CAR_Public/131115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 227

                             Headlines


AMERICAN INT'L: Sued Over Alleged Racketeering Law Violations
APPLE INC: "Hilton" Suit Transferred to Calif. District Court
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Divided on LCD Price-Fixing Case
BIOMET INC: Koskie Minsky & Klein Lyons Launch Class Action
BMO HARRIS: Uses ACH Network to Collect Unlawful Debts, Suit Says

CARTER'S INC: DOJ Opened Hotline for Securities Fraud Victims
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Bankwest Takeover Class Action Worth Billions
COUP D'ETAT LLC: Never Paid Over Time Rate, Fla. Suit Says
CROWN GLOBAL: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages
FORD MOTOR: Motion Against Lawyers in Insurance Suit Dropped

GLASS ONION: Recalls Grilled Chicken Salad Products
HIGHER ONE: Settles College Fee Class Actions for $15 Million
HOLIDAY RETIREMENT: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Nov. 25 Hearing on $163.5MM Deal in TiO2 Suit
LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Sees More Detail of Shareholder Class Suit

LOBLAW COS: Recalls Bella Tavola Pastas Due to Undeclared Milk
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Sued in New York Over Shapewear Slimming Claims
MFP INC: Bid for Initial OK of Accord in "Klewinowski" Suit Denied
MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
NESTLE HOLDINGS: Contract Breach Suit Goes to Missouri High Court

NORTH VANCOUVER SCHOOL: May Need to Refund $600,000 in School Fees
ODUM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Class for All Time Worked, Suit Says
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Pre-Paid Subscribers' Class Action
PILOT FLYING J: To Settle Fuel Rebate Class Action for $72 Million
PLEASERS: Exotic Dancers File Class Action FLSA Violations

ROYAL BANK: Settles SEC Charges Over MBS Offering for $150 Million
STRIKE FORCE: Employees Seek Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work
TAYLOR FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Former Workers' Suit
TENAGA NASIONAL: Bertam Valley Villagers Mull Class Action
TIANGUIS CULTURAL: Willfully Refused to Pay OT Wages, Suit Says

UNILIFE CORP: Issues Letter to Stockholders Regarding Class Action
UNION PACIFIC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Suit v. UPRR
UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Grants Petition for Writ of Mandamus
UNITEK GLOBAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Pa.
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Sued Over Cancer Patient Negligence

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Accord Gets Initial Approval
WV REGIONAL JAIL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Cantley" Suit
YELP INC: Portland Writer Joins Reviewers' Class Action
YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Complaint

YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Faces Consolidated Wage & Hour Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Additional Briefing Ordered in Employees Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Oct. 2011 Ruling in "Moeller" Bias Suit Stands
YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Faces Suit Filed by Delivery Drivers
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Settles Suit by Assistant Managers


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Change May be Too Late for Meso Victim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Exposed at Muswellbrook Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Deal for West Australian Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Fire Victims Must Heed Fibro Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long-Term Fibro Solution for Jersey 'Ongoin'

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Installers Facing Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro on Royal Navy Ships Killed Derby Sailor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigation for New or Low-Profile Defendant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debris From S.C. Fire Reveals Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upheld $22MM Verdict in Former Navy's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Fined GBP10,000 for Workers Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alarm on Fibro Disposal Due to Illegal Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sufferers Speak Out on Dangers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria East-West Dig a Health Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cost of Fibro Controls at Wis. Mine Not Known

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears in Canterbury Rebuild
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford's St. Giles Church Closed After Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A&E Insurance Claim Losses Up 12% in 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at King Street Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Working With Fibro Led to Two Men's Deaths

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowater Mill Cleanup Plan Plagued by Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Awarded $8-Mil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Massive Warehouse Blaze Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Setback May Hit NBN Profit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Defendants Threaten to Withdraw CMO Support

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Necton Builder Exposed to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TVA's Bid to Dismiss "Bobo" Suit Granted in Part
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Dismisses DT Boring's RICO Claims Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual's Bid to Dismiss 6 PI Suits Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk "Bailen" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volkswagen Required to Pay Counsel's Travel Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurance Suit v. Clearwater Goes to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Appeals in NYCAL Set for Dec. Hearing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Baruch" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine Bars Widow From Obtaining Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Morvant" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cuomo" Suit Remanded to NY State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Pittsburgh Corning Plan Orders Denied


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L: Sued Over Alleged Racketeering Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
IFAwebnews reports that class action lawsuits have been filed by
small businesses against American International Group and its
former CEO, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, alleging violations of
federal racketeering laws by misreporting workers' compensation
premiums collected by AIG over a 40-year period.

Coordinated class action suits have been filed in New Jersey, New
York and California.  The lawsuits also allege AIG engaged in
unfair business practices and fraud.

The suits allege a scheme that caused insured employers to pay
more in workers' compensation fees than they otherwise would have
paid, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.

With the appearance that less money was collected in workers'
compensation premiums in the states, the lawsuits claim that AIG
caused regulators to assess artificially inflated fees on insured
employers for certain state-mandated workers' compensation
programs.

Earlier this year, Liberty Mutual and AIG reached a settlement in
a similar $450 million workers' compensation case.


APPLE INC: "Hilton" Suit Transferred to Calif. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen transferred the action captioned
DEBRA HILTON, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-2167 EMC,
(N.D. Cal.), to the Central District of California pursuant to the
first-to-file rule.

On October 1, 2013, the Court issued an order granting-in-part
Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings in
the case.  The Court concluded that the first-to-file rule
applied. Specifically, the Court concluded that the case of
Missaghi v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-2003-GAF, currently
proceeding before Judge Gary Feess in the Central District of
California, is an earlier filed action which encompasses the
subject matter and parties of the instant case. However, the Court
indicated that it was inclined to transfer this action rather than
dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of Missaghi.
Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why
this action should not be transferred to the Central District of
California.

The first to file rule was developed to "serve[] the purpose of
promoting efficiency" and to "avoid placing an unnecessary burden
on the federal judiciary," Judge Chen said.  "The Court finds that
these principles would be best served by transferring this action
to the Central District of California where it may be able to give
this case coordinated treatment with Missaghi. . . . Even if
Missaghi is dismissed in the near future without leave to amend,
this action would still be before a court which has gained
experience with the allegations relating to the iPhone 4 and 4S
and the applicable legal principles involved by virtue of ruling
on two substantive motions to dismiss. Accordingly, judicial
efficiency is served by transfer."

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/JDZB9o from Leagle.com.


AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Divided on LCD Price-Fixing Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court appeared divided on Nov. 6 as it considered a
dispute between states and electronics manufacturers over whether
restitution claims based on alleged price-fixing in the market for
liquid crystal display panels should be heard in state or federal
court.

South Carolina and Mississippi are among 13 states that have sued
various manufacturers, including AU Optronics Corp, LG Display Co
Ltd and LG Electronics Inc.  They seek restitution over an alleged
conspiracy among the companies to fix prices, which has been the
subject of a criminal probe and multiple lawsuits.

The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit filed by
Mississippi on behalf of citizens can be viewed as similar to a
class action, meaning they can be moved to federal court.

Legal reforms, including the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act, have
increasingly shifted class actions to federal court, which is
viewed as friendlier to defendants.  At the same time, the Supreme
Court has tightened up the rules for what class action claims can
go forward in federal court.

In the Nov. 6 argument, some of the justices who have signaled
hostility to class actions in the past appeared more sympathetic
to the companies.

                         Alito Challenge

Justice Samuel Alito challenged the state's attorney,
Jonathan Massey, over his interpretation of the Class Action
Fairness Act. Alito indicated that he thought the law could apply
to actions brought by state attorneys general.

Mr. Massey was also forced onto the defensive over the fact that a
consumer class action case making the same claims as those made by
Mississippi already has been settled.  Some justices, including
Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared concerned that state
attorneys general around the country could simply file copycat
suits similar to those filed by plaintiffs' lawyers, forcing
defendants to pay out twice.

"The complaint is going to look an awful lot like a class action
complaint," Roberts said.

Justice Elena Kagan appeared more sympathetic to the state, noting
that an attorney general should not have to meet the same burdens
that a plaintiffs' lawyer does in a class action case.

"All that the attorney general has to do is to stand up and say,
'I have a state interest in protecting my citizens and in
deterring improper behavior and here is my substantive right,'"
she said.

A ruling in favor of the companies would nip in the bud what
lawyers representing business say is a growing trend of class
action-type cases being brought in the name of state attorneys
general.  As in the Optronics case, plaintiffs' lawyers, working
on a contingency fee basis, join with the state to pursue a case
in more plaintiff-friendly state courts that might otherwise be
heard in federal court.

Lawyers like John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- a partner
at the Skadden law firm who supported enactment of the 2005 law,
see the Optronics case as an example of plaintiffs' lawyers trying
to game the system.  "This is a battle over a growing trend that
we are seeing in litigation," he said.

Mississippi's supporters, including consumer advocacy group Public
Citizen, counter that defense lawyers are trying to shoehorn state
attorney general actions into the Class Action Fairness Act when
in reality the law does not apply to such cases.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

The case is Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 12-1036.

                           *     *     *

Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Attorney
General Jim Hood, who critics say shows favoritism to trial
lawyers who were donors to his political campaigns, last month
went on the offensive after several of the electronics companies
tried to convince the Supreme Court to apply the 2005 Class Action
Fairness Act to suits brought by states.

The companies and the Fifth Circuit say the act applies to parens
patriae suits because individual consumers are the real parties in
interest in the case, Mr. Hood wrote in an Oct. 3 brief that the
state was the only plaintiff.  So, he argued, CAFA does not apply.

"Regardless of whether consumers might ultimately benefit, they
are not the legal holders of the claims asserted by the state in
its own name under (state law)," Mr. Hood's brief states.  "States
have compelling reasons to file parens patriae actions in state
courts and should not be made dependent on federal courts to
enforce state law."

The justices must decide if CAFA's requirement that both class and
mass actions belong in federal court applies to parens patriae
suits filed by state attorneys general.

Mr. Hood also contends that the Fifth Circuit's decision last
November contradicts four other cases brought by state AGs against
the same companies.  He and other AGs call the Fifth Circuit
ruling an "affront" to states' ability to bring parens patriae
cases.

The electronics companies say CAFA doesn't limit states' powers.
Instead, they say the case is one of simple statutory
interpretation.

According to CAFA, mass actions are cases "in which monetary
relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried
jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common
questions of law or fact."

An October article on Law360.com says Mr. Hood "is improperly
trying to modify that requirement to define 'persons' as  'named
plaintiffs' to get around the fact that individual consumers, and
not the state of Mississippi, are the real parties in interest,
the companies argued."

Mr. Hood denies that in his October brief, saying "every step of
the (companies') argument is flawed."

"Respondents' convoluted statutory interpretation would turn a
jurisdictional scheme (where simplicity and administrability are
prime virtues) into a procedural nightmare," the brief says.
"Trial courts would be forced to ascertain the value of
hypothetical and unasserted 'claims' by thousands or millions of
consumers, as well as those consumers' views on venue transfer,
and to remand to state court 'claims' of consumers that had never
been brought in the first place."

He also says CAFA just doesn't extend to cover parents patriae
suits.  He also argues that if the LCD makers don't think
Mississippi has the authority to pursue claims, they should move
to dismiss instead of just trying to transfer the case to federal
court.

"CAFA's 'mass action' definition refers to actual 'plaintiffs'
asserting concrete 'claims,' not to 'unnamed real parties in
interest," Mr. Hood's brief says.  "Respondents implausibly
suggest that the term 'plaintiffs' has two different meanings 17
words apart in the same CAFA subsection."

Several states signed a $539 million settlement with the LCD
makers.  But Mississippi, California, Illinois, South Carolina and
Washington decided to pursue cases in their state courts. The
defendant companies removed each of the cases, but each state
successfully fought to have the cases sent back to state court,
except for Mississippi.

The other LCD makers involved in the suit are Toshiba Corp.,
HannStar Display Corp., Chi Mei Corp., LG Display Co., Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd. and Sharp Corp.

A Nov. 6 editorial in the Wall Street Journal is critical of
Mr. Hood's efforts.

"This all looks like a run around the 2005 class-action reform,"
the editorial states.  "That law allows defendants hit with civil
claims by 100 or more persons to seek removal to federal court,
where the rules on classes are stricter and defendants can avoid
biased state juries.  The private LCD class actions have already
been moved to federal court in San Francisco, and at least one
defendant, Toshiba, has won a case.

"Mr. Hood and his trial-bar friends are trying to evade federal
law by running their class-action through the AG's office.
Mr. Hood's retention agreement with Zimmerman Reid and another
firm, Abraham & Rideout, reads: 'Assume Recovery by the State of
Mississippi of a monetary, sum, benefit, or value equal to
$600,000,000.00.' Yes, $600 million."


BIOMET INC: Koskie Minsky & Klein Lyons Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Stevenson LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, and Klein Lyons on
Nov. 5 disclosed that they have launched a class action against
Biomet, Inc. and related entities regarding Biomet's metal-on-
metal hip implant systems, including the M2a Magnum, the M2a 38,
and the ReCap Femoral Resurfacing System.

The lawsuit alleges that Biomet, Inc. and related entities were
negligent in the research, design, manufacture, regulatory
licensing, sale and post-market monitoring of their metal-on-metal
hip implants, and that people implanted with the products in
Canada suffered personal injuries when their hip implants failed.

A metal-on-metal hip implant is one in which both the ball and
socket of the product are made of metal.  The Biomet implants were
aggressively marketed by the defendants as having advantages over
other hip replacement or resurfacing systems, as suitable, safe,
effective, durable, minimally invasive hip replacements, as high
performance, long-lasting systems, as contributing to a better
quality of life and as being particularly suited for young, active
patients, women and patients of smaller stature.

The lawsuit alleges that the Biomet metal-on-metal hip implants
were designed and manufactured improperly and should not have been
sold in Canada.  In particular, the Biomet metal-on-metal implants
cause metal debris to be released into the surrounding tissue and
other complications.  The heavy metals released can be toxic, and
may cause, among other things, tissue necrosis, metallosis,
pseudotumours, bone dislocation and failure of the hip joint.
Shortly after the Biomet implants were approved for sale in
Canada, there were increasing reports of premature failures with
these devices.

Despite serious and numerous reports of failure of the Biomet
implants, no warning was provided to Canadian patients of the
significant risk of failure of the Biomet implants and Biomet
continues to market and distribute the Biomet metal-on-metal
implants in Canada, despite unacceptably high early revision rates
and other problems.

James Newland, Esq. -- jnewland@stevensonlaw.net -- of Stevensons
LLP, Jonathan Ptak, Esq. -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP
and Doug Lennox, Esq. -- dlennox@kleinlyons.com -- of Klein Lyons
are lead counsel in this proposed class action.

Canadians who have experienced adverse events from Biomet hip
implants are encouraged to visit:

     http://www.kmlaw.ca/biometclassaction

e-mail biometclassaction@kmlaw.ca or call 1-855-595-2629.

Stevensons LLP, based in Toronto, is a boutique litigation firm
with expertise in complex commercial litigation, personal injury
and medical malpractice, class actions, appeals, estates,
employment, administrative and public interest law.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, labor, employment and litigation firms.  Its class
actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992 and
has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.

Klein Lyons, based in Vancouver and Toronto, is a class actions
firm with significant expertise in defective drugs and medical
devices class actions.


BMO HARRIS: Uses ACH Network to Collect Unlawful Debts, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Booth, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., First International Bank &
Trust, a North Dakota State-Chartered Bank, and North American
Banking Company, a Minnesota State-Chartered Bank, Case No. 2:13-
cv-05968-RBS (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2013) is brought to recover
damages and other relief on behalf of a class of persons, who have
been injured by the Defendants' participation in a scheme to
access and utilize the Automated Clearing House network to collect
unlawful debts.

BMO is a national banking association incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.  First International is a
North Dakota state-chartered bank headquartered in Watford, North
Dakota.  North American Banking Company is a Minnesota state-
chartered bank headquartered in Roseville, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKLEMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


          Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1350 Broadway, Suite 908
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (917) 595-3600
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com


          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Steve Six, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  six@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com


          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com
                  alperstein@KOlawyers.com


          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marc Durant, Esq.
          DURANT & DURANT
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1116
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1818
          E-mail: mdurant@durantlaw.com


CARTER'S INC: DOJ Opened Hotline for Securities Fraud Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two former executives of Carter's Inc., have been indicted by a
federal grand jury in Atlanta, Georgia, for violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the securities of Carter's
Inc., between 2006 and 2009, thereby defrauding company
shareholders.  The charges are pending in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Case No.
1:11-CR-445-JEC-AJB.

Pursuant to the "Justice for All Act of 2004" (18 U.S.C. Sec.
3771), federal laws entitles any victim of a federal criminal
defendant's alleged fraudulent acts to receive advance notice of
public proceedings and possibility to restitution.  Victims also
have a reasonable right to be heard in such proceedings, including
during a sentencing hearing.  A toll-free telephone hotline has
been established in order to provide information about the case to
anyone directly affected by the alleged fraud.

The hotline is 1-888-431-1918.

The purpose of the hotline is to provide any individuals who may
have been affected by the alleged fraud a means to contact the
government to obtain information about their potential rights in
federal court, notice of any scheduled proceedings, and to speak
with a government contact if they wish.

The hotline does not offer guarantees of money for any individual
or organization.

Information about significant events in the case will be posted on
the U.S. Attorney's web site http://www.usdoj/usao/gan/


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Bankwest Takeover Class Action Worth Billions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that promoters
of a class action for "victims" of Commonwealth Bank's AUD2.1
billion takeover of Bankwest in 2008 say it could be the largest
litigation of its type, worth billions of dollars.

Anti-bank advocate Geoff Shannon, who founded the Unhappy Banking
website, said on Nov. 6 he had secured the backing of an
"international private funder" and that the law firm Levitt
Robinson had been engaged to work on the case.

He said CBA's primary motive for defaulting commercial customers
after the Bankwest acquisition appeared to be "saving money on
what it had to pay to purchase Bankwest".  "It appears CBA were
attracted to do so because of clawback provisions in the Bankwest
purchase agreement," Mr. Shannon said.

CBA has consistently denied the allegation that it was in its
commercial interest to foreclose on Bankwest customers.

In a July letter to the Senate economics legislation committee,
group general counsel David Cohen angrily denied that the bank had
manufactured defaults.

He said some Bankwest customers had a "myopic belief that somebody
other than themselves must be responsible for how events
unfolded".

In August last year, Mr. Shannon failed in private litigation
against CBA over the collapse of his company 33 Electra, the
developer of a Bankwest-funded AUD14.5 million residential project
on the north coast of NSW.

In that case, where Mr. Shannon ended up having to represent
himself, a NSW Supreme Court judge said the businessman was not
deliberately dishonest but described him as an unreliable witness,
when his answers were compared to contemporaneous documents.

Mr. Shannon has called the class action RG10 Targeted Litigation,
with RG10 the worst internal risk grade for CBA loans.  He said
CBA set out to change the benchmarks on performing Bankwest loans,
which had a fair to good rating, so that it could artificially re-
grade them to RG10 and place the borrowers' assets in
receivership.

"Through significant research, we've learned a massive amount
about the Bankwest purchase and subsequent actions," he said.

"This is not just about money.  It's about holding CBA to account
for the actions that have had an enormous and terrible impact upon
former customers of the bank and the wider Australian community."

Unhappy Banking, he said, had already had 150 registrations for
the class action on its website, involving losses worth AUD550
million.

Levitt Robinson principal Stewart Levitt is currently leading
another class action against CBA over the Storm Financial
collapse.

Both sides are making their final addresses to the Federal Court
in Brisbane.


COUP D'ETAT LLC: Never Paid Over Time Rate, Fla. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Roberto Prado Aragon and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Coup D'Etat, LLC, Commodore, Inc. d/b/a
Greenstreet and Sylvano Bignon, Case No. 1:13-cv-23685-KMW (S.D.
Fla., October 11, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an
average of 50 hours a week for the Defendants and was paid an
average of $13 per hour but was never paid the extra half time
rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Coup D'Etat, LLC is a limited liability company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Commodore, Inc. d/b/a
Greenstreet is a company that regularly transacts business within
Dade County.  Sylvano Bignon is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of both the Defendant Companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CROWN GLOBAL: Class Seeks to Recover Damages for Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leandro Bouza, Eddy Hernandez, Erique Montejo, Raul M. Rivas, and
other similarly-situated individuals v. Crown Global Services
Corporation, Sinapsis Trading U.S.A., LLC d/b/a Truestar Group
S.P.A. and Tarik King, Jorge L. Gonzalez, Giuseppe Sgovio and
Cristina Talin individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-23683-PCH (S.D.
Fla., October 11, 2013) is a class action lawsuit that seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States.

Crown Global Services Corporation and Sinapsis Trading U.S.A., LLC
are Florida corporations headquartered in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants.  The
Corporate Defendants provide baggage wrapping services to
passengers at Miami International Airport.  The Individual
Defendants are current or former directors and owners of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FORD MOTOR: Motion Against Lawyers in Insurance Suit Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
quiet truce in Marietta has ended a battle between plaintiffs'
lawyers and out-of-state counsel for Ford Motor Co. that prompted
judges to upend four Ford trial victories and the state Supreme
Court to take up the issue.

Attorneys from Harris Penn Lowry have withdrawn their motion to
revoke the pro hac vice admissions for Ford lawyers D. Alan Thomas
and Paul F. Malek of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart in Birmingham.

In 2011, Cobb County State Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley granted
plaintiffs' motion to toss Messrs. Thomas and Malek from her
courtroom after they acknowledged Ford had given incomplete
answers to a pretrial question about the company's insurance
coverage.

The underlying suit over a boy's death in a Ford crash settled,
but in June Messrs. Thomas and Malek won a Court of Appeals
decision saying Judge Tanksley owed the lawyers "an opportunity to
be heard" on whether they violated the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct.

Finding that Judge Tanksley's decision had "continuing, adverse
collateral consequences for the attorneys' careers" the appeals
court remanded the issue back to Judge Tanksley.  But with the
plaintiffs lawyers' having dropped their motion for sanctions,
Judge Tanksley has chosen to let the matter rest, according to her
staff attorney Jessica Rawcliffe.

"There's nothing before the court," Ms. Rawcliffe said.  "Judge
Tanksley is going to decline from proceeding sua sponte."

Darren Penn and Steve Lowry of Harris Penn Lowry said they had no
interest in pursuing the matter because the underlying case
settled for an undisclosed amount.  Ford and its lawyers will have
no comment on the matter, said Michael Bowers -- mbowers@balch.com
-- of Balch & Bingham, who represented Messrs. Thomas and Malek in
the appeal.

But repercussions from the underlying dispute continue.  The
Georgia Supreme Court last month heard oral arguments in Ford's
appeal of a judge's decision to order a new trial in a case Ford
had won because the carmaker had given incomplete answers to the
insurance question.  Appeals are pending from Ford on new trials
ordered in three other cases.

The problem began on the second day of the 2011 trial before
Tanksley, when Ford lawyers disclosed that they had just learned
the company carried liability insurance for coverage of large
plaintiffs' verdicts.  That information revealed that Ford's
standard answer to questions about verdict insurance was
incomplete.  Its answer was: "Ford objects to any reference to an
alleged insurer of Ford.  Ford has sufficient resources to satisfy
any judgment that reasonably could be expected to be awarded as
damages in this action, if any."

The disclosure was important because Georgia law requires that
jurors be screened for financial or other interests in any
insurance company that could be affected by a verdict.

Even as the 2011 fight ends, others have begun among the same
lawyers.  Harris Penn Lowry and the same Ford defense team are
facing off in another wrongful death product liability trial
before Cobb County State Court Judge Maria Golick.  Like the first
case, this one also alleges that a seat belt malfunction caused a
death, and Ford disputes the claim.

After Judge Golick dismissed the jury on Nov. 5, Mr. Thomas
complained that Harris Penn Lowry was dragging out the case and
forcing one of his out-of-town expert witnesses to wait too long
to testify.  Mr. Thomas said his concern was that the delay was
"rude" to his witness.  Mr. Lowry countered that part of why the
trial was taking so long was that the Ford lawyers spent seven
hours cross-examining the last plaintiff's witness.

What has changed in the current trial is Ford's disclosures about
insurance.  Instead of using the answer it had in the other cases
implying it is self-insured, in the consolidated pre-trial order
Ford disclosed excess verdict insurance coverage with
approximately 35 different companies.


GLASS ONION: Recalls Grilled Chicken Salad Products
---------------------------------------------------
Glass Onion Catering, a Richmond, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 181,620 pounds of ready-to-eat salads and
sandwich wrap products with fully-cooked chicken and ham that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The company announced that the products are being recalled in
conjunction with other foods regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). A full list of products being recalled will
be available on FDA's website at: http://is.gd/zKtpHW

Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number
"P-34221" inside the USDA mark of inspection. FSIS products
subject to recall include:

   * 12 oz. packages of "delish pan pacific chop salad"

   * 13.4 oz. packages of "delish California style grilled
     chicken salad"

   * 9.9 oz. packages of "delish uncured applewood smoked ham &
     cheese wrap"

   * 10.5 oz. packages of "delish grilled chicken caesar wrap"

   * 10.9 oz. packages of "delish southwestern chicken wrap"

   * 11.5 oz. packages of "delish greek brand low-calorie
     grilled chicken wrap"

   * 9.9 oz. packages of "delish white chicken club wrap"

   * 11.2 oz. packages of "delish asian style chicken wrap"

   * 13.4 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Southwestern
     Style White Chicken Wrap with Chimichurri Sauce"

   * 10.5 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Asian Style
     White Chicken Wrap with Mango Vinaigrette"

   * 9.9 oz. packages of "atherstone Fine Foods Grilled White
     Chicken Caesar Wrap with Caesar Dressing"

   * 10.7 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods California Grilled
     Chicken Salad, Low Fat Mendocino Mustard Dressing"

   * 10.7 oz. packages of "Lunch Spot Southwestern Style Chicken
     Wrap, Chile & Lime Dressing"

   * 9.2 oz. packages of "super fresh Foods Pan Pacific Chopped
     Chicken Salad, Ginger Soy Dressing"

   * 10.7 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOE'S Field Fresh
     Chopped Salad with Grilled Chicken."

   * 11 oz. plastic containers of "TRADER JOS'S MEXICALI SALAD
     with Chili Lime Chicken."

The products were produced between Sept. 23 and Nov. 6, 2013 and
shipped to distributions centers intended for retail sale in
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah and
Washington. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will
be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS began monitoring a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses on
Oct. 29, 2013 then was notified by FDA on Nov. 6, 2013 that
California authorities had reported case-patients consuming pre-
packaged salads with grilled chicken. Working in conjunction with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FDA, the
California Department of Public Health, the Washington State
Department of Health, and the Arizona Department of Health
Services, FSIS has determined that there is a link between the
grilled chicken salads and the illness cluster. Twenty-six case-
patients have been identified in three states with
indistinguishable E. coli O157:H7 PFGE (genetic fingerprint)
patterns with illness onset dates ranging from Sept 29, 2013 to
Oct. 26, 2013. Based on epidemiological information, 15 case-
patients reported consumption of ready-to-eat pre-packaged salads
prior to illness onset. A traceback investigation determined Glass
Onion Catering was the supplier of the products implicated in the
outbreak.

While uncommon to find E. coli O157:H7 in a poultry product, FSIS
will continue its investigation in conjunction with the FDA to
identify the source of the contamination. FSIS continues to work
with the CDC, FDA and state public health partners on this
investigation and will provide updated information as it becomes
available.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor,
and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms
should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some products may be in a
consumer's refrigerators. Because this is a ready-to-eat product,
FSIS advises all consumers to destroy the product.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Tom Atherstone, company president, at (510) 236-8905.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


HIGHER ONE: Settles College Fee Class Actions for $15 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stratford, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that
Higher One, the large but often controversial provider of debit
cards on college campuses, has reached a preliminary agreement to
pay $15 million to settle claims that its fees and marketing
practices were predatory, the company announced on Nov. 5.

The settlement, if finalized and approved by a court, would
resolve a handful of class-action lawsuits filed in 2012 against
Higher One by a dozen students at colleges across the country.  A
federal judge consolidated the lawsuits filed in five different
states -- Connecticut, Mississippi, Alabama, Illinois and Kentucky
-- into one class action earlier this year.

At issue in the case were Higher One's debit card accounts that
the company provided to college students.  Colleges and
universities with agreements with Higher One disburse students'
financial aid reimbursements directly onto those cards, but some
students have complained that the fees to use the cards are
exorbitant and insufficiently transparent.

In their complaint against Higher One, the plaintiffs had alleged
that the company was engaged in "unfair and unconscionable
practices of automatically creating bank accounts for college
students, depositing students' financial aid funds into Higher One
accounts without students' permission, deceptively discouraging
students from opting-out of such accounts, and assessing deceptive
and unusual bank fees on student accounts."

Both parties said on Nov. 5 that they had reached an agreement "in
principle" to resolve the case.  Under the settlement, Higher One
will pay $15 million and agree to change some of its practices or
agree to maintain changes it has already made.

Students who had a One Account between March 2006 and August 2012
and who incurred a fee on their account would be eligible for
payment under the settlement, according to a person familiar with
the agreement.  It would also require Higher One to stop charging
certain fees and to maintain some changes it has already made to
its fee structure.

The two sides still need to hammer out the details of the
agreement and receive approval from the court before the
settlement is finalized.

Higher One consumers who are deemed eligible for the settlement
would see "substantial relief" under the agreement, said
Hassan Zavareei, a partner at the Washington-based firm Tycko &
Zavareei who was the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.

"We are optimistic that we will have a final agreement to present
to the court within the next 60 days," Mr. Zavareei said.

A spokeswoman for Higher One said in an email on Nov. 5 that the
company continues to believe the claims in the lawsuit are
"without merit" but did not say whether the proposed settlement
would include an admission of wrongdoing.  The company had asked a
federal judge to dismiss the case.

"Higher One has entered into this agreement in principle solely to
avoid a lengthy and costly litigation process and to minimize
business disruption in offering its valued services to students
and institutions of higher education," the spokeswoman, Shoba V.
Lemoine, wrote.  "This settlement, if finalized and approved,
would resolve all outstanding civil litigation against Higher One
involving the marketing and usage of its OneAccount suite."

Lemoine said she could not provide further details because the
company was negotiating with the plaintiffs over the settlement.
Higher One disclosed to investors Tuesday that the settlement's
total cost to the company would be $16.4 million, including legal
fees and other expenses.

Higher One has long dominated the market for financial products on
college campuses but over the past several years has increasingly
found itself under scrutiny from students, consumer advocates,
regulators and lawmakers over some of its business practices.

The company has agreements to offer its products, usually debit
cards that are co-branded with a university's logo, at more than
500 campuses, according to a 2012 study by the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group's Education Fund.  The group found that
900 colleges nationwide have agreements with banks or financial
services companies for debit or prepaid cards for financial aid
disbursement.

Last year, Higher One agreed to pay $11 million in restitution to
students as part of a settlement with the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, which alleged that the company had violated
federal law in the way it charged overdraft fees.  The company did
not admit any liability in the settlement.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau officials last month said
they were concerned about the arrangements that financial
institutions like Higher One have with individual colleges.  The
agency's seven-month inquiry into those contracts raised questions
about whether the financial products were good deals for students
and the extent to which colleges receive kickbacks for pushing the
products.

A handful of Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate are
currently in the process of receiving responses to a letter they
sent in September to nine major financial institutions --
including Higher One -- asking for them to explain their
arrangements with colleges.  The letter specifically requested the
amount of fees that the financial services companies are
collecting from students.  The lawmakers said they were concerned
that the arrangements are lucrative for banks and colleges but
harm students by charging them exorbitant fees.

The Education Department has also announced that it plans to write
new regulations about how federal student aid is disbursed to
students on campus through debit cards and other financial
products.  The department has not said when such a rulemaking
process would begin.


HOLIDAY RETIREMENT: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Gerace, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that a
federal judge in the state of California has granted final
approval to a $7.5 million settlement of a 2012 class action
lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that senior
living operator Holiday Retirement failed to accurately pay
community managers and co-managers for all hours worked.

Holiday Retirement, the largest independent living provider in the
country, is owned by investment management firm Fortress
Investment Group LLC and agreed to settle the suit earlier in
2013, with the Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District
Judge in the Central District of California, granting preliminary
approval of the class action settlement on June 14.

The final approval, granted during a Nov. 1 hearing, was delayed
due to an extended Notice Response Deadline to ensure all
potential plaintiffs could participate in the settlement if they
wanted to do so, court filings indicate.

The suit was filed Sept. 26, 2012 against Harvest Management, dba
Holiday, by plaintiff Sallie Cwik on behalf of herself and others
she believed had encountered similar situations.  Ms. Cwik alleged
Holiday failed to accurately record and pay for all hours worked
by the company's community managers and co-managers.

"The suit addresses the very long working hours, and the fact that
the managers really are not managers since they have virtually no
power over their property, therefore they are not exempt [from
overtime pay provisions under the FLSA]," Ms. Cwik told SHN in an
email.

While Holiday has agreed to pay up to a total of $7.5 million to
settle the suit, including all alleged unpaid wages, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, it denies the allegations
and has not admitted any liability or other wrongdoings through
the settlement.

"Holiday has reviewed the claims in this lawsuit in detail, and it
has denied any wrongdoing or liability in this matter and
maintains that it compensated its employees fairly and lawfully,"
says a court document containing the proposed settlement to class
members, filed in April 2013.  "Specifically, Holiday contends
that the Managers in question were properly classified as salaried
managerial employees."

Despite believing that it has "ample legal and factual grounds"
for defending and defeating the claim, Holiday said in a case
document that it chose to enter a settlement agreement with the
plaintiff and resolve the suit in order to avoid further
litigation-related expenses.

Out of the 3,384 class members who were sent notices of the
proposed settlement, 2,359 have submitted timely claim forms,
representing around 70% of the class.  While some class members
have disputed their calculated settlement amount, none have
objected to the settlement, and it is expected the final response
rate will be higher, according to court documents detailing the
response as of Oct. 11, 2013.

"The unusually high response rate and the complete lack of
objections together indicate that the Class Members overwhelmingly
support the Settlement and strongly favor its approval," said
plaintiff attorney David Medby in a declaration filed Oct. 18 in
support of the joint motion for final approval of the collective
action settlement.

Holiday declined to provide any statement regarding the
settlement.


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Nov. 25 Hearing on $163.5MM Deal in TiO2 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland, will hold a
hearing Nov. 25, 2013, to determine whether the proposed
settlements in In re: Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 10-CV-00318(RDB), are "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" such that they should finally be approved.

Separate settlements totalling $163,500,000 have been reached by
plaintiffs, on behalf of the class certified in the Action, with
these defendants:

     Settling defendant                       Settlement Amount
     ------------------                       -----------------
     Huntsman International LLC                    $6,500,000
     EI du Pont de Nemours and Co.                $72,000,000
     Cristal USA Inc., formerly known as          $50,000,000
        Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.
     Kronos Worldwide, Inc.                       $35,000,000

Tronox Inc. (or Kerr-McGee Corporation) was also named a defendant
but is not part of any of the settlements, according to a Sept. 10
Summary Notice in the litigation.

Each of the settlements is governed by the terms and conditions of
separate settlement agreements.  Each of the settlements provides
that the settling defendants do not admit any fault or liability.

At the Nov. 25 hearing, the Baltimore court will also consider the
application of class counsel for attorneys' fees of 33-1/3% of the
settlement funds, and up to $5,500,000 for reimbursement of
litigation costs and expenses in connection with the litigation.
The court will also consider service awards to the class
representatives in the total amount of $175,000.

Class counsel are:

     Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
     C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
     GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
     595 Market Street, Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: 415-777-2230

          - and -

     Brendan Glackin, Esq.
     Daniel Hutchinson, Esq.
     LIEF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 9411
     Tel: 415-956-1000
     E-mail: bglackin@lchb.com
             dhutchinson@lchb.com

          - and -

     Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
     JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM INC
     505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: 415-500-6800


LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Sees More Detail of Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that construction giant
Leighton has seen more detail of a claims being made in a class
action related to allegations of corruption in the company, and
says it will vigorously defend the action.

Melbourne solicitor Mark Elliott is seeking damages in the
Victorian Supreme Court on behalf of 10,000 shareholders after
more than AUD957 million was wiped off the market value of
Leighton shares in two days in October.

The share price fall occurred after media reports of widespread
corruption in Leighton's international business, related to
kickbacks being paid for contracts.

Leighton had previously informed the market it had referred
possible breaches of its code of ethics to the Australian Federal
Police.

Mr. Elliott has accused the construction giant of breaching
corporate continuous disclosure laws.

Leighton received a statement of claim from Mr. Elliott on
Wednesday outlining further details of the class action.

"Leighton strongly denies Mr. Elliott's claim that Leighton has
failed to meet its disclosure obligations," it said in a
statement.

"Mr. Elliott's claim will be vigorously defended."

Leighton has also previously vowed to fight a separate class
action filed by shareholders seeking to recover losses stemming
from the company's massive profit downgrade in 2011.


LOBLAW COS: Recalls Bella Tavola Pastas Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:          November 11, 2013
Type of communication:  Recall
Alert sub-type:         Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:            Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:  Class 1
Source of recall:       Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:         Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:           National
Extent of the product
distribution:           Retail

Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is recalling Bella Tavola brand
pastas from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled products.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Loblaw are conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products:

   -- Bella Tavola Meat Tortellini 454 g; Best Before: all dates
      with 0 60383 98833 3; Sold nationally at Loblaw banner
      stores; and

   -- Bella Tavola Meat Ravioli 454 g; Best Before: all dates
      with 0 60383 98832 6; Sold nationally at Loblaw banner
      stores.


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Sued in New York Over Shapewear Slimming Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that intimate
apparel giants Maidenform Brands Inc. and Wacoal America Inc. were
hit on Nov. 5 with a proposed class action in New York federal
court accusing them of falsely marketing their shapewear fabric as
being constructed with minerals and nutrients that are absorbed by
the skin and permanently change the wearer's body shape and skin
condition.

Plaintiffs Christina Caramore and Michelle Martin allege
Maidenform and Wacoal claim the shapewear fabric, produced by
Spain-based Nurel SA -- which is not named in the lawsuit -- is
constructed "with embedded microcapsules containing caffeine to
promote fat destruction, vitamin E to prevent the effects of
aging, ceramides to restore and maintain the skin's smoothness,
and retinol and aloe vera to moisturize and increase the firmness
of the skin."  However, the ingredients don't work as advertised,
according to the complaint.

"Yet defendants make these misrepresentations in order to prey
upon women's insecurities about their body images, because
defendants know that the annual revenue of the U.S. weight-loss
industry is $20 billion, sales of shapewear are estimated at $1
billion annually, and sales of 'nutrient-infused' textiles or
'cosmeto-textiles' are estimated at more than $600 million
annually," the complaint said.

According to the complaint, Maidenform and Wacoal charge as much
as 50 percent more for the shapewear made with Nurel's "cosmeto-
textiles" than for equivalent non-nutrient-infused shapewear,
despite the fact that the purported nutrients cannot permanently
cure cellulite, destroy fat or cause weight loss.

The lawsuit quoted sources including the Mayo Clinic and the state
of California as saying that many cellulite treatments are
ineffective.

"Nurel manufactures, markets and sells fabric to lingerie
companies, including defendants, for use in shapewear.  Nurel
differentiates its fabric by claiming that the fabric is
constructed with 'active principles embedded in the fibers in a
homogeneous way.  During the garment use, principles are released
providing benefits to your skin,'" the lawsuit said.

Nurel claims that its fabric contain thousands of microcapsules
specially designed to preserve, contain and release different
kinds of active ingredients to improve consumers' skin.

"Contrary to Nurel's representations, the Novarel Slim fabric
cannot and does not reduce cellulite or destroy fat permanently or
long-term," the complaint said.

The lawsuit cites Wacoal's iPant product, which is advertised as a
kind of tight-fitting undergarment that "works with your body to
visually reduce the appearance of cellulite from your waist, hips
and thighs as you move."

It also names Maidenform's Instant Slimmer collection of
shapewear, a similar line of purportedly slimming undergarments.

"Maidenform markets its Instant Slimmer collection as being
constructed with Novarel Slim 'yarn technology' that provides
'slimming benefits' and incorporates microcapsules containing
caffeine, retinol, ceramides and other active principles," the
lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs said the defendants' misleading and deceptive sales
scheme enabled them to charge a premium for the shapewear
constructed of Novarel Slim fabric over the costs of the same
style of shapewear made from non-nutrient-infused fabric.

"As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, plaintiffs and the
class have suffered out-of-pocket losses, did not receive the
benefit of the bargain and have been damaged," the complaint said.

Maidenform and Wacoal did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on Nov. 5.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andres F. Alonso of Alonso
Krangle LLP and Elizabeth A. Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- and
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available on Nov. 5.

The case is Christina Caramore et al. v. Maidenform Brands Inc. et
al., case number 2:13-cv-06122, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.


MFP INC: Bid for Initial OK of Accord in "Klewinowski" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denied, without
prejudice, a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement filed in the case captioned LINDA KLEWINOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. MFP, INC. d/b/a Financial Credit Services, Defendant, CASE NO.
8:13-CV-1204-T-33TBM, (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Covington said the Court requires further information before
it can preliminarily approve the class settlement.

"The Court is concerned that dissemination of the Class Notice, as
drafted, would place an unfair obligation on class members by
requiring them to object to Class Counsels' "proposed attorneys'
fees and costs" without being informed as to the amount of such
fees and costs," she said.

With regards the proposed order submitted and the proposed Class
Notice, the documents are internally inconsistent with respect to
a number of important details, Judge Covington added. "These
documents refer to the Defendant by a plethora of different names,
place varying requirements on potential objectors to the class
action settlement, and contain shifting class definitions. Counsel
should carefully review these proposed documents before tendering
them to the Court for further consideration," ruled Judge
Covington.

The Court directed the parties to confer and address these
concerns prior to reasserting their request for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

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


MGIC INVESTMENT: Still Faces Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging it
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to
the company's Oct. 16, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003.

MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it
under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class
certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action
litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders
alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements
violated RESPA.

Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts. Five of those cases have previously been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Courts without any
further opportunity to appeal, and two additional cases have been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Court, but are on appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals.


NESTLE HOLDINGS: Contract Breach Suit Goes to Missouri High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Rowling appealed a trial court judgment dismissing, with
prejudice, his breach of contract petition against Nestle
Holdings, Inc., as time-barred under the five-year statute of
limitations in Section 516.120(1) of the Missouri Revised
Statutes.  Mr. Rowling argues that the trial court erroneously
failed to apply the 10-year statute of limitations found in
Section 516.110(1), or alternatively, that the trial court erred
in finding his petition untimely, because the five-year statute of
limitations was tolled.

"We would affirm," ruled Judge Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., of the Court
of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four.
"However, because we encounter inconsistency in the application of
our state's statutes of limitations regarding actions on contracts
containing a promise to pay money, we transfer to the Missouri
Supreme Court to resolve the issue, pursuant to Rule 83.02.3."

The case is JOHN M. ROWLING, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. NESTLE
HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, NO. ED99401.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 15, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/uxNKuqfrom Leagle.com.


NORTH VANCOUVER SCHOOL: May Need to Refund $600,000 in School Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Watson, writing for North Shore News, reports that the
North Vancouver School District could be on the hook for up to
C$600,000 after a class action lawsuit over summer school fees was
recently settled.

The lawsuit was launched by parents in 2010 against 25 school
districts, including North Vancouver, for the cost of summer
school tuition fees charged for several years prior to 2007.

Prior to 2007, many school districts charged fees for summer
courses.  In 2007 they were ordered by the minister of education
to stop charging for any summer school classes required for
graduation.

In the class action suit, parents sued school districts for money
paid for summer school courses before 2007.

In the case of North Vancouver, that will mean refunding fees for
summer school classes in 2005 and 2006.

"The school district intends to comply with the terms of the
settlement approved by the court," said Victoria Miles,
spokeswoman for the North Vancouver school district.  "Provided
that the claimants are verified in terms of meeting the
settlement, then they will receive the compensation."

Franci Stratton, chair of the North Vancouver board of education,
said the full amount the school district may have to pay hasn't
been determined.

"We were looking at preliminary estimates for the North Vancouver
school district of around C$300,000 to C$600,000, plus potentially
a share of the legal costs," said Ms. Stratton, adding that those
numbers are still preliminary estimates.

Ms. Miles said summer school fees ranged from C$180 to C$475.

The total of summer school fees paid over 2005 and 2006 was more
than C$726,000.

"The exposure really depends on the number of claims that are
received and there is considerable variation in what that might be
and then how many are actually at the end of the day verified as
meeting the terms of the settlement," said Ms. Miles.

Courses eligible for partial refunds include core subjects for
grades 8 through 11 such as math, science, and English.  It also
includes full credit courses, which count as credit towards
graduation, for grades 10 through 12 including biology, physics
and social studies.

Ms. Miles said the school district no longer charges fees for
secondary review and completion or full credit courses.

"The settlement does not mean that the district agrees that the
fees should not have been charged, but it has agreed to a
settlement as a means of bringing this matter to a conclusion
rather than prolonging a legal dispute," said Ms. Miles.


ODUM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Class for All Time Worked, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miquel Chavez, Julio Torres, Sr., Julio Torres, Jr., and Ibis
Martinez v. Odum Services, L.P., Case No. 2:13-cv-00805-JRG (E.D.
Tex., October 11, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act entitlement of the right to receive pay for all time
worked for the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant has failed to pay them and others similarly situated for
continuous workday activities, which are integral and
indispensable to its principal activities.

Odum Services, L.P., does business in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903)593-5588
          Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Pre-Paid Subscribers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on Nov. 6 disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner on November 4, 2013 in the Central
District Court.

The claim alleges that Partner unlawfully reduces the account
balance of Pre-Paid subscribers.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against the Company is estimated by the plaintiff to be
NIS35 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


PILOT FLYING J: To Settle Fuel Rebate Class Action for $72 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
WATE reports that new court documents revealed Pilot Flying J will
settle a class action lawsuit for $72 million.

Those documents were filed late on Nov. 4 in U.S. District Court
in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The companies claim they were cheated out of fuel rebates on large
diesel purchases.  Some trucking companies have opted out of the
class action settlement.

FBI agents raided Pilot's Knoxville headquarters in April.

Seven pilot workers have pleaded guilty to fraud charges in
federal court.


PLEASERS: Exotic Dancers File Class Action FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcus K. Garner, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that an Atlanta strip club is being sued in federal court
for allegedly violating federal labor laws, denying minimum wage
or overtime pay and forcing exotic dancers to pay "kick-backs" to
work.

Chandra Cook filed the class-action lawsuit late October on behalf
of roughly 50 fellow exotic dancers who work or previously worked
at Pleasers in southwest Atlanta.  The open-ended civil complaint
allows more dancers to opt in to the accusation that Pleasers
owners Darius Mitchell and Paul Hicks knowingly skirted the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Indeed, not only did they fail to pay a single penny in wages,
they tricked the plaintiff and all others similarly situated into
paying each of them to work at Pleasers," the complaint says.

Neither Hicks nor Mitchell could be reached for comment on Nov. 6.

This is the second federal lawsuit filed in October against a
metro Atlanta adult club.  Amanda Berry sued Pin Ups in DeKalb
County claiming similar labor violations, and also that club
managers fired her for being pregnant.

Ms. Cook worked at Pleasers from October 2010 to October 2012, and
filed her lawsuit last month, roughly a week after reports of the
Pin Ups lawsuit.

In the Pleasers complaint, as with the one Ms. Berry filed,
Ms. Cook's attorney claims that the club management falsely
characterized the exotic dancers working there as "independent
contractors."  Ms. Cook and other dancers were only paid by tips
from customers, and often worked more than 40 hours in a week,
according to the complaint.

"Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact that
they misclassified these individuals as independent contractors,
and accordingly failed to pay these individuals the minimum wage
and failed to pay overtime at the required rate under the FLSA,"
the lawsuit says.

University of Georgia law professor Ronald Carlson, who reviewed
the Pin Ups lawsuit, said federal complaints like this raise
serious questions about the work status of adult entertainers.

"Factors to be examined in distinguishing between 'independent
contractor' versus 'employee' are the degree of control exercised
by the alleged employer, degree to which the employee's income is
determined by the employer, and permanency of the relationship,"
Carlson said via email.  "Many of the cases under the Fair Labor
Standards Act which deal with tips concern whether the tips a
person receives will be treated as wages, and that often depends
on the contract (written or oral) between performer and employer."

Dancers' work hours, time and manner of dancing, attire and
customer interaction with customers was regulated by the owners,
and dancers were required to attend meetings at the club without
being paid for their time there, the lawsuit claims.

And the complaint said owners required dancers to pay a "bar fee"
that varied in amounts in order to work at any time, with the fee
starting at $35 and increasing $10 for every hour after 8:00 p.m.,
according to the complaint.

Additional fines were charged to dancers who were late to work,
absent for a scheduled shift or deemed to have violated any of the
club's rules, the lawsuit claims.

"The fees . . .  constitute unlawful 'kickbacks' to the employer
within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act," the lawsuit
claims.

A similar 2009 lawsuit against Galardi South Enterprises, the
owners of Atlanta adult club The Onyx, was settled in December,
paying 73 current and former dancers $1.55 million, or roughly
$21,233 per dancer, according to court records.


ROYAL BANK: Settles SEC Charges Over MBS Offering for $150 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Jenna Greene at The Blog of
Legal Times, a Royal Bank of Scotland subsidiary agreed to pay
more than $150 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission charges that the bank misled investors of a mortgage
backed securities offering in 2007.

RBS Securities Inc., represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr partner Paul Eckert -- paul.eckert@wilmerhale.com --
allegedly "misled investors about the quality and safety of their
investments" according to the SEC complaint, which was filed in
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The company,
then known as Greenwich Capital Markets, did not admit to
wrongdoing.

The SEC said the bank wrongly claimed that the subprime loans
backing the $2.2 billion offering were "generally" in compliance
with the lender's underwriting guidelines.  In fact, the SEC said,
about 30 percent of the loans "deviated so much from the lender's
underwriting guidelines that they should have been kicked out of
the offering entirely."  The agency charged the bank with
violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of
1933.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, RBS agreed to
disgorge $80.3 million, plus prejudgment interest of $25.2
million, and pay a civil penalty of $48.2 million.  The company in
a statement said it "cooperated fully with the SEC throughout the
investigation."

The settlement may resolve one of RBS's legal problems, but others
remain.  On Oct. 31, the bank was one of nine sued for $800
million by Fannie Mae for rigging the Libor interest rate.  RBS
already agreed to pay $612 million to settle Libor-related charges
to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Justice
Department and U.K. regulators.

Also, RBS faces an ongoing suit by the Federal Housing Finance
Agency for selling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac faulty mortgage
backed securities.  Analysts say the bank could face $4 billion in
exposure.


STRIKE FORCE: Employees Seek Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Samuels, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Strike Force of New Jersey, Inc., Strike
Force Special OPS Inc., USI Services Group, Inc., Strike Force
Protective Services, Inc., Frederick Goldring, and ABC
Corporations #1-10, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:13-cv-07186-
HB (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2013) alleges under the Fair Labor
Standards Act that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendants are entitled to,
among other fees, unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime
work for which the Class members did not receive overtime premium
pay.

The Strike Force Entities are New Jersey domestic corporations
headquartered in Union, New Jersey.  They are engaged in commerce
or in the production of goods like walkie talkie, flash lights,
uniforms and company badges.  ABC Corporations #1-10 represent the
other corporate Defendants, whose identities are presently unknown
to the Plaintiff.  Frederick Goldring owns, operates, and controls
the Defendants' day-to-day operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


TAYLOR FARMS: Court Narrows Claims in Former Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR FARMS
PACIFIC, INC., d/b/a TAYLOR FARMS, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-
CV-01282-KJM-AC, (E.D. Cal.) is before the court on a Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike brought by defendant Taylor Farms
Pacific, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case, comprised of quitting and discharged
former employees, bring a putative class action against multiple
defendant-employers. The Sixth Amended Complaint alleges eight
employment claims, including violations of California Labor Code
sections 201 to 203. The instant motion, brought by defendant TFP
alone, seeks to dismiss only plaintiffs' fifth claim for unpaid
wages and waiting time penalties under California Labor Code
sections 201 to 203. It also seeks to strike the derivative
portion of plaintiffs' seventh claim for violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The Defendant's Motion to
Strike is denied, but construed as a motion brought under Rule
12(b)(6), it is granted in that plaintiffs' UCL claim derived from
violation of California Labor Code Section 203 is dismissed.

"Plaintiffs Pena, Hernandez, Suarez and Dail have validly stated
claims under sections 201, 202 and 203 of the Labor Code. Their
derivative UCL claims are not "redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter," thus the claims may proceed," ruled Judge
Mueller.  "However, plaintiffs have failed to state a UCL claim
under section 203 because it awards non-restitutionary damages,
which, as a matter of law, may not be awarded under the UCL. Id.;
Pineda, 50 Cal. 4th at 1402. The claim may be not be struck under
Rule 12(f) for such a failing, Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974-75;
thus, defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED. Because the motion
to strike is "in substance a Rule 12(b)(6) motion," Kelley, 750 F.
Supp. 2d at 1146, the court DISMISSES, under Rule 12(b)(6), the
UCL claim derived from violation of section 203."

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a Seventh Amended
Complaint consistent with the Court's order within 21 days.

A copy of the District Court's October 14, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Dx2GB0from Leagle.com.


TENAGA NASIONAL: Bertam Valley Villagers Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Soo Wern Jun, writing for The Sun Daily, reports that Kampung Baru
Bertam Valley villagers plan to file a class-action suit against
Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) over the mud flood that hit the
village on Oct 23.

Their lawyer M. Manogaran said that they held the power giant
responsible for the disaster which occurred in the wee hours of
that fateful day.  Manogaran told the Sun on Nov. 5 that
villagers, who had lodged more than 100 police reports to date,
were doing so as they were not satisfied with the RM200,000 that
TNB had allocated to the affected families and businesses.  He
said he would be working with a committee set up by the villagers
to study the possibility of legal action against TNB.

"It will take time to file a suit as we need to collect police
reports, send a notice to TNB and also collect engineers' reports
to support legal action," he said.

Manogaran, the former Teluk Intan MP who lost to Datuk Seri G.
Palanivel in the race for the Cameron Highlands parliamentary
seat, said he will be representing the villagers if the case goes
to court.

"TNB is not serious in the matter as it allocated only RM200,000
in compensation to be shared among all victims," he said, adding
that TNB should have set up a fact-finding task force to identify
who was responsible for the catastrophe.

"They should carry out an investigation to find out what went
wrong," said Manogaran, who was unable to specify the extent of
damages suffered by the families and businesses, apart from saying
that it could run into millions.

Meanwhile, Bar Council Human Rights Committee chairman Andrew Khoo
said the affected villagers have locus standi to sue TNB for
damages.  He said TNB is ultimately responsible for monitoring and
maintaining the Sultan Abu Bakar hydroelectric dam reservoir from
which water was released that day.

"The responsibility is on the part of TNB to monitor the catchment
area (Ringlet Lake), since water from the dam was used to generate
electricity," Khoo said.

Khoo said TNB cannot simply "wash its hands" of the matter by
saying that it could not clear the reservoir of silt and rubbish
fast enough.

Meanwhile, farmer Khor They Keng, 42, said it would cost her
RM300,000 to replant her crops and repair farm fixtures.

The owner of a hydroponic plantation farm lost RM400,000 in
vegetables, which were damaged as there was no electricity for
three days after the tragedy.

"Who is going to repay us?" she asked.

Even small-time farmers lost at least RM65,000 in investments when
the deluge washed away parts of land that they had prepared for
the next batch of vegetables.

Tang Yi Moi, 63, whose farm was totally damaged, said a car that
was washed away from the village got stuck at the bridge next to
her farm, causing a massive overflow into her land.

Tung Ming Weng, 31, who runs a sundry store, said she lost
RM100,000 worth of goods as the water filled her shop in seconds.

Her shop, Syarikat Lian Hup Tung, which has been open for the past
60 years, suffered extensive damage.

"We had to dismantle the wooden floor panels to clear the mud that
was underneath.  We had sacks of rice that were soiled and had to
be written off," she said.


TIANGUIS CULTURAL: Willfully Refused to Pay OT Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dora Ilda Paramo Pereyra and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Tianguis Cultural, Palegool Ice Cream, Cesar
Padilla and Victor H. Padilla, Case No. 3:13-cv-04115-B (N.D.
Tex., October 11, 2013) alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tianguis Cultural and Palegool Ice Cream are related corporations
that regularly transact business within Dallas County.  The
Individual Defendants are corporate officers, owners or managers
of both Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


UNILIFE CORP: Issues Letter to Stockholders Regarding Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilife Corporation on Nov. 6 responded to a request from the
Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) by issuing a letter to its
stockholders regarding a securities class action lawsuit.

Dear Unilife Shareholders:

I am writing to you today regarding a lawsuit brought in the US
against Unilife Corporation (Unilife), myself, and other officers
of the company, which we believe is entirely meritless.  This
lawsuit has been brought under US securities law by a shareholder
holding a very small parcel of shares and mostly repeats the
allegations of a lawsuit filed by a former employee, which we are
in the process of defending and which we believe to be groundless.
The former employee claims that he was terminated in retaliation
for reporting alleged regulatory violations by Unilife.  However,
the former employee was in fact terminated due to poor performance
and we believe filed the lawsuit in retaliation after Unilife
refused to comply with his demand for severance payments (which he
was not entitled to due to the reasons for his termination).

We are being advised by lawyers in the US with respect to both of
these claims and they have informed us that, in the US, securities
law claims of this nature are not uncommon as a means of
opportunistic lawyers trying to attract clients.

I am confident that Unilife will prevail with regards to both of
these claims and can assure you that Unilife will vigorously
defend itself against these actions.

With respect to the allegations made in these claims, I can assure
all of you that Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable
regulatory requirements.  In 2013 two regulatory compliance audits
of Unilife's quality system were performed.  Both audits resulted
in zero observations, i.e., no deviations from applicable quality
standards were noted.  In February 2013, the Notified Body NSAI
(National Standards Authority of Ireland) performed an audit of
our quality system, which is equivalent to an FDA audit for
European countries.  This audit resulted in zero observations,
i.e., no deviations from the applicable standards were found. The
auditors' conclusion was that Unilife was in compliance with the
applicable standards.  In March, the FDA performed an audit of
Unilife's quality system and facility.  The FDA closed out the
audit with no FDA 483 Inspectional Observation issued, i.e., no
deviations from the applicable standards were noted.

Finally, Unilife is in full compliance with all applicable
securities laws.  As a public company in the US we are subject to
a legal system in which employees can sue companies for undeserved
compensation while making unfounded allegations with impunity, and
plaintiffs lawyers can first advertise for clients and then bring
a lawsuit for the mere cost of the court filing fee in the hope
that the company will settle with them.

Thank you for your continued support of Unilife.

Sincerely

Alan Shortall CEO

                   About Unilife Corporation

Unilife Corporation -- http://www.unilife.com-- is a U.S. based
developer and commercial supplier of injectable drug delivery
systems.  Unilife's broad portfolio of proprietary device
technologies includes prefilled syringes with automatic needle
retraction, reconstitution delivery systems, auto-injectors,
wearable injectors, ocular delivery systems and novel systems.
Each of these innovative and highly differentiated device
platforms can be customized by Unilife to address specific
customer, drug and patient requirements.  Unilife's global
headquarters and state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities are
located in York, PA.


UNION PACIFIC: Awaits New Briefing Schedule in Suit v. UPRR
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a suit by indirect purchasers of rail
transportation against Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) are
waiting for a new schedule on the briefing on the scope of the
remand from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia,
according to Union Pacific Corp.'s Oct. 17, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2013.

As reported in the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the
company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S.  Currently,
UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in
the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these
claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007.
The total number of complaints stands at 30. These suits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints
added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be
transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in
the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed
the complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect
purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling
dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state
laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which
certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff
representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers
that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant
railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1,
2003, through December 31, 2008.

This was a procedural ruling, which did not affirm any of the
claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not affect the ability
of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the
plaintiffs.

On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that
the court review the class certification ruling.  On August 28,
2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address
the issues in the petition and to address whether the district
court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court
heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013.

On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the district court
to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a
recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors
in the expert report of the plaintiffs. Judge Friedman vacated the
schedule for motions and ordered the parties to file briefs on the
scope of the remand from the Circuit Court. The parties are
waiting for a new briefing schedule.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Grants Petition for Writ of Mandamus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starr International Co., Inc., an investor seeking to represent
the class that owned common shares in the American International
Group, Inc. during the financial crisis of 2008, has sued the
United States government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  It
asserts that the actions of the Federal Reserve Board, Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, and Department of Treasury relating to
its providing AIG credit under Section 13(3) of the Federal
Reserve Act, Pub. L. No. 63-43, Section 13(3) (1913) (codified as
amended at 12 U.S.C. Section 343), gave rise to a claim for
damages under that statute or the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.  In pursuit of its claims, the investor seeks
to depose Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve.  Before the United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit is the government's petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking to direct the Claims Court to issue a protective
order.

The government initially moved the Claims Court for a protective
order but the bid was denied on July 29, 2013.

The Federal Appeals Court granted the government's petition for a
writ of mandamus saying it is granted to the extent that the
Claims Court's July 29, 2013 order is vacated and the Claims Court
is directed not to allow Starr to depose Chairman Bernanke until
such time that Starr has meet its burden consistent with the
Court's analysis and no sooner than February 1, 2014.

The case is IN RE UNITED STATES, Petitioner, MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET
NO. 163.

A copy of the Federal Appeals Court's October 16, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/AiFlhm from Leagle.com.


UNITEK GLOBAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
UniTek Global Services, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's
Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

The case, entitled In Re UniTek Global Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action NO. 13-2119, is against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers.  The case alleges that
the Company made misstatements and omissions regarding its
business, its financial condition and its internal controls and
systems in violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Subject
to certain limitations, the Company is obligated to indemnify its
current and former officers in connection with any regulatory or
litigation matter. This obligation arises under the terms of the
Company's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Delaware law. An
obligation to indemnify generally means that the Company is
required to pay or reimburse the individual's reasonable legal
expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities that may be
incurred. The Company believes that it is likely that any
potential loss exposure above its deductible of $0.3 million would
be covered under the related insurance policies. No costs related
to these indemnifications were incurred for the three months ended
March 30, 2013.


UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Sued Over Cancer Patient Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Heild, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
a new proposed class-action lawsuit raised alarms last month,
expanding on revelations first made in 1998 that more than 100
children with leukemia may have been victims of medical
negligence.

But the new case is little more than a "copycat" of a pending
12-year-old class-action lawsuit, says Albuquerque attorney
Jacob Vigil, who contends in court documents that the attorneys
who filed the new case violated ethical rules and misled the
public.

"They have demonstrated a willingness to betray their clients,"
Mr. Vigil states in a motion that asks a judge to disqualify the
Albuquerque firm of Will Ferguson and Associates and a Denver
legal firm from both of the cases.

A state risk management consultant estimated last year that
Mr. Vigil's potential class-action lawsuit filed in 2001, if
successful, could cost the state up to $120 million.  That's in
addition to about $45 million already paid in settlements to about
118 families of children treated for leukemia with outdated
treatment protocols.

The lawyers who filed the new case assisted Vigil on his older
lawsuit up until a few months ago.

The Denver-based Leventhal, Brown & Puga have denied Mr. Vigil's
allegations and contend potential class members could be harmed by
his "unwarranted attacks and unprofessional tone."

About 101 families whose children were treated for leukemia have
expressed interest in joining the older lawsuit first filed in
2001. But there's been no court decision as to whether the case
meets the legal criteria to move forward as a class action.

State District Judge Alan Malott postponed a hearing to consider
procedural issues today because of the disqualification motion.

Noting that Vigil's litigation "is now old enough for its own Bar
Mitzvah," Judge Malott said in a letter to counsel on Nov. 5 that
he can't rule on other motions until he decides "which counsel
appropriately represents Plaintiffs or whether the Court should
consider appointing new counsel who might be able to proceed with
this case in less than another decade of wrangling!"

The Vigil case has been "plagued with delays and complications,"
states the response by the Denver firm, which teamed up with
Albuquerque attorney Adrian Vega on the new case.  Mr. Vega was a
junior associate of Vigil's until he left in August to work for
Ferguson.

The Denver firm was terminated from the older case on Sept. 4 by
the three class representatives whose children were treated at
University Hospital.

Mr. Vigil contends his former associates wasted no time in
advertising statewide for a new class representative for their own
lawsuit.

The new lawsuit was filed Oct. 2 on behalf of Rose Quintana, whose
son David died in 1988 after allegedly being treated by
Dr. Marilyn Duncan, who headed the UNM Hospital pediatric cancer
program.

The older lawsuit names Duncan and the UNM Board of Regents as
defendants. The new lawsuit names only the regents.

Contacted by the Journal in mid-October, Denver attorney
James Puga declined to discuss what precipitated the new lawsuit.

"In terms of actually discussing strategies, I don't feel that is
appropriate to do," he said.  "We have attorney-client and
attorney-work product privileges we have to protect."

Mr. Vigil accuses the breakoff legal team of conspiring to use
confidential client information and attorney-work product from the
older lawsuit to form the basis of the new one.

"Soliciting putative class members for a class action already
filed by another firm will be viewed by the community at large as
a greedy tactic by a firm so thirsty for fees that it is willing
to trample on the rights of clients and the former clients of one
of its own attorneys (Mr. Vega)," Mr. Vigil's motion states.

The Vigil litigation originally focused on children who had been
treated for pediatric leukemia at UNMH between 1982 and 1996.  But
this year, court documents show, the Vigil lawsuit argued that the
potential class should be expanded to include all children treated
for any type of cancer from 1977 to 1997 -- a group estimated to
reach up to 1,000.

That is the same class proposed in the new Quintana case.  But
lawyers on that case say they never took confidential information
or work product from the older case.

"The attorneys at Leventhal, Brown & Puga have accumulated their
own 'work product' in the course of their representation" (of the
plaintiffs in the 2001 case) for a decade, stated the response
by Mr. Puga.

Reached by phone, Ferguson said Leventhal, Brown & Puga "basically
retained our firm" to help file the latest lawsuit.

"We represent, at worst, plaintiffs with congruent interests,"
Ferguson said.  "You don't disqualify lawyers for representing
another client with a similar interest."

State Risk Management spokesman Tim Korte declined comment on
pending lawsuits.

Billy Sparks, executive director for communications at the health
sciences center, said in an e-mail, "The UNM Health Sciences
Center remains committed to providing the best possible care to
its patients throughout the state and it will address the newly
filed litigation in the appropriate legal forum."


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Schwartz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Richard A. Hayne, Frank J.
Conforti, Tedford G. Marlow, David W. McCreight and David Hayne,
Case No. 2:13-cv-05978-LFR (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2013) is a
securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 12, 2013,
and September 9, 2013, inclusive.

Urban Outfitters, Inc., based in Philadelphia, engages in the
retail and wholesale of general consumer products in the United
States of America.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Maryland K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Accord Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order preliminarily
approving a settlement in In re VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. C-07-6140, (N.D. Cal.).

The terms of the Settlement includes a Settlement Fund of
$95,000,000 in cash plus any interest earned. Recovery will depend
on the timing of purchases and sales of VeriFone Publicly Traded
Securities during the Class Period.

The Court certified the Class, for settlement purposes only,
defined as: "all Persons who purchased VeriFone Publicly Traded
Securities between August 31, 2006 and April 1, 2008 on any
domestic or foreign exchange or otherwise, excluding all
Defendants, VeriFone's former and current officers and directors
and their families and affiliates. Also excluded from the Class
are those Persons who validly and timely request exclusion from
the Class."

A hearing will be held before the Court on February 6, 2014, at
1:30 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA
94102, to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
Litigation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and
should be approved by the Court; whether a Final Order and
Judgment should be entered; whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved; and to determine the amount of fees
and expenses that should be awarded to Lead Counsel.

The Court appointed the firm of Gilardi & Co. LLC to supervise and
administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.

Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded from the Class. Any such Person must submit
to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, postmarked no
later than December 30, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's October 15, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/zP5gYHfrom Leagle.com.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER --
chriss@rgrdlaw.com -- (201197) CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD --
cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- (254908) San Francisco, CA.

PATRICK J. COUGHLIN -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- (111070) RANDI D.
BANDMAN -- randib@rgrdlaw.com -- (145212) FRANCIS A. DIGIACCO --
fdigiacco@rgrdlaw.com -- (265625) San Diego, CA, Lead Counsel for
Plaintiffs


WV REGIONAL JAIL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Cantley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cantley and Floyd Teter took an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from an order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying
the Plaintiffs' similar motion.  Since there are no other matters
pending before the U.S.  District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia, the District Court dismissed case.

The class action lawsuit, which was originally filed on July 1,
2009, by Michael Cantley, individually, and on behalf of a Class
of others similarly situated, against The West Virginia Regional
Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; and Terry L. Miller,
both individually and in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional
Facility Authority, was brought to redress the alleged deprivation
by the Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed
Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America.  The Plaintiff alleged, among other things,
that for more than a decade, the West Virginia Regional Jail and
Correctional Facility Authority has had a policy of strip
searching all individuals, who enter any of the West Virginia
Regional Jails and placing them in jail clothing, regardless of
the crime with which they are charged.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113-1998
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: karon@gskplaw.com

               - and -

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMERT ROBERT KEACH III, PC
          1040 Riverfront Center
          P. O. Box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Facsimile: (518) 770-1558

               - and -

          Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          Chad P. Shannon, Esq.
          ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES
          2500 Gulf Tower
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-0000
          Telephone: (866) 273-1941
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          David J. Mincer, Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          500 Virginia Street, East
          P. O. Box 3710
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Telephone: (304) 345-4222
          Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
          E-mail: dmincer@baileywyant.com

The appellate case is Michael Cantley v. West Virginia Regional
Jail, et al., Case No. 13-07655 (4th Cir., October 11, 2013), in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The
original case is Michael Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail,
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00758, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Huntington.


YELP INC: Portland Writer Joins Reviewers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Willis, writing for KGW, reports that thousands of people
use the Yelp website to read reviews of restaurants and other
business around town.  But now, some of the people who post those
reviews are fighting to get paid.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed by some of the reviewers who
post to the Yelp website, including a writer from Portland.  These
reviewers said their argument is simple: Yelp can't survive
without them and thus, they are employees of Yelp and should be
paid for their work.

"Yelp is basically getting free content -- free writers -- but
then they're making money off of them," said reviewer Lily Jeung,
of Portland.  "If you're not doing what they want you to do, they
basically will cut you out."

Ms. Jeung is an "elite" reviewer, which means she has written more
than 1,000 reviews and has more than 5,000 followers.

Yelp is expecting revenues this year of roughly $228 million,
mostly from advertising.  And since its launch, the website has
recorded nearly 50 million posted reviews.

Consumers read the reviews to make decisions about which
restaurants and businesses they will patronize.

Executives at Yelp said the lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of
time for the judicial system.  But the people posting the reviews,
especially the "elite" posters like Ms. Jeung, argued that their
work is vital to the success of the website.  They believe failing
to pay them is a violation of the Federal Labor Standard Act.

Some also added that reviews on the website are at times modified
to put the businesses which advertise with Yelp in a better light.

Ms. Jeung said she noticed "Filtering [of] positive reviews and
putting negative reviews on top if they wouldn't advertise and
vice-versa."

Critics, meantime, said if you start paying for reviews on Yelp,
which they consider volunteer time, you might as well pay for
"likes" on a businesses' Facebook page or a "re-tweet" on a
businesses' Twitter page.

At issue here, plaintiffs said, is the Federal Labor Standard Act,
which states refusing to pay wages to workers by designating them
"reviewers" or "yelpers" or "independent contractors" is unlawful
because those workers are vital to the success of the business,
which relies mostly on reviews.

Ms. Jeung said she was often directed to write more reviews if in
Yelp's opinion, her production seemed to slack off.


YUM! BRANDS: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. and individual defendants in a consolidated
securities suit against Yum! filed a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 7, 2013.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition.

The four complaints were subsequently consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period").

The Amended Complaint no longer includes allegations relating to
misstatements regarding the Company's business or financial
condition and instead alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants purportedly omitted information about the Company's
supply chain in China, thereby inflating the prices at which the
Company's securities traded. On October 4, 2013, the Company and
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously
defend against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Still Faces Consolidated Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary Taco Bell continues to face a
consolidated suit alleging it violated California labor laws after
the court granted the suit certification with respect to the late
meal break class, according to Yum!'s Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 7, 2013.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.

Some plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and
allege violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a California state-wide class of
hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June
2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September
26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of
the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to
certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2,
2013, the District Court rejected three of the proposed classes
but granted certification with respect to the late meal break
class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Additional Briefing Ordered in Employees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court requested additional briefing on a
motion by Taco Bell, a Yum! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary, to dismiss
or stay the action Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp.,
according to Yum!'s Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 7,
2013.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

Taco Bell moved to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. A hearing on that motion
was held on September 27, 2013, and the court subsequently
requested additional briefing from both parties.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Oct. 2011 Ruling in "Moeller" Bias Suit Stands
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the suit Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., a court order
modifying an October 2011 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
continues to stand, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 15,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 7, 2013.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell, a subsidiary of Yum! Brands,
Inc., was named as the defendant in a class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.

On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated against the
class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by
failing to make its approximately 200 Company-owned restaurants in
California accessible to the class.

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").

Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the District
Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf
of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.
In February 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The class included claims for injunctive
relief and minimum statutory damages.

In May 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was
in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues:
indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. In August
2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to
dining room seating. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part with regard to door opening force at some
restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to
queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiffs to
select one restaurant to be the subject of a trial. The trial for
the exemplar restaurant began on June 6, 2011, and on October 5,
2011 the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ruling that plaintiffs established that classwide injunctive
relief was warranted with regard to maintaining compliance as to
corporate Taco Bell restaurants in California. The court declined
to order injunctive relief at the time, however, citing the
pendency of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive
and damages class. The court also found that twelve specific items
at the exemplar store were once out of compliance with applicable
state and/or federal accessibility standards.

Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class in August 2011,
and in July 2012, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
decertify the previously certified state law damages class but
denied Taco Bell's motion to decertify the ADA injunctive relief
class. On September 13, 2012, the court set a discovery and
briefing schedule concerning the trials of the four individual
plaintiffs' state law damages claims, which the court stated will
be tried before holding further proceedings regarding the possible
issuance of an injunction. On September 17, 2012, the court issued
an order modifying its October 2011 Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law deleting the statement that an injunction was
warranted. Plaintiffs appealed that order, and on June 24, 2013
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws. The costs associated with addressing these
issues have not significantly impacted the company's results of
operations. The company provided for a reasonable estimate of the
possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance
that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those
currently provided for in the company's Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any
possible loss or range of loss in excess of that currently
provided for in the company's Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Pizza Hut Faces Suit Filed by Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc., a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc., continues to
face a conditionally certified suit alleging violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law, according to
Yum! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 7,
2013.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse
its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms costs,
and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a class of
delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Colorado state law.

On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.

Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On
August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012. The opt-in period
closed on August 23, 2012, and approximately 6,000 individuals
opted in.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Settles Suit by Assistant Managers
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the suit originally styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp., according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 7, 2013.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class, with the
exception of California, of salaried assistant managers who were
allegedly misclassified and did not receive compensation for all
hours worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours
worked in a week. The Company has been dismissed from the case
without prejudice.

Taco Bell filed its answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties
commenced class discovery. On September 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed
their motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. The
court heard plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under
the FLSA on January 10, 2012, granted conditional certification
and ordered the notice of the opt-in class be sent to the putative
class members. Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in
forms. On June 14, 2013, the parties agreed to settle this matter.
The parties have submitted the settlement to the court for
approval. The costs associated with the settlement were not
material.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Change May be Too Late for Meso Victim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy O'Leary, writing for The West Australian, reported that as a
little girl, Tina Holt played in the backyard of her parents'
Spearwood home as fences went up, a shed was installed and rooms
renovated -- all with the common ingredient of asbestos.  She even
tagged along with her father when he cleaned up after the
builders, taking all the leftover material to the rubbish tip.

It was the mid-1970s and asbestos cement building materials from
the nearby James Hardie factories were plentiful. But almost four
decades on, Ms Holt, now 43 and mother to 10-year-old Enola-Jean,
is slowly dying of mesothelioma.

When she was diagnosed in August last year, she was given six to
nine months to live, and is thankful to have so far managed to
keep the disease in check.

Enola-Jean is mainly being cared for by her father Bill, who runs
the household because his wife is often too tired and unwell to
help out.

"There are lots of things I can't do for her any more, like making
her lunch in the morning, and even walking makes me breathless,"
Ms Holt said.

"I'm on lots of medication, but lo and behold, I'm still here and
trying to stay as positive as I can for my daughter and husband."

Ms Holt is suing Amaca, previously known as James Hardie, which
made and distributed building and other products containing
asbestos between 1937 and 1987.  But without a change in laws, she
cannot claim damages for her loss of capacity to provide daily
care for her daughter.

"I have a little bell I ring if I need help, so clearly I can't be
there for my daughter," Ms Holt said.

"It's frustrating that the claim we can make is quite limited.

"I would like to think if this new legislation doesn't come in
time for us, it might help another family caring for their dying
or disabled parent."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Exposed at Muswellbrook Hospital
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Online reported that broken and exposed asbestos roof sheeting
has been found at Muswellbrook Hospital, in New South Wales,
Australia.  Further reports of neglect and facility decay at
Muswellbrook Hospital are surfacing after reports the facility's
library has been condemned.

Broken and exposed asbestos roof sheeting in outside walkways has
also been sighted, and the hospital's main elevator was out of
order for a day.

Aged care residents were forced to move a fortnight ago and are
now down the hall from the hospital's emergency department.  Since
then, a system to notify nurses of elderly residents wandering
outside has allegedly failed twice.

The ABC has been told two residents have managed to wander outside
without being noticed.  Shadow health spokesman Dr Andrew McDonald
says there is no excuses.

"This is how not to provide health care," he said.

"Poorly planned, poorly executed and not doing what they said
they'd do.

"The area health service promised these people that they would get
equivalent to what they had before they were moved.

"What we're seeing is a much less appropriate facility with no
plan to fix the problem."

Dr McDonald says Muswellbrook Hospital needs to acknowledge that
conditions for its aged care residents are unacceptable.  He says
the problems must be fixed.

"This is poor planning," he said.

"There is no other reason for this.

"It would have taken a cursed examination of the space to see
whether it was suitable for the patients who were going to be
moved there.

"Those documents exist, those documents need to be released.

"It sounds to me as if they're cutting corners to save money."

HNEH management reject the allegations

Hunter New England Health has rejected allegations conditions at
Muswellbrook Hospital are unsafe.

Nine aged care residents were forced to move down the hall from
the emergency department a fortnight ago to make way for a new ED
on the ground floor.  They have had problems with television
reception but the health service says it has bought antennas.

Hunter New England Health has denied reports its library is
condemned, saying it is closed for repairs due to birds nesting in
the roof.  The service's general manager of the Hunter Valley
cluster Yvonne Patricks also says an allegation of exposed and
broken asbestos in outside walkways is not true.

"Asbestos was a common building material used in the construction
of many facilities and we know asbestos is present on site at
Muswellbrook Hospital," she said.

"Muswellbrook is an ageing facility, but we have maintenance plans
in place to maintain a safe environment for patients, visitors and
staff."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Deal for West Australian Fibro Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cathy O'Leary, writing for The West Australian, reported that
groundbreaking reforms to WA laws could soon allow victims of
asbestos to claim thousands of dollars more in compensation for
their deadly illness.

If the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Bill is passed by State
Parliament, for the first time people with asbestos-related
diseases would be able to seek provisional damages.

Now, they can seek damages only once and are unable to pursue more
compensation if they later develop more serious health problems
such as mesothelioma, whereas Victoria, NSW and South Australia
allow sufferers to seek interim damages.

The historic legislation would also allow victims to seek damages
for loss of capacity to care for a family member, such as a young
child, commonly known as Sullivan versus Gordon damages.

In her second reading speech, Upper House Labor MP Kate Doust said
the move was long overdue in WA, which bore the brunt of the
asbestos legacy.  She hoped to get strong support from all MPs to
give greater justice to asbestos victims.

"This has been a huge problem for people in this State and isn't
over by any means because we're still seeing the epidemic," she
said.

"Yet there have long been concerns about the limitations of
payouts and the absolute struggle families go through to get
them."

More than 250 people die in WA each year from asbestos exposure
and the State has some of the highest rates of lung cancer,
asbestosis and mesothelioma because of the mining of blue asbestos
at Wittenoom. Early cases mostly involved miners, manufacturers
and construction workers but WA is now in the midst of another
wave made up of home renovators and their families who were
exposed to asbestos products.

Slater & Gordon asbestos lawyer Tricia Wong said the proposed
legislation was very relevant for WA.

"At present, sufferers are left in a real dilemma because if they
make a claim when they first become sick, they cut themselves off
from a further claim if they later get a more serious condition
such as mesothelioma," she said.

The current laws also meant sufferers could not claim for the
commercial costs of care they would otherwise have provided to a
loved one or family member, which left many families struggling
financially.

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia president Robert Vojakovic
said the Bill recognised that asbestos diseases were unique
because they could be latent for many years and invariably
progressed rather than improved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Fire Victims Must Heed Fibro Threat
--------------------------------------------------------
9News National reported that residents scouring the rubble of
their fire-razed homes must take care so they don't become the
next generation of asbestos victims, campaigners say.

According to the report, ahead of the launch of National Asbestos
Awareness Month, organisers are warning of the fresh asbestos
threat among the ruins of last month's devastating bushfires.

WorkCover operations director Peter Dunphy says Blue Mountains
residents and emergency workers need to take extra precautions to
stay safe.

Fire-related contamination sometimes doesn't develop into illness
for decades, he says.

"The last thing we want is (for them) to be the next lot of people
who end up with asbestos-related diseases," he said.

Asbestos risks posed by natural disasters are becoming
increasingly common and home renovations are also dangerous, given
DIY renovators often don't plan for potential asbestos
disruptions, he says.

Treasurer Mike Baird pledged a further $1.2 million for the
asbestos clean-up in the Blue Mountains fire zone.  The extra
funding comes after $200,000 was provided for initial assessments
in Winmalee and Springwood.

Emergency workers stationed in the area have assessed properties
and placed signs outside warning of any asbestos threat.

National Asbestos Awareness Month will be launched with a
candlelight tribute at Circular Quay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long-Term Fibro Solution for Jersey 'Ongoin'
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that there is still no long-term solution to
dealing with the United Kingdom's Jersey's asbestos mountain,
bosses have admitted.

About 200 tonnes of the building material is piled in shipping
containers at La Collette.

After three years of work, it is hoped that Jersey States will
grant planning permission to bury the asbestos in the next few
weeks.

Minister Kevin Lewis said work to export the toxic material was
ongoing.  He said: "We can't just export toxic materials because,
even though we're an autonomous island, we're not part of the EU,
so we have to go through the UK for permission to trans-ship... so
everything has to be done by the book."

Mr Lewis said the move to bury the containers was not about
ignoring the issue but was a short-term measure while a long-term
solution was found.

Asbestos, which can be lethal if its dust is breathed in, has been
stored at La Collette since the 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Installers Facing Fibro Risk
---------------------------------------------
Claire Rizos, writing for IFSECGlobal.com, reported that more than
4,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of exposure to
asbestos. Those installing services such as security and fire
alarm systems are particularly at risk.

The reason that installers are likely to disturb the carcinogenic
substance is that they work in third-party buildings and so are
reliant on the occupier to inform them of the presence of the
material.

Compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 is patchy
and therefore it's pretty common for installers to find themselves
in a building that is old enough to include asbestos containing
materials (ACMs) but on which there is no information. Drilling
into ceilings, chasing cables, working in roof voids, etc. are
activities that have a fair chance of disturbing asbestos.

                           Prosecution

A recent case highlights the plight of visiting engineers, in this
case where misinformation caused an incident.

In July 2011, two fire alarm installers were working at the
premises of Romag Ltd, a glass firm based in Consett.  They had
been informed that the building was free from asbestos, but it
wasn't true.

While installing the equipment, they drilled in to an asbestos
insulation panel. Unaware of any problem, they then vacuumed up
the debris. The two sub-contractors then moved on through the
building installing detectors and cleaning up after themselves
with the same ordinary vacuum cleaner. Unfortunately this had the
effect of spreading asbestos fibres around the premises.

The mistake was realised the next day and Romag's safety advisers
urged it to take emergency action by cordoning off the damaged
area, bringing in specialists to clean, and conducting air testing
to check that the levels of asbestos fibre had been brought within
legal limits.

However, there was a delay of at least nine days before such
action was taken. When it was, it is reported that a "substantial
amount" of the material was collected.

The HSE found that the delay would have led to 180 workers and 16
visitors being potentially exposed.

In court, Romag Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and
3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company
was fined GBP20,000 and ordered to pay GBP12,638 in costs.

The sharp-eyed among you will have noticed that the asbestos
legislation was not used in court, but this is not significant,
the HSE tends to use the "umbrella act" of the Health and Safety
at Work Act 1974 when prosecuting.

                   Duty holder responsibility

Any company that has a repairing or maintenance responsibility for
non-domestic premises has a duty to manage asbestos. The HSE has
given a cut-off date of the year 2000, after which it can be
assumed that UK property is asbestos free. For buildings preceding
that date, the duty holder needs to identify asbestos-containing
materials and ensure that they are properly managed to prevent
exposure. Alternatively, they may presume that materials contain
asbestos where there is a lack of strong evidence to the contrary.
The usual approach is to pay for a specialist asbestos survey,
assess the risk from any materials found, and produce a management
plan.

                    What installers should know

It's perfectly reasonable to ask a client for the asbestos
register before starting work. This enables installers to see the
locations of any known asbestos. Beware though that the register
is only as good as the survey.

You should therefore try to establish the extent of any survey
which contributed to the register. There are two levels,
"management" and "demolition/ refurbishment." Depending on the
scope of the installation work, the management survey may not be
good enough as it won't look beneath the surface.

Alarm companies need to minimize the risk of exposure to asbestos
both to their engineers and to others using the building. In
addition to planning of the work and communicating with the
client, companies should ensure that workers have received
asbestos awareness training. This is for the purpose of being able
to identify suspect materials whilst working and knowing what to
do about it.

If you want workers to carry out fixing to asbestos-containing
materials, then the training required will be much more in-depth.
Safe systems of work will need to be adopted. A good way forward
is to model these on the HSE's guidance, "Asbestos essentials."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro on Royal Navy Ships Killed Derby Sailor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Rhodes, writing for The Derby Telegraph, reported that a
former navy man known as Sailor Dave died after exposure to
asbestos on Royal Navy ships, an inquest has ruled.

David Topliff, 74, of Alvaston, served in the Navy for 22 years,
rising to the rank of chief petty officer when he retired.  His
son, also called David, told the inquest that his father had never
worked directly with asbestos.

David, 44, said: "He started off in the kitchens and worked in the
stores."  He said his family had travelled around a lot because of
his father's job.

He said: "Dad used to go away a lot. We moved every two or two and
a half years. We lived in Gosport, Derby, Gibraltar, then
Plymouth, where he ended his navy days."

As well as his lengthy career in the Navy, Mr Topliff also worked
as a security guard at the Derby Telegraph in the late 1980s.

His son said: "My dad always liked a laugh and loved his
grandchildren. He loved the Navy, even though that's what got him
in the end.

"He was a brilliant dad, a real role model.

"He was always full of stories. He jumped off a ship once and
landed on a sea urchin that went straight through his foot!"

David said his father was well known in The Mitre pub in Derby. He
said: "That's where they started calling him Sailor Dave."

Mr Topliff senior died of pulmonary asbestosis on May 10 this
year, and assistant coroner Louise Pinder recorded that he died
from an industrial disease.  He had worked on scores of ships over
the years, including the HMS Victorious and Exmouth.

His son, of Shirley Road, Chaddesden, said his father had found
out that asbestos had taken effect on his lungs about nine years
before he died. He said: "He didn't really ever talk about it."

At Mr Topliff's inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's
Court, pathologist Dr Andrew Hitchcock said that his examinations
revealed evidence of pulmonary fibrosis and pneumonia.

He said: "Mr Topliff had multiple pleural plaques, which are
related to exposure to asbestos."

Dr Hitchcock recorded the cause of death as pulmonary asbestosis.

Mr Topliff had been admitted to the Derby Royal hospital in late
April with breathlessness and several days later was admitted to
the intensive care unit, where he passed away.

In her summing up, Ms Pinder said: "The inference was that he was
exposed to asbestos above background levels.

"There was a lengthy period where he was likely to have been
exposed."

Mr Topliff leaves his wife, Margaret, sons John and David, five
grandchildren and two great grandchildren.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigation for New or Low-Profile Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Gorenberg, Esq. -- kenneth.gorenberg@btlaw.com -- a
partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, wrote "Asbestos litigation will
continue for decades, and it will ensnare more companies along the
way. Three facts prove these points: (1) the peak year for
importation of asbestos into the United States was 1973; (2) the
latency period for mesothelioma is 20-50 years; and (3) about 70
companies have gone bankrupt because of asbestos litigation,
leading plaintiffs' lawyers to find new defendants to sue.

"Fortunately, a new or  low-profile defendant is not condemned to
follow the path to bankruptcy. There are several measures a
company can employ to manage the business problem of asbestos
litigation.

                            Control

"Perhaps the most important step a company can take in defending
itself in asbestos litigation is to create a centralized program
to control its defense. The most important features in any such
program are who runs it and who doesn't.  Almost every defendant
should have some sort of national coordinating counsel who is
experienced in asbestos litigation. Plaintiffs' lawyers are always
looking to tar a defendant with an arguably inconsistent position
taken in discovery or motion practice, and they will take a
document produced in one case and use it another. Therefore,
coordination is crucial to ensure consistency over a period of
time and across multiple jurisdictions. Experience in asbestos
litigation is essential because asbestos litigation is different
from most other litigation. Courts have developed special rules of
law and procedure -- generally favorable to plaintiffs and onerous
to defendants -- that every defendant should do its best to
understand. National coordinating counsel can be an in-house
attorney, an outside law firm, or a combination of the two. It can
be a lawyer's full-time job, or it can be a relatively small
percentage of that person's work.  The company can decide what's
best for its own circumstances.  The most important thing is to
have an experienced national coordinating counsel.

"On the other hand, a defendant should not turn  control over to
its insurers. As explained below, insurance coverage may be
available for asbestos claims, and that funding source certainly
can be valuable.  However, the defendant should still control its
own defense even if insurers are paying for some or all of that
defense. No insurance company will ever know as much about a
defendant or its business than the defendant itself knows.  No
insurance company will ever care as much.  No insurance company
will employ the strategies described here or that the defendant
would choose for itself.

                            Investigate

"Whatever a new defendant thinks about its history regarding
asbestos is probably incorrect, incomplete, or both.  That's not a
criticism.  It's a recognition of the fact that asbestos was used
for decades not only as an insulation material in industrial and
construction applications but also in a wide variety of commercial
and consumer products including brakes and other automotive parts,
ovens, hair dryers, and faucets.  In addition, a defendant with a
long and complex corporate history may face lawsuits relating to
business units that  were sold or dissolved many years before any
current employees were hired.  Plaintiffs' lawyers are constantly
doing exactly this type of investigation in order to identify and
build their cases against a new defendant.  But the defendant has
the inside track to investigate itself more thoroughly and
efficiently, which will help the defendant build a more effective
defense.

                               Select

"Every defendant should carefully select defense counsel in each
jurisdiction in which it is sued.  Given the enormous volume of
asbestos litigation and the great number of defendants, there are
innumerable lawyers and law firms who practice in this area.  Many
lawyers do nothing but defend asbestos cases.  Some of the
qualities to look for in defense counsel include a deep
understanding of the idiosyncrasies of asbestos litigation in the
particular jurisdiction, an eagerness to implement the defendant's
strategy rather than force the defendant to accept how that lawyer
or firm may represent other clients, and a willingness  to fight
the discovery or trial battles that the defendant may find
necessary.  Try to avoid a firm in which partners will not be
deeply involved in individual cases, the firm's main selling point
is low rates, and the lawyers seem to believe their job is to
figure out how much their clients should pay to settle cases.  The
selection of defense counsel should be made with the same care
that a defendant would employ in choosing counsel for a bet-
thecompany case because that may, in fact, be the  import of
asbestos litigation for any particular defendant.

                                Tender

"A company may have insurance coverage for asbestos litigation and
not even realize it. The allegations in any particular asbestos
case typically involve events that occurred decades ago.  That may
implicate old "occurrence" policies that did not have asbestos
exclusions.  Some of those policies may have been issued to
parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies that no longer exist,
but the policies may be assets that followed the asbestos
liabilities.  Some defendants have internal resources sufficient
to explore these coverage possibilities, but many can benefit from
assistance from insurance coverage counsel, insurance brokers or
claim consultants, or insurance archeologists.

"A defendant may also have rights to defense or indemnity under
corporate transaction agreements.  The more complex the
defendant's corporate history, the more likely it is to face
asbestos claims that can be tendered to some other company.
Between insurance and indemnity agreements, a defendant may have
substantial outside sources for funding its defense. Asbestos
litigation is a business problem that can be managed, but only if
it is viewed that way.  With a thoughtful and comprehensive
approach, a new or low-profile defendant can develop strategies to
prevent the problem from growing out of control and crippling the
company."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Debris From S.C. Fire Reveals Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that
residents of Georgetown, South Carolina have growing concerns over
a potential health threat when wreckage from a fire was relocated
to a city-owned lot from a building known to contain the deadly
material asbestos. Prior to the fire, the South Carolina
Department of Environmental Control tested materials from the
aging Front Street building and found asbestos.

That discovery is upsetting neighbors of the city-lot where the
fire debris was moved. In the study of the Front Street property
conducted by the Department of Environmental Control, asbestos was
found in considerable amounts in the roofing felt and tile.
Asbestos in the roofing felt "exceeded the one percent threshold,"
said Tee Miller, Economic Development Director for Georgetown.

After the Department of Environmental Control conducted the survey
at the property, some of the owners were not informed of the
presence of asbestos. The Department of Environmental Control has
let the owners know of the asbestos discovery.

When the fire debris was moved away from the Front Street
property, and remained, untested, much to the growing worry of
area residents. Exposure to asbestos, a known carcinogen, can
cause both immediate and long-term health issues, including
cancer. Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that typically affects
the delicate lining encasing the lungs, heart or stomach, is only
caused by exposure to asbestos particles.

Although there are regulations that deem some levels of asbestos
"safe," exposure to asbestos, regardless of how little the air is
contaminated, can lead to health issues. Especially after
materials and products that contain asbestos are damaged -- such
as it is the case with the Front Street fire -- miniscule asbestos
fibers contaminate the air, leading to exposure.

According to Jack Scoville, Mayor of Georgetown, the debris from
the Front Street fire does not pose any health threat to
residents, and that asbestos will continue to be a common
discovery in the city, especially in older buildings. Used in
building materials and supplies in the better part of the
twentieth century, asbestos has since been banned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upheld $22MM Verdict in Former Navy's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a $22 million asbestos
verdict has been affirmed after a California appellate court ruled
that the trial court did not err when precluding a jury
instruction on the sophisticated user defense.

According to the report, in a 68-page Oct. 29 opinion, the
California 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote that the proposed
instructions "erroneously" stated that employees of a
sophisticated user could be deemed sophisticated users themselves.

The lawsuit, filed by William and Anne Pfeifer, asserts that while
serving in the U.S. Navy, William Pfeifer worked with asbestos-
containing packing and gaskets sold by John Crane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Fined GBP10,000 for Workers Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Coventry Telegraph reported that North Warwickshire Borough
Council, in England, has been fined GBP10,000 after workers were
exposed to potentially-deadly asbestos fibres.

The local authority was taken to court for not carrying out proper
procedures for asbestos removal during the refurbishment of a
community centre in Fillongley, carried out by contractors from
Birmingham.

Magistrates were told that asbestos should have been removed under
controlled conditions by a licensed contractor. Instead it was
spread around the site by the decorating firm's staff.

The matter came to light when other tradesmen on the site realised
what was happening and reported the situation to managers, which
led to a visit from the Health and Safety Executive.

A subsequent investigation revealed the council had undertaken a
survey detailing the presence of asbestos but had failed to pass
information on to Intal Decorators. The firm had also failed to
carry out its own assessment of the insulation boards to check
whether asbestos was present.

The borough council pleaded guilty before Leamington magistrates
to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974 and was fined GBP10,000, with GBP1,200 costs.

Intal Decorators, of Rough Road, Birmingham, admitted removing
asbestos-containing materials without carrying out an assessment
and was fined GBP5,000, with GBP500 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Cooper said:
"Refurbishment and demolition work must be planned and carefully
thought through, especially where asbestos may be present.

"It is reasonable to expect North Warwickshire Borough Council to
have planned its work in such a way that workers were not put at
risk of exposure to this deadly material."

Council assistant chief executive Steve Maxey said: "We take
health and safety issues extremely seriously, so we have listened
to advice from the HSE and reviewed our processes to ensure that
these regrettable circumstances never arise in the future."

Council leader  Mick Stanley said: "It is extremely disappointing
that the council has fallen below its high standards on this
occasion. I have asked for a full report to come to the special
sub-committee, explaining the details of the offence and the
procedures put in place to make sure this doesn't happen again."

"The public needs to be assured that the council has learned from
this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alarm on Fibro Disposal Due to Illegal Dumping
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Glaetzer and Blair Richards, writing for The Telegraph,
reported that Tasmanian builders are calling on councils to make
it cheaper and easier to safely dispose of asbestos, to discourage
illegal dumping.  It is Asbestos Awareness Month and organisers
want to educate about possible dangers caused by asbestos around
the home.

Master Builders Tasmania executive director Michael Kerschbaum
said many people wrongly assumed it was only used in old shacks.
"If you're home was built or renovated prior to the mid to late-
1980s, you should assume there's an element of asbestos in it," Mr
Kerschbaum said.

"It was a common material, especially in fibre cement cladding,
but it was also used in glues and vinyls and in some of the
putties that were used for window frames.

"It was used for insulation around hot water cylinders and as
backing for electrical switchboards.

"Even the old chook pen that's been there for years and years
could have asbestos in it."

Mr Kerschbaum said testing for and removal of the substance had
become less expensive because more licensed handlers had come on
board thanks to increased awareness.  But he said the "heavy-
handed" approach to asbestos disposal by some councils made it
harder and more costly to get rid of the material.

"We have very few tip facilities that can deal with asbestos,
people often have to travel many kilometres [to dispose of it] and
that's leading to some of the illegal dumping," Mr Kerschbaum
said.

"Some more proactive councils interstate are taking it at
subsidised rates because they recognise that it's in the
community's interest."

West Hobart home owner Stuart Gillies's story has become a common
one.  Mr Gillies recently embarked on an extensive renovation of
his family's 1920s brick home, only to find asbestos under a slate
floor.  "That stopped everything," he said.  He called in a
builder with a licence to remove asbestos, but the process delayed
the build by about three weeks, and cost several thousand dollars.

"I spoke to someone who said, 'welcome to older houses'," Mr
Gillies said.

Hobart builder Matthew Pearce, who specialises in renovations and
building projects, said each time he found asbestos, he called in
a licensed disposal company.  However, Mr Pearce said some home
handymen would dispose of asbestos irresponsibly to avoid costs.

"The biggest drama we have in the industry with asbestos is while
all the tradies are pretty good with it, the home handyman either
may not be aware of what materials asbestos is in, or they are
aware, and they illegally pull it out and dump it themselves
rather than paying a professional to come and get rid of it," he
said.

                       WHAT TO LOOK FOR

* Every home built or renovated before the mid-1980s is likely to
contain asbestos.

* When inhaled, asbestos fibres can cause life-threatening
diseases including lung cancer, pleural disease, asbestosis and
mesothelioma.

* Asbestos generally does not pose a health risk unless broken,
sanded, sawed or otherwise disturbed.

* Asbestos can be found under floor coverings such as carpets,
linoleum and vinyl tiles, behind wall and floor tiles, in cement
floors, internal and external walls, ceilings, eaves, garages,
around hot water pipes, fences, extensions to homes, outdoor
toilets, dog kennels and backyard sheds.

For information on asbestos removal in Tasmania visit
www.asbestos.tas.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sufferers Speak Out on Dangers
-----------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that Serafina Salucci was just eight-years-
old when her dad built a garage to house his new pride and joy, an
olive green Holden Kingswood.  It was 1977 and the cheapest,
easiest building material was asbestos fibro.  Ms Serafina, who
now suffers from the killer asbestos-related disease,
mesothelioma, remembers playing with the offcuts in their Randwick
backyard, in Sydney's east.

"I remember mum holding the fibro sheets while dad cut them and my
brothers and I throwing the off cuts at each other," the now 44-
year-old said.

"That was the most likely exposure, I was diagnosed at 37 -- 30
years later."

While her father died of heart disease, Ms Salucci is one of the
new wave of asbestos disease victims.

The first wave was the 8,000-plus who mined and manufactured
asbestos products, who have now mostly died of mesothelioma.
The new victims -- home renovators from the 1970s and onwards --
are just emerging now.

This November is the inaugural Asbestos Awareness Month, an
initiative of the Asbestos Education Committee and the Asbestos
Diseases Research Institute.

It's aimed at teaching home renovators of the dangers.

Peter Dunphy, from the Dust Diseases Board, said any house built
before 1987 would likely contain asbestos.

"We need to ensure they know the risks and don't expose children,"
Mr Dunphy said.

"It can be older carpet underlays, there are lots of ways you can
come across asbestos, but it's when people liberate the fibres by
drilling or using power tools, anything that generates dust is a
problem."

Asbestos products were manufactured from the 1920s up until 1984.
In 1960, it was accepted that mesothelioma was uniquely related to
asbestos.

According to the Australian Mesothelioma Registry report, as of 30
June 2013, 619 people were diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012.
Of those, 511 were men and 108 women, and the majority were aged
65 years or more at the time of diagnosis.

By April 10 this year, almost half (46.8 per cent) of people
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012 had died.

Ms Salucci, a mother-of-four, has had one lung removed and is
still battling the cancer.  She stressed the home renovator must
be aware of the children in the house as well.

"I'm a classic example," she said.

"I've never renovated, but I was around it, I was around fibro.

"Be very careful - don't just think of fibro.

"It can be carpet underlay, piping so find out what you are
dealing with and call a professional." Renovators can visit
asbestosawareness.com.au for tips on how to stay safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria East-West Dig a Health Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Tomazin, writing for The Age, reported that the health of
residents and builders could be placed at risk during construction
of the east-west link, with the Victoria state government's own
documents warning that contaminated soil, groundwater and asbestos
may be dredged up as the controversial tunnel is built.

Independent experts have found a range of potential contamination
sources, including asbestos at Royal Park, bacteria and viruses
from the Melbourne General Cemetery, and dirty water from the
former Fitzroy North Gasworks site, which could enter the tunnel
construction area near Alexandra Parade.

The most significant danger is likely to be to "construction
workers, human health, and the environment" as material is dug up
and transported to make way for the Coalition's $8 billion tunnel
between Clifton Hill and Flemington, public reports on the
project's impact reveal.

"Contaminated soil and groundwater may pose a risk to construction
and maintenance personnel, as well as being potentially aggressive
to construction materials, generating vapour risks and creating
storage issues," says a report.

"The residual risks for these impacts are rated as high."
The revelations of contaminated soil are buried in one of dozens
of reports that make up the so-called comprehensive impact
statement for the east-west link. But while Labor and residents
hit out at the government for pursuing the tunnel project, the
Linking Melbourne Authority insisted the community had nothing to
fear.

"Working with contamination is part and parcel of construction in
the inner city. It's been identified through the planning work as
an issue that will require careful management but all of the major
contractors have a lot of experience in dealing with these sorts
of issues in big construction jobs," said spokesman Matt Phelan.

The impact statement was released by Transport Minister Terry
Mulder and will be on display for public comment until December
12. It warned the government that the project would require
careful planning and management to mitigate the health risks.

For instance, leached liquid from Melbourne Cemetery in Carlton
could be filled with bacteria and viruses and "may represent a
risk to construction workers and have an adverse impact on the
durability of construction materials".

In Royal Park, which will lose 1.36 hectares to the new six-lane
freeway, asbestos in the soil from the demolition of housing after
World War II could also be hazardous.

"This soil could be encountered during the construction of the
tunnel portal opening and ventilation shafts in precinct 3," the
documents say.

Contaminated land is only one of the issues that have been
identified. Sections of Debneys Park, Ormond Park, Holbrook
Reserve and Moonee Ponds Creek Linear Reserve will be lost; some
of Melbourne's busiest roads will be shut down during the project;
and extra vibration controls might be needed around Melbourne Zoo
to ensure the wellbeing of animals.

The government nonetheless spent time in Parliament talking up the
tunnel, which it says will carry 100,000 vehicles a day by 2031,
reduce traffic volumes on some of the city's major roads including
Hoddle Street and Victoria Parade, and cut peak traffic times
between east and west by up to 20 minutes.

Friends of Royal Park spokesman Gordon Ley remains unconvinced,
and when told about the contamination risks, replied: "They're
going to devastate the park, and this just adds to the issues."
Parkville resident Christine Di Muccio, who lives opposite Royal
Park, said she was "furious".

"What else do we have to sacrifice for this project?" she asked.
Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said: "As well as the
health risks and destruction of inner-city Melbourne, these
revelations show [Premier Denis] Napthine is exposing a generation
of taxpayers to costs and delays that will gobble up money that
should have gone to schools, hospitals and public transport. What
a waste."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cost of Fibro Controls at Wis. Mine Not Known
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Verburg, writing for the Wisconsin State Journal, reported
that the discovery of asbestos-like fibers at the proposed Gogebic
Taconite mine site could add to the cost of the operation, but the
amount of added expense won't be known for many months.

If the substance is widespread, it's possible that controlling it
during mining and rock-crushing could drive expenses so high that
the mine would not be built, but there's no indication that will
be the case, said company spokesman Bob Seitz.

"I guess that would be possible," Seitz said. "Is it affecting the
decisions we're making about doing the testing and moving forward?
No. There's nothing right now to show it will be too expensive."

State Department of Natural Resources officials agree that it's
too early to know how much of the cancer-causing material lies in
the rock of the Penokee Hills in northern Wisconsin where the
company wants to dig for iron.

It's not clear if the test drilling already done in eight spots
and five more that are planned will be sufficient to determine the
extent of any hazardous fibrous material with characteristics of
asbestos, but Gogebic Taconite almost certainly will be able to
engineer solutions to any problem -- possibly simply using water
to keep dust down -- just like mine companies have done in other
states, Seitz said.

Six active iron mines currently being studied in Minnesota appear
to meet federal standards -- with some exceptions -- for
protecting workers from tiny airborne fibers that break loose from
rock, but the workers had higher-than-expected rates of
mesothelioma, the uncurable lung cancer caused by asbestos,
according to a five-year University of Minnesota study.

The next stage of the study will determine if the toxic particles
caused the disease, or if some outside factor such as exposure to
commercial asbestos contributed, said Jeffrey Mandel, a University
of Minnesota School of Public Health professor and principal
investigator for the research effort.

The iron mines keep most workers in enclosed cabs of heavy
equipment outfitted with high-efficiency air filtration systems,
said Peter Raynor, who led a study of workplace pollution
controls.

In rock-crushing plants, new air-filtering technology captures
airborne particles better than older scrubbers that collect dust
in water, Raynor said.

"In most of these operations, the crushers are enclosed and they
have belts that carry the ore that are also enclosed," Raynor
said. "You can still get dust emerging from that if you don't pull
enough air through the enclosure."

The study found instances of inadequate air flows, but workers
doing maintenance or other special jobs were most likely to appear
to be exposed, Raynor said.

"You would see miners who would show evidence of contamination on
their clothing, or the skin on their face," Raynor said.

Scientists also monitored air in five mining communities, and
collected very few fibrous particles in three places and none in
the others, said Larry Zanko, a senior research fellow at the
university's Center for Applied Research and Technology
Development in Duluth.

Gogebic Taconite will need to control dust of all kinds, and if
the cancer-causing fibers are present, extra air monitoring may be
required, said Larry Lynch, a Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources hydrologist who is coordinating the agency's response as
the company seeks permits to conduct bulk sampling, and eventually
to mine.

The company insisted in a July 28 letter to the DNR that it didn't
expect to find toxic fibers because the type likely to occur in
Wisconsin -- in a certain form of a mineral called grunerite --
had only been found in one portion of the Mesabi Iron Range in
Minnesota.

The letter also asserted that the DNR couldn't regulate asbestos
emissions, but company spokesman Bob Seitz acknowledged that the
independent laboratories that analyze core samples from the site
will look microscopically for toxic fibers under a provision of
the state mining law.

The DNR disclosed on Oct. 8 that a rock containing such fibers was
found at the mine site in May.

Seitz has questioned the finding, saying that it was possible
someone tampered with the sample, although he acknowledged he had
no evidence. Mine opponents said the DNR's confirmation that the
material is present should spark tougher scrutiny of laboratory
tests that are being conducted on core samples the company
collected from the mine site.

"There's a lot of money at risk for (the company) based on the
testing for this material," said Dave Blouin, who works on mining
issues for the Sierra Club in Wisconsin.

Mike Wiggins Jr., chairman of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, whose reservation is downstream of the mine site, said
local geologists have observed additional quantities of fibrous
minerals. The tribe is also concerned about sulphide in waste rock
releasing sulfuric acid into streams.

"They are going to keep the asbestos wet and the sulfide mineral
dry?" Wiggins said. "This is a sham. Nobody's drinking the Kool-
Aid up here."

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration sets exposure
limits for toxic fibers that can break away from certain minerals,
including grunerite, which has been documented by the U.S.
Geologic Survey in large quantities near the western end of the
mine site.

Not all grunerite is of the dangerous "asbestiform" type, but that
form of the mineral was documented as early as the 1920s near the
Tyler Forks River not far from the east edge of the mine site,
Lynch said.

An in-depth USGS survey described fibrous bundles and "needles"
that match the description of the asbestiform type of grunerite,
Lynch said.

A more recent USGS publication noted that grunerite "is abundant
in the iron-formation at Penokee Gap near Mellen" near the west
side of the mine site.

Some activists have expressed concern that blasting would spread
the toxic particles, but Lynch said that properly executed
explosions break the rock without spewing large plumes into the
air.

Typically, a blasting site can be wetted down on the surface and
containers of additional water are dropped into holes drilled into
the rock before each explosion, Lynch said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears in Canterbury Rebuild
--------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand reported that the head of safety for the
Canterbury region in New Zealand rebuild says it is very
concerning that inspectors are picking up instances of asbestos
daily.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is urging
everyone working on any site where asbestos is a possibility to
make sure that it is accurately identified.

The ministry laid two charges under the Health and Safety Act
against two companies for exposing staff to asbestos while they
were working on the roof of Christchurch Hospital, and is
investigating another five cases.

Most buildings that were constructed before 1980 -- the vast
majority of those being demolished because of earthquake damage --
are likely to contain some form of asbestos.

Kathryn Heiler, the ministry's rebuild health and safety programme
director, says it is concerning that the risks aren't being taking
seriously.

Ms Heiler says her team gets complaints and notifications weekly
about improperly identified asbestos and too many people are
taking a punt about whether it is or isn't, rather than getting it
tested to be sure.

"It's really important that the guesswork is taken out of this,
and our concern is that there something is going wrong in too many
cases, in our view, around a failure to properly identify."

Ms Heiler says there is absolutely no reason for the failures of
identification in so many cases and warns that inspectors will be
tougher, where appropriate, from now on.

Canterbury's Medical Officer of Health Dr Alistair Humphrey says
the recent quakes have claimed enough lives already without a
second wave of asbestos-related deaths decades in the future.

"It may be as much as four decades later. So a young man in their
20s, if they're not taking care at this time, might find that when
they're late middle age might find themselves with a very serious
illness that otherwise they would've avoided."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford's St. Giles Church Closed After Fibro Find
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a church in Oxford, England, has been
forced to close after asbestos was found under the floor during
renovation work.

St. Giles's Church in the centre of Oxford was being fitted with a
new heating system when the material was found in old pipe
lagging.  The work, funded by a GBP200,000 anonymous donation, has
been put on hold while the asbestos is removed.

The Reverend Canon Dr Andrew Bunch said he hoped the work would be
completed in time for Christmas.  He said: "It needs to be
removed.

"It's not safe for the builders to move and do the work on the
piping when the asbestos is still there.

"But we're hoping it will be done within a six-week period."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A&E Insurance Claim Losses Up 12% in 2012
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheena Harrison, writing for Business Insurance, reported that
asbestos and environmental insurance claim losses increased in
2012 due to a rising number of asbestos-related lung cancer
lawsuits, A.M. Best Co. Inc. said.

The Oldwick, N.J.-based rating agency said annual asbestos and
environmental insurance losses rose 12% last year, compared with a
31% decrease in 2011.

Best estimated that as of December 2012, the U.S.
property/casualty industry faced $85 billion in net ultimate
asbestos losses, up from the agency's 2011 estimate of $75
billion.

"This comes amid a rising number of lung cancer lawsuits related
to asbestos and evolving mass tort exposures on the environmental
side," Best said in a statement.

Best estimates net environmental losses for the U.S.
property/casualty market ultimately could reach $42 billion,
unchanged from the previous year.

Domestic property/casualty insurers have funded about 90%, or $114
billion, of the estimated liabilities through a combination of
paid losses and loss reserves, Best said in the statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at King Street Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Benjamin, writing for The Record, reported that asbestos
removal has begun at the site of a botched demolition that has
brought scrutiny on the city fire chief and may have endangered
the health of nearby persons.

The partial demolition site at 4-10 King St., in Troy, New York,
was cordoned off with red warning tape reading "asbestos." Behind
the barrier, a crew from M. Cristo Construction, who were wearing
breathing apparatus and white hazardous materials suits, was
raking up debris, and removing material from the side of 2 King
St. It is expected to be completed by the end of the week.

For the past three months, the scarred side of a partially
demolished building has greeted vehicles passing into Troy over
the Green Island Bridge, ever since the state Department of Labor
put a halt on the emergency demolition, as an asbestos assessment
had not been completed.

There are conflicting stories about the events preceding the
building's demolition  -- whether it was Michael Cristo, of Cristo
Construction; Chief Tom Garrett, or city officials who made the
call  -- but it is known that it was Garrett who took incident
control over the project. Under normal circumstances, demolitions
must be authorized by City Engineer Russ Reeves, but he was away
on vacation at the time. According to Garrett, the need to
demolish the building arose after a firefighter noticed the floor
of the building had collapsed.

The demolition was authorized as an asbestos project. As such, it
was necessary that an asbestos assessment be conducted before
demolition began, and that people be kept a minimum of 25 feet
from the site, and that the air quality be monitored before and
during the demolition. There was no assessment completed
immediately prior to the demolition, and the Bombers Burrito Bar
franchise next door was still open and serving food when the
buildings were coming down.

A little more than a week into the demolition, the state stepped
in to a put a halt on the project. The notice was served to
Michael Cristo, whose crew was not allowed to remove their
equipment from the site. During a hearing in front of the city
council's public safety committee, Garrett said state officials
informed him that quality monitoring needed to have been taking
place.

"It's the only thing the labor department said I didn't do," said
Garrett during the hearing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Working With Fibro Led to Two Men's Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------
Get Reading reported that working with asbestos led to the death
of two Reading men, separate inquests heard.

David Waterfield, 60, of Lock Place, Newtown, and Francis Elford,
74, of Northumberland Avenue, Whitley, both spent time during
their working life in the building trade, their inquests at
Reading Civic Centre heard.

The inquest into Mr Waterfield's death on October 22, was told
that in August 2012 he collapsed at work and was taken to
hospital.  He died at Duchess of Kent House, in Liebenrood Road,
West Reading, on June 19.

A post mortem examination found that Mr Waterfield's right lung
was completely encased by a tumour which had started to spread to
other vital organs.

The inquest into Mr Elford's death heard he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in around April 2012. He also died at Duchess of Kent
House, on June 18.

Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford recorded for both inquests that Mr
Waterfield and Mr Elford died of industrial disease malignant
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowater Mill Cleanup Plan Plagued by Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the Nova Scotia government is selling,
scrapping and demolishing portions of the old Bowater paper mill
outside Liverpool, but the process is running behind schedule
after crews uncovered unexpected asbestos.

It's not clear yet whether Nova Scotia will make or lose money as
it proceeds to sell off portions of the old newsprint mill.

"I'm expecting that it's going to be close to a wash. I don't
expect there will be great financial gain or great losses at end
of the day," said Joel MacLean, chief operating officer at Nova
Scotia Lands Inc.

Last year the NDP government spent $118 million buying the mill's
assets, primarily 220,000 hectares of woodlands.

The government has asked for proposals to sell off many remaining
assets and to demolish 16 structures.

In the spring the province said the demolition would be completed
by December. But now demos will start in December and finish by
the end of April, at the earliest.

MacLean blames the delay on more asbestos than they anticipated
for.

"That was by far the largest issue that we had to confront. There
was some lead paint issues that we dealt with, PCB ballast. A lot
of the standard demolition-type debris that you have to deal
with," MacLean said.

The province budgeted $6.6 million on wind-up costs. They say that
remains on target.

Portions of the operation will remain open as a demonstration
centre for forestry and bioenergy projects.

Officials say the demolition and scrap work should not interfere
with the opening of a biofuel plant on site set for February.

The province said it will award the tenders this month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Awarded $8-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
recent jury award to a plaintiff who claims to have smoked a
particular brand of cigarettes from 1952 to 1956 burdened the
Lorillard Tobacco Company with a major portion of fault.

Lorillard was the manufacturer of Kent brand cigarettes. While
there have been prior lawsuits centered on the addictive qualities
of cigarettes, this most recent lawsuit is unique in that
addiction was never a factor. Rather, from 1952 to 1956, it was
alleged that Lorillard manufactured a version of its Kent brand
with filters containing asbestos fibers.

Plaintiff Richard Delisle of Leesburg claimed that the Kent brand
of cigarettes he smoked as a teenager in the early-to-mid 1950s
contributed to a July 2012 diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma.

Most asbestos claims revolve around industrial settings, and the
Delisle case was no different in that the plaintiff also worked
for a Massachusetts-based paper mill in the early 1960s as a pipe
fitter. The gaskets he handled as part of his job were alleged to
contain asbestos.

However, an asbestos finding against a tobacco company is
considered rare. In this case, according to court records,
Lorillard was assessed 22 percent of the burden of fault. The
manufacturer of the asbestosis-causing filter, Hollingsworth &
Vose Company, was similarly assessed fault at 22 percent. However,
Hollingsworth & Vose escaped the burden to fund that liability by
way of a joint venture indemnity agreement between the filter
manufacturer and Lorillard that ultimately shifted the liability
to Lorillard, resulting in a combined burden of fault at 44
percent, or $3.52 million, for the tobacco company.

The award has been described as the largest award against a
tobacco company and cigarette manufacturer with regard to an
asbestosis claim from smoking.

Crane Co., the paper mill at which Delisle worked as a pipe
fitter, was assessed fault at 16 percent, with the remaining 40
percent assessed to various other defendants in the asbestos
cancer case.

The plaintiff, who is now 74, was not assessed any fault in the
case. Just a young man with a smoking habit akin to scores of
smokers in an era where even medical doctors advocated for the
pleasure. As for his time as a pipe fitter, the plaintiff would
claim that he was not made aware of any health hazard related to
potential asbestos injury.

Asbestos fibers are a known carcinogen, and are at their most
dangerous when they are ingested into the lungs. There, they tend
to lay dormant for decades, until Mesothelioma suddenly appears
seemingly out of the blue. Mesothelioma, asbestosis and asbestos
cancer are almost exclusively linked to exposure to asbestos
fibers, often decades prior to a diagnosis.

The asbestosis compensation verdict was handed down by a jury in
Broward County, Florida, last month. It is not known if the
defendants plan to appeal the ruling.

The case is Richard Delisle, et al. v. Lorillard Tobacco Company,
et al. Case No. CACE 12025722. The verdict was delivered September
19 at the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Massive Warehouse Blaze Site
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Parkinson, writing for Indiana News Center, reported
that there are signs warning of asbestos outside the site of one
of Fort Wayne, Indiana's largest fires.

On August 19 the industrial complex in the 1200 block of Herbert
Street on the city's east side went up in flames. Now, the owners
have signs posted saying 'Danger: Asbestos, Cancer and Lung
Disease Hazard.'

21Alive looked into what this means for the safety of people in
the area, and for the safety of people who were in that area on
August 19.

"Can we stand here and say there was no asbestos in the air?
Absolutely not," said Deputy Chief Mark Nelson, Fort Wayne Fire
Department. "I feel like we did everything that we could do to
measure whether or not there was any acute danger to the public.
All indications were that there was not."

Asbestos can lead to a rare form of cancer called Mesothelioma.
"It's not determined if it takes one fiber to cause that, or
whether it takes 500 fibers to cause that," said Andrew Boester,
SES Environmental.

Boester works for SES Environmental. He knows the dangers asbestos
poses, but also says the day of the fire the threat was minimal.
"If those fibers are coated in water then they're going to be
heavier now, they're going to settle out faster, they're going to
drop out of the air," said Boester.

Boester also says asbestos was made to be fire retardant. So it
burns slower lessening the chance of it becoming airborne in the
first place.

During fires the Fort Wayne Fire Department tests the air, but
they don't have the capability to test for asbestos. However,
Deputy Chief Mark Nelson agrees the threat was low.

The danger now is to anyone who goes on the property and handles
what's left at the site.

"If they're getting in there to try to remove anything or going in
to do anything with that stuff, and stirring it up, that's where a
risk would start to appear," said Boester.

Officials with IDEM say the owners of the property are working
with officials to clean up the debris, but say that could take
some time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Setback May Hit NBN Profit
-------------------------------------------------
Technology Spectator reported that the NBN Co has indicated the
potentially widespread impact the discovery of asbestos
contamination could have on the National Broadband Network,
suggesting it could hit profits, cause cost blowouts and lead to
potential litigation.

"The presence  -- or potential presence of asbestos  -- could
significantly increase network build costs as well as lead to
potential litigation and related costs," NBN Co said, according to
The Australian.

The admission came in a decision by NBN Co to reject a Freedom of
Information request by the newspaper that would have detailed the
impact the asbestos contamination issue has had, and could have in
the future, on the NBN's rollout.

NBN Co said it could not release the information requested by The
Australian because it could be used by potential and current
business partners to inflate their prices and jeopardise NBN Co's
commercial position.

"These risks are inextricably linked with NBN Co's commercial and
profit-making activities," the company said, according to The
Australian.

"In particular, our company's ability to mitigate and manage
asbestos risk is ... connected to our ability to manage costs
during the network rollout.

"This would have clear implications for NBN Co's budgeting
processes and its ability to meet profit-making expectations, as
outlined in our shareholders' statement of expectation document."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Defendants Threaten to Withdraw CMO Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that defendants involved in New
York City's coordinated asbestos docket have threatened to
withdraw their consent to the Case Management Order and Special
Master if the court grants recent attempts by the plaintiffs to
reinstate punitive damages.

In Oct. 31 motions filed in the New York Supreme Court for New
York County, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' request
would "erode the efficacy of the CMO."

In March, the plaintiffs involved in the coordinated New York City
asbestos litigation asked the court to end the deferral on
punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Retains Jurisdiction of Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an asbestos plaintiff's
motion to remand has been denied after a Maryland federal court
found that the removal was not untimely.

In the Oct. 29 order, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland found that the defendants were not put on notice that
removal was available until the plaintiff named specific U.S.
Naval ships in his interrogatory answers.

Plaintiff Stephen Ross filed the lawsuit, arguing that his work as
a student, welder, mechanic and laborer caused him to be exposed
to asbestos-containing for more than 40 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Necton Builder Exposed to Deadly Dust
------------------------------------------------------
Lynn News reported that a retired carpenter died from asbestosis,
an inquest at Lynn, in the United Kingdom, heard on Nov. 4.

Coroner Jacqueline Lake heard Kenneth Lebez, of Necton, had worked
in the building trade and had been exposed to asbestos from 1973
to 1988.

Mr Lebez died at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital on July 7, after
being admitted with shortness of breath.

Mrs Lake concluded that Mr Lebez died as a result of the
industrial disease asbestosis.

n A 71-year-old man died at Lynn's Queen Elizabeth Hospital after
an operation to insert a tube to help him take medication for
Parkinson's disease.

Coroner Jacqueline Lake said David Jones, of Warren Close,
Watlington, underwent the operation on July 16.

On July 21 he was re-admitted to hospital with abdominal pain and
a scan showed the tube was leaking. Mr Jones died on July 25.

Mrs Lake's conclusion was that Mr Jones died as a result of a
recognised risk of an appropriate medical procedure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TVA's Bid to Dismiss "Bobo" Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lynwood Smith of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting, in part, the motion for
summary judgment filed by the remaining defendant in a so-called
"take-home" asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit commenced by
the widow of a former worker of one of the defendant's facility.

In his decision dated Oct. 28, 2013, Judge Smith granted Defendant
Tennessee Valley Authority's motion as to Plaintiff Barbara Bobo's
claims that TVA filed to warn her about the dangers of asbestos
exposure and the Plaintiff's claims that TVA failed to provide
asbestos training to its employees.  TVA's motion is denied as to
the Plaintiff's claims that TVA: violated Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations concerning permissible levels of
asbestos exposure; failed to follow mandatory directives governing
the monitoring of an employee's exposure to asbestos; failed to
provide protective equipment and clothing and locker rooms; and
failed to administer annual medical examinations to employees
exposed to airborne asbestos fibers.

The case is BARBARA BOBO, Plaintiff, v. AGCO CORPORATION f/k/a
ALLIS CHALMERS COMPANY (as successor to MASSEY FERGUSON LIMITED),
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 12-S-1930-NE (N.D. Ala.).
A full-text copy of Judge Smith's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AtRmLffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Dismisses DT Boring's RICO Claims Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DT Boring, Inc., filed an eight-count amended complaint
against The Chicago Public Building Commission, Harbour
Contractors, Inc., Optimal Energy, LLC, and Environmental Design,
Inc., alleging that CPBC heads a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act enterprise with the goal of fraudulently
benefitting CPBC by constructing or renovating public buildings at
or below their actual construction cost in a manner that enriches
its "preapproved" subcontractors at the expense of other project
subcontractors.  The Plaintiff alleges that Harbour and EDI are
two of these "preapproved" subcontractors that participated in the
RICO enterprise.

The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, damages from its work
on the project as a result of the presence of an asbestos-
contaminated pipe.  According to the Plaintiff, for the duration
of a stop work order, it had to continue to pay its workers
because the Plaintiff had not been released from the project.  The
Plaintiff also claims that it has not been compensated for the
additional costs incurred as a result of the stop work orders
during the asbestos investigation and that it incurred costs in
defending against the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's investigation of the Plaintiff for exposing its
employees to the asbestos.

CPBC has filed a motion asking the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over CPBC.  Harbour
has also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiff
does not have standing to bring its RICO claims.  EDI joins
Harbour's motion.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Oct. 28, 2013, District
Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted Harbour's motion to dismiss for
lack of standing, holding that all of the Plaintiff's claims
assert the same $75,000 damage calculation allegedly owed on the
contact with CBPC.  Because the Plaintiff has not yet exhausted
its claim on the construction bond, its damages are not "clear and
definite," and it does not have standing to assert its RICO
claims, Judge Gettleman said.

Judge Gettleman also granted CBPC's motion to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, holding that because the Court has
dismissed the Plaintiff's RICO claims, no federal claims remain in
the lawsuit.  Judge Gettleman therefore declined to consider the
Plaintiff's state law claims and dismissed the remainder of the
Plaintiff's counts without prejudice to the Plaintiff refiling in
state court.

The case is DT BORING, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CHICAGO PUBLIC
BUILDING COMMISSION, HARBOUR CONTRACTORS, INC., an Illinois
corporation, OPTIMAL ENERGY, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company, and ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Defendants, NO. 13 C 450 (N.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Gettleman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/09xgHcfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual's Bid to Dismiss 6 PI Suits Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied in its entirety Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion
to dismiss Jenkins Bros. as defendant in six asbestos-related
personal injury actions.

Liberty Mutual issued insurance policies to Jenkins in the 1970s.
Liberty Mutual sought dismissal of the Actions for lack of
personal jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and on
the basis of documentary evidence on the ground that Jenkins, as a
fully dissolved and liquidated corporation, does not exist.

Judge Heitler found that New Jersey Law permits suit against
Jenkins.  In turn, the Plaintiffs may seek to obtain a judgment
against Jenkins and consequently commence a direct action against
Liberty Mutual under New York Insurance Law Section 3420, Judge
Heitler said.

The cases are ROBERT GERMAIN, SR. Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190281/12 (N.Y.
Sup.); Valensi v Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., Index No.
190340/12 (N.Y. Sup.); Antle v A.O. Smith Water Products, et al.,
Index No. 190360/12 (N.Y. Sup.); Khan v 3M Company, et al., Index
No. 190515/12 (N.Y. Sup.); Cunningham v 3M Company, et al., Index
No. 190129/13 (N.Y. Sup.); and Lantenschuetz v A.O. Smith Water
Products, Index No. 2334/12, pending in Schenectady County Supreme
Court.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order
dated Oct. 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/pTHw0cfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk "Bailen" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eddie Howard Bailen and his wife Rena Norene Ash-Bailen
commenced an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly
caused by Mr. Bailen's exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Among other things, the complaint alleges that Union Pacific
Railroad Company violated the Federal Employer's Liability Act by
negligently exposing Mr. Bailen to asbestos while he was employed
as an electrician in Omaha, Nebraska, during the late 1950's.

Union Pacific moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
New York is an inconvenient forum.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Union Pacific's motion, holding that, "Were this case
dismissed, it is unclear whether Mr. Bailen would see his day in
court, and there is nothing in the record on this motion to show
that Nebraska, which the defendant suggests is a more suitable
forum, either maintains an active asbestos calendar or even
routinely handles asbestos cases.  Also, while the court is
mindful that the plaintiff and his treating physicians reside in
the midwest, the defendant has not identified any Bailen family
member who is unwilling to testify in New York, nor has there been
any indication that plaintiffs intend to call any of Mr. Bailen's
treating physicians at trial."

The case is EDDIE HOWARD BAILEN and RENA NORENE ASH-BAILEN,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION., as Successor by
Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190318/2012 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
decision and order dated Oct. 25, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/DvnW3Wfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volkswagen Required to Pay Counsel's Travel Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Case Management Order, which governs New York City
Asbestos Litigation, Plaintiffs John W. Adler and Elaine Adler
appeal from and seek vacatur of that part of Special Master
Shelley Rosoff Olsen's September 26, 2013 written recommendation,
which grants Defendant Volkswagen Group of America permission to
depose Plaintiff's pathologist, Dr. Juan Rosai, in Milan, Italy,
on the issue of Mr. Adler's diagnosis.  Volkswagen appeals from
that part of the Recommendation which would require it to pay for
the Plaintiffs' counsel's travel expenses associated with any
deposition.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 28, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied both motions
and confirmed the Special Master's Recommendation.  Judge Heitler
found that the case presents unusual circumstances requiring Mr.
Adler's treating pathologist to be deposed.  With respect to the
appeal from the award of travel costs, Judge Heitler pointed to
the CMO, which provides that "plaintiff's counsel may be required
to pay the travel expenses incurred by one, but no more than two,
defense counsel in attending any deposition noticed to be taken
outside of the New York City area."  Judge Heitler agreed with the
Special Master that the case at bar is sufficiently analogous to
require defense counsel to pay the travel expenses of one of the
Plaintiff's attorneys.

The case is JOHN W. ADLER and ELAINE ADLER, Plaintiffs, v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190392/2012 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/OhQANQfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurance Suit v. Clearwater Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff New Hampshire Insurance Company issued a $50 million
Commercial Excess Umbrella Liability policy to Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation in 1973.  Defendant Clearwater Insurance
Company reinsured portions of New Hampshire's policy for Kaiser
for 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Kaiser was the subject of more than 247,000 asbestos bodily injury
claims and lawsuits in state and federal courts, alleging that the
company designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed and/or sold
products containing asbestos.  After its insurers disputed
coverage, Kaiser sued New Hampshire and other insurer-affiliates
of American International Group in California state court.  In
2006, New Hampshire and the other AIG-affiliated insurers settled
with Kaiser.  Since that time, the AIG-affiliated insurers have
paid asbestos losses under their policies to Kaiser, based on a
ground-up, rising bathtub approach.  When the payment level
reached New Hampshire's policy, New Hampshire began to bill
Clearwater for its share of New Hampshire's liability.  Upon
Clearwater's failure to pay, New Hampshire commenced an action.

New Hampshire moves for summary judgment on its two causes of
action: (1) for breach of contract, on the ground that Clearwater
has breached the reinsurance agreement by failing to make payment
for New Hampshire's losses billed thus far, and (2) for a
declaratory judgment that Clearwater is obligated to indemnify New
Hampshire for its losses billed and to be billed in the future.

Judge Ellen M. Coin of the Supreme Court, New York County, on
Oct. 31, 2013, ordered the motion for summary judgment is granted
to the extent that the Defendant's Second (alleging the absence of
practices and procedure to ensure timely notice), Third (untimely
notice) and Seventh (breach of retention warranty) Affirmative
Defenses are dismissed.  The motion is otherwise denied.

Judge Coin held that Clearwater's contentions regarding components
of the settlement agreement between Kaiser and the AIG member
companies regarding the allocation of the gross settlement amount
raises triable issues of fact sufficient to warrant denial of
summary judgment on the issue.

The case is New Hampshire Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v.
Clearwater Insurance Company, Defendant, DOCKET NO. 653547/2011
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Coin's decision and order
is available at http://is.gd/jac1sufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Appeals in NYCAL Set for Dec. Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, ordered the Clerk of Court to calendar appeals
captioned KONSTANTIN, v. TISHMAN LIQUIDATION CORPORATION -- ESTATE
OF KONSTANTIN and DUMMITT, v. A. W. CHESTERTON -- ESTATE OF
CHESTERTON -- CRANE CO., for hearing together during the last week
of the December 2013 Term.  The two appeal cases are part of the
New York City asbestos litigation.  A full-text copy of the
Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/F0D14lfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Baruch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler denied defendant Fisher Scientific
Company, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing an asbestos-
related personal injury complaint and all cross-claims against it
on the ground that Plaintiff Ester Baruch did not identify a
Fisher product as a source of her asbestos exposure.

Ms. Baruch was diagnosed with mesothelioma in or about January 24,
2012, and thereafter commenced the action to recover for personal
injuries allegedly caused by her exposure to asbestos.  Ms. Baruch
alleged that she was exposed to asbestos from lab equipment while
working as a lab technician and from insulation, tiles, and pipe
covering at her home in Queens, New York.

In denying summary judgment, Judge Heitler stated held that the
record on the motion consists primarily of Ms. Baruch's deposition
testimony that she was exposed to asbestos from gloves with a
"Fisher Scientific" label and Robert Forte's affidavit that the
asbestos-containing gloves sold by Fisher never contained such a
label.  Mr. Forte's affidavit, according to Judge Heitler, plainly
conflicts with the Plaintiff's testimony, leaving the Court with
questions of the weight to be accorded thereto.  That issue cannot
be determined as a matter of law which necessarily precludes
summary judgment, Judge Heitler said.

The case is ESTER BARUCH and NERYE BARUCH, Plaintiffs, v. BAXTER
HEALTHCARE CORP., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190372/12 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's decision and order
dated Oct. 25, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/4v5tDTfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine Bars Widow From Obtaining Docs
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gloria Cary has filed multiple motions to compel
79 defendants to provide more responsive answers to her requests
for production of documents.  The Defendants have collectively
opposed the Plaintiff's motions.

The Plaintiff's late husband, Lawson Cary, Jr., worked for over
three decades at Hoechst Chemical Corporation, where he performed
various tasks that allegedly exposed him to asbestos from numerous
products.  Mr. Cary ultimately died of asbestos-related
mesothelioma, which the Plaintiff alleges was caused by her
husband's exposure to the Defendants' products.  Consequently, the
Plaintiff has brought several tort-based claims against the
Defendants.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, granted the
Plaintiff's motions in part and denied it in part.  The
Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted with respect to the photos
and video footage taken by the Defendants during the June 23, 2011
Hoechst site inspection.  The Plaintiff's motion is denied with
respect to the photocopies the Defendants made after their review
of the Hoechst documents because the copies are protected by the
factual work product doctrine.

The case is GLORIA CARY, as Executrix of the Estate of LAWSON
CARY, JR., and as Surviving Spouse v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. NO.
PC 10-3263 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Nov. 6, 2013,
decision penned by Presiding Justice Alice B. Gibney is available
at http://is.gd/lFODQzfrom Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., Lisa Storti, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Lawrence
G. Cetrulo, Esq., Stephen T. Armato, Esq., Jonathan P. Michaud,
Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Morvant" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mary Morvant, a Louisiana resident, suffers from
mesothelioma.  She brought suit in the Civil District Court,
Parish of Orleans, against the alleged manufacturers, suppliers,
and installers of asbestos products to which she allegedly was
exposed.  The defendants included Asbestos Corporation Limited, a
Canadian asbestos fiber miner and manufacturer, as well as five
Louisiana residents: Eagle, Inc., McCarty Corporation, Taylor-
Seidenbach, Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., and Burmaster Land &
Development, LLC.  The Plaintiff settled her claims against
Taylor, Burmaster and Reilly-Benton.  However, Eagle and McCarty
filed motions for summary judgment, which were opposed by the
Plaintiff and granted by the state court after a contradictory
hearing.  ACL filed a notice of removal on grounds that diversity
jurisdiction now exists in light of the Plaintiff's recent
settlements with the remaining instate defendants.  The plaintiff
filed a motion to remand.

Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand and the matter is remanded to the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, from whence it came.

Judge Engelhardt stated in his Nov. 6, 2013 order and reasons that
in this case, two of the in-state defendants were dismissed
involuntarily on motion for summary judgment, not by any voluntary
act taken by the Plaintiff.  Indeed, the Plaintiffs opposed the
dismissals.  Judge Engelhardt explained that one of the primary
reasons behind the voluntary-involuntary rule is "so that there is
no doubt that the defendant has been dropped from the case and
that the plaintiff will not be able to challenge the dismissal on
appeal or otherwise and ultimately destroy diversity jurisdiction
if the claim is held to have been improperly dismissed."  Here,
the Defendant has made no showing to address this concern or to
demonstrate that the state court's dismissal of Eagle and McCarty
were brought about by any voluntary act of the Plaintiff, Judge
Engelhardt said.  Thus, the Defendant has failed to carry its
burden of demonstrating that the matter has become removable,
Judge Engelhardt concluded.

The case is MARY MORVANT v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Section
"N" (3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6339 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Engelhardt's Decision is available at http://is.gd/4mI33f
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cuomo" Suit Remanded to NY State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs Joseph and
Susan Cuomo's motion to remand to a New York state court their
asbestos-related personal injury action against Crane Co. and
several other defendants.

The Cuomos brought the action in a New York state court.  Joseph,
now deceased, served in the United States Navy aboard the USS
Ponce and USS Coontz as a quarter master from 1974 through 1980.
On December 30, 2009, Joseph was diagnosed with lung cancer.  The
Cuomos assert that the Defendants are liable to them for failing
to warn Joseph about the dangers of asbestos exposure.  In
response, Crane asserts a federal contractor defense which -- when
properly raised -- allows removal to federal court.  The case was
removed to the District Court pursuant to the federal officer
removal statute.

In support of his decision, Judge Scheindlin ruled that Crane has
not presented a colorable federal contractor defense for the
purpose of federal officer removal.

The case is SUSAN CUOMO, Individually and as Administratrix for
the Estate of JOSEPH CUOMO, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 273 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Scheindlin's opinion and order dated
Nov. 1, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/DyRl7Efrom Leagle.com.

Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq., at Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., in New York,
for Plaintiffs.  Eric R.I. Cottle, Esq. -- eric.cottle@klgates.com
-- at K&L Gates LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Nix Pittsburgh Corning Plan Orders Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mount McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company
filed a Motion to Reconsider the Revised Memorandum Opinion
Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding
Confirmation of the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization
as Modified Through May 15, 2013, and the Asbestos Permanent
Channeling Injunction filed on May 24, 2013, and the Final Order
Confirming Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization as
Modified Through May 15, 2013, and, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec.
524(g), Issuing Asbestos Permanent Channeling Injunction, issued
in the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation.

In a memorandum opinion dated Nov. 12, 2013, Judge Thomas P.
Agresti of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania found that, except with regard to
clarification of the scope of the Injunction, Mt. McKinley has
failed to meet the exacting standard of its burden of proof as to
reconsideration of the RMO, the Confirmation Order, and the other
related orders.  The Court did not find that Mt. McKinley has met
its burden of showing a clear error of law or manifest injustice.
According to Judge Agresti, the arguments raised by Mt. McKinley
are better characterized as disagreements with the conclusions
reached by Bankruptcy Judge Fitzgerald in the RMO and the
Confirmation Order.

Accordingly, Judge Agresti granted Mt. McKinley's motion in one
limited part and denied in all other respects.

The case is IN RE: PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, Chapter 11,
Debtor relating to MT. McKINLEY INSURANCE: COMPANY and EVEREST
REINSURANCE COMPANY, Movants v. PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION,
Respondent, CASE NO. 00-22876-TPA (W.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Agresti's Decision is available at http://is.gd/qwxOEwfrom
Leagle.com.

James Restivo, Esq., -- jrestivo@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith
LLP, in Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, for the Debtor/Respondent.

Tony Draper, Esq. -- tdraper@wwmlawyers.com -- at Walker Wilcox
Matousek LLP, for Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest
Reinsurance Company.

Peter Lockwood, Esq. -- plockwood@capdale.com -- at Caplin &
Drysdale, for Asbestos Claimants' Committee.

Justin T. Romano, Esq., for Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.

Ed Harren, Esq., Representative of Future Claimants.

David Lampl, Esq. -- dlampl@leechtishman.com -- at Leech, Tishman,
Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, for the Committee of Unsecured Trade
Creditors.

David McConigle, Esq., for PPG Industries, Inc.

                    About Pittsburgh Corning

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 00-22876) on April 16, 2000,
to address numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.  At the time of the bankruptcy filing, there were
about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court
lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure
to Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos products and typically requesting
monetary damages in excess of $1 million per claim.

Judge Thomas Agresti handles the bankruptcy case.  Reed Smith LLP
serves as counsel and Deloitte &Touche LLP as accountants to the
Debtor.

The United States Trustee appointed a Committee of Unsecured Trade
Creditors on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the
retention of Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, as counsel to
the Committee of Unsecured Trade Creditors, and Pascarella &
Wiker, LLP, as financial advisor.

The U.S. Trustee also appointed a Committee of Asbestos Creditors
on April 28, 2000.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention
of these professionals by the Committee of Asbestos Creditors: (i)
Caplin&Drysdale, Chartered as Committee Counsel; (ii) Campbell &
Levine as local counsel; (iii) Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. as
special insurance counsel; (iv) Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., as
Asbestos-Related Bodily Injury Consultant; (v) defunct firm, L.
Tersigni Consulting, P.C. as financial advisor, and (vi) Professor
Elizabeth Warren, as a consultant to Caplin&Drysdale, Chartered.

On Feb. 16, 2001, the Court approved the appointment of Lawrence
Fitzpatrick as the Future Claimants' Representative.  The
Bankruptcy Court authorized the retention of Meyer, Unkovic&
Scott LLP as his counsel, Young Conaway Stargatt& Taylor, LLP, as
his special counsel, and Analysis, Research and Planning
Corporation as his claims consultant.

In 2003, a plan of reorganization was agreed to by various
parties-in-interest, but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order denying the confirmation of that plan, citing that
the plan was too broad in addressing independent asbestos claims
that were not associated with Pittsburgh Corning.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended
PCC Plan) -- which addressed the issues raised by the Court when
it denied confirmation of the 2003 Plan -- was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court.

As reported by the TCR on April 25, 2012, Pittsburgh Corning
Corp., a joint venture between Corning Inc. and PPG Industries
Inc., filed another amendment to its reorganization plan designed
to wrap up a Chapter 11 begun 12 years ago.

The Company's balance sheet at Sept. 30, 2012, showed
$29.41 billion in total assets, $7.52 billion in total liabilities
and $21.88 billion in total equity.



                             *********

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  * * *