The library's carpet will also be redone soon, but the district
needs to see if asbestos is present.

Other news. The district is looking to replace an old Suburban bus
with a white activity bus.

A white activity bus doesn't require a special busing license to
drive and can be used to transport a small group for
extracurriculars.

"We can't use that bus to transport kids to and from school,"
Amerio said.

The district hopes to replace the suburban as soon as possible,
and trying to budget leasing the white activity bus for next year.

RTHS raised it's fees for using its facilities to fully pay the
licensed food handler and custodial overtime rates.

"We are basically subsidizing those events,"Amerio said. "When
Rotary comes and haves their events like the Fourth of July
breakfast, they pay a certain amount.

However, we need people there like cooks and custodians."

The board approved for individual athletes to compete in the IHSA
state swim meet. The the school doesn't have a swim team.

A certified coach and entry fees will be provided.


                             *********

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  * * *