CAR_Public/131129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 237

                             Headlines


ACHILLION PHARMA: Pomerantz Grossman Files Securities Class Action
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Suit vs. GDDF Dismissed With Leave to Amend
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Action Attorneys Want Merger Blocked
ANGELCARE MOVEMENT: Recalls Repair Movement & Sound Baby Monitors
BAILEY BOYS: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Fire Hazard

BED BATH: Faces "Beck" Suit in Pennsylvania Over Unpaid Overtime
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Dover" Case
C&S WHOLESALE: "Chan" Employment Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
CAREER EDUCATION: April 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHINA EXPERT: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CONAIR CORP: Cuisinart Unit Recalls Food Processors
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss IDEA Violation Suit
DUANE READE: Appeals Cert. Order in "Jacob" Employment Suit
DUOYUAN PRINTING: Court Dismisses 7 Defendants in "Schmitz" Suit
ELLIPTIGO INC: Recalls Elliptical Cycles Due to Fall Hazard

FIRST PREMIER: Faces Suit Over ACH Network Used to Collect Debts
FRESH INC: Obtains Final Court Approval of "Owen" Suit Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Copyright Class Action Over Digital Library Dismissed
HAWAII: Order Dismissing Suit vs. Circuit Judges Stands
HOFFBERGER MOVING: Court Extends Collective Action Opt-in Period

HULU LLC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Suit Alleging Privacy Claims
IBT PLAN: "Virtue" Suit Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations
INDIANA: Settles Hoosier Class Action for $30 Million
INTEVATION FOOD: Recalls Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo Products
JC PENNEY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages to Workers, Suit Says

JOE'S CRAB SHACK: Class Cert. Denial in "Martinez" Suit Reversed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Settle Hip Implant Suits for $2.5 Billion
JPMORGAN CHASE: Admission of Wrongdoing to Help Class Plaintiffs
KAISER PERMANENTE: Performed HIV Tests Without Consent, Suit Says
LAWRENCEBURG NH: Altered Records of Class' Work-Hours, Suit Says

MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Makes Absurd Claims for Underwear, Suit Says
MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Certain Mr. Sub Spicy Chicken Bites
MARYLAND: Class Certification Bid in "Cofield" Suit Denied
MENZIES AVIATION: Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Wright" Suit Affirmed
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE: Faces "Langcay" Suit Over Hawaii Property
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Meningitis Outbreak Probe Ongoing
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Premier No Comment on Moose Class Action Yet
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in N.Y.
SAN JOSE, CA: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in "Valdez" Suit

SC STATE PLASTERING: Sun City Stucco Class Action Faces Delay
SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Claim of Unconscionability Dismissed
STARBUCKS CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Tip Pool Class Action
STATE FARM: Loses Judgment Bid in "Baker" Breach of Contract Suit
STURM FOODS: Escapes Class Action Over Instant Coffee Packaging

SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Sidibe" Class Action
SYMMETRICOM INC: Being Sold to Microsemi for Too Little, Suit Says
TAX CONNECTION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Class Action
TCCD INT'L: Deceives Consumers of Buckpower Antler, Suit Claims
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Aggrenox

UMG RECORDINGS: Court Okays Bid to Compel Document Production
UMG RECORDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Burrow" Privacy Suit Denied
UNION FIRST: Plans to Settle Stellar One Shareholder Class Action
VERENGO INC: Violates TCPA, Class Suit Claims in California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls 2.6 Million Vehicles Worldwide

WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Loestrin 24 Fe
WEST MARINE: Court Cites Factors to Consider in Class Settlements
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Clarifies Arbitration Ruling
XPRESSPA-JDEE JV: Accord in "Kuznetsov" Suit Wins Final Court OK
YOUNG WORLD: Health Dep't Warns About Lead Levels in Bracelets


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Future Losses May Exceed NICO Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5.05MM Shares from AWI PI Trust Held in Treasury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburg Corning Plan Ruling May be Appealed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $555-Million Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Insurance Suit Remains Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 74,000 PI Claims Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Records $5MM Charge for Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $736.8MM in Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 59,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Continues to Defend Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $26-Mil. Aero Product Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling v. Titan in Improper Handling Suit Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dismissed as Defendant in "Tobin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. High Court Affirms Ruling in Eviction Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: In Camera Review Needed in "Sweredoski" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Court Affirms "Toney" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Appeal in "Lemberger" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Stay Request in "Brown" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Request in "Kestenbaum" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Partially Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: White House Rejects FACT Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Victims React to House Vote on H.R. 982
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Claims Are Distinct Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Carpenter's Trial Into Second Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFL-CIO, Victims Blast GOP Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Cleared From Lady Brooks Kindergarten
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Agency Gives Reassurance After Pay Out
ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Votes to Increase Fibro Claim Disclosures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron Settles Fibro-Related Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron, Texaco Dismissed From Exposure Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over Hospital Fibro Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Temporary Fibro Storage Approved by Jersey Agency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Glasgow Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drives Up N.C. Courthouse Repair Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Seeking Buyers for Fibro Claims Portfolio

ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Cloud to Remove Fibro in Tech High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Deadly Dust Found in Rock Island School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit vs. Chevron Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belleville OKs Fibro Removal at Downtown Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Suit Points to Abuse Bill Seeks to Fix

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan Registry Law Comes Into Effect
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tascot Carpet Factory Fibro Removal Questioned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EQC Policy Review Could Save Lives
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Halts Kaikohe Hotel Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Issued in Verge Collection Goods

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Disputes Findings of Fibro Insurer Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Discovered at Heanor Memorial Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lumberton Man Gets Over 3 Years in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Pushes for Controlled Ban on Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Treatment Cost Recovery Bill Voted into Law

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Lawyer Predicts Fibro Cancer Death Spike
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialists to Clear Toxic Dust From Tuam St.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warn of Fibro Exposure After Widow Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Research Takes a Hit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two New Suits Added to St. Clair County Docket

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Court Dismisses Crane Co. From Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Trial Court "Erroneously" Rewrote Verdict


                             *********


ACHILLION PHARMA: Pomerantz Grossman Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, and docketed under 13-cv-1479, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Achillion between April 21, 2012
and September 27, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Achillion securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 7, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Achillion is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops solutions for infectious diseases such as HIV, hepatitis,
and resistant bacterial infections.  The Company focuses its
research and development on products for the antiviral and
antibacterial markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including the safety and suitability of
its premier investigative drug for the treatment of hepatitis,
sovaprevir.  Defendants failed to inform investors that sovaprevir
in fact did not interact well with other drugs commonly
administered to treat hepatitis and/or HIV.  Specifically, the
Company misled investors to believe that even though patients in
the Company's clinical trials for sovaprevir had elevations in
liver enzymes, that these liver enzymes elevations were transient
and returned to baseline values and were attributable to non-drug-
related factors.  As a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 1, 2013, the Company disclosed that the FDA instituted a
clinical hold on "sovaprevir after elevations in liver enzymes
associated with significantly higher than anticipated exposures to
atazanavir and sovaprevir were noted in a Phase I healthy subject
drug-drug interaction study evaluating the effects of concomitant
administration of sovaprevir with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir."
As a result of this disclosure, Achillion shares declined $2.10
per share or over 25%, to close at $6.26 per share on July 2,
2013.

On September 27, 2013, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that the FDA had continued its clinical hold on
sovaprevir, after, "the FDA concluded that the removal of the
clinical hold is not warranted."  As a result of this disclosure,
Achillion shares declined $4.22 per share or over 58%, to close at
$3.02 per share on September 30, 2013.

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


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Suit vs. GDDF Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael E. Axtle, an inmate at the Glen Dyer Detention Facility
(GDDF) in Oakland, California, filed this pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of federal and state
pretrial detainees who were confined at GDDF from October 2009
through December 2012. Mr. Axtle moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis; for appointment of counsel; and to certify the
case as a class action. Also before the Court are Plaintiffs Mario
Ochoa Gonzalez and Anthony McGee's motions for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Mr. Axtle's request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.  However, his
request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice, as
well as his motion to certify the case as a class action.
Plaintiffs Gonzalez and McGee are dismissed as Plaintiffs from the
action without prejudice to filing their own individual pro se
actions, and the Clerk of the Court will return their completed in
forma pauperis applications, ruled the Court.

Accordingly, ISMAEL E. AXTLE, et al., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, et al., Defendants, NO. C 12-6404 YGR (PR), (N.D. Cal.)
is dismissed with leave to amend, Judge Rogers held.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/wsdbbBfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Action Attorneys Want Merger Blocked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Maxon, writing for Dallas Morning News, reports that
attorneys in a class action lawsuit asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Sean Lane on Nov. 21 to block the merger of American Airlines Inc.
and US Airways Inc. until a trial is held.

The filing sets up a potential showdown on Nov. 25 as American and
parent AMR Corp. go before Lane to ask that he let them exit
bankruptcy and merge with US Airways.

The plaintiffs in the private antitrust lawsuit want Lane to issue
a temporary restraining order to delay the merger until he can
hear the suit filed by San Francisco attorneys Joseph Alioto and
David Cook.

In a filing on Nov. 21, Judge Alioto defended the fact that the
plaintiffs waited so long to file their request for an injunction.

Judge Alioto argued that the U.S. Department of Justice settled
its antitrust case with American and US Airways only nine days
earlier, on Nov. 12.  Until then, he wrote, the private plaintiffs
had no basis to ask for a restraining order.

"The motion for a temporary restraining order or for a preliminary
injunction could not have been brought sooner and now that
irreparable harm is threatened by the prospect of a consummated
merger on short notice, plaintiffs are similarly requesting that
their motion for a temporary restraining order be heard on short
notice," the filing said.

American and US Airways announced their proposed merger Feb. 14
and were on track to close the merger around Sept. 1.  But the
Justice Department and a number of states filed a lawsuit Aug. 13
to stop the transaction.

The Nov. 12 settlement requires the new American Airlines Group to
give up gates at seven airports as well as takeoff and landing
rights at two of them.  U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
has given her preliminary approval to the settlement, which must
be published and undergo a 60-day comment period.

The airlines indicated that they don't expect the Alioto lawsuit
to delay their merger.

"The District Court has entered orders allowing us to close the
merger, so we can close once we obtain Bankruptcy Court and
certain other approvals," American and US Airways said in a joint
statement on Nov. 21.  "We expect to close the transaction next
month."


ANGELCARE MOVEMENT: Recalls Repair Movement & Sound Baby Monitors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Angelcare Monitors Inc., of Quebec, Canada, is announcing a
voluntary recall to provide cord covers for 600,000 Angelcare
Movement and Sound Monitors with Sensor Pads.  The cord attached
to the baby monitor's sensor pad is placed under the crib
mattress, which poses a strangulation risk if the child pulls the
cord into the crib and it becomes wrapped around the neck.

Angelcare and CPSC have received reports of two infant cord
strangulation deaths.  In November 2011, a 13-month-old female
died in San Diego, California, and, in August 2004, an 8-month-old
female died in Salem, Oregon.  In both fatalities, the cord from
the sensor pads was pulled into the crib by the infant.  In
addition, there have been two reports of infants who became
entangled in cords of Angelcare baby monitor models, which did not
result in fatalities.  In these incidents, it could not be
determined if the "sensor pad cord" or the "monitor cord" was
involved in the incident.

The recall involves the Movement and Sound Monitor manufactured by
Angelcare.  This design of baby monitor includes a unique sensor
pad placed inside the crib, under the mattress, to monitor
movement of the baby.  An electrical cord about 11 feet long is
permanently connected from the sensor pad to the nursery monitor
unit.  The hazard is created by a cord within reach of a baby
inside the crib.  The cord can be pulled into the crib and can
wrap around the child's neck.  The recall involves all versions of
Angelcare sensor monitors including model numbers:  AC1100, AC201,
AC300, AC401 AC601 and 49255 that did not include rigid cord
covers, offered in the remedy.  The model number is located on the
back of the nursery monitor unit. The monitors were manufactured
between 1999 and 2013.

Angelcare is providing consumers with a repair kit that includes
rigid protective cord covers through which the sensor pad cords
can be threaded, a new, permanent electric cord warning label
about the strangulation risk, and revised instructions.

The recalled baby monitors were sold at Babies R Us/Toys R Us,
Burlington Coat Factory, Meijer, Sears, Walmart, Amazon.com,
Target.com, Overstock.com, and nearly 70 small baby specialty
stores, from October 1999 through September 2013 for about $100 to
$300.

Consumers should immediately make sure cords are placed out of
reach of the child and contact Angelcare toll-free at (855)355-
2643 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's website at www.angelcarebaby.com to order the free
repair kit.


BAILEY BOYS: Recalls Children's Pajamas Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Bailey Boys, Inc., located in Saint Simons Island, Ga.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 Boy's Loungewear
Pants.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The pajama pants fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves The Bailey Boys' children's 100% cotton
loungewear pants, sold in sizes toddler 2 through boys' 12.  All
of the pajama pants have an elastic waistband with a white
drawstring and a garment label that states "J.Bailey clothing for
young men."  The pajama pants were sold in multiple prints
including Chad-Ball red baseball print, Chad-Base two colored red
baseball print, Chad-Boat light blue boat print, Chad Crab grey
crab print, Chad-Golf light gray print, Chad-Santa green Santa
Clause print, Chad-Sea grey blue seahorse print,  Chad-Turtle dark
blue turtle print and Chad-Turtle light blue turtle print.  The
website http://www.jbaileyclothing.comis printed on a hangtag
attached to the garment.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/G3AZUm

The recalled products were manufactured in El Salvador and sold at
children's boutiques nationwide from September 2012 through August
2013 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajama pants away
from children, and return them to The Bailey Boys, Inc. for a full
refund.


BED BATH: Faces "Beck" Suit in Pennsylvania Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Beck accuses Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. of cheating its
employees of overtime compensation.  He alleges that the Company
calculates overtime through an illegal "fluctuating workweek."

Mr. Beck is represented by:

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

The case is Beck v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 131100176, in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Dover" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond J. Dearie denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned RUSSEL DOVER, JONATHAN STONE, CODY RANK, and
SUZETTE PERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Defendant, NO.
12 CV 5567 (RJD) (MDG), (E.D. N.Y.).

Members of defendant British Airways' frequent flyer program
allege that the airline violated the program contract by imposing
impermissible fuel surcharges on rewards flights. More
specifically, the plaintiffs assert that the fuel surcharges
assessed by British Airways were not actually based on the cost of
fuel. British Airways moved to dismiss on the grounds that the
lawsuit (1) is preempted by federal regulations and (2) fails to
plausibly allege that the fuel surcharges were not based on the
cost of fuel.

"At this stage . . . this Court is not called upon to judge the
merits of the competing analyses. Assuming that plaintiffs'
factual allegations are true and drawing reasonable inferences in
their favor, as the Court must, they have stated a plausible claim
for breach of the Terms and Conditions," ruled Judge Dearie.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/wXvodBfrom Leagle.com.


C&S WHOLESALE: "Chan" Employment Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Jose Chan v. C&S
Wholesale Grocers Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06357, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Sacramento).  The case is now captioned Jose Chan v.
C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02140 (E.D.
Cal., October 16, 2013).

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of members of the general public
similarly situated to the Plaintiff and on behalf of aggrieved
employees of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander Russell Wheeler, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Jonathan Michael Lebe, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
                  jon@lfjpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq.
          Julie Grace Yap, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: brandonmckelvey@gmail.com
                  jyap@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (LOS ANGELES)
          One Century Plaza
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. McNaught, Esq.
          Emily Eschenbach Barker, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: amcnaught@seyfarth.com
                  ebarker@seyfarth.com


CAREER EDUCATION: April 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Motley Rice LLC and
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. regarding the Career Education Corporation
Class Action Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

THURMAN ROSS, by and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, GARY E.
McCULLOUGH and MICHAEL J. GRAHAM, Defendants.  No. 12-CV-00276.
Hon. John W. Darrah

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION FROM FEBRUARY 19, 2009,
THROUGH NOVEMBER 21, 2011, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a
hearing will be held on April 3, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable John W. Darrah, at the United States District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1203, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for the purpose of determining
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
Litigation for the principal amount of $27,500,000, plus accrued
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% and expenses not
to exceed $500,000 in connection with this Litigation should be
approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE COMMON STOCK OF CEC DURING
THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 19, 2009, TO NOVEMBER 21, 2011,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.  You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form by writing to CEC Securities Litigation,
c/o Heffler Claims Group, PO Box 58669, Philadelphia, PA 19102,
visiting the internet at http://www.CecSecuritiesLitigation.comor
calling the Claims Administrator at 855-887-3479.  Inquiries other
than requests for the above-referenced documents may also be made
to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

          James M. Hughes, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000

          Jeffrey A. Almeida
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A
          123 Justison St.
          Wilmington, DE  19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: jalmeida@gelaw.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Class Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim
and Release postmarked no later than March 22, 2014, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.  NOTE THAT NO CLAIMS LESS THAN
$10.00 WILL BE PROCESSED OR PAID.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CEC common stock and you
desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion postmarked no later than March 22, 2014, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Class who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement.

Any objection to the settlement must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
March 21, 2014:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

MOTLEY RICE LLC
James M. Hughes, Esq.
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
E-mail: jhughes@motleyrice.com

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Jeffrey A. Almeida, ESq.
123 Justison St.
Wilmington, DE  19801

Counsel for Defendant Career Education Corporation:

Jones Day
Lee Ann Russo, Esq.
77 W. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
E-mail: larusso@jonesday.com

Counsel for Gary E. McCullough:

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq.
525 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL  60661
E-mail: maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: November 22, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION


CHINA EXPERT: February 2014 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Nov. 22 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of China Expert
Technology, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF CHINA EXPERT TECHNOLOGY, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM
MARCH 31, 2006 THROUGH OCTOBER 1, 2007, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the above-
captioned action, that a hearing will be held on February 5, 2014
at 2:30 p.m. in courtroom 14D before the Honorable Alvin K.
Hellerstein, United States District Judge of the Southern District
of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 (the
"Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement between Plaintiffs and PKF Hong Kong,
Certified Public Accountants ("PKF HK"), PKF, Certified Public
Accountants, A Professional Corporation (sued herein as PKF New
York, Certified Public Accountants, A Professional Corporation)
("PKF NY"), and BDO Ltd., Certified Public Accountants ("BDO")
(collectively, the "Settling Defendants") consisting of the sum of
$4,200,000, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether
the application for an award of attorneys' fees of 25.0% of the
Settlement amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$755,000, and awards to each Class Representative not to exceed
$5,000 should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should
be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
China Expert Technology, Inc. during the period from March 31,
2006 through October 1, 2007, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain copies by writing to China Expert Securities Litigation,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator, 600 North
Jackson Street, Suite 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063, or going
to the website, http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than January 9, 2014,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a Request for
Exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in
the Notice, and postmarked no later than January 9, 2014.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to Class Representatives must
be received by the addresses below and made in the manner
indicated in the Notice by no later than January 9, 2014.

Court

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Laurence Rosen
ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue
34th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Defense Counsel

Thomas R. Manisero, Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
150 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: thomas.manisero@wilsonelser.com

James J. Farrell, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
355 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: james.farrell@lw.com

Neal R. Marder, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: NOVEMBER 15, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue
34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
212-686-1060
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CONAIR CORP: Cuisinart Unit Recalls Food Processors
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cuisinart, a division of Conair Corp., of Stamford, Conn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 Cuisinart 7-cup food
processors.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The reversible slicing/shredding disc can loosen when in use and
the blade can strike and break the food processor's cover.  The
cover's broken plastic pieces can hit consumers, posing a
laceration hazard.

Cuisinart has received one report of an incident involving a
consumer being struck on the cheek by a piece of the food
processor's plastic cover that cracked off while the reversible
slicing disc was being used.  No medical attention was sought.

The recall involves nine models of Cuisinart food processors
including, MFP-107, MFP-107BC, MFP-107BCWS, MFP-107BK, MFP-
107BKWS, MFP-107DCWS, MFP-107MGSLT, MFP-107MR or MFP-107WS.  The
model number is on the underside of the food processor base.  The
food processors were sold in white, black, brush chrome, metallic
gray, metallic red and silver colors.  They have a seven cup
plastic work bowl and three push buttons "On," "Pulse" and "Off."
Cuisinart is stamped on the front.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/I9PvOA

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Belk,
Best Buy, Dillards, J.C. Penney, Macy's, Sears, Williams-Sonoma
and other stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com and
Zappos.com from October 2012 through June 2013 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food
processors and contact Cuisinart to receive a free replacement lid
and reversible slicing/shredding disc.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss IDEA Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Court in the case captioned DL, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, NO. 05-1435,
(D.D.C.), are the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Reinstatement of Findings of Liability and Order Granting Relief;
the plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint; and
the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs -- residents of the District of Columbia and former
preschool-age children with various disabilities -- filed the
lawsuit in 2005, alleging that the District failed to provide them
a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Upon consideration of the motions, District Judge Royce C.
Lamberth grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification and Reinstatement of Findings of Liability
and Order Granting Relief; grants the plaintiffs' Motion to Amend
the First Amended Complaint; and denies the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

The Court certifies these subclasses:

SUBCLASS 1: All children, who, when they were or will be between
the ages of three and five, were or will be disabled, as defined
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), lived
or will live in, or were or will be wards of, the District of
Columbia, and were not or will not be identified and/or located
for the purposes of offering special education and related
services.

REPRESENTATIVES: Subclass 1 will be represented by named
                  plaintiffs D.L. and J.B.

SUBCLASS 2: All children, who, when they were or will be between
the ages of three and five, were or will be disabled, as defined
by the IDEA, lived or will live in, or were or will be wards of,
the District of Columbia, and did not or will not receive an
initial evaluation within 120 days of the date of referral for
the purposes of offering special education and related services.

REPRESENTATIVES: Subclass 2 shall be represented by named
                  plaintiffs T.F. and H.W.

SUBCLASS 3: All children, who, when they were or will be between
the ages of three and five, were or will be disabled, as defined
by the IDEA, lived or will live in, or were or will be wards of,
the District of Columbia, and did not or will not receive a
determination of eligibility within 120 days of the date of
referral for special education and related services.

REPRESENTATIVES: Subclass 3 shall be represented by named
                  plaintiffs D.L., H.W., and T.F.

SUBCLASS 4: All children with disabilities, as defined by the
IDEA, who lived in or will live in, or are or will be wards of,
the District of Columbia, and who participated or will
participate in early intervention programs under Part C of IDEA,
and who participated or will participate in preschool programs
under Part B, and who did not or will not have a "smooth and
effective" transition from Part C to Part B by the child's third
birthday. A transition shall be considered "smooth and effective"
if (1) the transition begins no less than 90 days prior to the
child's third birthday; (2) the child is provided with an IEP
listing both the type of placement and a specific location for
services by the child's third birthday; (3) there is no
disruption in services between Part C and Part B services; and
(4) Part B personnel are involved in the transition process.

REPRESENTATIVES: Subclass 4 shall be represented by named
                  plaintiffs X.Y. and T.L.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/a9Z5T1from Leagle.com.


DUANE READE: Appeals Cert. Order in "Jacob" Employment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. and Duane Reade, Inc., appealed from an
order related to the certification of a class in the lawsuit filed
by Mani Jacob, et al.  The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York previously granted, in part, and
denied, in part, Duane Reade's motion for reconsideration of the
certification order.

In his original complaint, Mr. Jacob alleged that Duane Reade
maintains a policy of depriving its assistant store managers,
including him, of wages they are entitled under the law by
misclassifying them as exempt executives.

The appellate case is Jacob, et al. v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No.
13-03873, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  The original case is Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00160, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com
                  atk@outtengolden.com
                  mscimone@outtengolden.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Craig R. Benson, Esq.
          Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Esq.
          Christine Hogan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600
          E-mail: cbenson@littler.com
                  sfuchs@littler.com
                  clhogan@littler.com


DUOYUAN PRINTING: Court Dismisses 7 Defendants in "Schmitz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN M. SCHMITZ and STEVEN R. DIEHL, Individually, On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively On Behalf of
Nominal Defendant DUOYUAN PRINTING, INC., Plaintiffs, v.
XIQING DIAO, WENHUA GUO, BAIYUN SUN, CHRISTOPHER PATRICK HOLBERT,
WILLIAM D. SUH, JAMES ZHANG, LIANJUN CAI, PUNAN XIE, SIK SIU KWAN,
and CHUI MAN LUNG EVERETT, Defendants, and DUOYUAN PRINTING, INC.,
Nominal Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-157-S, (D. Wyo.), is before the
Court on three motions to dismiss:

(1) Defendants Xiqing Diao, Wenhua Guo, Christopher Patrick
     Holbert, William D. Suh, Lianjun Cai, Punan Xie, and Sik Siu
     Kwan's "Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rule
     12(b)(2)";

(2) Defendants Xiqing Diao, Wenhua Guo, Christopher Patrick
     Holbert, William D. Suh, Lianjun Cai, and Punan Xie's "Motion
     to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and
     12(b)(6)"; and

(3) Defendant Sik Siu Kwan's "Motion to Dismiss the Complaint".

In a November 7, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/OpAUK0from
Leagle.com, District Judge Scott W. Skavdahl finds and concludes
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction but lacks personal
jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants.  Accordingly, the
Individual Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)" is denied. Individual Defendants'
demand to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is denied because the Court concludes that it
possesses subject matter jurisdiction.  The Individual Defendants'
demand to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted is denied as moot due to the Court's
lack of personal jurisdiction over Individual Defendants.

The Individual Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)" is granted.

Defendants Xiging Diao, Wenhua Quo, Christopher Patrick Holbert,
William D. Sufi, Lianjun Cai, and Punan Xie are dismissed from the
lawsuit.  Defendant Sik Siu Kwan's "Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint" is denied as moot because Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed her from the lawsuit, according to Judge Skavdahl.


ELLIPTIGO INC: Recalls Elliptical Cycles Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ElliptiGO Inc., of Solana Beach, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,000 in the U.S. and 200 in Canada ElliptiGO
outdoor elliptical cycles.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front fork on the ElliptiGO cycles can separate and the drive
arm axles can detach during use, posing a fall hazard.

ElliptiGO has received one report of the fork separating and ten
reports of the drive arm detaching.  One injury consisting of a
minor abrasions caused by a drive arm detaching has been reported.

The ElliptiGO 3C, 8C and 11R models are outdoor elliptical cycles
used by adults for exercise.  It is a scooter-like device that
combines an elliptical trainer with a bicycle.  The ElliptiGO
cycles have an aluminum frame, drive arms, two 20" spoked-wheels,
an internally geared hub, front and rear brakes and adjustable-
height steering column.  All cycles have the word "ElliptiGO"
along the outside of the frame.  The 3C and 8C model cycles have a
"C-Series" decal towards the rear of the frame and aluminum drive
arms.  The recalled 11R cycles are matte black with white markings
and the "11R" decal is found towards the rear of the frame.  The
serial numbers on all models are located on the frame in front of
the back wheel near where the kickstand attaches to the frame.
Serial number ranges for the recalled 3C and 8C models are from
11-010-001 through 13-028-102, and for the 11R model from 12-003-
069 through 12-020-035.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/A5iqos

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
ElliptiGO Inc. online at elliptigo.com and through various
specialty bicycle and specialty fitness retailers nationwide from
April 2011 through October 2013 for about $1,800 to $3,500.

Consumers should stop using recalled ElliptiGO cycles until they
have the fork upgraded with a safety retrofit and/or upgraded
replacement drive arm axles installed.  Consumers with affected
cycles can contact ElliptiGO online at www.elliptigo.com/safety to
locate the authorized repair center closest to them.


FIRST PREMIER: Faces Suit Over ACH Network Used to Collect Debts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel L. Gordon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. First Premier Bank, a South Dakota State-Chartered
Bank; Bay Cities Bank, a Florida State-Chartered Bank; Missouri
Bank & Trust; and National Bank of California, Case No. 2:13-cv-
06138-WJM-MF (D.N.J., October 16, 2013) seeks to recover damages
and other relief available at law on behalf of proposed class
members, who have been injured by the Defendants' alleged
participation in a scheme to access and utilize the Automated
Clearing House network to collect unlawful debts.

First Premier is a South Dakota state-chartered bank with main
offices in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  Bay Cities is a state-
chartered bank with main offices in Tampa, Florida.  MBT is a
Missouri state-chartered bank with main offices in Kansas City,
Missouri.  NBCal is national banking association incorporated in
California with main offices in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (856) 858-7012
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          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


FRESH INC: Obtains Final Court Approval of "Owen" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen V. Wilson grants final approval of the
settlement agreement resolving the case captioned TESSA OWEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. FRESH, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, NO.
CV 12-7971 SVW, (C.D. Cal.).

The Court confirms as final its preliminary certification for
settlement purposes, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, of a settlement class defined as:

"All persons who purchased merchandise with a credit card at a
Fresh, Inc. store in California during the Class Period who were
requested to and did provide personal identification information,
including but not limited to their street address, email address,
telephone number, and/or zip code, which was then recorded by a
Fresh, Inc. employee, excluding transactions where such personal
identification information was collected for shipping, delivery,
or servicing of the purchased merchandise or for special orders."

The Court confirms as final its preliminary certification of
Plaintiff Tessa Owen as the representative of the Settlement
Class; and its preliminary appointment of the law firm of Wucetich
& Korovilas LLP as class counsel.

The Court also grants Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorneys'
fees and costs and for an enhancement award to Plaintiff.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Final Order and
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/uQ7J9Ffrom Leagle.com.


GOOGLE INC: Copyright Class Action Over Digital Library Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Info reports that on November 14, 2013, a class-action
lawsuit against Google concerning the company's unapproved
scanning and uploading of copyright materials was dismissed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
The judge ruled that Google's use of copyrighted material was a
"beneficial service" in that it gave users only "snippets" of
information, which led to awareness of and access to many works.

The case primarily concerned Google Books Library Project, which
scans collections of major research libraries and makes them
searchable.  With its advanced scanning techniques, it provides
participating libraries with digital copies of books as long as a
physical copy is actually in the library.  Google admitted that
copyright owners of the books did not give consent and they did
not receive any compensation.  However, Google claimed the entire
operation was legal under the "fair use" clause, contained in
Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.  It states that there is no
such infringement if the digital copies are to be used to benefit
research or education.

In dismissing the lawsuit, the court found Google's service to be
"transformative."  It took several factors into account in its
judgment, including a lack of "for profit" motive and the
proportional amount of material taken from each book.

Google's "fair use" defense has also served it well on other
occasions.  Copyright infringement has been charged against Google
on several occasions.  For instance, this lawsuit was filed in
July 2005, along with two others that year.  Agence-France-Presse
(AFP opened a lawsuit, claiming that Google had taken material
illegally from its website.  The Association of American
Publishers also filed against Google for scanning documents to be
used with its Library Project.  Google was successful in both
defenses.  In 2012, Google was also successful in another case,
using the "fair use" exception.


HAWAII: Order Dismissing Suit vs. Circuit Judges Stands
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in JERRY AGBANNAOAG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THE
HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE
STATE OF HAWAII, AS INDIVIDUALS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES, ET AL., Defendants, CIV. NO. 13-00205 BMK, (D. Haw.),
seek reconsideration of the Court's order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss. The Court had dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint
with prejudice on grounds of judicial immunity and Younger
abstention.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Court committed
manifest error in granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Barry M. Jurren denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration saying it does not "set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
prior decision."  Plaintiffs do not present arguments that justify
the "extraordinary remedy" of reversing its Order dated
September 20, 2013, he said.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/H1onqrfrom Leagle.com.


HOFFBERGER MOVING: Court Extends Collective Action Opt-in Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT JONES, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HOFFBERGER MOVING SERVICES
LLC, et al. Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-CV-0535-JKB, (D. Md.)
was filed on February 19, 2013, (1) as a putative collective
action for failing to pay wages due under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. 206, et seq., and (2) as a putative class action
for violations of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act
and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.  Presently before the Court is
a three-count complaint, in which Plaintiffs seek to bring their
claims under the FLSA (Count III) as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

On July 23, 2013, the Court allowed the case to proceed as a
collective action.  On July 30, 2013, it granted Plaintiffs'
unopposed request to extend the deadline for sending opt-in
notices to putative collective action members until August 8,
2013.  On August 27, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed
request to extend the deadline to either accept or reject
Defendants' offer of judgment until September 11, 2013.  As of
November 6, 2013, 39 plaintiffs -- including Plaintiffs Jones,
Jones, McFadden, and Green -- have opted-in to the collective
action.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for extension
of time and other relief.

District Judge James K. Bredar granted in part and denied in part,
the Plaintiffs' motion saying the Court will allow Plaintiffs five
business days from the date of the accompanying order to send to
all current HMS employees who are putative collective action
members an additional notice of collective action and a letter
explaining their rights as they relate to the collective action.
In addition, the Court will extend the collective action opt-in
period for an additional twenty-one days from the date of the
accompanying order.

"The Court cannot, however, extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to
accept Defendants' offer of judgment," ruled Judge Bredar.  "The
offer of judgment therefore stands unmodified as to the twenty-
five individuals named in Exhibit A of the stipulated and agreed
partial judgment. That offer expired on September 11, 2013, as
mutually agreed by the parties."

Further, the Court also noted that the additional offer made in
Defendants' submission, styled "response to motion for extension
of time and other relief and memorandum of law," is a legal
nullity. "Indeed, that offer was conditional on the court denying
Plaintiffs' request to extend the collective action opt-in
deadline. Given that the Court is ordering such an extension, that
offer is void," Judge Bredar said.

The Court advised both parties to take all necessary steps and
precautions to ensure that all future communications with members
of the putative collective action are "neutral, balanced, and
complete."  Should either party fail to meet this standard, the
Court will take appropriate measures, Judge Bredar concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Memorandu is
available at http://is.gd/TrTsvOfrom Leagle.com.


HULU LLC: Seeks Summary Judgment in Suit Alleging Privacy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick McCann reports that Hulu
asked a federal judge to take its side in the class action
alleging illegal disclosure of viewer data to Facebook and a
business-analytics service.

Joseph Garvey is the lead plaintiff in the February 2012 lawsuit
claiming that Hulu "repurposed" its browser cache so marketing-
analysis services could store users' private data.

While U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler gutted the case last
June, she deferred ruling on the alleged violation of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after a
Washington, D.C., newspaper published the video-rental history of
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2014.

Hulu had said the class could not prove injury to establish
standing, since that would require a recitation of watched videos,
and how third parties received this information.

The VPPA permits disclosure to third parties as an "ordinary
course of business," according to Hulu's brief by O'Melveny &
Myers attorney Randall Edwards.  It disputes the class's claims
that it used the analytics service comScore and Facebook "like"
buttons to store user data.

In a motion for summary judgment, the video site argued that,
unlike in the Bork case, Hulu did not identify its users by name.
Hulu filed the motion under seal in early October, and the San
Francisco court posted a redacted document on Oct. 31.

"Over the past two years, plaintiffs have continuously changed
their theories of disclosure, ultimately narrowing them to those
presented in their class certification motion: one related to
comScore and the other related to Facebook," attorney Robert M.
Schwartz wrote in the motion.

"But neither theory involves any knowing disclosure by Hulu of the
actual name of a customer, linked to a video title."

With regard to the Facebook "like" button, Hulu claimed there is
no evidence that Facebook actually gathered the actual name of
users from Hulu or linked identifiers to people's names or the
titles of videos they watched.

For comScore, Hulu said there is no evidence that the company
"reverse engineered" Hulu users anonymous user IDs to find users
names.

"The VPPA does not impose liability on someone who discloses non-
identifying information that a third party subsequently
manipulates," attorney Schwartz wrote.

"Hulu takes its users' privacy rights seriously and protects them
vigorously.  Under any reasonable application of the VPPA, the
court can and should dispose of this case now."  Sustaining the
VPPA claim requires the class to prove that Hulu "knowingly
disclosed personal identifying information identifying a
particular person and the particular video that person requested
or watched," Schwartz wrote (italics in original).

The class cannot prove that Hulu disclosed both these elements,
the attorney said.

"As a factual matter, plaintiffs' claim requires the court to
assume that third parties manipulated the non-identifying user
information that Hulu had disclosed," he wrote.  "Ultimately,
there is no evidence to support their theories."

A jury trial is scheduled for July 28, 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Christopher Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          Grace E. Tersigni, Esq.
          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 920-3081
          E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com
                  gtersigni@kamberlaw.com
                  skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 920-3081
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          141 North Street
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (202) 285-2560
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq.
          Brian Russell Strange, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com
                  lacounsel@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, PC
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
          Katherine Robison, Esq.
          Matthew David Powers, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: REdwards@omm.com
                  krobison@omm.com
                  mpowers@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert Michael Schwartz, Esq.
          Brian J. Finkelstein, Esq.
          Steven Matthew Dunst, Esq.
          Victor Jih, Esq.
          O'MELVENY MYERS LLP
          1999 Ave of the Stars, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 246-6835
          E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com
                  brianfinkelstein@omm.com
                  sdunst@omm.com
                  vjih@omm.com

The case is In Re Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03764-
LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).


IBT PLAN: "Virtue" Suit Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
teamster who belongs to at least four union-affiliated pension
plans waited too long to sue his way into a fifth, a federal judge
ruled.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg noted November 4, 2013, that
Daniel Virtue had been "something of a collector" when the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Retirement and Family
Protection Plan rejected him in 2009.

"Over the course of his employment with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, with his local union, and as a rank-and-
file Teamster, he has collected memberships in at least four
Teamsters-affiliated pension plans. . . .  Unfortunately for
Virtue, his quest to assemble a complete portfolio of IBT pension
plans ends here," the 13-page decision states.

The plan, formerly called the IBT Retirement and Family Protection
Plan, attributed its rejection of Virtue to its 2001 amendment of
regulations that excluded part-time "stipend employees" hired
after April 1, 1999.

Prior to the change, IBT employees were eligible for benefits
under the plan so long as they worked at least 1,000 hours over a
12-month period.

Between October 2000 and January 2007, Virtue worked in a variety
of part-time positions for the IBT in addition to local union
duties.  The former union local president claimed that he had
already met the 1,000-hour requirement before the amendment went
into effect.

But the pension plan pointed to a notice it mailed Virtue and
other union employees that informed them of their status as
stipend employees and said they were only eligible to receive
travel-accident insurance.

The plan also noted that when Virtue was going through a divorce
in 2006, his wife's attorney requested information regarding all
the benefits to which he was entitled.  Virtue did not object to
his being classified as a part-time, stipend employee at that
time, the plan said.

Virtue nevertheless then sought benefits in 2009, and later filed
an administrative appeal over them.  In both cases, Virtue's
pursuit of the benefits was denied.  He sued the plan in April
2012, claiming that the plan had violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act in 2001 by improperly eliminating his rights
to benefits without adequate notice.

The plan successfully fought off class certification and then
moved for summary judgment.

It said Virtue's claim was time-barred because it had clearly
repudiated his right to plan benefits on two separate occasions:
in the letters sent to stipend employees, informing them of the
amended policy, and during his divorce proceedings.

Boasberg agreed Monday, November 4, 2013, noting that, "at the
very least, the notice Virtue received in April 2006 qualified as
a clear repudiation, which would mean that the statute of
limitations expired no later than April 2009."

"The 2006 correspondence is crystal clear, and it certainly made
the repudiation of any claim of benefits 'known to the plan
beneficiary,'" Boasberg added.

Virtue failed to show that the plan waived its statute-of-
limitations defense by reconsidering his eligibility for benefits
in 2009, according to the ruling

"To begin with, courts in this circuit have been 'loath to hold
that mere investigation' of a plaintiff's complaint or claim
'without more constitutes a binding waiver of any agency's right
to raise the timeliness issue,'" Boasberg wrote.

He added that it "would be a bridge too far" to say that the mere
response to Virtue's appeals waived the statute-of-limitations
defense.

Virtue also failed to show that the plan failed to clearly and
consistently repudiate his claim to benefits, the ruling states.

"In light of the 2006 letter . . . the court must find that Virtue
was or should have been aware of the plan's repudiation of his
right to benefits no later than April 2006," Boasberg wrote.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Semo, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stein, Esq.
          SEMO LAW GROUP
          1800 M Street, NW, Suite 730 S
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 833-7366
          Facsimile: (202) 478-0919
          E-mail: joesemo@joesemo.com
                  kstein@semolawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Charles Bailey, Esq.
          Jason H. Ehrenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY & EHRENBERG PLLC
          1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 204
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 331-1331
          Facsimile: (202) 318-7071
          E-mail: jcb@becounsel.com
                  jhe@becounsel.com
                  jbcohen@becounsel.com

The case is Virtue v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Retirement and Family Protection Plan, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-
00516-JEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC).


INDIANA: Settles Hoosier Class Action for $30 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that the $30
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles includes refunds of $3 to $15 for a majority of
Hoosier motorists -- and a $6 million payday for the Indianapolis
law firm that uncovered the agency's overcharges.

The settlement, approved earlier this month by Marion Superior
Court Judge Heather Welch, also includes three refund options for
the estimated 4.5 million drivers who, from March 7, 2007, to
June 27, were charged more than what state law allows when they
obtained or renewed driver's licenses.

Only drivers who were under the age of 75 when they obtained or
renewed licenses during that time frame are eligible for the
refunds.  Drivers 75 and older at the time were not overcharged.

Refunds will be provided in the form of credits on future
transactions or checks, which can be requested through a link on
the BMV website or by calling (800) 248-0084.

Any remaining drivers who are due a refund, but have not collected
it via a transaction or check request, will be sent a check when a
final accounting is conducted in three years.

"We will abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement," BMV
spokesman Josh Gillespie said.

The BMV said it erred in calculating license fees.  Money to cover
the refunds will come from funds the agency has on hand.

The settlement resolved a lawsuit filed in March by Irwin B. Levin
of the Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad on behalf of
Tammy Raab.  The suit was filed in Marion Superior Court after
research by the law firm revealed the BMV was charging more than
allowed under Indiana law when Hoosiers obtained or renewed
driver's licenses.

Judge Welch granted the case class-action status, naming Cohen &
Malad as counsel for the class, and a settlement was negotiated
this fall.  The deal was finalized after a hearing Nov. 12.

Mr. Levin said his firm's fee in the case was substantially lower
than fees Cohen & Malad typically collects in class-action cases.
The $6 million represents about 21 percent of the settlement, he
said, while a fee of about 33 percent is closer to the norm.

The firm's fee also takes nothing away from victims, who will be
reimbursed 100 percent of the amount they were overcharged.

"Of all the cases we've done," Mr. Levin said, "this is the
smallest percentage" of a settlement the firm has received.

And, Mr. Levin said, the law firm's work probably saved Hoosiers
millions of dollars more.

"This may be the most unique class-action case in Indiana,"
Mr. Levin said.  "That's because these types of lawsuits are
usually brought when it is apparent something is wrong.  But in
this case, the state was unaware of the problem until we brought
it to their attention."

If the overcharges had not been uncovered, Mr. Levin said, it is
likely that Hoosiers would have continued to pay more than the law
allowed for driver's licenses.  He said one expert estimate
submitted as part of the case indicated the overcharges could have
run as high as an additional $10 million over the next year.

The BMV admitted in June that it had been overcharging drivers and
reduced license fees at that time.

The lawsuit also prompted Gov. Mike Pence to order an independent
review of other BMV charges.  That examination revealed the agency
had been overcharging for some additional services while
undercharging for others, although the agency did not release a
financial accounting for those errors.

The BMV will reimburse those other overcharges, which were not
subject to the class-action lawsuit settlement, only through
discounts on future transactions.  However, the agency will not
make any effort to recoup fees lost through undercharges.

Mr. Levin said the case has generated more than cash for the law
firm.

"We've received more 'thank-yous' from people on the street in
this case than any other case I've done," he said.  "People
recognize somebody has to hold government accountable, and we are
proud to have done that."


INTEVATION FOOD: Recalls Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Intevation Food Group, LLC, a Plover, Wis., establishment, is
recalling approximately 156,924 pounds of frozen chicken
fettuccine alfredo products because of misbranding and an
undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
contain egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the
product label.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 18-oz. trays of "OMAHA STEAKS, 2367 Chicken Fettuccine
      Alfredo," bearing the establishment number "P-39949" inside
      the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were packaged and produced on various dates from
May 11, 2012, through  October 8, 2013, and were shipped to
distributors in Nebraska for further distribution through retail
and internet/catalog sales.  The products may also be identified
by the case codes 9502367 or 9802367.

The problem was discovered by the company during an internal label
review.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

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.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-
public-health-alerts/current-recalls-and-alerts.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Customer Care Hotline at (877) 789-7117.

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.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
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.


JC PENNEY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages to Workers, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that J.C. Penney Co. and its
distributor JCP Logistics stiff workers for overtime, a class
action claims in Orange County Court.


JOE'S CRAB SHACK: Class Cert. Denial in "Martinez" Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In MARTINEZ v. JOE'S CRAB SHACK HOLDINGS, the trial court, after
wrestling with the factual issues raised by Defendants Crab
Addison, Inc., Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. and Landry's
Restaurants, Inc., denied class certification to a putative class
consisting of managerial employees allegedly misclassified as
exempt on the grounds the plaintiffs had failed to establish (a)
their claims are typical of the class, (b) they can adequately
represent the class, or (c) common questions predominate the class
claims such that a class action is the superior means of resolving
the litigation.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, however, reversed the ruling and remanded the case for
reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Benton v.
Telecom Network Specialists, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 701
(Benton).

Among other things, Presiding Judge Perluss held that:

* the class is adequately represented by plaintiffs, whose claims
   are typical of the class;

* the trial court failed to assess means by which plaintiffs'
   theory of recovery could be proved through resolution of common
   questions of fact and law; and

* the trial court must reconsider whether class certification
   provides a superior method of resolving plaintiffs' claim.

Plaintiffs are to recover their costs on appeal, Judge Perluss
added.

The case is ROBERTO MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
JOE'S CRAB SHACK HOLDINGS et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO.
B242807.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 12, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/uxpjfYfrom Leagle.com.

Righetti Glugoski, Matthew Righetti and John Glugoski, for
Plaintiffs and Appellants, Roberto Martinez, Lisa Saldana, Chanel
Rankin-Stephens and Craig Eriksen.

Epstein Becker & Green, Michael S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- and
Ted A. Gehring -- tgehring@ebglaw.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents Crab Addison, Inc. and Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.

Counsel for Defendant and Respondent Landry's Restaurants, Inc.,
are Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Charles F. Barker --
cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- and:

   Mary E. Lynch, Esq.
   Law Offices of Mary E. Lynch
   18301 Von Karman, Suite 1060
   Irvine, CA 92612
   Tel: (949) 229-5529
   Fax: (949) 231-5810


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Settle Hip Implant Suits for $2.5 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone and John Seewer, writing for The Associated Press,
report that Johnson & Johnson said late on Nov. 19 that it will
pay $2.5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits brought by hip
replacement patients who accuse the company of selling faulty
implants that led to injuries and additional surgeries.

The agreement presented in U.S. District Court in Toledo, Ohio, is
one of the largest for the medical device industry.  It resolves
an estimated 8,000 cases of patients who had to have the company's
metal ball-and-socket hip implant removed or replaced.  J&J pulled
the implant from the market in 2010 after data showed it failed
sooner than older implants.

The deal provides roughly $250,000 per patient and covers those
who had their implants removed or replaced before Aug. 31 this
year.  The company expects to make most of the payments to
patients in 2014.

J&J's DePuy unit said in a statement that the deal does not cover
all lawsuits pending against the company.

"DePuy will continue to defend against remaining claims and
believes its actions related to the ASR Hip System have been
appropriate and responsible," the company said.

The artificial hip, known as the Articular Surface Replacement, or
ASR, was sold for eight years to some 35,000 people in the U.S.
and more than 90,000 people worldwide.  J&J stopped making the
product in 2009 and recalled it the next year.

However, internal J&J documents unsealed in the case suggest that
company officials were aware of problems with the device at least
as far back as 2008.

Also, according to a deposition from a J&J official, a 2011
company review of a patient registry concluded that more than one-
third of the implants were expected to fail within five years of
their implantation.  Orthopedic hips are generally supposed to
last at least 10 to 20 years.

The company's lawyers have denied that J&J acted improperly.

For decades nearly all orthopedic hips were coated with plastic or
ceramic.  But a decade ago many surgeons began to favor all-metal
implants based on laboratory tests suggesting the devices would be
more resistant to wear and reduce the chances of dislocation.

But recent data from patient registries show the devices actually
fail at a higher rate than older implants.  Last year a panel of
government advisers said there are few, if any, cases where metal-
on-metal hip implants should be recommended.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Admission of Wrongdoing to Help Class Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bobelian, writing for Forbes, reports that JPMorgan's
$13 billion settlement with the Department of Justice and other
government entities on Nov. 19 represented a significant
achievement for the government.  By amounting to two-thirds of the
bank's profits in 2012, the record-breaking settlement far
exceeded the smaller figures critics have denounced as the simple
cost of doing business for companies that generate billions in
annual profits.

Government officials managed to extract something other than
money, however.  In an 11-page document associated with the
settlement, JPMorgan acknowledged missteps and wrongdoing.  The
question is, outside of appeasing Wall Street's critics and
providing a feel-good moment for government regulators and the
public at large, will JPMorgan's admissions amount to anything
meaningful?

Ever since Judge Jed S. Rakoff admonished the Securities and
Exchange Commission for entering into a settlement with Citigroup
without extracting any admission of wrongdoing from the bank in
2011, the issue of culpability has taken on new importance in the
government's enforcement actions against Wall Street.

In a way, the issue caught the SEC off-guard.  Prior to 2010,
explained Lorin Reisner, Chief of the Criminal Division at the
U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, at a recent securities
regulation conference hosted by Columbia University Law School,
many at the SEC saw an admission of wrongdoing as "alien" to the
institution's approach to financial settlements.

Claiming that it lacked the resources to take every case to trial
and eager to shield its decision-making from the scrutiny of
federal judges, the SEC defended what came to be known as the
"neither admit or deny" policy at first.  As other judges began to
question the practice, however, the agency modified its stance.
When Mary Jo White took over as the commission's chairwoman
earlier this year, she vowed to extract more admissions of
wrongdoing as part of her aggressive posture towards enforcement.
Since then, the commission managed to extract such admissions in
settlements with hedge fund titan Philip Falcone and JPMorgan over
the bank's handling of the "London Whale" trading imbroglio in
which it lost $6 billion last year.

Though the Nov. 19 $13 billion settlement did not directly involve
the SEC, the criticism aimed at the agency overshadowed the
government's dealings with the bank.  That's why Associate
Attorney General Tony West emphasized JPMorgan's acknowledgements
in announcing the deal.

As part of the settlement, JPMorgan admitted to marketing and
selling loans it knew did not conform to underwriting guidelines
in the packages of mortgage-backed securities the bank sold to
investors.  The Statement of Facts listing JPMorgan's misdeeds
made references to several instances in which mortgages were sold
under these conditions.

Part of the reason companies have resisted such acknowledgements
in the past is because of the value they provide to adversaries in
corresponding securities class action lawsuits.  Such lawsuits,
brought on behalf of injured shareholders, often make allegations
that mirror the government's accusations against a company. In
many instances, these lawsuits piggyback on the government's
findings.

This symbiotic relationship emerged when Congress made it more
difficult for private parties to bring class actions through the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The 1995 law required
plaintiffs to prove fraud early on in a lawsuit before they could
gather evidence of wrongdoing from the defendant institutions.
The legislative enactment led to many victories for corporate
defendants or prevented plaintiffs from filing cases in the first
place.  In order to overcome these legal obstacles, plaintiffs
often relied upon the wrongdoing uncovered by government
investigators.

Since admissions of wrongdoing in a parallel government case would
make it easier for plaintiffs to overcome this procedural hurdle,
corporations negotiating with the SEC refused to make such
admissions in their settlements with the government.

But even when corporations acknowledge their misdeeds, such
admissions don't always provide a full-proof weapon for class
action plaintiffs.  One key is for admissions to cover the
specific allegations made by the private plaintiffs.  A general
admission of wrongdoing or acknowledgements in similar but
ultimately unrelated set of facts will not help JPMorgan's legal
adversaries.

According to Max Berger, a leading class action lawyer who spoke
alongside Ms. Reisner at the Columbia Law School conference, such
incongruity took place in the Falcone case.  The admissions made
by Mr. Falcone didn't help private plaintiffs because the cases
relied on disparate facts.  In other instances, however, such
admissions are helpful.

It's unclear what impact JPMorgan's admissions will have on
corresponding class action claims.  They might force JPMorgan to
dole out billions of additional dollars to aggrieved plaintiffs or
they might fizzle away as part of an ephemeral feel-good moment
for government officials and Wall Street critics.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Performed HIV Tests Without Consent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Kaiser intentionally performed HIV tests on thousands of
health plan members without their consent, alleges a class action
complaint filed in Clark County Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Mary E. Benton claims Kaiser instituted a new
protocol in April 2013 that required members between 50 and 65 to
receive Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) screening as part of
their routine care.

The tests were conducted on 6,500 members, including Benton,
without notification or consent between April 11 and May 5,
according to the complaint. Benton says the members had no idea
they were being tested for the virus and, therefore, were never
presented with the opportunity to "opt out" of testing.

They were also never provided information about what an HIV test
is and the potential risks associated with it.

Benton said she didn't know what had happened until May 13, when
she received a letter dated April 26, explaining she had been
tested.

Benton's "autonomy, privacy and confidentiality were violated by
defendants and she has experienced a loss of trust in Kaiser
defendants as a result of this unauthorized and unconsented HIV
testing," according to the complaint.

R. Travis Jameson, attorney for the plaintiff, told Courthouse
News that discovery has yet to be conducted and that he could only
speculate on why Kaiser implemented its policy, but that letters
issued to his clients indicate the policy was introduced in
conjunction with the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (PSTF).

According to its Web site, the PSTF is an independent panel of
non-federal experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine
comprised of a collection of physicians, nurses and health
behavior specialists.  The group, in part, makes "recommendations
that are relevant to implementing the Affordable Care Act," or
Obamacare.

"The task force's claim is that through the [Centers for Disease
Control], they want to identify people who may be HIV positive,
but are unaware.  We have concerns about that because I was
contacted today about another client who was tested without
consent, and this is after an oversight period with Kaiser took
place.  My clients include the wife of a Senator to an individual
that counsels high-risk individuals, a local nurse to a real
estate professional, so a wide cross-section of the community is
being tested," Jameson told Courthouse News.

He added that not only does the unauthorized testing create a
feeling of resentment against Kaiser, but disregards patients'
rights.

"The state takes very seriously the fundamental rights of
patients, their right to autonomy.  It's another situation where
someone thinks they know better what is good for you, than you do.
The sense is, you haven't been violated if you don't know you have
been violated," Jameson said.

Plaintiffs are suing for violation of state law and seek a
determination that defendants are financially responsible for
notifying all class members of its unlawful conduct.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Stritmatter, Esq.
          Brad Moore, Esq.
          R. Travis Jameson, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO
          200 Second Avenue West
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448-1777
          Facsimile: (206) 728-2131
          E-mail: pauls@stritmatter.com
                  brad@stritmatter.com

The case is Benton, Mary E. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-2-03746-1, in the Washington Superior Court
for Clark County.


LAWRENCEBURG NH: Altered Records of Class' Work-Hours, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Ann Lynch, Larry D. Schultz, and Britany Lanier, on behalf
of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lawrenceburg NH
Operations, LLC d/b/a Countryside Healthcare and Rehabilitation,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00129 (M.D. Tenn., October 16, 2013) alleges that
Countryside has routinely altered its hourly-paid employees' time
clock punch records to avoid paying its hourly-paid employees for
all time worked.

Lawrenceburg NH Operations, LLC d/b/a Countryside Healthcare and
Rehabilitation is a Tennessee corporation with its principal
office in Chesnee, South Carolina.  Countryside operates a
facility located in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, where its employees
care for individuals in need of daily healthcare assistance, most
of whom are elderly.  This complaint only concerns employees at
this Lawrenceburg facility.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON LLC
          217 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE &SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles J. Mataya, Esq.
          Matthew C. Lonergan, Esq.
          John P. Rodgers, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE)
          1600 Division Street, Suite 700
          Nashville, TN 37203-0025
          Telephone: (615) 244-2582
          E-mail: cmataya@babc.com
                  mlonergan@babc.com
                  jrodgers@babc.com


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Makes Absurd Claims for Underwear, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maidenform makes absurd claims for its underwear, including that
its "embedded microcapsules containing caffeine . . . promote fat
destruction," a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Christina Caramore sued Maidenform Brands and
Wacoal America, for their "shapewear," underwear they sell "for
women who want a flawless, bulge-free silhouette," according to
the lawsuit.

Caramore says the defendants claim "the fabric is constructed with
minerals and nutrients that are absorbed by the skin and can
permanently change women's body shape and skin tone.  For example,
defendant Wacoal claims that that the shapewear fabric . . . 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.'"

The lawsuit continues: "The Federal Trade Commission calls such
claims 'about as credible as a note from the Tooth Fairy.'"

The "shapewear fabric" is made by the Spanish company Nurel,
according to the lawsuit, which does not name Nurel as a
defendant.

"Shapewear" accounts for about $1 billion of the U.S. weight-loss
industry's annual $20 billion revenue, according to the complaint.
It claims that Maidenform and Wacola "prey upon women's
insecurities about their body images" and that "sales of
'nutrient-infused' textiles or 'cosmeto-textiles' are estimated at
more than $600 million annually."

The defendants charge as much as 50 percent more for their snake-
oil fabrics, the class claims, "despite the fact that the
purported nutrients cannot permanently cure cellulite, destroy
fat, or cause weight loss.  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 plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, and
statutory, treble damages and punitive damages for consumer fraud,
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andres F. Alonso, Esq.
          ALONSO KRANGLE LLP
          445 Broad Hollow Rd., Suite 205
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 350-5555
          Facsimile: (516) 350-5554
          E-mail: AAlonso@alonsokrangle.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W Lake St., Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

The case is Caramore, et al. v. Maidenform Brands, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-06122-LDW-GRB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Certain Mr. Sub Spicy Chicken Bites
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other, Microbiological
                          - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Maple Leaf Consumer Foods
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan,
                          Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8449

Affected products: 10 kg. Mr. Sub Spicy Chicken Bites - Fully
Cooked, Breaded Seasoned Chicken Breast Pieces with product codes
indicating 2013-08-21, 2013-08-22, 2013-08-23, 2013-09-04, 2013-
09-20


MARYLAND: Class Certification Bid in "Cofield" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2013, the court received for filing a petition
filed under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, from a
petitioner, who is currently confined at the Eastern Correctional
Institution.  The Petitioner seeks to bring the action captioned
KEENAN K. COFIELD, #405938 v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION MARYLAND
DOC SECRETARY GARY D. MAYNARD DAVID R. BLUMBURG, CHAIRMAN,
MARYLAND PAROLE COMM. JOHN DOE JANEDOE, CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-13-
3105, (D. Md.), on behalf of himself and all other inmates in like
circumstances.

In his complaint, the Petitioner claims inmates receive
notifications from the Maryland Parole Commission that contain
"false, incorrect, misleading and inaccurate information"
regarding their eligibility for a parole hearing.  It appears that
the petitioner was served with notice that he was eligible for a
parole hearing in April of 2013, but when he went before the
Commission that April, the hearing officer said that he could not
recommend parole because petitioner had not yet served the minimum
one-quarter of his ten-year sentence. Petitioner claims the
hearing officer recommended a rehearing (parole setoff) for April
of 2014, which the Commission adopted.

The Petitioner alleges the Commission engages in "arbitrary and
capricious [behavior] when they, in violation of its own
guidelines, policy, regulations, statutes and laws" give inmates
notice that they are eligible for a parole hearing and then deny
them parole because they do not meet the minimum guidelines for
scheduling a hearing. The Petitioner seeks to enjoin the
Commission from holding hearings before an inmate's presumptive
parole hearing eligibility date, declare his parole hearing
decision invalid and violative of his liberty interests, and void
the parole rehearing determination.

District Judge Catherine C. Blake ruled that the Petitioner's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, will be granted.
However, his petition will be dismissed without requiring service
on respondents.  Judge Blake further ruled that class
certification will be denied because self-represented litigants
are not favored as representative parties in a class action, and
they generally cannot represent and protect the interests of the
class fairly and adequately.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/KK2uOufrom Leagle.com.


MENZIES AVIATION: Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Wright" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In SARA WRIGHT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MENZIES AVIATION, INC.
et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B244332, Appellant Sara
Wright appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion seeking
certification of certain classes in her action against Respondents
Menzies Aviation Inc., Menzies Aviation Group (USA), Inc., and
Aeroground, Inc., her former employer.  The Appellant moved to
certify four distinct classes encompassing current and former
nonexempt (hourly) employees of Menzies whom she contended
suffered various employment-related injuries.  The Appellant
contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying
certification of three of the four proposed classes.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four
affirmed the trial court's order partially denying appellant's
motion for class certification, saying the trial court reasonably
concluded that "common question do not predominate," and any
injuries suffered by potential class members would require
adjudication on an individualized basis.

Menzies is awarded its costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 12, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/zaKkodfrom Leagle.com.

GrahamHollis, Graham S.P. Hollis and Vilmarie Cordero for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Foley & Lardner, John G. Yslas -- jyslas@foley.com -- and
Christopher G. Ward -- cward@foley.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken granted in part and denied in part a
motion for class certification in IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME
& LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION, NO. C 09-1967 CW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are current and former college athletes seeking to
pursue their antitrust claims against National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA).

Judge Wilken certified this class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Fed.
R. Civ. P.:

All current and former student-athletes residing in the United
States who compete on, or competed on, an NCAA Division I
(formerly known as "University Division" before 1973) college or
university men's basketball team or on an NCAA Football Bowl
Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-A until 2006) men's
football team and whose images, likenesses and/or names may be,
or have been, included in game footage or in videogames licensed
or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, or their licensees
after the conclusion of the athlete's participation in
intercollegiate athletics.

The Court further authorized Antitrust Plaintiffs' attorneys as
class counsel.

Judge Wilken denied the NCAA's motion for leave to file a
supplemental memorandum regarding new evidence saying the NCAA has
not explained why it was unable to obtain and present this
evidence during the extensive briefing on class certification. In
addition, notes the Court, the NCAA's request to present this
evidence is moot because the evidence pertains to the calculation
and allocation of damages, which is no longer relevant in light of
the Court's denial of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Wilken directed the Plaintiffs to submit any dispositive
motions, including any Daubert motions, in a single twenty-five
page brief. The NCAA must file its opposition and any cross-
motions in a single twenty-five page brief, including any
evidentiary objections it intends to raise, on or before December
5, 2013. Plaintiffs must file their reply and opposition in a
single fifteen-page brief on or before January 6, 2013. The NCAA
must also file its reply in a single fifteen-page brief on or
before February 3, 2013. The Court will hear all dispositive
motions, including all evidentiary objections, and hold a case
management conference at 2:00 p.m. on February 20, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/1KPWEQfrom Leagle.com.


NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE: Faces "Langcay" Suit Over Hawaii Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Langcay, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, as
Original Lender; U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for
The Issuing Trust; HSBC Home Equity Loan Trust (USA) 2006-4;
America's Servicing Company, as the Mortgage Servicer and all
persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title,
estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiff's title, or any cloud on
Plaintiff's title thereto and, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 1:13-cv-00537-JMS-BMK (D. Haw., October 16, 2013) is brought
for declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable relief and for
compensatory, special, general and punitive damages relating to
the Plaintiff's property in Aiea, Hawaii.

The Plaintiff disputes the title and ownership of the real
property in question, which is her home, in that the originating
mortgage lender and others alleged to have ownership, have
unlawfully sold, assigned or transferred their ownership and
security interest in a promissory note and mortgage related to the
Property and, thus, do not have lawful ownership or a security
interest in the Plaintiff's Home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Y. Dewa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROGER Y. DEWA
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1409
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (510) 301-6101
          E-mail: rogerdewaattorneyatlaw@gmail.com


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Meningitis Outbreak Probe Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Dirk Thompson III doesn't hold
out much hope that he and the 750 other victims in a nationwide
meningitis outbreak will ever see much, if any, compensation for
the deaths and illnesses caused by tainted steroids.

He hopes to find justice another way if criminal charges are
brought against the principals of a Massachusetts compounding
pharmacy that made the steroid injections blamed for the fungal
meningitis outbreak.

A federal grand jury in Boston has been investigating the
New England Compounding Center for more than a year.  A separate
grand jury in Minnesota also has been conducting an investigation.

"They have to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,"
said Mr. Thompson, 58, of Howell, Mich., who was hospitalized for
38 days with meningitis after receiving a steroid injection for
back pain.  "They were totally irresponsible."

Since the contaminated steroids were first discovered, 751 people
in 20 states have developed fungal meningitis or other infections,
including 64 who died.  Michigan, Tennessee and Indiana were the
hardest-hit states.

Federal prosecutors have declined to comment on the investigation,
but the FBI recently asked anyone who received one of the tainted
injections to fill out a questionnaire detailing their illnesses
and saying whether they believe another medication distributed by
NECC caused harm to them or their family.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement on
Nov. 24 that he and Boston U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz was set to
hold a news conference on Nov. 25 to discuss a development in the
independent state and federal investigations into NECC.

The FBI, which has also sent agents to visit victims, set a
Nov. 30 deadline for victims to submit the surveys online or to
mail them to its health care fraud squad in Boston.

It is unclear whether the company or its executives will face
criminal charges.  Several lawyers who represent victims in
lawsuits say health care companies charged with selling
contaminated drugs often reach settlements with the federal
government and agree to pay large fines.  But the New England
Compounding case is different because of the large number of
deaths and serious illnesses caused by the tainted steroids.

"If there's enough evidence to show that these companies were
operating and that the executives were operating in a way that was
going to harm and hurt and eventually cause death, then we would
presume that there would be some action, other than just a fine,"
said Boston attorney Kim Dougherty, whose firm represents more
than 100 people who became ill or died in the outbreak.

Inspectors found a host of potential contaminants at the company's
Framingham plant, including standing water, mold, water droplets
and dirty equipment.  Fungus was found in more than 50 vials from
the pharmacy.

Regulators have also said the company did not perform enough tests
before sending the drugs to hospitals and clinics and sent drugs
in bulk quantities instead of prescriptions for individual
patients.

The company gave up its license and filed for bankruptcy
protection after it was flooded with hundreds of lawsuits from
victims.  A bankruptcy court judge has set a Jan. 15 deadline for
victims to file claims.

"I hope that the people involved are held accountable and that
they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law," said
George Cary, whose wife, Lilian, 67, developed fungal meningitis
and died about a month later.

Mr. Cary, of Howell, Mich., received steroid shots at the same
pain management clinic as his wife.  He became ill with meningitis
several weeks later and was hospitalized for three months.

"I think the victims all feel . . .  that none of the laws or
regulations seem to have applied to (the people involved), and
they've continued on with their lives while the victims have
suffered immensely, deaths have occurred, people's whole families
have been dramatically changed," Mr. Cary said.  "This has really
been a national disaster."

Attorneys for the company's principals, through a spokesman,
declined to comment.

Christina DiIorio-Sterling, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Carmen
Ortiz, would say only that the investigation is continuing.


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Premier No Comment on Moose Class Action Yet
------------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM.COM reports that the Premier says it's too early to comment
after she was subpoenaed for a moose-class action case.
Ches Crosbie, the lawyer fighting the case for hundreds of victims
of moose accidents, wants Kathy Dunderdale to explain to the court
how the decisions around government's moose reduction strategy
were made.

Ms. Dunderdale says there's not much she can say about the class
action, having just been served the papers on Nov. 21.
Ms. Dunderdale says the department of justice is reviewing the
documents.

She says there's no doubting the tragic accidents involving moose
on our highways, but to have a cull is unreasonable.
Ms. Dunderdale says the job of government is to find a balance,
and that's what it's doing.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Pretium Resources, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 13-cv-7556, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Pretium between November 20, 2012
and October 21, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Pretium securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 26, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Pretium is an exploration and development company that was formed
for the acquisition, exploration and development of precious metal
resource properties in the Americas.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, regarding the Company's
mineral reserves and compliance with applicable reporting and
feasibility study requirements.  Specifically, Defendants: 1)
vastly inflated the value of reserves contained in the Brucejack
Project, especially the gold reserves in the VOK Zone; 2) failed
to disclose that its sampling methods were not in conformance with
industry standards; and 3) failed to disclose the Company was not
in compliance with NI 43-101.  As a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On October 9, 2013, the Company disclosed that Strathcona, its
Independent Qualified Person hired by the Company to evaluate the
mineral reserves in the Brucejack Project, had abruptly resigned
from the engagement.  On this news, Pretium shares declined $2.07
per share or over 30%, to close at $4.70 per share on October 9,
2013.

Then, on October 22, 2013, the Company provided further
information regarding Strathcona's sudden resignation, reporting
that it had resigned after a dispute with the company over
sampling methods, particularly after advising the Company that,
"there are no valid gold mineral resources for the VOK Zone, and
without mineral resources there can be no mineral reserves, and
without mineral reserves there can be no basis for a Feasibility
Study."  Strathcona further concluded that "statements included in
all recent press releases [by Pretium] about probable mineral
reserves and future gold production [from the Valley of the Kings
zone] over a 22-year mine life are erroneous and misleading."  On
this news, Pretium shares declined $1.27 per share or over 27%, to
close at $3.36 per share on October 22, 2013.

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


SAN JOSE, CA: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in "Valdez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued an order granting in
part and denying in part a motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants in the case captioned FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:09-CV-0176 KAW, (N.D. Cal.).

Francisco Valdez, Ricardo Vasquez, Daniel Martinez, and Jamil
Stubbs commenced this putative class action against the City of
San Jose, San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, and San Jose Police
Department Officers Agamau, Martin, Rickert, Wallace, and Orlando.
Plaintiffs assert various federal constitutional claims and
related state law causes of action. Defendants moved for summary
judgment on the related state law claims. Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
the following claims:

  (1) The tenth cause of action for battery in its entirety.

  (2) The eleventh cause of action for a violation of Section 51.7
      in its entirety.

  (3) The twelfth cause of action for violations of Section 52.1
      in its entirety.

  (4) The fifteenth cause of action for negligence against the
      City and Chief Davis.

Summary judgment is denied as to the following claims:

  (1) The eighth cause of action for false arrest, asserted by
      Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
      individual officers.

  (2) The ninth cause of action for false imprisonment, asserted
      by Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
      individual officers.

  (3) The fifteenth cause of action for negligence, asserted by
      Plaintiffs Vasquez, Martinez, and Stubbs, against the
      individual officers.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/s514avfrom Leagle.com.


SC STATE PLASTERING: Sun City Stucco Class Action Faces Delay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lurye, writing for The Island Packet, reports that in a
case that has languished for about six years, nearly 4,300 Sun
City Hilton Head residents still await the start of their class-
action lawsuit alleging stucco damage.

Ongoing legal maneuvering prevents the case from advancing and
keeps residents from meeting with lawyers who initiated the class-
action, according to Michael Seekings, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

Stucco applicator S.C. State Plastering Co., which is being sued,
has fought to prohibit the team of four lawyers representing the
residents from speaking with their clients.  A judge dismissed the
company's request to block such communication in June 2012, but
that decision was appealed.

A ruling is pending before the S.C. Court of Appeals, where both
sides argued their cases Nov. 6.

Mr. Seekings said the case also is being delayed by action taken
in November 2012, when the plastering company and third-party
defendant Del Webb Communities, the developer of Sun City, argued
to the S.C. Supreme Court that a judge was wrong to approve the
class-action status and allow a notice announcing the class-action
to be sent to residents.

In 2012, Judge J. Michael Baxley agreed to classify the lawsuit of
Sun City couple Anthony and Barbara Grazia as a class-action case
after about 140 residents also sued the defendants individually.
Some of those cases have since been resolved.

Hoping to reach a resolution quickly for the rest of the
defendants, the residents' attorneys asked the state Supreme
Court's chief justice on July 23 to allow the notice to be sent.
The plastering company's appeal "serves only one purpose, delay,"
the motion states.

About four months later, though, there has been no ruling on the
motion.

Chief Justice Jean Toal has recused herself from the case. Her
clerk said Toal has a connection to the case but declined to
explain further.

Now, the entire court -- minus the chief justice -- must rule on
the motion.  It's not clear when that will happen, but a ruling in
the plaintiffs' favor would mean residents could receive notices
of the class-action suit within 30 days, Mr. Seekings said.

Each homeowner would then have at least two months to opt out of
the lawsuit.  When that period ends, there would be an opportunity
for the plastering company and three third-party defendants --
Del Webb, Pulte Homes and Kephart Architects -- to inspect each
home's damage.

While the degree of stucco deterioration varies from house to
house, Mr. Seekings said, the delays are exacerbating the damage.

"Each day that goes by, they're just getting worse," he said.

Very few people have paid for repairs in the hopes of receiving
compensation later on, according to Mr. Seekings.  However, Pulte
Homes carried out patch jobs for a handful of residents and
allegedly asked those homeowners not to sue, he said.

"We think that's inappropriate," Mr. Seekings said.

It's not yet clear whether Pulte's repairs would disqualify
residents from participating in the class-action, he said.

Attempts this week to reach the defendants' attorneys and the
Grazias for comment were unsuccessful.

"We are trying desperately to get them to rule," Mr. Seekings said
of the courts.  "Then the game will be back on."


SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Claim of Unconscionability Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service reports that
Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance dba Check 'n Go need not
face claims that it made unconscionable consumer loans, a federal
judge ruled.

Bill Graves and Minerva Lopez had filed suit earlier this year
against the company, which operates a group of loan stores that
offer payday and installment loans.

The putative class action alleged that Check 'n Go's loan
agreements carry unreasonable terms in violation of California's
Financial Code and Business and Professions Code.

Graves had entered into a $5,000 installment loan agreement with
the company this past January.

It allegedly gave Graves nearly a full year to repay principal and
interest in 26 installment payments.  In addition to an annual
percentage rate of 217.02 percent, the loan carried finance
charges of $8,057.09, according to the complaint.

Graves said portions of the online loan application he filled out
through the company's Web site appeared as "pop-ups" on his
computer monitor, and that he was required to click on boxes to
signify that he had "signed" the agreement.

Lopez said she entered into her loan agreement with Check 'n Go in
December 2012.  The loan of $2,600 allegedly required Lopez to
repay principal and interest in 10 installment payments from
January 20, 2013, to Oct. 20, 2014.  It included an APR of 198.17
percent and finance charges of $2,856.82, according to the
complaint.

Lopez applied for her loan at one of Check 'n Go's stores.

Among allegedly unconscionable terms in the agreements, Graves and
Lopez pointed to the amount of the finance charges and the APR.
Graves claims to have paid at least $502 toward the amount owed,
and Lopez allegedly paid at least $545.

Check N' Go moved to dismiss those claims and to strike the class
action allegations.

Armstrong found Monday, November 4, 2013, that "the granting of a
motion to dismiss or strike class allegations before discovery has
commenced should be done rarely."

"While defendant's arguments may ultimately prove to be
persuasive, the court finds that defendant's motion to strike is
premature given that defendant has not filed an answer to the
complaint, discovery has not yet commenced, and no motion for
class certification has been filed," the ruling states.

"In the absence of discovery and the presentation of specific
arguments from both parties concerning class certification, the
court lacks sufficient information to rule on the propriety of the
class allegations," Armstrong added.

She did, however, dismiss the claim alleging violations of
California's Financial Code and Business and Professions Code
because "courts considering this issue have concluded that there
is no private right of action to enforce a violation."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark C. Dosker, Esq.
          Carrie Elizabeth Jantsch, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
          E-mail: mark.dosker@squiresanders.com
                  carrie.jantsch@squiresanders.com

               - and -

          Adrienne R. Salerno, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS US LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 624-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-4581
          E-mail: adrienne.salerno@squiresanders.com

               - and -

          Amy Lynn Brown, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 626-6600
          E-mail: amy.brown@squiresanders.com

The case is Graves, et al. v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty
Finance, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-01159-SBA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).


STARBUCKS CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Tip Pool Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report
that the Second Circuit on Nov. 21 sided with Starbucks in a class
action brought by employees who claimed shift supervisors should
not be allowed to dip into baristas' tip pool, saying that despite
their title, supervisors mostly perform similar duties to that of
baristas.

The ruling -- which affirmed a 2011 summary judgment in favor of
Starbucks by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York but was contrary to a decision made by the
First Circuit last year -- adds yet another chapter to a five-
year-old case already filled with summary judgments, appeals and
cross appeals.  In its Nov. 21 decision, the Second Circuit
concluded that the supervisors' duties are mostly similar to that
of the baristas, and that they do not hold enough authority for
the tip-sharing to be considered unlawful.

"The decision was unfortunate," class attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan told Law360 on Nov. 21.  "This is a big issue in the
fast-food industry today.  Fast-food workers are trying to stand
up for their rights."

Mr. Liss-Riordan represented workers in an identical case against
Starbucks last year in Massachusetts, in which the First Circuit
ruled in favor of baristas, forcing the coffee company to cough up
$14.1 million in damages.  As part of the fallout from that case,
Liss-Riordan said, Starbucks raised the hourly wage of its
supervisors by $3, leaving all of the tips to the baristas.

"Their decision benefited all workers," she said.  "The point is
not to pit low-wage workers against other low-wage workers.  The
point is to wage the lowest waged workers against the
corporation."

Representatives for Starbucks were not immediately available for
comment on Nov. 21.

In New York, the class had argued that Section 196-d of New York
Labor Law, which states that "no employer or his agent or an
officer or agent of any corporation shall demand or accept . . .
any part of the gratuities received by an employee," proves that
the supervisors, who hold a position of authority, should not be
allowed to participate in an employer-mandated tip allocation
arrangement.

"In this case, it is undisputed that Starbucks's shift supervisors
spend a majority of their time performing the same duties as
baristas, and are primarily responsible for serving food and
beverages to the customers," the court's order said.  "We identify
no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether [New York Labor
Law, Section 196-d] permits shift supervisors to participate in
Starbucks's tip pools. It does."

The court said that while supervisors can assign baristas to
particular positions during their shift in or schedule breaks,
they have no input into the creation of the actual work schedule.
In addition, the court said that while supervisors can provide
feedback to baristas, they cannot formally discipline them.

"Although they supervise baristas, shift supervisors' primary job
functions are the same as baristas," the order said.

The class is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan PC and Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum of Joseph Herzfeld
Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP.

Starbucks is represented by Daniel L. Nash -- dnash@akingump.com
-- Nathan J. Oleson -- noleson@akingump.com -- Kelly M. Scindian
-- kscindian@akingump.com -- Samidh Guha -- sguha@akingump.com --
Rex S. Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp --
rheinke@akingump.com -- and Katharine J. Galston --
kgalston@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The case is Jeana Barenboim and Jose Ortiz, et al v. Starbucks
Corp., case number 10-cv-4912 in the The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.


STATE FARM: Loses Judgment Bid in "Baker" Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., denied a motion for
judgment on the pleadings and, denied as moot, a motion for a
protective order and stay of deposition filed by the defendant in
the case captioned TARA BAKER, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-4123-FJG,
(W.D. Mo.).

Tara Baker and her husband are insured by State Farm under policy
#070-1996-E10-25C. This policy provides coverage for medical
expenses sustained when an insured is injured in an automobile
accident. This coverage is referred to as "MPC" -- Medical
Payments Coverage. On May 10, 2013, the Bakers filed their two
count Complaint asserting in Count I, a class action claim for
Breach of Contract and in Count II, an individual vexatious
refusal to pay claim.  State Farm filed its Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings arguing that under the terms of the policy, it may
invoke the nonduplication clause even without a prior judicial
determination of fault. State Farm also argued that the failure to
pay Mrs. Baker's medical costs cannot be vexatious where no prior
case law discusses the nonduplication provision.  State Farm also
filed a Motion for a Protective Order and Stay of Deposition.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/sGnWeKfrom Leagle.com.


STURM FOODS: Escapes Class Action Over Instant Coffee Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady and David McAfee, writing for Law360, report that
single-serving coffee maker Sturm Foods Inc. escaped a putative
class action, in which it was accused of misleading consumers that
its instant coffee cartridges brewed fresh coffee, after an
Illinois judge found on Nov. 20 that the plaintiffs had not shown
they were misled by the product's packaging.

U.S. District Court Judge G. Patrick Murphy dismissed the
multistate proposed class action after siding with Sturm's
analysis of each plaintiff's purchasing decisions and finding that
no plaintiff had shown they were deceived or injured by the
packaging of the company's Grove Square Coffee products.

In doing so, he rejected arguments that Sturm's attorneys were
"cherry-picking" lines from the plaintiffs' statements and that
the inquiry should instead focus on whether the packaging is
deceptive from the perspective of a hypothetical "reasonable
consumer," saying the court requires the plaintiffs to show that
they themselves suffered an injury.

"The court has seen the packaging at issue -- plaintiffs bring it
to each hearing -- and finds that it is not designed to mislead
consumers," Judge Murphy said.  "It says what it is.  Judgment is
proper as a matter of law because none of the plaintiffs have
shown their pecuniary loss was caused by defendants' fraud, deceit
or mislabeling."

Saying the summary judgment was "the put up or shut up moment in a
lawsuit," Judge Murphy outlined one by one how the plaintiffs had
failed in their response briefs to show a causal relationship
between the allegedly misleading packaging and the decision to
purchase the product.

He noted that several plaintiffs were clearly motivated to buy
Grove Square Coffee because of the price point, the desire to try
new things or a host of other factors, according to the order.

The plaintiffs filed suit against Sturm, a division of Treehouse
Foods Inc., in August 2011, claiming violations of various state
false advertising and deceptive trade statutes on behalf of a
class of consumers from Alabama, California, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, New Jersey, Illinois and New York.

Judge Murphy rejected a class certification bid this August, and
the Nov. 20 order also dealt with a bid to reconsider the order
submitted by the plaintiffs in light of the Seventh Circuit's
recent ruling in Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

In that ruling, the appeals court reinstated certification in two
breach of warranty class actions against Sears over allegedly
defective washing machines after ruling that it would "drive a
stake through the heart of the class action device" if every
member of a class was required to show identical damages.

Judge Murphy rejected the reconsideration bid after pointing out a
key difference between the Sturm suit and Butler, which he said
involved a "single, central, common issue of liability" concerning
whether the Sears products were defective.

In the Sturm suit, however, it is the issue of establishing
liability through causation rather than proof of damages that
requires individualized inquiry, according to the order.

"Of course all the facts as between individual class members
needn't be identical in order to satisfy Rule 23 -- that is not
the standard the court held plaintiffs to," Judge Murphy said.
"But legal inquiries required to determine liability must
predominate.  They do not here."

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael H. Maizes of Maizes &
Maizes LLP.

The defendants are represented by Craig Fochler --
cfochler@foley.com -- Rebecca Hanson -- rhanson@foley.com -- Aaron
Weinzierl -- aweinzierl@foley.com --Jacki Wallace and Michael
Conway -- mconway@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP.

The case is Gladstone v. Sturm Foods, Inc. et al, case number
3:11-cv-01068 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.


SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Sidibe" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler dismissed the case captioned
DJENEBA SIDIBE and DIANE DEWEY, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUTTER HEALTH, and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 12-04854 LB, (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe and Diane Dewey sued Sutter Health, a
company that owns and operates hospitals and other health care
service providers, alleging that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct
in the health care services industry in Northern California
violates federal and state antitrust laws and California's unfair
competition law.  The alleged anticompetitive conduct includes (1)
Sutter's imposing tying arrangements that require health plans to
include all Sutter providers in their networks in order to have
reduced rate access at Sutter's hospitals and (2) Sutter's use of
its market power to maintain and enhance its monopolies over
Inpatient Hospital Services in Northern California. Sutter moved
to dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim.

The court granted Sutter's motion to dismiss without prejudice and
with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of the order to file a third
amended complaint.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/JEqpCm from Leagle.com.


SYMMETRICOM INC: Being Sold to Microsemi for Too Little, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rapien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Symmetricom, Inc., James A. Chiddix, Elizabeth A.
Fetter, Robert T. Clarkson, Robert M. Neumeister, Jr., Richard N.
Snyder, Robert J. Stanzione, Alfred Boschulte, Richard W. Oliver,
Microsemi Corporation, and Pett Acquisition Corp., Case No. 9058-
VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Symmetricom to enjoin a proposed
transaction pursuant to which Symmetricom will be acquired by
Microsemi and its wholly owned subsidiary, PETT Acquisition Corp.

The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that
resulted in the Board of Directors' failure to maximize
stockholder value and deprives Symmetricom's public stockholders
of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term
prospects, Mr. Rapien contends.

Symmetricom is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose,
California.  Symmetricom provides timekeeping technologies,
instruments, and solutions worldwide.  The Company offers
timekeeping in GPS satellites, national time references, and
national power grids, as well as critical military and civilian
networks that enable data, voice, mobile, and video services.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Microsemi is a California corporation headquartered in Aliso
Viejo, California.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Microsemi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky
          Brian D. Long
          Gina M. Serra
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 2955310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel A. Dreisbach, Esq.
          Thomas A. Uebler, Esq.
          RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER PA-WILMINGTON
          920 N King St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7762
          E-mail: dreisbach@rlf.com
                  uebler@rlf.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Weidinger, Esq.
          PINCKNEY HARRIS & WEIDINGER LLC
          1220 N Market St., Suite 950
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 504-1528
          E-mail: mweidinger@phw-law.com


TAX CONNECTION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JACKSON FIVE STAR CATERING,
INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. BEASON and TAX CONNECTION WORLDWIDE
LLC, CASE NO. 10-10010, (E.D. Mich.), Jackson Five claims the
Defendants, John R. Beason d/b/a Tax Connection World and Tax
Connection Worldwide LLC, violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA) by faxing advertisements
without the recipients' invitation or permission. Currently
pending are (1) the Plaintiff's motion to strike the testimony of
the Defendants' expert witness, Ray Horak, (2) the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment, and (3) the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

District Judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr., (1) grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike the expert testimony of Ray Horak; (2) denies the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (3) grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment except for the Plaintiffs'
request for treble damages, which is denied.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/f8zOSbfrom Leagle.com.


TCCD INT'L: Deceives Consumers of Buckpower Antler, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. T.C.C.D. International, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-08140-GW-FFM (C.D.
Cal., November 4, 2013) is brought to enjoin the alleged ongoing
deception of thousands of California and nationwide consumers by
the Defendant, and to recover the monetary gains taken by this
unlawful practice.

On its product label, TCCD claims that its Buckpower Antler Velvet
product will "increase muscle strength & recovery," "promote
healthy joint function," "improves energy & endurance," and
"boosts libido."  In reality, the Product is nothing of the sort
and has no such capabilities, Mr. Clark alleges.  He contends that
this false and deceptive marketing enables TCCD to unfairly
capture sales that it would not make but for its deception, and
also charges consumers a premium based thereon.

T.C.C.D. International, Inc. is a Florida corporation, with its
principle place of business in Pompano Beach, Florida.  The
Company manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Buckpower, a
deer antler velvet dietary supplement.  The Defendant sells its
Product to consumers in California and throughout the nation.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Baker, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 300
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  byp@kirtlandRackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Aggrenox
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
federal antitrust complaint has been filed against Teva
Pharmaceuticals and other generic drug manufacturers alleging the
defendants engaged in an anti-competitive scheme to prevent a
generic equivalent of the drug Aggrenox from entering the market.

The class action suit, which was brought by Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, accuses the defendants of colluding to
keep a generic version of Aggrenox off the market.

The pharmaceutical is a combined aspirin and extended-release
dipyridamole treatment to lower the risk of stroke in people who
have had a transient ischemic attack or stroke due to a blood
clot.

According to the complaint, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma started
selling Aggrenox in the winter of 199, with the drug soon seeing
great commercial success; sales reached $366 million in 2008.

In January 2007, the suit states, Barr Pharmaceuticals, another
co-defendant named in the litigation, sought regulatory approval
to market a generic version of the drug.

The complaint goes on to allege that in order to delay the
"substantial loss of profits" it would have suffered from
competing generic versions of Aggrenox, Boehringer, in the summer
of 2008, entered into an exclusive payment agreement, also called
a "pay-for-delay" agreement, with Barr, by which Boehringer agreed
to pay Barr in exchange for Barr's commitment to postpone
marketing its generic version of the medicine until July 1, 2015.

The alleged agreement included an estimated $120 million in one-
time and yearly royalty payments, and a promise to not compete
against Barr with Boehringer's own authorized generic version of
Aggrenox, according to the complaint.

The plaintiff claims that it and others have paid more for
Aggrenox than it would have absent the defendants' "anti-
competitive conduct."

"But for the pay-for-delay agreement, less expensive equivalents
of Aggrenox would have been available much sooner than July 2015,"
the complaint states.

The plaintiff brings suit on behalf it itself and a proposed class
of consumers and third-party payors who purchased or paid for
Aggrenox since Aug. 14, 2009.

The lead plaintiff in the action is based in Springfield, MO.

Aside from Teva, Boehringer and Barr, the other defendants listed
in the litigation is Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The complaint says that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute
of limitations in the matter, since the plaintiff and class
members had no knowledge of the defendants' "unlawful self-
concealing scheme" and would not have been able to discover the
conspiracy through the "exercise of reasonable diligence" more
than four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

"This is true because the nature of defendants' conspiracy was
self-concealing and because the defendants employed deceptive
practices and techniques of secrecy to avoid detection of, and to
fraudulently conceal, their contract, combination, conspiracy, and
scheme," the suit reads.

The defendants are accused of violating The Clayton Act and The
Sherman Act.

The suit also contains counts of unjust enrichment and
disgorgement of profits.

The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, litigation costs,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

The complaint was filed by attorneys Jeannine Kenney --
jkenney@hausfeldllp.com -- and Brent W. Landau --
blandau@hausfeldllp.com -- of the Philadelphia firm Hausfeld LLP,
and lawyers Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- and Gregory B.
Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- of the New York firm Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-06692-MSG.


UMG RECORDINGS: Court Okays Bid to Compel Document Production
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICK JAMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-01613-SI (MEJ), (N.D. Cal.), is a
consolidated putative class action for breach of contract, breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and statutory
violations of various state laws against defendant, UMG
Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities filed
by plaintiff recording artists and producers, who allege that UMGR
underpaid licensing royalties on digital downloads of Plaintiffs'
recordings.

The current dispute concerns Plaintiffs' motion to compel
responses to Request for Production (RFP) Nos. 73 and 76, which
seek all documents demonstrating UMGR's interpretation and input
into its royalty system of the named plaintiffs' contract terms
and data regarding the revenue received by UMGR, as well as
calculation of royalties for downloads of the named plaintiffs'
recordings from 1999 to the present. UMGR opposed the motion,
arguing that the document requests violate Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(b)(1)(a) because they are overbroad. UMGR also
opposed the motion on the grounds that: (1) production of
documents evidencing electronic royalty statements or receipts for
digital downloads would impermissibly require UMGR to create or
prepare new documents; and (2) any "royalty briefs" that might
exist are privileged.

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to compel responses to Request for Production No. 73, holding that
Plaintiffs' justification for their need of electronic versions of
the royalty statements falls far short of the mark. The Court
declined to compel UMGR to create new documents solely for this
purpose. The Court also found the burden far outweighs the
usefulness of ordering production of evidence of receipts for
digital downloads. The parties may, however, meet and confer
regarding the cost and timing required to extract the information,
said Judge James. If Plaintiffs then wish to proceed with their
request, they may do so at their own expense, she added.

Judge James also pointed out that UMGR has stated in its response
to the pending motion that it will provide all available discovery
material in response to this RFP by November 15, 2013. Accepting
this statement, and absent any argument by Plaintiffs as to why
the Court should compel an earlier production date, the motion to
compel production of contract identification information prior to
November 15, 2013 was denied.

Lastly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for Production
No. 76 (royalty briefs), to the extent that royalty briefs exist
for Plaintiffs' contracts.  The Court said it is unwilling to
accept UMGR's argument that royalty briefs "may not even exist;"
UMGR must make this determination.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Discovery Order is
available at http://is.gd/AX5DUcfrom Leagle.com.


UMG RECORDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Burrow" Privacy Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber denied a motion to the dismiss
the case captioned ROBERT C. BURROW, on Behalf of Himself and
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SYBARIS CLUBS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., RANDALL D. REPKE, and CHARLENE FARRELL,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 2342, (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Robert C. Burrow brought the class-action lawsuit
against Defendants Sybaris Clubs International, Inc., Randall D.
Repke, and Charlene Farrell on March 28, 2013. Sybaris is a chain
of five motel suites that cater to customers looking for a
romantic paradise.  Sybaris employed Mr. Burrow as a reservation
desk clerk from March 2004 through May 2007 and from April 2008
through May 2013.  In 2011, the Defendants installed a new
telephone system, known as a ShoreTel Sky System. The new system
routed all incoming calls through a central processer and allowed
Sybaris management and other employees to listen live to customer
and employee conversations. In addition, the system recorded all
calls made by or to the reservation desk at each Sybaris location.
The recordings were saved on computer servers and could be
accessed through a web interface.

In his Complaint, Mr. Burrow alleged that the Defendants invaded
his right of seclusion and violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the
Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Indiana Wiretap Act, and the
Wisconsin Wiretap Act.  Mr. Burrow alleged that his rights of
privacy and the rights of other callers or employees who made
phone calls from work were violated when Sybaris installed the new
recording system and did not inform employees or customers.
Defendants responded by moving to dismiss the case.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/7Nf0RYfrom Leagle.com.


UNION FIRST: Plans to Settle Stellar One Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Hazard, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that
Union First Market Bankshares Corp. and StellarOne Corp. plan to
settle a lawsuit filed by a StellarOne shareholder opposed to the
planned merger, according to documents filed on Nov. 21 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The amount of the settlement was not disclosed in the regulatory
filing.

Jaclyn Crescente, individually and purportedly on behalf of other
StellarOne shareholders, filed a class-action complaint June 14
against StellarOne, its directors and Union First Market
Bankshares, the holding company for Union First Market Bank.

The complaint alleges that StellarOne directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger with Richmond-based Union
First Market, and that Union First Market aided and abetted the
breaches of duty.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia in Charlottesville, seeks to prevent the merger and
receive monetary damages if the transaction is completed.

"Union and the StellarOne defendants deny each of the allegations
in the lawsuit," according to the Nov. 21 regulatory filing.

Union First Market and Charlottesville-based StellarOne have
received regulatory approvals for the merger, which is expected to
close on or around Jan. 1.  The Union First Market shareholder
meeting is Dec. 5, and that is the last approval needed to close
on the transaction.

The all-stock deal, announced June 10, is valued at $445.1
million.  The combined entity would create one of the largest
community banks in Virginia with $7.1 billion in assets.

The surviving entity, per the agreement, will be Union First
Market and the bank will be based in Richmond.

To avoid the risk that the lawsuit could delay or harm the
consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense and burden
of legal action, the banks agreed to make supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed settlement, the SEC document states.

The settlement will require court approval, and there are no
assurances that the settlement will be made, the filing says.

Also, "the settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid
by Union to StellarOne shareholders in connection with the merger
or the timing of the respective special meetings of Union
shareholders and StellarOne shareholders," the filing states.

The agreement calls for shareholders of StellarOne to receive
0.9739 share of Union First Market common stock for each share of
StellarOne they own.


VERENGO INC: Violates TCPA, Class Suit Claims in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shahar Lushe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Verengo, Inc. d/b/a Verengo Solar, Case No. 2:13-cv-
07632-ABC-RZ (C.D. Cal., October 16, 2013) is brought on behalf of
all persons in the United States, who received a call on their
cellular telephones from the Defendant with a prerecorded message
marketing its product and services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Verengo, Inc. is a Delaware headquartered in Torrance, California.
Verengo is a privately-held company whose principal activity is
installing residential solar equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Michael Duane Daudt, Esq.
          Whitney Stark, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT AND WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
                  mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com
                  wstark@tmdwlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua M. Briones, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US
          2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
          Telephone: (310) 595-3000
          Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
          E-mail: joshua.briones@dlapiper.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls 2.6 Million Vehicles Worldwide
--------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Volkswagen Group is recalling about
2.6 million vehicles worldwide, including its biggest such move in
China, to fix electronic and drive-system flaws.

Volkswagen is recommending that mineral oil be used in dual-clutch
gearboxes on 1.6 million cars and vans in place of synthetic oil,
Michael Franke, a spokesman at the company, said on Nov. 14.
Another 800,000 Tiguan compact SUVs may have lighting defects and
239,000 Amarok pickups should be checked for fuel leaks, the
automaker added on Nov. 14 in two statements.

The recalls this month by Volkswagen as well as Chrysler Group,
Toyota Motor Corp. and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. highlight the
drawbacks of adding increasingly sophisticated technology to new
models. Nissan Motor Co. hired the senior auto reviewer for
Consumer Reports magazine in the U.S. as its executive adviser on
vehicle quality last year, citing the need to "keep pace with"
product complexity.

"This isn't a VW-specific problem, it's one of the things that
happen at mass-market carmakers," Frank Schwope, a Hanover,
Germany-based analyst at Nord LB, said.  "Costs will probably be
in the high double-digit or even triple-digit million euro range.
They might be partly shared with suppliers involved, but they
still make VW's full-year earnings target more difficult to
reach."

                        Gearbox Lubricant

The lubricant replacement in seven-speed dual-clutch gearboxes is
intended to prevent electric malfunctions.  The Volkswagen, Audi,
Skoda and Seat brand vehicles are targeted by the program,
Mr. Franke said.  A Chinese regulator said on Nov. 14 that 640,309
cars in that country are affected.

VW recalled 384,181 vehicles in China in March after state
television featured complaints about vibrations, loss of power and
sudden acceleration in models including the Golf, its best-selling
car worldwide.  That repair program, also involving dual-clutch
gearbox flaws, prompted a public apology by Jochem Heizmann, chief
of the carmaker's Chinese business, at the Shanghai auto show in
April.

The repair and replacement programs announced by Volkswagen on
Nov. 14 compare with recalls of 10 million vehicles by Toyota in
2009 and 2010 for possible flaws related to unintended
acceleration, including sticky accelerator pedals and floor mats
that could shift out of position.

                          Toyota Program

Toyota said on Nov. 6 that it's recalling 4,000 Tacoma 4-cylinder
pickups in the United States to fix engine valve springs.  It's
also recalling 1,180 vehicles in China for a similar problem, that
country's regulator said.

Chrysler said on Nov. 8 that it's recalling about 1.2 million Ram
trucks to fix a steering-system part.

Mitsubishi's recall program involves a combined 96,800 vehicles in
Japan for headline or engine-component flaws.

China, the world's largest auto market, is a critical market for
VW's strategy to become the world's largest automaker by 2018
while making up for a European industry that's shrinking for a
sixth straight year.

The gearbox-lubricant fault particularly affects vehicles driving
in hot and humid weather in urban areas with a lot of stop-and-go
traffic, Volkswagen said on Nov. 14.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Loestrin 24 Fe
---------------------------------------------------------
Denise Loy, a resident citizen of the State of Florida, Melissa
Chrestman, a resident citizen ofthe State of Tennessee, Mary
Alexander, a resident citizen of the State of North Carolina,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited, Company, Warner Chilcott Company,
LLC, Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd, Warner Chilcott
Corporation, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Sales
(US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Limited, Warner
Chilcott Company, Inc., Actavis, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Ltd., and Lupin
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-S-PAS (D.R.I.,
October 16, 2013) is an antitrust class action seeking treble
damages from the Defendants.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and anti-
competitive scheme to exclude generics from the market for oral
contraceptives comprised of 24 norethindrone acetate/ethinyl
estradiol tablets and four ferrous fumarate tablets (placebo),
which Warner Chilcott sells under the brand name Loestrin 24 Fe.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' market-allocation
scheme injured the Plaintiffs and the Class of end-payor
purchasers by preventing generic competition in the market.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          321 South Main Street, 2nd Floor
          Providence, RI 02903-7108
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
          E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William J. Doyle, II, Esq.
          James R. Hail, Esq.
          Chris W. Cantrell, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 935-9960
          Facsimile: (858) 939-1939
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  jim@doylelowther.com
                  ccantrell@doylelowther.com


WEST MARINE: Court Cites Factors to Consider in Class Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In KAREN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and PAULISA FIELDS, Plaintiffs, v. WEST MARINE
PRODUCTS INC, Defendant, NO. C 13-04916 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to be
evaluated for any proposed class settlement.

According to Judge Alsup, for the guidance of counsel, these
factors will typically be considered in determining whether to
grant preliminary approval to a class settlement:

  1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION.
  2. DUE DILIGENCE.
  3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS.
  4. THE RELEASE.
  5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS.
  6. REVERSIONS.
  7. CLAIM PROCEDURE.
  8. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
  9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS.
  10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
  11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL.
  12. INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
  13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS.

"Counsel should be mindful of the factors identified in Hanlon v.
Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)," Judge Alsup
added. "Finally, for an order denying proposed preliminary
approval, see Kakani v. Oracle Corp., No. C 06-06493 WHA, 2007 WL
1793774 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007)."

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Notice is
available at http://is.gd/rwb1nVfrom Leagle.com.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Clarifies Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS CROOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WYNDHAM
VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
03669-WHO, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William H. Orrick issued an
amended order granting a motion to compel arbitration to clarify
that the matter is stayed in the court, not dismissed.

The Amended Order clarifies that the Motion to Compel Arbitration
is granted and the action is stayed pending arbitration.  The
parties are directed to submit a joint case management statement
180 days from the date of the Order, and every 180 days
thereafter, apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Amended Order is
available at http://is.gd/hJFfWl from Leagle.com.


XPRESSPA-JDEE JV: Accord in "Kuznetsov" Suit Wins Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack granted final approval of a class-
wide settlement in the wage-and-hour action captioned ULYANA
KUZNETSOV, XIU JUAN ZHANG, XIN DAI, SIU LING CHAN, FENG LI SUN,
SHU XIAN LIU, JIAN GUO ZHANG, SHANG LIN LI, SHU FEN CHOU, and YIN
MAN SHUM, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. XPRESSPA-JDEE JV LLC, XPRESSPA AT TERM. 4 JFK, LLC,
XPRESSPA ATLANTA TERMINAL A, LLC, XPRESSPA ATLANTA TERMINAL C,
LLC, XPRESSPA BOSTON LOGAN, LLC, XPRESSPA CHARLOTTE AIRPORT LLC,
XPRESSPA CHICAGO O'HARE, LLC, XPRESSPA DENVER AIRPORT, LLC,
XPRESSPA DETROIT AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA DFW AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA
DFW KIOSK LLC, XPRESSPA DFW TERMINAL D, LLC, XPRESSPA FRANCHISING
LLC, XPRESSPA HOUSTON TERMINAL D, LLC, XPRESSPA INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS, LLC, XPRESSPA JFK TERMINAL 1, LLC, XPRESSPA JFK TERMINAL
5, LLC, XPRESSPA JFK TERMINAL 7, LLC, XPRESSPA LAGUARDIA AIRPORT,
LLC, XPRESSPA LAS VEGAS TERMINAL D, LLC, XPRESSPA LAX TERMINAL5,
LLC XPRESSPA MEXICO, LLC, XPRESSPA MSP AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA
NEWARK AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA ONLINE SHOPPING, LLC, XPRESSPA
ORLANDO AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA ORLANDO AIRSIDE 4, LLC, XPRESSPA
PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT, LLC, XPRESSPA PHILADELPHIA TERMINAL A WEST,
LLC, XPRESSPA PITTSBURGH A, LLC, XPRESSPA RALEIGH-DURHAM INTL.,
LLC, XPRESSPA S.F. INTERNATIONAL, LLC, XPRESSPA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT,
LLC, XPRESSPA WASHINGTON REAGAN, LLC, SYDELLE ELKIND, MORETON
BINN, and, MATTHEW PODELL, Defendants, NO. 10-CV-3473 (JMA), (E.D.
N.Y.).

The Court certifies the settlement class defined as: "All spa
technicians employed by XpresSpa at LaGuardia Airport ("LGA"),
John F. Kennedy ("JFK") International Airport, and other locations
within the state of New York, from July 29, 2004 through May 16,
2013."

The Court certifies a settlement collective action under the FLSA
consisting of all spa technicians employed by XpresSpa at LGA and
JFK, and other locations within the state of New York, from
September 12, 2010 through September 30, 2012.

The Court grants a service award of $10,000 to Class
Representative Ulyana Kuznetsov.

The Court awards Advanced Litigation Strategies, LLC,
administration fees of $16,000.

The Court awards Class Counsel $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses,
and $29,000 in attorneys' fees.

A copy of the District Court's November 8, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Jp3cvVfrom Leagle.com.


YOUNG WORLD: Health Dep't Warns About Lead Levels in Bracelets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Ambrose and Meredith Cohn, writing for The Baltimore Sun,
report that Young World Store on Liberty Heights Avenue has been
cited by the Baltimore City Health Department for selling
children's bracelets with excessive levels of lead, the agency
announced on Nov. 21.

The agency said lead levels in the multicolored bangle bracelet
are 25 times the amount permitted.  This is the third time in
three years that the store at 2401 Liberty Heights Ave. has been
cited for lead violations, according to the health department,
which alerted the Consumer Product Safety Commission to the most
recent findings.

"This bracelet sells for just a few dollars but is not a bargain
and can be a significant danger to small children," said Baltimore
Health Commissioner Dr. Oxiris Barbot in a statement.  "The costs
of lead poisoning can last a lifetime."

High levels of lead in children can impair development and cause
death, the agency said.  The health department advises parents to
discard the bracelet if they purchased one.

Dan Hershkowitz, the retailer's chief financial officer, said the
store has removed the jewelry.  The bracelet had come from an
overseas vendor who had certified that the item met health
standards, he said.  Young World won't sell anything that can be
harmful to children, he added.

The health department has made a push in recent years to stem the
sales of jewelry containing high levels of lead.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Future Losses May Exceed NICO Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., said that future losses could
exceed the $198.3 million of protection remaining under the $2.5
billion reinsurance contract with National Indemnity Company for
old asbestos and environmental claims and certain other exposures,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
September 30, 2013.

OneBeacon was acquired by White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.,
from Aviva plc in 2001.  In connection with the OneBeacon
Acquisition, Aviva caused OneBeacon to purchase two reinsurance
contracts from subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: a
reinsurance contract with National Indemnity Company for up to
$2.5 billion in old asbestos and environmental claims and certain
other exposures (the "NICO Cover") and an adverse loss reserve
development cover from General Reinsurance Corporation for up to
$570.0 million, comprised of $400.0 million of adverse loss
reserve development occurring in years 2000 and prior in addition
to $170.0 million of reserves ceded as of the date of the
OneBeacon Acquisition. The NICO Cover and GRC Cover, which were
contingent on and occurred contemporaneously with the OneBeacon
Acquisition, were put in place in lieu of a seller guarantee of
loss and LAE reserves and are therefore accounted for under GAAP
as a seller guarantee.

Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economic
benefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of OneBeacon's
third party reinsurers ("Third Party Reinsurers") in existence at
the time the NICO Cover was executed ("Third Party Recoverables").
As a result, the underlying Third Party Recoverables serve to
protect the $2.5 billion limit of NICO coverage for the benefit of
OneBeacon. OneBeacon estimates that on an incurred basis it has
used approximately $2.3 billion of the coverage provided by NICO
at September 30, 2013. Net losses paid totaled approximately $1.6
billion as of September 30, 2013. To the extent that actual
experience differs from OneBeacon's estimate of ultimate A&E
losses and Third Party Recoverables, future losses could exceed
the $198.3 million of protection remaining under the NICO Cover at
September 30, 2013.

Pursuant to the GRC Cover, OneBeacon is not entitled to recover
losses to the full contract limit if such losses are reimbursed by
GRC more quickly than anticipated at the time the contract was
signed. OneBeacon intends to seek reimbursement from GRC only for
claims which result in payment patterns similar to those
supporting its recoverables recorded pursuant to the GRC Cover.
The economic cost of not submitting certain other eligible claims
to GRC is primarily the investment spread between the rate
credited by GRC and the rate achieved by OneBeacon on its own
investments. This cost, if any, is expected to be nominal.
OneBeacon has ceded estimated incurred losses of $562.0 million to
GRC under the GRC Cover. As of September 30, 2013, OneBeacon has
$384.3 million of reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses
outstanding under the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (OneBeacon), through its
subsidiaries, is a specialty property and casualty insurance
writer that offers a range of insurance products through
independent agencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers
and managing general agencies. The Company's products relate to
professional liability, marine, entertainment, sports and leisure,
excess property, environmental, group accident, crop, programs,
public entities, technology, surety, and tuition refund. The
Company operates in two segments: Specialty Products, Specialty
Industries, and Investing, Financing and Corporate. In February
2012, the Company sold its AutoOne Insurance business (AutoOne) to
Interboro Holdings, Inc. (Interboro). In January 2013, the Company
sold Essentia Insurance Company to Markel Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5.05MM Shares from AWI PI Trust Held in Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., paid approximately $260 million
to acquire 5,057,382 shares from the Armstrong World Industries,
Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust and Armor TPG
Holdings LP, to be held in treasury, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "In December 2000, AWI filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
in order to use the court-supervised reorganization process to
achieve a resolution of AWI's asbestos-related liability.  On
October 2, 2006, AWI's court-approved plan of reorganization
became effective and AWI emerged from Chapter 11. All claims in
AWI's Chapter 11 case have been resolved and closed.

"On October 2, 2006, the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos
Personal Injury Settlement Trust was created to address AWI's
personal injury (including wrongful death) asbestos-related
liability. All present and future asbestos-related personal injury
claims against AWI, including contribution claims of co-defendants
but excluding certain foreign claims against subsidiaries, arising
directly or indirectly out of AWI's pre-Filing use of, or other
activities involving, asbestos are channeled to the Asbestos PI
Trust.

"In August 2009, Armor TPG Holdings LP and the Asbestos PI Trust
entered into agreements whereby TPG purchased 7,000,000 shares of
AWI common stock from the Asbestos PI Trust and acquired an
economic interest in an additional 1,039,777 shares from the
Asbestos PI Trust. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Asbestos
PI Trust and TPG together sold 5,980,000 of their shares in a
secondary public offering. Additionally, during the third quarter
of 2013, the Asbestos PI Trust and TPG together sold 12,057,382 of
their remaining shares in a secondary public offering. During this
transaction we paid approximately $260 million to acquire
5,057,382 shares to be held in treasury. The treasury share
purchase was funded by existing cash and borrowings under our
credit and securitization facilities. As a result of these
transactions the Asbestos PI Trust and TPG together now hold
approximately 35% of AWI's outstanding shares and maintain a
shareholders' agreement, pursuant to which they agree to vote
their shares together on certain matters. We did not sell any
shares and did not receive any proceeds from these offerings."

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) is a global producer of
flooring products and ceiling systems for use in the construction
and renovation of residential, commercial and institutional
buildings. The Company designs, manufactures and sells flooring
products (resilient and wood) and ceiling systems (mineral fiber,
fiberglass and metal) globally. The Company segments includes:
Building Products, Resilient Flooring and Wood Flooring. The
Company's Building Products, Resilient Flooring, Wood Flooring and
Cabinets segments sell products for use in the home. Its products
are used in new home construction and existing home renovation
work. Its products, primarily ceilings and Resilient Flooring, are
used in commercial and institutional buildings. On September 1,
2012, it sold Patriot Flooring Supply, Inc. to The Belknap White
Group. Effective October 31, 2012, the Company sold of its
cabinets business to American Industrial Partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburg Corning Plan Ruling May be Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., says rulings related to the plan of
reorganization in the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation may be appealed to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of
PPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that
PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing
thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"). PPG and
Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. PPG
has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for
any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 order
which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG, PPG was one
of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving
approximately 114,000 claims served on PPG. During the period of
the stay, PPG generally has not been aware of the dispositions, if
any, of these asbestos claims.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located
in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG
recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of
all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy
filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the
asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been
stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them
has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a
confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in
accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several
other parties. By its terms, the stay may be terminated if the
settlement arrangement is not likely to be consummated.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several
other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the
official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC
bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos
claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a
settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against
PPG and PC (the "2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement").

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had
separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of
asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims
against Corning Incorporated and PC (the "2003 Corning Settlement
Arrangement").

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003
Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy
reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement
describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on
April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement
were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering
objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of
reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving
such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to
creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March
2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the "second
amended PC plan of reorganization") received the required votes to
approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and
future asbestos claimants under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of
reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted
a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including
whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future
claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in
substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided
to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the
assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the
"Trust") to be established as part of the second amended PC plan
of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in
interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of
reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court
scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items
on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written
submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the
Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address
whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in an unrelated case had any applicability to the
second amended PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these
matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus
hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated
that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in
the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the
plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006.
After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December
2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan
of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the
treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated
with PC.

PPG had no obligation to pay any amounts under the 2002 PPG
Settlement Arrangement until 30 days after the second amended PC
plan of reorganization was finally approved by an appropriate
court order that was no longer subject to appellate review (the
"Effective Date"). If the second amended PC plan of reorganization
had been approved as proposed, PPG and certain of its insurers
(along with PC) would have made payments on the Effective Date to
the Trust, which would have provided the sole source of payment
for all present and future asbestos bodily injury claims against
PPG, its subsidiaries or PC alleged to be caused by the
manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos products by these
companies. PPG would have conveyed the following assets to the
Trust: (i) the stock it owns in PC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe,
(ii) 1,388,889 shares of PPG's common stock and (iii) aggregate
cash payments to the Trust of approximately $998 million, payable
according to a fixed payment schedule over 21 years, beginning on
June 30, 2003, or, if later, the Effective Date. PPG would have
had the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash
payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5
percent per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition to the
conveyance of these assets, PPG would have paid $30 million in
legal fees and expenses on behalf of the Trust o recover proceeds
from certain historical insurance assets, including policies
issued by certain insurance carriers that were not participating
in the settlement, the rights to which would have been assigned to
the Trust by PPG.
Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG's
participating historical insurance carriers would have made cash
payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the
Effective Date and 2023. These payments could also have been
prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5 percent
per annum as of the prepayment date. In addition, PPG would have
assigned to the Trust its rights, insofar as they related to the
asbestos claims to have been resolved by the Trust, to the
proceeds of policies issued by certain insurance carriers that
were not participating in the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and
from the estates of insolvent insurers and state insurance
guaranty funds.

Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG would have
granted asbestos releases to all participating insurers, subject
to a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers for the
continuing coverage of premises claims. PPG would have granted
certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary
policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage
policies. PPG would have also granted certain other participating
excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage
limits.

If the second amended PC plan of reorganization incorporating the
terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning
Settlement Arrangement had been approved by the Bankruptcy Court,
the Court would have entered a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) and other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, prohibiting
present and future claimants from asserting bodily injury claims
after the Effective Date against PPG or its subsidiaries or PC
relating to the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos-
containing products by PC or PPG or its subsidiaries. The
injunction would have also prohibited codefendants in those cases
from asserting claims against PPG for contribution,
indemnification or other recovery. All such claims would have been
filed with the Trust and only paid from the assets of the Trust.

To address the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its
December 2006 ruling, the interested parties engaged in extensive
negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended PC plan of
reorganization, including modifications to the 2002 PPG Settlement
Arrangement. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization
(the "third amended PC plan of reorganization"), including a
modified PPG settlement arrangement (the "2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement"), was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29,
2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the
third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third
amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified
settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated.

Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to
the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the
Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the
disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization
and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including
asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent,
filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes,
including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009
PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court
conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan,
including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to
present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated
in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection
provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in
view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be
established as part of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The
remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved
through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing)
appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a
briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the
plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was
completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June
16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization.

Following the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended plan of
reorganization was the subject of negotiations among the parties
in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. PC then
filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012.
Objections to the plan, as amended, were filed by three entities.
One set of objections was resolved by PC and another set merely
restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that
the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court
heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed
by the remaining affiliated insurer objectors on October 10, 2012.
At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth
a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve
some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by
the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice
regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those
specific objections. Following additional hearings and status
conferences, technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization
were filed on May 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
issued a memorandum opinion and interim order confirming the PC
plan of reorganization, as amended, and setting forth a schedule
for motions for reconsideration. Following the filing of motions
for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court, on May 24, 2013, issued
a revised memorandum opinion and final order confirming the
modified third amended plan of reorganization and issuing the
asbestos permanent channeling injunction. The remaining insurer
objectors filed a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2013 and
the other remaining objector filed a notice of appeal to the U. S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The
Bankruptcy Court subsequently issued an order declaring that the
notice of appeal was a nullity because of the pending motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument on the motion for reconsideration
was heard on September 9, 2013.

In a memorandum opinion dated Nov. 12, 2013, Judge Thomas P.
Agresti of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted Mount McKinley Insurance Company
and Everest Reinsurance Company's motion to reconsider in one
limited part and denied it in all other aspects.

If the District Court ultimately affirms the confirmation order,
the remaining objectors could appeal the order to the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently could seek review by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

To address issues raised in the Chapter 11 case of PC, interested
parties, including PPG Industries, Inc., entered into a settlement
arrangement in 2009.  The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not
become effective until certain conditions precedent are satisfied
or waived and the amended PC plan of reorganization is finally
approved by an appropriate court order that is no longer subject
to appellate review, and PPG's initial contributions will not be
due until 30 business days thereafter.

The Bankruptcy Court's channeling injunction, entered under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code and which will become
effective after the order confirming the modified third amended
plan of reorganization is no longer subject to appellate review,
will prohibit present and future claimants from asserting asbestos
claims against PC. With regard to PPG, the channeling injunction
by its terms will prohibit present and future claimants from
asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out
of exposure to Unibestos, or any other asbestos or asbestos-
containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC,
or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The injunction
by its terms will also prohibit codefendants in these cases that
are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims
against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery.
Such injunction will also preclude the prosecution of claims
against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or
seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the
conduct of, claims against or demands on PC by reason of PPG's:
(i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in
the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or
employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to
PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial
transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related
party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as "PC
Relationship Claims" and constitute, in PPG management's opinion,
the vast majority of the pending asbestos personal injury claims
against PPG. All claims channeled to the Trust will be paid only
from the assets of the Trust.

The channeling injunction will not extend to any claim against PPG
that arises out of exposure to any asbestos or asbestos-containing
products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its
subsidiaries that is not a PC Relationship Claim, and in this
respect differs from the channeling injunction contemplated by the
second amended PC plan of reorganization filed in 2003. While
management believes that the vast majority of the approximately
114,000 claims against PPG alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos relate to products manufactured, distributed or sold
by PC, the potential liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims
will be retained by PPG. Because a determination of whether an
asbestos claim is a non-PC Relationship Claim would typically not
be known until shortly before trial and because the filing and
prosecution of asbestos claims (other than certain premises
claims) against PPG has been enjoined since April 2000, the actual
number of non-PC Relationship Claims that may be pending at the
expiration of the stay or the number of additional claims that may
be filed against PPG in the future cannot be determined at this
time. PPG intends to defend against all such claims vigorously and
their ultimate resolution in the court system is expected to occur
over a period of years.

In addition, similar to what was contemplated by the second
amended PC plan of reorganization, the channeling injunction will
not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury caused
by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG (so
called "premises claims"), which generally have been subject to
the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court, although motions to lift
the stay as to individual premises claims have been granted from
time to time. Historically, a small proportion of the claims
against PPG and its subsidiaries have been premises claims, and
based upon review and analysis, PPG believes that the number of
premises claims currently comprises less than 2 percent of the
total asbestos related claims against PPG. Beginning in late 2006,
the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay with respect to certain
premises claims against PPG. As a result, PPG and its primary
insurers have settled approximately 500 premises claims. PPG's
insurers agreed to provide insurance coverage for a major portion
of the payments made in connection with the settled claims, and
PPG accrued the portion of the settlement amounts not covered by
insurance. PPG, in conjunction with its primary insurers as
appropriate, evaluates the factual, medical, and other relevant
information pertaining to additional claims as they are being
considered for potential settlement or litigated in the tort
system. The number of such claims under consideration for
potential settlement or subject to litigation, currently
approximately 360, varies from time to time. PPG believes that any
financial exposure resulting from such premises claims, taking
into account available insurance coverage, will not have a
material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
PC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding Effective
Date. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG will relinquish any claim
to its equity interest in PC, convey the stock it owns in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer 1,388,889 shares of PPG's
common stock or cash equal to the fair value of such shares as
defined in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. PPG will make
aggregate cash payments to the Trust of approximately $825
million, payable according to a fixed payment schedule over a
period ending in 2023. The first payment is due on the Funding
Effective Date. PPG would have the right, in its sole discretion,
to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time at a
discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG's
historical insurance carriers participating in the third amended
PC plan of reorganization will also make cash payments to the
Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective
Date and 2027. These payments could also be prepaid to the Trust
at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the
prepayment date. PPG will grant asbestos releases and
indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended
coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining
coverage of premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating
insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product
liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also
grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against
their product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at
December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would
have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This
reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in
the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions
relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains
liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such
amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be
channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG's best
estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on
which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the
fact that the Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since
2000. As a result, PPG's reserve at September 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012 for asbestos-related claims that will not be
channeled to the Trust is $162 million. This amount is included
within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets. In addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement, PPG will retain for its own account rights to recover
proceeds from certain historical insurance assets, including
policies issued by non-participating insurers. Rights to recover
these proceeds would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under
the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy
Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos
claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third
amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated
liability for such claims and related insurance assets then
available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a
periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve
for these claims is required.

Of the total obligation of $974 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at September 30, 2013, $732 million is
reported as a current liability and the present value of the
payments due in the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $242 million is
reported as a non-current liability in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent
portion of the liability will total $98 million and be reported as
expense in the condensed consolidated statement of income over the
period through 2023.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an
"Other current asset" as of September 30, 2013 and December 31,
2012 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.
Payments under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments
that are due each June. The current portion of the asbestos
settlement liability included in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2013 consists of
all such payments required through June 2013, the fair value of
PPG's common stock and the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh
Corning Europe. The net present value of the remaining payments
due is included in the long-term asbestos settlement liability in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2013.

If the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement is not implemented, for any
reason, and the Bankruptcy Court stay expires, PPG intends to
defend vigorously the pending and any future asbestos claims,
including PC Relationship Claims, asserted against it and its
subsidiaries. PPG continues to assert that it is not responsible
for any injuries caused by PC products, which it believes account
for the vast majority of the pending claims against PPG. Prior to
2000, PPG had never been found liable for any PC-related claims.
In numerous cases, PPG was dismissed on motions prior to trial,
and in others PPG was released as part of settlements by PC. PPG
was found not responsible for PC-related claims at trial in two
cases. In January 2000, one jury found PPG, for the first time,
partly responsible for injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be
caused by PC products. The plaintiffs holding the judgment on that
verdict moved to lift the injunction as applied to their claims.
Before the hearing on that motion, PPG entered into a settlement
with those claimants in the second quarter of 2010 to avoid the
costs and risks associated with the possible lifting of the stay
and appeal of the adverse 2000 verdict. The settlement resolved
both the motion to lift the injunction and the judgment against
PPG. The cost of this settlement was not significant to PPG's
results of operations for the second quarter of 2010 and was fully
offset by prior insurance recoveries. Although PPG has
successfully defended asbestos claims brought against it in the
past, in view of the number of claims, and the significant
verdicts that other companies have experienced in asbestos
litigation, the result of any future litigation of such claims is
inherently unpredictable.

A full-text copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available
at http://is.gd/taE5YB

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective and
decorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments. The
Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural
Coatings-EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishes
for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial
equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum
extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft
equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and
consumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials segment
consist of the optical products and silicas businesses. It is a
producer and supplier of basic chemicals. Glass segment produces
flat glass and continuous-strand fiber glass. The Glass business
segment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass businesses. In
January 2013, the combined company formed by uniting Georgia Gulf
with PPG's former commodity chemicals business is named Axiall
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $555-Million Claims Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $555 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increased
its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year to determine the
appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In November 2011, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation's 2011 asbestos claim and resolution activity and
determine the appropriateness of updating its then most recent
study completed in December 2010. In response to that request,
ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through October 31, 2011. In
January 2012, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not
provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate
reflected in its December 2010 study and, therefore, the estimate
in that study remained applicable. Based on the Corporation's own
review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's
response, the Corporation determined that no change to the accrual
was required. At December 31, 2011, the Corporation's asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims was $668 million.

In October 2012, the Corporation requested ARPC to review the
Corporation's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity
and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2010
study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed
data through September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon
ARPC's December 2012 study and the Corporation's own review of the
asbestos claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31,
2012. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012. At December
31, 2012, approximately 18 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and approximately 82 percent related to
future claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2013 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
September 30, 2013. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was $555 million at September 30,
2013. Approximately 19 percent of the recorded liability related
to pending claims and approximately 81 percent related to future
claims.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough
review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington
Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability
insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance
settlements, with due consideration given to applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account
the solvency and historical payment experience of various
insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements
with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and
collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Because of uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The
Corporation's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Insurance Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's insurance coverage lawsuit remains
pending in a New York state court, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with most of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue settlements with outstanding
carriers.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was $25 million at September 30, 2013 and
$25 million at December 31, 2012. At September 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries
was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington
Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Corporation's receivables related to its asbestos-related
liability as of September 30, 2013, was $165 million.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $26
million for the third quarter of 2013 ($25 million in the third
quarter of 2012), $77 million for the first nine months of 2013
($73 million for the first nine months of 2012) and was included
in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims,
management believes that adequate provisions have been made for
probable losses with respect to pending claims and proceedings,
and that, except for the asbestos-related matters, the ultimate
outcome of all known and future claims, after provisions for
insurance, will not have a material adverse impact on the results
of operations, cash flows and financial position of the
Corporation. Should any losses be sustained in connection with any
of such legal proceedings and claims in excess of provisions
provided and available insurance, they will be charged to income
when determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 74,000 PI Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 74,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims pending
against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 106,900 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $424 million through September 30, 2013 and $407
million through December 31, 2012.

For the nine-months ended September 30, 2013, there were 74,000
pending claims and the Company paid $15 million on asbestos
litigation defense and claim resolution. Because claims are often
filed and disposed of by dismissal or settlement in large numbers,
the amount and timing of settlements and the number of open claims
during a particular period can fluctuate significantly.

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $141 million and $139
million at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $75 million
and $73 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim
related losses will be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $11 million and $10 million were included in Current
Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at September 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively. The recorded receivable consists
of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place
agreements with certain primary carriers as well as an amount we
believe is probable of recovery from certain of our excess
coverage insurance carriers.

We believe that, at September 30, 2013, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company operated
approximately 1,400 tire and auto service center outlets where it
offered its products for retail sale and provided automotive
repair and other services. The Company manufactures its products
in 53 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including the
United States. It operates through four operating segments
representing its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA); Latin American Tire,
and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Records $5MM Charge for Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning recorded a charge of $5 million to adjust the asbestos
liability for the change in value of components of the Amended
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Plan in the three months ended
September 30, 2013, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the same
quarterly period.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named
in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. Corning, with other relevant
parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of
Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of
the relevant parties. A proposed PCC plan of reorganization
(Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania was confirmed by a final order in
May 2013; however, a motion for reconsideration has been filed.
Corning also has an equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe
N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, that is a component of the
Company's proposed resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation. At
September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the fair value of PCE
exceeded its carrying value of $160 million and $149 million,
respectively.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain other non-PCC
asbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.
Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation
liability an additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800
current non-PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for any
future non-PCC cases. The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and
the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $684 million at
September 30, 2013, compared with an estimate of the liability of
$671 million at December 31, 2012. In the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2013, Corning recorded asbestos litigation
expense of $5 million and $13 million, respectively. In the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2012, Corning recorded
asbestos litigation expense of $3 million and $9 million,
respectively. The entire obligation is classified as a non-current
liability as installment payments for the cash portion of the
obligation are not planned to commence until more than 12 months
after the Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion
of the obligation will be fulfilled through the direct
contribution of Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as
a non-current other equity method investment).

On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order
confirming, on an interim basis, the Amended PCC Plan. On May 23,
2013, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to review motions for
reconsideration of its interim order and, on May 24, 2013, it
issued a revised opinion and final order confirming the Amended
PCC Plan. On June 6, 2013, one party filed a motion for
reconsideration of that final order which was scheduled for
hearing on September 9, 2013. A different party, on June 7, 2013,
filed a notice of an appeal of that final order to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and this
appeal has been stayed pending resolution of the other party's
motion for reconsideration. On July 23, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order deeming that appeal a nullity and indicating that
interested parties shall have the right to file a notice of appeal
within 14 days after the Court's decision on the pending motion
for reconsideration. By an order dated
September 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court directed the parties to
provide further information about a point on which the Court
requires clarification before it can render a decision on the
motion for reconsideration. The parties filed the requested
information on October 9, 2013.

In the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, Corning
recorded a charge of $5 million and $13 million, respectively, to
adjust the asbestos liability for the change in value of
components of the Amended PCC Plan.  In the three and nine month
ended September 30, 2012, Corning recorded a charge of $3 million
and $9 million, respectively, to adjust the asbestos liability for
the change in value of components of the Amended PCC Plan.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. In
March 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from the
shareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquired
Mediatech, Inc. In November 2012, Corning acquired the majority of
the Discovery Labware business from Becton, Dickinson and Company.
In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $736.8MM in Claims Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's estimated net asbestos exposure for the
resolution of all pending claims and claims estimated to be filed
in the next 10 years was $736.8 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined
as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These
claims allege that certain of our products sold prior to 1985
contained a part manufactured by a third party, which contained
asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material
and was non-friable. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to
identify any ITT or Goulds Pump product as a source of asbestos
exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against
the Company have been placed on inactive dockets because the
plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. The
Company states: "Our experience to date is that a substantial
portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by
the Company.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
a number of factors. As of September 30, 2013, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
$1.26 billion, including expected legal fees, and an associated
asset of $533.1 million which represents estimated recoveries from
insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of $736.8 million."

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

ITT Corporation is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 59,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 59,000 pending active asbestos-related
claims against ITT Corporation, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joined
as a defendant with numerous other companies in product liability
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These
claims generally allege that certain products sold by us or our
subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

As of September 30, 2013, there were approximately 59 thousand
pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. The average cost per resolved claim for the
nine months ended 2013 and 2012, including indemnity and defense
costs, was $3 thousand and $6 thousand, respectively. ITT expects
more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT
will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable
resolution, as appropriate.

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Continues to Defend Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,180 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,060 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2012.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company
expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the
future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past.
Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a
greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company
has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of
the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth
case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict. The plaintiffs appealed, but in February 2012 the
California Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's voluntary
dismissal of the appeal.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company
and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in
the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its
complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's
compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with
occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages.
While the case has been inactive since the fourth quarter of 2007,
the court held a case management conference in March 2011, but no
further activity has occurred in the case since that conference.
No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this
time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible
loss or range of loss given the minimal activity in this case and
the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other
manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on
the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault
a jury allocates to each defendant if the case is ultimately
tried.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
the Company increased its accruals in the first nine months of
2013 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $37 million, $13
million of which occurred in the third quarter of 2013. In the
first nine months of 2013, the Company made payments for fees and
settlements of $33 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos
litigation, $13 million of which occurred in the third quarter of
2013. As of September 30, 2013, the Company had accruals for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $130 million (excluding
Aearo accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted,
(ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple
defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed
to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability
may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary
by state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$67 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions,
pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its
experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of
each claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has
concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect
the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including
(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent
to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)
the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings
with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance
coverage.

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served
with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. --
both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District
Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.
The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and
Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint had been
dismissed because of settlements they had reached with the Company
regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the
Company reached agreements in principle with the remaining
insurers in the lawsuit. The Company and those insurers have been
in the process of preparing formal settlement agreements. After
all of the settlement agreements have been executed, the Court
will issue dismissal orders at which time this matter will be
concluded. During the first nine months of 2013, the Company
received payments of $20 million from settlements with insurers,
$10 million of which occurred in the third quarter of 2013.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. Once the claims-made insurance coverage is
resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its
remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask claims.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company with a
presence in the industrial and transportation; health care;
consumer and office; safety, security and protection services;
display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses.
3M manages its operations in six business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security
and Protection Services; Display and Graphics, and Electro and
Communications. 3M products are sold through a number of
distribution channels, including directly to users and through
wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a
range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012,
it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the
business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from
Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company
acquired Ceradyne, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Records $26-Mil. Aero Product Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $26 million
as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product
liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-
related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies.  Aearo
manufactured and sold various products, including personal
protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and
certain respiratory protection products.

As of September 30, 2013, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, has recorded $26 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor
Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the
number of years each company sold respiratory products under the
"AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is
further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and
Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as
Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by
its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able
to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than
the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company with a
presence in the industrial and transportation; health care;
consumer and office; safety, security and protection services;
display and graphics, and electro and communications businesses.
3M manages its operations in six business segments: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office; Safety, Security
and Protection Services; Display and Graphics, and Electro and
Communications. 3M products are sold through a number of
distribution channels, including directly to users and through
wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a
range of trades in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012,
it acquired CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the
business of Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from
Federal Signal Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company
acquired Ceradyne, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling v. Titan in Improper Handling Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Wrecking & Environmental, LLC, appeals from a trial court's
judgment entry denying its post-trial motions for sanctions and
attorney fees.  Titan advances two assignments of error on appeal.
First, it contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for
frivolous-conduct sanctions.  Second, it claims the trial court
erred in denying its motion for attorney fees.

The present appeal stems from a 2008 lawsuit filed by the State of
Ohio against Titan.  The State alleged that Titan had improperly
handled "regulated asbestos-containing material" when removing
vinyl floor tile from an elementary school.  The case proceeded to
a bench trial where the tile was shown to contain more than one-
percent asbestos and the quantity of tile involved was shown to
exceed the minimum regulated amount.  The trial court nevertheless
entered judgment in favor of Titan, holding that the State had
failed to prove the existence of RACM for two reasons: (1) the
evidence did not establish that the tile had been rendered
friable, and (2) the evidence did not establish that the tile had
been subjected to grinding.  In light of these findings, the trial
court did not address Titan's additional argument that the State
had failed to use the prescribed method of analysis to determine
the tile's asbestos content.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County,
affirmed the trial court's judgment and overruled Titan's
assignment of error.

The case is STATE OF OHIO, ex rel., NANCY H. ROGERS, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. TITAN WRECKING & ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, Defendant-
Appellant, APPELLATE NO. 25603 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated Nov. 15, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/sOjOigfrom Leagle.com.

MICHAEL DeWINE, Esq., WEDNESDAY M. SZOLLOSI, Esq., and SARAH BLOOM
ANDERSON, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee.  RONALD J.
KOZAR, Esq., Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dismissed as Defendant in "Tobin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos-related personal injury action, defendant Crane Co.
moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-
claims asserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence
to show that plaintiff Donald Tobin was exposed to asbestos from
Crane products.

In a decision and order dated Nov. 13, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion,
holding that there is nothing in the case to show that Crane's
valves were installed in the Plaintiff's zone of exposure as
opposed to other manufacturer's valves, or that the Crane valves
contained asbestos.  Without more, the Plaintiff's claims against
Crane are at best speculative, Judge Heitler ruled.  Accordingly,
the action and any cross-claims against Crane Co. are severed and
dismissed in their entirety.

The case is DONALD TOBIN, Plaintiff, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, et
al. Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190337/12, MOTION SEQ. 002 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/TxX4oXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. High Court Affirms Ruling in Eviction Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Polejewski appeals from an order of the Nineteenth Judicial
District Court, Lincoln County, in which the District Court
concluded Pam did not have record title to the subject property
and was properly removed from the property by the Lincoln County
Sheriff.

On appeal, Pam contends jurisdiction in justice court was
improper.  Pam argues that her due process rights were violated
because the District Court failed to consider her counterclaims or
motions.  Pam maintains that she should have been allowed to argue
that the Wises breached the contract, that she qualified for
relief from forfeiture because there was asbestos on the property,
and that she sustained damages after being exposed to asbestos for
six years.

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed, holding, among other
things, that the District Court correctly concluded it could not
address Pam's arguments about asbestos, good faith, and damages
for exposure to asbestos.  The justice court, according to the
Supreme Court, did not have jurisdiction over Pam's counterclaim
but had jurisdiction over the action for unlawful detainer.  On
appeal, the District Court's review was limited to the eviction
issue as that was the only issue over which the justice court had
jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.

The case is HAROLD and MARY WISE, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PAM
POLEJEWSKI, Defendant and Appellant, NO. DA 12-0752 (Mont.).  A
full-text copy of the Nov. 19, 2013, Decision delivered by Justice
Patricia O. Cotter is available at http://is.gd/OFTks6from
Leagle.com.

Pamela Jo Polejewski, self-represented; Great Falls, Montana, for
Appellant.  L. Charles Evans, Esq., Attorney at Law; Libby,
Montana, for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: In Camera Review Needed in "Sweredoski" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of its earlier Motion
to Compel, which the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence,
SC, denied on July 15, 2013.  Crane filed another motion, renewing
its discovery request for information relating to claims submitted
by Plaintiff Rosie K. Sweredoski to asbestos bankruptcy trusts on
behalf of her late husband, Douglas A. Sweredoski.  The Plaintiff
objects to this motion.

After reconsidering the parties' arguments, and in light of a new
argument advanced by Crane on the motion, the Superior Court
concluded that an in camera review of the requested documents is
necessary to determine if they are properly discoverable.

The case is ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, AND INDIVIDUALLY RECOGNIZED AS
SURVIVING SPOUSE, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., C.A. NO. PC-2011-
1544 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
Nov. 18, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/T83XtOfrom
Leagle.com.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Court Affirms "Toney" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Bayer Corporation appeals the decision of the West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review.  The appeal arises
from the Board of Review's Final Order dated January 25, 2012, in
which the Board affirmed a July 22, 2011, Order of the Workers'
Compensation Office of Judges.  In its Order, the Office of Judges
reversed the claims administrator's December 18, 2009, decision
rejecting Luann Toney's claim for dependents' benefits.

John Toney worked as a chemical operator for Bayer Corporation
from November of 1986 until April 23, 2008.  Ms. Toney alleges
that Mr. Toney was exposed to occupational asbestos, and it caused
malignant mesothelioma, which led to his death in July of 2009.

Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the
record presented, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
found no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error.
The Supreme Court found that the decision of the Board of Review
is not in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory
provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous conclusions
of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or
mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.  The Supreme Court,
therefore, affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.

The case is BAYER CORPORATION, Employer Below, Petitioner v. LUANN
TONEY, WIDOW OF JOHN TONEY III (DECEASED), Claimant Below,
Respondent, NO. 12-0243 (W. Va.).  A full-text copy of the Court's
memorandum decision, dated Nov. 18, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/2f29eWfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Appeal in "Lemberger" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Lemberger filed a wrongful death action against multiple
defendants seeking damages for the death of her husband who died
of mesothelioma.  Ms. Lemberger alleged that her husband's
mesothelioma was caused by asbestos-containing automotive brakes
from The Bendix Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc.'s
predecessor.  A jury concluded that the brakes were 25%
responsible for Lemberger's death.

Honeywell appeals from a judgment of the circuit court, entered
upon the jury's verdict, but amended by the circuit court.
Honeywell raises several challenges to the amended verdict but,
ultimately, concluded that the circuit court should not have
altered the jury's decision.

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, in an opinion dated
Nov. 19, 2013, reversed the judgment appealed from and remanded
the matter to the circuit court with directions to reinstate the
original verdict.

The Court of Appeals found that, "[h]ere, it is evident that in
the context of both the verdict questions and the jury
instructions, the jury believed itself charged with the task of
determining the extent to which mesothelioma and/or lung cancer
caused by smoking played a role in Lemberger's death.  The jury,
believing itself so charged, returned verdict answers expressing
an internally consistent conclusion that Lemberger's smoking
caused lung cancer and that the lung cancer was more responsible
for his death than the mesothelioma.  That conclusion is
adequately supported by the evidence of Record."

The Court of Appeals added, "[t]he trial court appears to believe
that the jury was led astray by the verdict and instructions.
However, if the trial court, upon receiving the verdict from the
jury and previewing it, thought that the answers reflected
confusion by the jury, it could have asked the jury to continue or
reconsider its deliberations, or it could have ordered a new
trial. See Westfall v. Kottke, 110 Wis.2d 86, 96-98, 328 N.W.2d
481, 487-488 (1983). It should not, however, have rewritten the
jury's answers to follow clearer instructions that were not given
or to answer clearer questions that were not asked."

The case is COLLEEN LEMBERGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF STEVEN LEMBERGER, PLAINTIFF-
RESPONDENT, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS, LLC,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., WAHL
REFRACTORIES, INC., PRICE VIKING, HENNES SERVICES, INC., ZIEN
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., DAWES RIGGING AND CRANE RENTAL,
INC., LTG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WAUSAU, GENERAL PATTERN CO., INC., THE HOLMING CO., THE SCHOFIELD
CORP., THIEM CORP., TRAVELER'S CASUALTY AND SURETY CO., WISCONSIN
BRIDGE AND IRON CO. AND GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS,
APPEAL NO. 2009AP1180 (Wis. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/SGpDFofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Stay Request in "Brown" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, denied the request for stay and other relief filed in
IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BROWN, v.
BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY - CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK.,
MOTION NO. M-5675 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
decision is available at http://is.gd/ZX02Etfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Request in "Kestenbaum" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, granted the Corporation Clarification filed in IN RE:
NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to KESTENBAUM, v.
DUREZ, MOTION NO. M-5803 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the decision is available at http://is.gd/fdGyeVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Partially Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
Appellant, Chris Cook, executor of the estate of his father,
Charles Cook, appeals an Ohio trial court's decision to
administratively dismiss his complaint.

In November 2007, the decedent, a former smoker, who smoked up to
two packs per day for almost 30 years, was diagnosed with lung
cancer.  In June 2008, decedent passed away and an autopsy
confirmed the lung cancer diagnosis.  In addition, the autopsy
uncovered large amounts of fibrosis with asbestos bodies,
including severe interstitial fibrosis in the left ventricle.

On September 30, 2009, Cook filed an asbestos-related complaint
against several companies, including, but not limited to NL
Industries, Inc., f.k.a. National Lead Company, Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
Exxon Mobil Oil Company, Individually and as Successor to Mobil
Oil Corporation, as well as "John Does and 1-100 Manufacturers,
Sellers, or Installers of Asbestos-Containing Products".  The
complaint alleged injury to his father and subsequent death from
workplace exposure to products containing asbestos.

Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, a three-judge panel
of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
composed by Judges Patricia Ann Blackmon, Frank D. Celebrezze, and
Eileen A. Gallagher, affirmed in part and reversed in part the
ruling of the lower court.

The case is CHRIS COOK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF DANIEL COOK, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. NL
INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, NOS. 98911 AND
99522 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Nov. 13, 2013, Opinion
penned by Judge Blackmon is available at http://is.gd/aYnuqNfrom
Leagle.com.

Chris Cook is represented by:

         Joshua P. Grunda, Esq.
         Jessica M. Bacon, Esq.
         Thomas W. Bevan, Esq.
         Patrick M. Walsh, Esq.
         BEVAN & ASSOCIATES, L.P.A., Inc.
         6555 Dean Memorial Parkway
         Boston Heights, Ohio 44236

Timothy M. Fox, Esq. -- tfox@ulmer.com -- and Christine E.
Watchorn, Esq. -- cwatchorn@ulmer.com -- at Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P.,
for NL Industries, Inc.

William D. Bonezzi, Esq., and Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq., at Bonezzi
Switzer Murphy Polito & Hupp Co., L.P.A., at 1300 East 9th Street,
Suite 1950, in Cleveland, Ohio, for Donald McKay Smith, Inc.

Bradley K. Shafer, Esq. -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- at Swartz
Campbell, at 1233 Main Street, Suite 1000, in Wheeling, West
Virginia 26003, for Allied Glove.

Daniel J. Michalec, Esq. -- dmichalec@gallaghersharp.com -- and
Holly Olarczuk-Smith, Esq. -- holarczuk-smith@gallaghersharp.com
-- at Gallagher Sharp, at Sixth Floor, Bulkley Building, 1501
Euclid Avenue, in Cleveland, Ohio, for Beazer East, Inc.

John A. Kristan, Jr., Esq. -- jkristan@kjmsh.com -- and John A.
Valenti, Esq. -- jvalenti@kjmsh.com -- at Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli Hanna & Reber, L.L.P., at 1220 W. 6th Street, Suite 305,
in Cleveland, Ohio.

W. Matthew Reber, Esq. -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- at Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, L.L.P., at Two Liberty Place,
Suite 1900, 50 South 16th Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
for Clark Industrial Insulation.

Coleson R. Braham, Esq. -- braham@buckleyking.com -- Daniel P.
Carter, Esq. -- carter@buckleyking.com -- and Jeffrey W. Ruple,
Esq. -- ruple@buckleyking.com -- at Buckley King, L.P.A., at 1400
Fifth Third Center, 600 Superior Avenue, East, in Cleveland, Ohio,
for Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.

James N. Kline, Esq. -- jkline@ulmer.com -- Bruce P. Mandel, Esq.
-- bmandel@ulmer.com -- Kurt S. Siegfried, Esq. --
ksiegfried@ulmer.com -- and Robert E. Zulandt, III, Esq. --
rzulandt@ulmer.com -- at Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., for Edward R. Hart
Company.

Stephanie M. Chmiel, Esq. -- Stephanie.Chmiel@ThompsonHine.com --
and Jennifer M. Mountcastle, Esq. --
Jennifer.Mountcastle@ThompsonHine.com -- at Thompson Hine, L.L.P.,
at 41 S. High Street, Suite 1700, in Columbus, Ohio; Elizabeth B.
Wright, Esq. -- Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com -- at Thompson
Hine, L.L.P., at 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square, in Cleveland,
Ohio; and Stephen T. Persia, Esq. -- spersia@ralaw.com -- and Brad
A. Rimmel, Esq. -- brimmel@ralaw.com -- at Roetzel & Andress,
L.P.A., at 222 South Main Street, in Akron, Ohio, for Ford Motor
Company.

Nicholas L. Evanchan, Esq., and Ralph J. Palmisano, Esq., at
Evanchan & Palmisano, at 388 South Main Street, Suite 402, in
Akron, Ohio 44311, for Foster Wheeler Corporation.

Oldham Company, LLC, at 195 South Main Street, Suite 300, in
Akron, Ohio 44308, for General Electric Company.

Matthew M. Daiker, Esq. -- mmdaiker@vorys.com -- Perry W. Doran,
II, Esq. -- pdoran@vorys.com -- and Richard D. Schuster, Esq. --
rdschuster@vorys.com -- at Vorys, Sater, Seymour, & Pease, at 52
East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008, in Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008, for
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

Steven G. Blackmer, Esq. -- sblackmer@willmanlaw.com -- at Willman
& Silvaggio, L.L.P., at 5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237, for Honeywell International, Inc.

Laura Kingsley Hong, Esq. -- laura.hong@squiresanders.com -- at
Squire Sanders (US), L.L.P., at 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square,
in Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Diane L. Feigi, Esq. -- dfeigi@bakerlaw.com -- Wade A. Mitchell,
Esq. -- wmitchell@bakerlaw.com -- and Edward D. Papp, Esq. --
epapp@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., at PNC Center,
1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200, Cleveland, Ohio, for Kelsey-
Hayes Company.

Jennifer A. Riester, Esq. -- JRiester@westonhurd.com -- at Weston
Hurd, L.L.P., at The Tower at Erieview, 1301 East Ninth Street,
Suite 1900, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Morton International.

Thomas R. Wolf, Esq. -- twolf@reminger.com -- at Reminger Co.,
L.P.A., at 101 Prospect Avenue, West, Suite 1400, Cleveland, Ohio
44115, for CL Zimmerman & Ohio Pipe & Supply Company.

Kenneth F. Krawczak, Esq. -- kkrawczak@swartzcampbell.com -- and
Michele L. Larissey, Esq. -- mlarissey@swartzcampbell.com -- at
Swartz Campbell, L.L.C., at The Illuminating Building, 55 Public
Square, Suite 1120, in Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for Okonite Company.

Susan M. Audey, Esq. -- susan.audey@tuckerellis.com -- Christopher
J. Caryl, Esq. -- christopher.caryl@tuckerellis.com -- and
Jennifer Woloschyn, Esq. -- jennifer.woloschyn@tuckerellis.com --
at Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., at 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100, in
Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for Pneumo Abex, L.L.C.

Michael D. Eagen, Esq. -- Michael.eagen@dinsmore.com -- at
Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., at 1900 Chemed Center, 255 East Fifth
Street, in Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; Daniel L. Jones, Jr., Esq. --
at daniel.jones@dinsmore.com -- at Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., at
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900, in Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for
Saint-Gobain Abrasives (f.k.a. Norton Company).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: White House Rejects FACT Act
---------------------------------------------
Andrea Drusch, writing for Politico, reported that President
Barack Obama's administration came out against a key piece of
asbestos legislation just days after headlining a fundraiser at
the homes of two of the top asbestos litigators in the country.

According to the report, in a swing through Texas, two of the
country's top asbestos attorneys, Russell Budd and Peter Kraus,
hosted fundraisers that brought in an expected $1 million-plus for
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over the course of
three hours at their Dallas-area homes.

The White House put out a statement opposing a piece of
legislation aimed at regulating asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Budd
and Kraus both sit on the boards of several of these trusts.  The
White House and the Office of Management and Budget did not
respond to a request for comment.

The trusts allow companies with significant liabilities to secure
protection for future claims, but often have advisory committees
made up of people from the same law firms that represent the
asbestos clients.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act -- backed by
business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- would
require the trusts to disclose additional information about the
claims the pay to victims, in order prevent false or inflated
claims.

In a statement, the White House warned that the legislation would
make publicly available the personal information of individuals
who had filed asbestos-related injuries. Additionally, it said
that asbestos fraud was a non-existent problem.

"The legislation is based on the false assertion that there is
endemic fraud in the asbestos trust system," the statement said.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Budd was a chief negotiator
in a national settlement with Halliburton that established the
largest asbestos trust fund of its kind. He sat on the board of
more than a dozen asbestos bankruptcy trusts at the end of 2011.
Krauss, who has served on the American Bar Association's
Commission on Asbestos litigation, held advisory positions at
three.

The fundraisers took place back to back during the president's
trip to Texas to meet with supporters of his health care law.
At Kraus's home, a pool report said the president addressed a
crowd of 100 guests, each of whom had paid $15,000 to attend. Just
over an hour later, he spoke at a dinner at Budd's home, where a
pool report said 25 attended, paying around $32,000 per couple.

The bill has been lobbied on extensively by the Chamber of
Commerce and various insurance companies. The Chamber issued a
letter to lawmakers in support of the legislation, stressing its
importance to businesses and naming it a key vote in how it ranks
its annual member scorecard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Victims React to House Vote on H.R. 982
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leaders of the Asbestos Cancer Victims Rights Campaign reacted
strongly to the 221-199 vote to pass the FACT Act, H.R. 982, by
the House of Representatives.

Susan Vento, widow of Rep Bruce Vento (D-MN): "I'm deeply
disappointed in the vote, but grateful to the Members of Congress
who stood up for asbestos victims and their families in opposing
legislation that hurts cancer victims. We will continue to oppose
this legislation and ensure that it never becomes law."

Judy Van Ness, widow of Naval Veteran Richard L. Van Ness,
commented after the vote:

"Congress today forced asbestos victims and their families to
release private information that will put them at risk of identity
theft. This delays and could deny badly needed compensation to
victims and their families."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Claims Are Distinct Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
asbestos drilling mud lawsuits are similar to other asbestos
claims because they all tend to allege that employees were exposed
to asbestos without being properly warned of the risks and without
being given adequate safety gear. Asbestos drilling mud lawsuits
and other asbestos lawsuits also tend to involve claims about
serious health problems linked to the asbestos exposure -- health
problems such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. But as court
documents from a lawsuit in 2003 show, asbestos drilling mud
lawsuits are distinct from other asbestos claims.

The court documents were filed In Re: Asbestos Litigation (case
number 03-0895) and are a response to Union Carbide's Motion for
Transfer of asbestos-exposure cases and consolidation of those
claims. Essentially, Union Carbide wanted to consolidate the
drilling mud claims with those of other asbestos lawsuits.

According to the filings, at the time there were more than
1,100,000 oil and gas wells in Texas, and the 1,095 plaintiffs
involved in the 166 mud drilling lawsuits drilled those wells from
the 1960s up to 1965. It was during this time that they were
allegedly exposed to asbestos. Union Carbide argued that the 166
asbestos lawsuits should be consolidated with other asbestos
lawsuits, but the plaintiffs disagreed for a few reasons.

First, in typical asbestos lawsuits, there can be dozens of
defendants named, plaintiffs lawyers argued. Some lawsuits name up
to 70 defendants who allegedly exposed workers or consumers to
asbestos. In the asbestos drilling mud cases, there were only four
defendants -- the manufacturers and suppliers of a specific
product that was made of pure asbestos. Furthermore, typical
asbestos lawsuits make a variety of claims including fraud, breach
of warranty and conspiracy. The oilfield cases, however, claimed
only product liability against the defendants.

"Indeed, the vast majority of the discovery and legal issues
ordinarily associated with 'traditional' asbestos cases are
irrelevant to oilfield worker cases," the documents claimed. The
asbestos the drilling mud workers were exposed to was made,
packaged and shipped by Union Carbide to be used in drilling mud.
The only similarity between the drilling mud claim and other
lawsuits is simply that it involves asbestos, according to court
documents.

Workers who were exposed to asbestos in drilling mud were
roughnecks, derrick hands, drillers, tool pushers and roustabouts.
The asbestos was added to drilling mud to change the mud's
viscosity. The mud huts in which the asbestos was mixed were
frequently described as looking as if it was "snowing inside" due
to the asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs alleged that when they went
home after work they looked as though they were covered in flour.

Union Carbide responded to the plaintiff's concerns by noting that
consolidation of the lawsuits would be more convenient and
efficient.

In this instance, the judges ruled with Union Carbide, finding
that there were significant commonalities regarding questions of
fact, and granted the motion for multidistrict litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Carpenter's Trial Into Second Week
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reported that the Plaintiff's attorney Carson Menges told
Madison County jurors that the amount of asbestos fibers contained
in a can of Georgia Pacific joint compound used decades ago -- if
laid end-to-end -- would stretch past the Red Planet.

According to the report, the trial -- a rare occurrence in the
nation's busiest asbestos court -- is playing out in Associate
Judge Stephen Stobbs' court.

Plaintiff James Reef of Kansas filed the lawsuit in December 2012
against dozens of companies that made, sold or distributed
asbestos-containing products including Georgia Pacific, the only
defendant to take the case to trial. Most of the hundreds of cases
set for trial in any given year settle before jurors are given a
chance to decide.

Reef, 69, began carpentry in 1965 at the age of 19 and claims he
spent 50 percent of his time working on drywall using Georgia
Pacific's joint compound paste.

Reef alleges the joint compound he used contained asbestos, which
led to his mesothelioma, diagnosed in October 2012.

Witness Anne Ksionzyk, a Georgia Pacific witness, took the stand
and was first questioned by Menges.

Ksionzyk, a Georgia Pacific employee since 1982, said she reviewed
12-15 boxes of Georgia Pacific asbestos documents collected from
the early 1980s, verifying that Georgia Pacific made joint
compound with asbestos beginning in 1965.

She testified that a 3.2 pound can of ready mix compound contained
roughly 1.2 pounds of asbestos.

Menges calculated that one pound of asbestos would stretch 451
million miles if the fibers were placed end-to-end, a distance
well past the planet Mars.

Representing Georgia Pacific, attorney Jeff Hebrank of HeplerBroom
questioned Ksionzyk following Menges. He had her verify her role
with the company and why she was chosen to testify.

She said she is involved in product certification with third party
agencies to ensure Georgia Pacific products meet building
requirements and said she worked specifically with joint compound
for 20 years.

From her extensive experience with joint compound, knowledge of
records and familiarity, she was chosen to testify on the
defendant's behalf. Because of her work in the labs, evaluating
small batches of products, she is familiar with the Gypsum
division of products, including the joint compound, she said.

Hebrank showed the jury a letter Georgia Pacific Vice President
Glen Wilson wrote to a company manager on May 7, 1970, asking him
to initiate a program concerning the use of asbestos in joint
compound. Wilson mentioned the possibilities of asbestos-related
dangers and asked the manager to take the risk into consideration.
Asbestos was a primary component in joint compound.

"To replace that required an evaluation of materials they had not
used before," Ksionzyk said.

She confirmed that there had been no reports of carpenters working
with dry wall getting sick and no other company created non-
asbestos containing joint compounds at that time. She said no one
indicated that asbestos was highly hazardous.

Georgia Pacific began labeling its dry mix first, because the
ready mix didn't require a label as long as the fibers were bound
with a liquid. That changed, she said, when "we believe it was in
our best interest to begin labeling" the joint compound before the
defendant's competitors added warning labels.

"We could find an asbestos reformulation before our competitors,"
Ksionzyk said. "That would certainly give us an edge for our
consumers."

Georgia Pacific ceased production of asbestos containing products
in May 1977, more than a year before it was banned.

Also on the stand was plaintiff witness Dr. Thomas Selders, an
industrial hygienist from Austin, Texas.

Selders created a report based on Reef's exposure to asbestos,
taking complete exposure into account rather than singling out the
joint compound. Selders addressed background exposure, fibers
traveling on his clothing, joint compound, insulation and more.

"Don't look for asbestos in one location," Selders said under
questioning by Menges. "It was used in a variety of items."

Selders said asbestos fibers can travel hundreds of meters, and
when Reef wasn't directly involved in dry wall work, he was around
those who were.

He even addressed Reef's clothing as a carrier of asbestos,
because it is "frequently" overlooked.

"'You'd be dusty head to toe and all over your face,'" Selders
recalled Reef saying about carrying those fibers with him back
home and in his car.

Hebrank followed Menges, questioning the specific articles and
studies Selders used in his report. But Selders remained steadfast
that the type and situation surrounding the asbestos exposure
doesn't matter. Exposure to asbestos regardless of the situation
is harmful.

"Whether it's in a factory or somewhere else," Selders said,
"asbestos is asbestos."

Selders verified that he did not do the specific calculations to
determine how much exposure Reef was subject to in his different
projects.

Hebrank introduced a 1975 study addressing dry walling that
recommended removing asbestos from products immediately. He said
that Georgia Pacific had already begun their removal program five
years prior to the study.

He also also brought up Chrysotile asbestos, a form of asbestos at
the center of debate over whether it is actually carcinogenic.

Selders agreed that such debates exist, but argued that studies
have linked the two and it is just as likely to cause diseases as
asbestos in general is unhealthy.

When Hebrank observed that the articles relate to cencer resulting
from products other than joint compound, Selders responded, "No,
all of these articles relate to people getting cancer from
asbestos."

Menges briefly followed up pointing out that the key word is
asbestos, regardless of the type.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFL-CIO, Victims Blast GOP Bill
------------------------------------------------
Mark Gruenberg, writing for People's World, reported that the AFL-
CIO, asbestos victims and their survivors are blasting the GOP-run
House's latest venture into the legal thicket of asbestos-caused
cancer and its victims, saying the legislation harms the victims
and helps the companies that injured them. One survivor calls the
measure "one-sided, unfair and unnecessary."

But that didn't stop the GOP-run House Judiciary Committee from
approving the legislation, HR982, earlier this year by a party-
line vote, or the full House from voting on it on Nov. 13. It's
the second pro-business asbestos bill that's come up in three
years.

The asbestos compensation issue has been dragging through the
courts for years, as millions of workers -- or their survivors --
try to get compensation from firms that knowingly forced them to
work with, and inhale, the cancer-causing substance.

Asbestos inhalation is responsible for mesothelioma (a fatal
cancer), asbestosis, lung cancer and several other diseases.

The firms, led by still-bankrupt W.R. Grace, but also including
shipyards, builders and others, have spent years lobbying against
the victims, and sabotaging prospective settlements the federation
worked on. HR982, the victims and the AFL-CIO say, would
shortchange victims and survivors and expose victims' confidential
medical data.

That would subject the victims and survivors of asbestos-caused
mesothelioma to "blacklisting and discrimination," says AFL-CIO
Legislative Director Bill Samuel.

"Decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after its hazards
were known, resulted in a legacy of disease and death," he wrote
lawmakers. "Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members
suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and
the toll continues. Each year an estimated 10,000 people are
expected to die in the U.S. from asbestos-related diseases.

Mesothelioma can hit the worker long after asbestos exposure.
Susan Vento wrote lawmakers that her husband, the late Rep. Bruce
Vento, D-Minn., was not diagnosed with the cancer until February
2000, decades after he worked as a construction laborer and
breathed in the asbestos. Treatment failed. He died in October.

His widow has spent her time since campaigning for justice for
asbestos victims. HR982, she added, "would contradict" his work
and hers. She called it "one-sided, unfair and unnecessary."

"Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to
receiving compensation for their diseases," Samuel added. "Major
producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared
bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In 1994
Congress passed special legislation that allowed the asbestos
companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate asbestos
victims and reorganize. But these trusts don't have adequate
funding to provide just compensation, and the median payment
across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value.

"We have spent years trying to seek solutions to make the asbestos
compensation system fairer and more effective. HR982 does nothing
to improve compensation for victims and would in fact make the
situation even worse. The bill is simply an effort by asbestos
manufacturers who still are subject to asbestos lawsuits to avoid
liability for diseases caused by exposure to their products,"
Samuel stated.

The victims and their survivors aren't happy with the GOP's bill,
either, and said so during a GOP-run House Judiciary subcommittee
hearing in March.

"Mesothelioma is the worst kind of cancer you can get," Genevieve
Bosilevac of Richmond, Va., wrote the lawmakers in one letter the
Democrats read into the record. "What makes it so bad is that I
shouldn't have it. I was diagnosed because someone else decided to
use asbestos in their automotive products - gaskets, brakes and
clutches." But she wasn't an autoworker, just a delivery worker of
those products from her family's auto painting business to
mechanics and body shops.

"What we didn't know is that these products contained asbestos and
could cause my cancer. Now these asbestos companies are asking you
to pass a bill that will make it harder for people like me to get
justice. Please don't let that happen."

Committee Democrats, who unanimously opposed HR982, were similarly
harsh. They called it "a thoroughly flawed bill that blatantly
strengthens protections for the very entities that exposed
millions of unsuspecting Americans to the toxic effects of
asbestos," and that was among their milder statements.

"The bill accomplishes this by giving asbestos defendants 'new
rights and advantages to be used against asbestos victims in state
court' and it would 'add new burdens' to asbestos bankruptcy
trusts that would severely cripple 'their ability to operate and
pay claims.' Although the proponents assert that it is intended to
protect asbestos victims, not a single asbestos victim has
expressed support for HR982."

All the objections didn't deter the Republicans. Their committee
report says the bill bans "disclosure of confidential medical
records" by the asbestos trusts. But it also requires the trusts
to "provide information related to payment from, and demands for
payment from such trust to any party in an action involving
liability for asbestos exposure." Left unsaid in the GOP
description: The information comes from the victims or their
survivors and "any party" includes the asbestos manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Cleared From Lady Brooks Kindergarten
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emma-Jayne Schenk, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reported that
Lady Brooks Kindergarten, in Australia, will reopen following an
asbestos scare.

Two small pieces of asbestos were found in the playground but have
now been safely removed by a specialist.  The original source of
the asbestos material is still being investigated; it is believed
they were brought onto the site or are remains from a previous
building.

Asbestos removal company Statewide Asbestos removed and replaced
the top layer of soil in the play area and sand in the children's
sand pit.  It found the asbestos was non-fibrous and not easily
airborne.  It is also believed children at the kindergarten will
not be put on the asbestos register, due to the "negligible risk"
of contamination.

Families were notified of the reopening, after the site was
declared safe for children to return.

Sessions for 4-year-old and 3-year-old groups, which were this
week moved to Kyneton Primary School, will resume as normal.

Macedon Ranges Shire Council director of community well-being
Karen Stevens said the unexpected disruption to the service showed
the strength of the community during challenging times.

"Kyneton Primary School was instrumental in the successful
relocation of a number of kinder groups to the school grounds,"
she said.

"We have also received positive feedback from families on the
transition and acknowledge this has been achieved with the support
of the school and local community combined.

"The temporary relocation to the primary school also gave the
children an opportunity to learn about and explore a new
environment."

Ms Stevens thanked families for their support and patience.

An information session for families was held on November 19, where
parents will have an opportunity to talk to Identifibre, council's
asbestos specialist and council staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Educ. Agency Gives Reassurance After Pay Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbourne Herald reported that the education authority in the
United Kingdom has reiterated its commitment to asbestos
management in school buildings in light of the out-of court
settlement to the widow of a Ratton school teacher who died from
an asbestos-related death.

East Sussex County Council says all of its owned and occupied
buildings, including schools, are surveyed by specialist licensed
consultants for asbestos containing materials on a regular basis
through a rolling programme.

The authority has just made an out-of-court settlement to Sue
Beck, of Kings Drive, whose husband Clive was head of history at
Ratton School between 1972 and 1998.

Mr Beck died at the age of 71 in April 2009, around 18 months
after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of
the lining of the lung.

Mrs Beck, 70, launched a legal bid against the county council over
concerns more could and should have been done to protect her
husband from inhaling asbestos fibres at the school during his
career.

A spokesman said, "We are committed to providing a safe and
healthy environment for pupils to learn and for employees to work.

"Where asbestos containing materials are identified in any of our
buildings they are removed or encapsulated through a controlled
and managed process to minimise risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Votes to Increase Fibro Claim Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Jackson, writing for The Associated Press, reported that
the House on Nov. 16 voted to tighten disclosure requirements from
asbestos trusts set up more than 20 years ago to help pay billions
of dollars in injury claims.

By 221-199, the House approved a measure requiring asbestos trusts
that pay damages to current and future asbestos victims to publish
detailed quarterly reports with bankruptcy courts. The information
must include names of new claimants and how much money the trust
has paid out, under the legislation.

House Republicans say the bill -- backed by the business community
and the Chamber of Commerce -- would provide oversight to asbestos
trusts and ensure funds are available for future victims.

Most House Democrats opposed the measure, citing privacy concerns.
The bill is likely to die in the House. The Democratic controlled
Senate has no plans to take up the bill and the White House said
President Barack Obama would veto it.

Asbestos, a building material linked with cancer and other health
problems, has been the subject of lawsuits awarding billions of
dollars in damages. As health concerns became clearer, and the
number of lawsuits swelled, companies forced into bankruptcy
because of asbestos litigation transferred their assets and
liabilities to trusts established to pay current and future
asbestos victims.

At least 100 companies have gone into bankruptcy at least in part
from liabilities tied to asbestos, according to a 2011 Government
Accountability Office report. There are 60 asbestos trusts, with
about $37 billion in assets, according to the GAO report.

Republicans say those trusts are ripe for fraud because of scant
disclosure requirements.

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, who wrote the bill, said more
oversight is needed to prevent people from filing claims with
multiple trusts, or fraudulent claims. Trusts are in danger of
running out of money if nothing's done, he said.

"We've got to protect this for future generations," Farenthold
said. "We simply ask that we know who is getting what out of these
trusts."

Democrats said the bill would subject asbestos victims to new
privacy concerns because their name and the last four digits of
their Social Security numbers would be public under the law.

"Every crook in the world with Internet access could use this
information," said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron Settles Fibro-Related Death Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
the family of the late Romeo Vera has reached a settlement in
their suit against Chevron U.S.A. -- the company they blamed for
Vera's asbestos exposure and death.

Gaynell Vera, along with her three children, filed the suit April
11, 2011, in Jefferson County District Court.  Court records show
that on Oct. 15 the parties filed a joint motion for dismissal,
stating a settlement had been reached.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, granted the motion on Oct.
31, dismissing Chevron with prejudice.

According to the petition, Vera was employed by Gulf Oil Corp.,
now owned by Chevron, at its Port Arthur refinery, where he was
allegedly exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.

"As a result of such exposure, Romeo Vera developed an asbestos-
related lung disease, for which he died a painful and terrible
death on Oct. 26, 2009," the suit states.

"The defendant knew for decades that asbestos products could cause
. . . cancer and sill allowed employees to work with and around
asbestos products in the workplace."

The plaintiffs were suing for exemplary and punitive damages.

Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde of Beaumont represents them.

Case No. A189-754


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chevron, Texaco Dismissed From Exposure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
Texaco and Chevron USA have been dismissed from an asbestos suit
brought by the widow of Homer Fitts, who sued the companies
alleging they negligently exposed him to asbestos throughout his
career.

Eunice Fitts, on behalf of her late husband, filed the suit June
23, 2011, in Jefferson County District Court.  On Oct. 14 the
parties filed a joint motion for dismissal, court records show.  A
week later, Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, granted the
motion.

According to the lawsuit, Homer was employed by Texaco at its Port
Arthur refinery, working as a pipefitter and painter --
occupations which allegedly exposed him to asbestos dust and
fibers.

"As a result of such exposure, Homer Fitts developed an asbestos-
related disease, asbestosis and lung cancer, for which he died a
painful and terrible death on March 10, 2010," the suit states.

The suit alleged the defendants knew of the hazards of asbestos
and still allowed their employees to work with asbestos products
in the workplace.

The plaintiff was suing for exemplary damages.  Beaumont attorney
Keith Hyde of Provost Umphrey represents her.

Case No. B190-403


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Row Erupts Over Hospital Fibro Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Wilson, writing for Herald Scotland, reported that a row
has broken out over asbestos safety breaches at two hospitals.

The Health and Safety Executive has submitted a report to the
procurator fiscal after an investigation found evidence of
contamination in a plant room at the Southern General Hospital in
Glasgow.  The HSE said a report was also due to be submitted to
the Crown Office following an investigation at Dykebar Hospital in
Paisley. However, the health board claimed it was told by the HSE
that it would not be taking any further action at this site.

Two other investigations were carried out at Clydebank Health
Centre and the Skyelark Centre at Inverclyde Royal Hospital, which
have now been concluded with no further action taken.

The board was prosecuted and fined GBP6000 last year for breaches
at a plant room at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children at
Yorkhill.

A spokeswoman for the HSE said it had submitted a report to the
Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service "for consideration relating
to the Southern General Hospital".

"The investigation at Dykebar has concluded and a report is being
prepared for consideration by the Crown Office," she added. "Two
other investigations at Inverclyde Royal Hospital and the
Clydebank Health Centre have been concluded and the HSE is not
recommending any further action."

A health board spokeswoman said: ""We received verbal feedback
from the HSE that no further action would be taken at Dykebar. We
will be seeking clarification from the HSE about this. "We are
fully compliant with all the legislative requirements around
asbestos surveillance, management and disposal."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Temporary Fibro Storage Approved by Jersey Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that asbestos will be buried in the ground for
up to five years while work on a permanent solution for Jersey, in
the United Kingdom, is found.  The planning and environment
minister approved an application for it to be stored at La
Collette reclamation site.

Transport and Technical Services, which is responsible for all
waste, first asked to bury it in 2010.  It will need to get
approval for changes to the site's environmental management plan
and a waste management licence before starting work.

The asbestos is due to be stored in constructed cells in the
ground and the conditions of its burial include requirement for a
periodic review of other recovery or disposal options.

Deputy Rob Duhamel, Environment Minister, said "I remain
determined that waste arising from the island is dealt with in the
most environmentally friendly way, which does not leave a lasting
impact on future generations.

"I do not believe that burying asbestos in the ground is the best
long term solution and I have been pressing for other existing
solutions to be looked at.

"I am pleased that Transport and Technical Services have agreed to
work with my department and explore alternative options that will
result in a better long term answer to the asbestos management
problem we have."

Asbestos, which can be lethal if its dust is breathed in, was used
as a building material and since the 1980s any removed during
renovation or demolition work has been stored at La Collette.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Glasgow Hospital
-----------------------------------------------------
The Scotsman reported that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, in
Scotland, is facing legal action after asbestos was found at a
city hospital.

The Health and Safety Executive has submitted a report to the
Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service relating to asbestos in the
plant room of the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.

A second report is being prepared by the HSE for the COPFS about
asbestos at Dykebar Hospital in Paisley, Renfrewshire -- despite
NHSGGC being told by the HSE they would take no further action.

Two other NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde sites were also
investigated but these will not be reported to the COPFS.

An HSE spokeswoman said: "HSE has submitted a report to the Crown
Office Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration relating to
Southern General Hospital.

"The investigation at Dykebar has concluded and a report is being
prepared for consideration by COPFS.

"The investigations at Inverclyde Royal Hospital and Clydebank
health centre are concluded and HSE is not recommending any
further action. We will continue to work with NHS Greater Glasgow
and Clyde on their asbestos management."

A spokeswoman for NHSGGC said: "Whilst NHSGGC is facing legal
action regarding asbestos in one room, a plant room at the
Southern General Hospital site, the Health and Safety Executive
have advised that no action will be taken against NHSGGC following
their investigations into asbestos at the three other sites.

"We proactively reported to the HSE the presence of asbestos when
it was identified at Clydebank Health Centre, Dykebar Hospital and
the Skylark Centre at Inverclyde Royal Hospital.

"We received verbal feedback from the Health and Safety Executive
that as far as the Dykebar site was concerned they were taking no
further action against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde but we will
seek to clarify this with the HSE."

The HSE has also supported the appointment of an NHSGGC asbestos
manager, the spokeswoman for the health board added.

"We are fully compliant with all the legislative requirements
around asbestos surveillance, management and disposal and are no
different to any other organisation responsible for buildings
constructed before 1999 when the import, sale and second hand
re-use of white asbestos was banned in the UK," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drives Up N.C. Courthouse Repair Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dispatch reported that Davidson County, North Carolina
commissioners did the correct thing by appropriating an additional
$250,000 toward repairs at the Old Davidson County Courthouse. The
additional funds will go toward asbestos removal from the exterior
of the building and raise the total price tag to about $870,000.
The work was simply too far along at this point not to give the
additional money. But it definitely should have been discovered
before the work started. Perhaps that would have changed the
initial vote on the repairs, but one of the county's most iconic
structures needs to be maintained.

Commissioners on a facilities committee and the architect seemed
to point fingers at each other on who dropped the ball. The
situation illustrates the need for due diligence on future repair
projects in which the county may enter. The old court house
presents unique challenges due to its age and place on the
National Register of Historic Places. Such an important
architectural structure certainly should remain on the register,
even if that complicates repairs. After the present work is
complete, the building should be in good shape for many years as
long as routine maintenance occurs.

The latest effect of the ongoing uncertainty over sweepstakes
businesses in North Carolina has hit the City of Lexington's
wallet. The city will return about $26,500 in license fees to
several sweepstakes businesses. The fees could have generated
$100,000 annually, but when the legislature made the businesses
illegal, the city lost that potential revenue source. Sweepstakes
owners might be best off following the lead of Phil Giurintano,
who decided to close his business rather than risk being in
violation of the law. Efforts to comply by changing software seem
tenuous at best.

The more information tourism leaders can gather about visitors to
Lexington, the better they can target the city's efforts. The
Lexington Tourism Authority has received results of a wayfinding
survey that visitors to the city completed. One goal of the effort
is to create better signage to direct tourists to popular
locations. The results also can help attractions market themselves
more effectively.

Robberies tend to increase during the holidays, and that trend is
already starting to play out. Lexington saw three robberies and
Thomasville one in a four-day period. Both businesses and
individual shoppers need to be wary during the holiday season.
Shoppers may be carrying more cash as they buy gifts, and
businesses hope to see cash registers ringing with sales.
Robberies can be almost impossible to prevent, but some common-
sense precautions and alertness can make businesses and
individuals less likely targets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aviva Seeking Buyers for Fibro Claims Portfolio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Farquar McIntosh, writing for Invezz.com, reported that
British insurance company Aviva Plc is looking to sell a GBP1
billion portfolio of toxic liabilities including a large book of
historic asbestos related claims, Sky News reported, citing
unnamed inside sources. The move is part of the company's effort
to improve its balance sheet led by Chief Executive Mark Wilson.
According to the sources a sale of the portfolio was only one of
the options being considered by the insurer.

In the Nov. 15 trading Aviva shares rose 0.56 percent to 434.80p
as of 13:10 UTC. The company's stock has gained about 16.5 percent
this year.

                           Asbestos book

Trade these shares now through Hargreaves Lansdown from GBP5.95
per deal.

Aviva is looking to sell a GBP1 billion book of liabilities in a
bid to reduce risks on its giant balance sheet, according to the
report by Sky News. Sources close to Aviva have said that the
insurer appointed accountancy firm KPMG to market the portfolio.
Likely bidders for the book, which also includes some non-asbestos
liabilities, include funds specialising in distressed investments.
The insiders note that the sale of the portfolio is by no means
certain and that the insurer is considering other options as well.
If a sale is achieved, it would make it one of the biggest
asbestos related portfolios to be sold by a major UK insurance
company in recent years.

The company had declined to comment on the subject, Sky News
reported.

                           Cost cutting

Since taking over earlier this year, Aviva's Chief Executive
Officer Mark Wilson has started a significant restructuring effort
in order to cut costs at the group and improve its capital
position amid increased scrutiny from regulators over insurers'
balance sheets. Wilson replaced Andrew Moss at the helm, who was
ousted after an investors' revolt over his pay and the sluggish
performance of the company's share price.

Aviva is cutting hundreds of jobs and is selling a number of its
international operations, including some in the United States.
During the last two years, the company's surplus capital has
increased from about GBP5 billion to more than GBP8 billion, Sky
News noted. Aviva has rejected an unsolicited bid from rival
insurer RSA Insurance Group plc (LON:RSA) for its general
insurance businesses in the UK and Ireland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Cloud to Remove Fibro in Tech High School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Dotray, writing for sctimes.com, reported that the St. Cloud,
Minnesota school district is set to begin removing asbestos found
in old plaster ceilings at Technical High School.

The project is estimated to cost between $820,000 and $1.3
million.

Asbestos was found in the summer during an inspection by Resource
Training & Solutions. Schools have general inspections every six
months. More investigative inspections, such as the one in the
summer when the ceilings were checked, happen every three years.

Asbestos was used in buildings because of its high resistance to
heat and flames, but it can be released into the air if structures
are worn out or damaged. If released into the air, the fibrous
material can harm the lungs and potentially cause cancer.

An air quality test to determine the amount of asbestos fibers in
the air showed that the air is not hazardous.

Bryan Brown, supervisor of buildings and grounds, said the
affected area is 25,000 square feet. The majority of it is located
in the upper and lower resource center of the building. Other
problem areas include the hallway in the east building, a short
hallway on the first floor by the cafeteria, the main hallway on
the second floor and a few rooms on the third floor.

The affected area is the soft plaster above the suspended ceiling,
Brown said. The plaster, which is from the original building, has
begun drying out and falling off, landing on top of the suspended
ceiling.

In the lower resource center, the ceiling is 27 feet from the
floor. It is not all affected by asbestos, but Brown said they
have decided to completely reconstruct the ceiling and bring it
down so it equals the 12-foot ceilings found elsewhere in the
building.

"Because the plaster is in such bad shape and cracking and
everything," he said, "we decided that we're going to get rid of
it altogether and get rid of the plaster, also."

Workers will begin removing the non-affected plaster in the middle
of May, Brown said. They'll do that in the evenings when students
are not in school.

They will begin removing the asbestos when school is finished.
Brown said all the asbestos should be removed by July 16, so
reconstruction on the new ceiling and lighting can be completed
before the new school year.

Executive Director of Business Services Kevin Januszewski said
$350,000 for asbestos removal will come out of the health and
safety budget. The district has $1.1 million this year in that
budget.

Along with removing asbestos, it covers costs for fire safety and
indoor air quality.

The remaining cost will be drawn from the deferred maintenance
budget. There is $4.5 million in the deferred maintenance budget
this year, and there will be $5 million next year.

Because of the unexpected cost, some anticipated projects will
need to be delayed, Januszewski said. Projects such as upgrading
interior lighting, repaving parking lots and repairing boilers are
drawn from the deferred maintenance budget.

The district spent more than $4.4 million on Tech between 2004 and
the end of 2009. Repairs include new roofs, floors and air quality
projects.

The asbestos removal project was discussed at the St. Cloud school
board work session Nov. 13.

At the meeting, Brown mentioned previous discussions about selling
the 96-year-old building.

"If we closed that building today and sold it, we are still
responsible for that asbestos," he said. "If we tore it down
today, we would have to clean all that asbestos up in that
building before we tore it down. So, we're responsible for it
either now or later."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Deadly Dust Found in Rock Island School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Becker, writing for Quad-City Times, reported that an
additional 10,000-square-feet of asbestos discovered on the second
floor of the former Audubon Elementary School in Rock Island,
Illinois, will cost $57,000 to remove, a spokeswoman for the Rock
Island-Milan School District said.

Holly Sparkman said the removal may add only a day or two to the
asbestos abatement process, with demolition scheduled to begin the
first week in December.

The school board will vote on the additional work and cost during
a special meeting at the Administration Center, 2101 6th Ave.

Valley Construction of Rock Island began removing asbestos from
the building Nov. 7 to prepare the building to be demolished.

Sparkman said the construction crew recently discovered that tiles
on the ceiling of the second-floor had layers of mastic glue, a
heavy-duty adhesive primarily made out of asbestos.

On Oct. 22, the school board approved a bid of $224,3000 to
demolish the 90-year-old building at 2617 18th Ave., which has
been closed since June 2010.

Fareway Stores Inc. initially wanted to purchase the building for
$475,000 for a new grocery store at the site.

Neighbors protested the move, and Fareway decided to rescind its
offer in July.

Since then, local developer Joe Lemon Jr. made a formal offer of
$100,000 on Nov. 7. The school board still wants to move forward
with the demolition, Sparkman said.

Once the building is razed, the district will work with its
Realtors to sell the property.

During the demolition process, workers will set aside bricks for
community members, Sparkman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit vs. Chevron Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
an asbestos suit against Chevron USA has been dismissed.

On behalf of Thaddeus Alpough, Mary Alpough and her siblings filed
the suit Aug. 16, 2011, in Jefferson County District Court,
alleging Chevron exposed their late father to asbestos during his
employment with the company.

Court records show that on Oct. 15 the parties filed a joint
motion for dismissal with prejudice, which was granted by Judge
Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, six days later.

The petition alleged that Alpough worked at Chevron's Port Arthur
refinery as a boilermaker helper and pipefitter -- occupations
that exposed him to asbestos dust and fibers.

"As a result of such exposure, Thaddeus Alpough developed
asbestos-related pleural disease, lung cancer and then gastric
cancer, for which he died a painful and terrible death on May 7,
2010," the suit stated.

Chevron was accused of knowing that asbestos products could cause
cancer but still chose to expose workers, such as Alpough.

The Alpough family was suing for punitive and exemplary damages.

Beaumont attorney J. Keith Hyde of the Provost Umphrey Law Firm
LLP represents the family.

Case No. B190-682


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belleville OKs Fibro Removal at Downtown Bldg.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Lee, writing for BND.com, reported that the council in
Belleville City, Ontario, voted night to approve the cost of
asbestos removal at a city-owned building downtown used by the Art
on the Square committee.

Mayor Mark Eckert said the city has the responsibility to address
the asbestos once officials learn of the problem at 30 Public
Square. Councilmen agreed and approved $6,350 for the work.

The asbestos issue, however, brought to light that city officials
cannot find a written agreement with the nonprofit Art on the
Square to use the building.

Some aldermen, including Ward 7 Alderman Trent Galetti and Ward 2
Alderwoman Melinda Hult, asked why the city owns the building and
why Art on the Square is allowed to use the building without
paying rent or utilities.

Eckert said he does not believe the city should charge Art on the
Square rent.

At a Finance Committee meeting last week, Eckert said: "It's been
a gentlemen's agreement that they've done fabulous things for the
city and we in turn let them use the building."

Eckert said he will talk to Patty Gregory, and other Art on the
Square organizers, about the need for written terms on building
use.

Hult said she will ask city leaders to discuss at future committee
meetings whether the city should retain ownership of the 30 Public
Square site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Suit Points to Abuse Bill Seeks to Fix
---------------------------------------------------------------
T.K. Kim, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that during the
bankruptcy trial of Garlock Sealing Technologies, a manufacturing
company that once produced asbestos-containing products, Lester
Brickman, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of
the Yeshiva University, testified about fraud on the part of
plaintiffs suing companies for their asbestos-related ailments.

The problem, he testified, was that certain confidentiality
provisions enacted for trusts established to pay claimants who
came into contact with asbestos caused significant transparency
issues preventing companies like Garlock from cost-effectively
ferreting out bogus claims.  Brickman authored a report on
fraudulent asbestos claims and has testified before Congress on
the issue. The way the provisions are enacted, companies such as
Garlock have no cost-effective means to find out whether a person
filing a claim against them might also have done the same against
other former asbestos manufacturers, he said in court.

That is why Brickman, in an interview with Legal Newsline,
believes a recent bill introduced by Rep. Blake Farenthold,
R-Texas, called the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act,
which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week would go
a long way in helping alleviate these potential abuses.

The bill requires asbestos trusts established to pay off future
claims against asbestos companies, to release quarterly reports
about who seeks compensation.  The House voted 221-199 to pass the
bill.

Brickman said that the bill's requirement should allow
debtor/defenders to "vastly improve" in their defense against
fraudulent claims where a plaintiff files a claim attributing
their asbestos-related ailments to one manufacturer and then
filing a similar claim against another thereby collecting multiple
recoveries for the same underlying issue.

To date, Garlock has paid out more than $1.3 billion in asbestos
claims. Of that amount, Brickman previously testified at trial
that about $1 billion had been paid out to claimants who did not
develop any malignant cancers, which he labeled as fraudulent
claims.

"These settlements as well as others were affected significantly
by plaintiffs suppressing evidence," Brickman testified at the
trial. "My opinion is that Garlock's settlement history is not an
accurate reflection of Garlock's liability," he said at trial.

Because of the on-going status of the Garlock bankruptcy trial
where he was a witness for Garlock, Brickman declined comment on
any issues specifically related to Garlock. But in regards to the
FACT Act, Brickman said that the FACT Act would enable defendants
in the tort system to gain information about trust claim filings
at a minimum of costs and delays.

A recent lawsuit Garlock filed against a plaintiffs law firm
highlights the kinds of abuse the FACT Act is supposedly meant to
discourage. In a 2012 complaint filed against lawyers from the
firm Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, Garlock alleges that
lawyers from the firm fraudulently concealed evidence "they were
obligated to disclose in discovery."

In the suit filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Garlock contends that lawyers from the
firm "repeatedly signed discovery responses concealing the
exposures that were the foundations of the claims they were making
in bankruptcy. The Defendants perpetrated fraud to increase the
amount of the contingency fee that they would bring in from this
personal injury case."

The lawsuit stems from an earlier suit filed by members of the
firm representing a mesothelioma patient. The patient worked at
Triplex, a company that sold different industrial products
including asbestos pipes between the years 1966 to 1968 while he
was still in high school. Because few, if any records of the
company's inventory from that time period still exist, Garlock
contended in the lawsuit that it allowed for (without explicitly
alleging) plaintiff's attorneys to "implant memories" of what
products the patient had been exposed to, allowing Garlock to be
targeted in litigation.

In their lawsuit against lawyers from the firm, Garlock alleges
that the firm's lawyers filed a claim against CAPCO, a bankrupt
company that produced asbestos pipes Triplex sold. Triplex also
was a distributor for Johns-Manville Corporation, a major
manufacturer of asbestos-containing products including gaskets.

But with the potential payoff for a claim in bankruptcy court
being limited, Garlock contended that the firm decided to target
Garlock in the tort system since it was still solvent and could
potentially result in a much larger payoff then filing a claim
against the trust the companies in bankruptcy set up to pay
victims. To do so, Garlock alleges in their lawsuit that the
firm's attorneys sought to attribute their client's mesothelioma
to exposure to two kinds of asbestos fibers that both Johns-
Manville and Garlock used in the products they sold, chrysotile
and crocidolite.

With both companies selling products that contained both kinds of
fibers, it allowed for the firm to sue Garlock and attribute their
client's chrysotile exposure to the other company. In their
lawsuit, Garlock alleges that lawyers from the firm made a claim
against the CAPCO trust claiming crocidolite asbestos exposure
from their products as well.

The dispute is still ongoing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the
Western District of North Carolina with the court recently denying
a defense motion for summary judgment on Sept. 17. The case is
presided over by Judge George Hodges.

"I gauge the impact of the FACT Act in part on the plaintiffs'
bar's level of opposition to its adoption -- based upon that
concerted effort on the part of the plaintiff's bar to prevent the
Fact Act from being enacted, I conclude that the plaintiff's bar
thinks it'll significantly impair the value of tort claims,"
Brickman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan Registry Law Comes Into Effect
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cottrill, writing for Canada OH&S, reported that nearly a
year after the death of an advocate from cancer caused by asbestos
exposure, the Saskatchewan government has officially enacted a law
named after him -- a law making it mandatory for public buildings
containing the notorious mineral to report it.

The Public Health Amendment Act, also known as Howard's Law, went
into effect on Nov. 7. The law makes Saskatchewan the first
Canadian province to enact legislation requiring a public registry
of buildings known to contain asbestos. Crown corporations,
schools, health facilities and provincial government organizations
must now report any asbestos content in their facilities to the
Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry.

"At the present time, it's mandatory for public buildings,"
explained Don Morgan, Saskatchewan's minister of labour relations
and workplace safety. "That will include buildings owned by public
sector entities, and it will be optional for building owners
beyond that point. So if you are a large commercial landlord and
you wish to list your buildings, you could, but we require it for
hospitals, schools and that type of thing."

The provincial government passed the act in the legislature after
its third reading on April 18, five months after Saskatchewan
launched a voluntary registry and an online information guide
about buildings with asbestos.

Morgan anticipates that the new law will benefit the public in two
ways: providing specific information about asbestos content in the
province's buildings, and raising public awareness of the general
existence of the material.

"It exists in a lot of buildings that were constructed before
1980," he said. "In most of them, it's encased and it's not a
factor. The problem arises when somebody will go in to change
plumbing pipes or do electrical work and then will inadvertently
disturb the asbestos, and it becomes airborne. The risk occurs if
it's accidentally disturbed or moved into the air," Morgan said.

Howard's Law is, in part, the legacy of the late Howard Willems,
an asbestos awareness activist who worked for the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency while co-chairing local OH&S committees (COHSN,
Nov. 19, 2012).  In 2010, Willems was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
a type of lung cancer linked to asbestos.  He passed away on Nov.
8, 2012.

"We've accomplished everything that Howard set out to do," said
Jesse Todd, a health and safety officer in Saskatchewan and the
chairman of the Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (SADAO). "We've carried on in his name, in his
honour, so it's very gratifying to see this become law."

Willems co-founded SADAO with fellow activist Bob Sass in 2010,
out of the former Saskatchewan Ban Asbestos Committee.

Todd suggests that the other provinces -- and the federal
government, which has jurisdiction over a lot of buildings and
facilities under the Canada Labour Code -- need to consider
adopting similar asbestos registries. "I believe that a registry
would benefit those workers as well," he said.

"There are some good regulations out there that do refer to how to
deal with asbestos once it's been identified. But the problem is,
people do not have the tools available to them to identify where
asbestos is prior to beginning a renovation of a building."

Morgan said that the act had been named after Willems because of
his strong advocacy of a mandatory asbestos registry during his
final days. "It's part of a larger oh&s piece," Morgan said about
the law, "but that portion of it we refer to as Howard's Law, just
to respect his contribution."

While Willems would have been pleased to see his namesake become a
reality in provincial law if he'd been alive today, Todd pointed
out, the late activist would not have stopped there.

"He would look out and know there's a lot more work to do, and
he'd keep pushing ahead," Todd said. "His goal was definitely to
have an all-out countrywide registry, and his main goal was to
protect all workers that were working with asbestos and all
workers that could be at risk.

"He was a really strong believer in the right to know," Todd said.
"His motto through the whole process was: 'Never quit.'"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tascot Carpet Factory Fibro Removal Questioned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Bingham, writing for The Advocate, reported that removal of
asbestos and other work being carried out at the old Tascot carpet
factory at East Devonport, in Tasmania, Australia, has caused some
concern for local residents.

A number of issues were raised at a Devonport City Council
meeting, including questions about why truckloads of materials
were taken on site.

Three people took to the microphone during the council meeting's
public question time to ask what was happening.

One resident said he was worried to see asbestos signage appear on
the factory fence.  He wanted to know if the council knew anything
about the demolition of the factory and the cost of it.

Another resident told the council the gate was left unlocked while
the work was being carried out at the carpet factory and anyone
could walk in.

A resident wanted assurances from the council that the site would
continue to be zoned residential, which is what it reverted to
after the factory closed down.

Acting council general manager Matthew Atkins confirmed that
asbestos removal was happening at the old factory.

Mr Atkins said no council permit had been granted for any building
works.  He said the work going on at the factory would be repairs
and maintenance work only.

Devonport Mayor Steve Martin said that under the interim planning
scheme the site was zoned residential and would remain so unless a
development application was received asking the council to
consider rezoning the site.

Alderman Martin said the council would look at any such rezoning
application on its merits.  He said Workplace Standards Tasmania
would be in charge of any removal of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EQC Policy Review Could Save Lives
---------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylianou, writing for stuff.co.nz, reported that an
Earthquake Commission (EQC) policy of covering up asbestos in
hundreds of quake-damaged Canterbury, New Zealand homes could be
overhauled by the Government amid concerns about serious health
risks.

Government officials have previously raised concerns about the way
asbestos is being handled in post-earthquake Canterbury, but say
the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Bill next month
will make guidelines more clear for construction workers.

Staff from WorkSafe -- the new health and safety regulator -- were
in Christchurch and told The Press it would be naive to think
there would not be asbestos-related illnesses in the future.

The EQC has previously said up to 43,000 Christchurch homes due
for quake repairs could contain the potentially fatal substance.

It estimated that in 10 per cent of cases, asbestos found in
ceilings or walls was encased behind plasterboard, instead of
being removed.

A Fletcher spokesman said about 15 to 16 per cent of houses that
tested positive for asbestos were being encased.

The chairman of the WorkSafe establishment board, Gregor Coster,
believed the encasement policy should be "reconsidered carefully"
because it posed serious health risks in the future.

"An electrician might be rewiring a house and is put at risk and
this is not what we should be doing in terms of managing health
and safety," he said.

An EQC spokesman said if there were any changes to regulations it
would comply.

Coster said contractors across the region needed to be better at
testing for asbestos.

"The truth of the matter is I am concerned about the potential
exposure . . . particularly during that early demolition phase,"
he said.

Geoffrey Podger, the acting chief executive of the WorkSafe
establishment unit, said only a certain percentage of asbestos
breaches in the city were identified.

"Our inspectors can't be everywhere, but equally if everyone could
carry out their legislative duties, they wouldn't need to be," he
said.

MBIE health and safety inspector Steve Moran said the influence of
big project management firms -- including Arrow International and
Fletcher -- was having a "huge effect in lifting the performance
of smaller companies".

Canterbury District Health Board medical officer of health Dr
Alistair Humphrey, who has been fighting for EQC to review its
encasement policy since 2011, said it would have been cost-
effective and logical to remove asbestos from houses when repairs
were being done.  He urged the Government to follow in the
footsteps of Australia and make a commitment to remove asbestos.

However, it was good news the policy could be reviewed.

"The Christchurch community and the New Zealand population will
reap the benefits of [WorkSafe and MBIE's] courage," Humphrey
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Halts Kaikohe Hotel Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------
Auckland Now reported that the old Kaikohe Hotel, in New Zealand,
slated for demolition, just doesn't seem to want to die.

The once grand old lady, showpiece of the town's main street, now
stands dilapidated, dangerous, and defiant of the wrecker's ball.

The reason she hasn't been knocked to the ground yet is that the
new owners of the site, Ngapuhi, are experiencing problems finding
demolition contractors with the necessary expertise in handling
asbestos.

The building is full of it, Ngapuhi spokesman Sonny Tau says. Many
of the country's asbestos-experienced contractors are thought to
be working in Christchurch on post earthquake work. As soon as a
suitable contractor is found and hired, the old girl will come
down.

Mr Tau says she is beyond restoration. The site will be cleared
and as a temporary measure, turned into a park.  Mr Tau says Te
Runanga-a-Iwi-o-Ngapuhi will work on a plan for the eventual use
of the site.  But the organisation is adamant that there will be
no pub on the site ever again.

The runanga has said in previous statements that it did not buy
the site for any kind of commercial use. The purchase was socially
motivated. The runanga saw the $287,000 purchase of the 1.2ha
property as a chance to own a significant piece of real estate in
Ngapuhi's central town. Asked if Ngapuhi would put a plaque or
memorial on the site to commemorate the historic pub, Mr Tau said
"No."

There have been reports that people have been entering the
building at night to pursue various activities. Mr Tau says that
this is a potential problem with any abandoned building but they
know of no problems of that nature with the hotel. He says there
are signs forbidding entry and explaining the dangers.

The building was ordered closed by a court order in January this
year on the grounds that it was unsafe.

The hotel dates back to 1894. Queen Elizabeth is thought to have
stayed in it on her visit to New Zealand in 1952.

Three of New Zealand's street artists tackled a side wall of the
old building in January this year, taking it on as a big and
challenging canvas.

Cinzah Merkens, who works under the name Seekayem, Misha Uteev or
Wert159 and Simon Ormerod or Cracked Ink spent several days in
Kaikohe last summer working with the community on the massive
mural. They were aware that the hotel would eventually go under
the wrecking hammer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Issued in Verge Collection Goods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rabe, writing for Stirling Times, reported that the annual
verge collections throughout Perth, Australia, can be fraught with
risk, according to the Asbestos Disease Society, which said
appliances containing asbestos could often be mismanaged and left
for council workers to deal with.

The Stirling Times received a phone call from a resident who said
he had seen old ovens with asbestos lugs put out for verge
collection, and was concerned for residents and City workers.

Robert Vojakovic, from the Asbestos Disease Society in Osborne
Park, said items thrown out during verge collections can often
contain asbestos, and residents must take more care when disposing
of old whitegoods for their family's and council workers' safety.

"The annual council verge collection is sometimes fraught with
risk associated through exposure to asbestos fibres, in particular
old electrical and gas appliances such as stoves, ovens, heaters
and old hair dryers," Mr Vojakovic said.

"This type of exposure to asbestos dust has a multiplicative
effect, that is, the resident placing the appliance on the verge
would have some exposure and indeed the public who are walking by
or picking from the verge odds and ends would also be exposed to
asbestos fibres."

The City of Stirling said it was taking all possible precautions
in dealing with old whitegoods that may contain asbestos lugs
during verge collection.

City of Stirling acting manager of health and compliance Greg
Ducas said the City took care when collecting whitegoods and
residents should immediately contact the City if they believed an
item contained asbestos.

"Should residents have any concerns about items placed on verge
collections, they should contact the City," Mr Ducas said.

"The City would initially talk to the homeowner who has discarded
the items to ensure they dispose of them properly, or in the cases
of illegally dumped items that contain asbestos, the City will
arrange disposal when required where there is a potential public
health risk."

Mr Vojakovic said council workers were often most at risk during
verge collection if the council was not made aware of an appliance
containing asbestos.

"One must have regard to the unlucky council workers loading the
appliances onto the collection trucks and off loading at the tip,"
Mr Vojakovic said.

"Most likely the Council workers would not have a change of
clothing at the end of their shift, they then bring the deadly
asbestos dust home to their families."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Disputes Findings of Fibro Insurer Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tami Kamin Meyer, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
experts are in disagreement about the findings of a newly released
report that says insurers suffered increasing losses from asbestos
and environmental claims in 2012.

The report, relased by of A.M. Best Co., said annual incurred
asbestos and environmental losses increased by 12 percent in 2012.
That uptick followed a 31 percent decline in 2011.

However, Steven Kazan -- a founding member of the Oakland law firm
of Kazan, McClain, Satterley, Lyons, Greenwood & Oberman --
disputes those findings.

"We have not had an increase in the number of mesothelioma cases
over the last five to 10 years," he said. "Good cases are settling
for what they should. These are catastrophic injuries with
identifiable" plaintiffs.

However, he argued that if insurance companies are reporting
increased losses due to asbestos litigation, it's due to their own
greed.

"Management is incompetent," Kazan said. "They (insurance
companies) behave in ways that drive up costs for no good reason."

However, it seems a report released by the Judicial Conference Ad
Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation in 1991 is proving prophetic.

According to the 22-year-old report, the latency period of
asbestos-related diseases can be as long as 40 years.

"Predictions have been made of 200,000 asbestos disease deaths
before the year 2000 and as many as 265,000 by the year 2015,"
noted the report.

According to the Health and Safety Executive, despite a decrease
in mesothelioma deaths in 2011 compared to 2010 (2,291 to 2,360,
respectively), annual statistics are expected to increase in
future years before reaching a peak toward the end of this decade.
In contrast, the number of new cases of mesothelioma leading to
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits has increased from 1,985
in 2011 to 2,125 last year.

Also, a report released by NERA Economic Consulting offers yet
another snapshot of the asbestos litigation landscape. The
report's authors used publicly available data regarding asbestos-
related liabilities from more than 150 companies and found that
the asbestos liabilities of solvent entities varied little from
2012 and 2011. However, in their 2012 report, the authors reported
the average dollar amount per resolved claim had increased 75
percent between 2010 and 2011.

The report attributed this uptick to an evolving disease mix of
the resolved claims, rather than merely an increase in the
companies' liabilities for asbestos-only claims.

"I don't know that verdict sizes have increased in the last few
years, but they are often the result of insurance company
stupidity," Kazan said. "Often a win for a defendant is not a win
because it spent a lot" to defend a case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Discovered at Heanor Memorial Hospital
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Jones, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that more
asbestos has been discovered at Heanor Memorial Hospital, in
Derbyshire, United Kingdom.

Deadly dust was first discovered in the boiler room in the
basement of the hospital during a routine inspection by staff.

The hospital was closed and specialists were called in to remove
the asbestos from the building but, in the process, further dust
was found in other parts of the building.  This includes asbestos
debris and asbestos cement shutter board in the heating pipework
ducts, found within the floors of the wards.

It means clinics and services which had been moved temporarily to
Ilkeston Community Hospital will continue to be run from there for
the time being.

Physiotherapy services -- which are housed in a separate part of
the Heanor site -- remain there.

William Jones, director of operations for Derbyshire Community
Health Services -- which runs the hospital -- said: "We asked for
asbestos refurbishment survey to get a clear picture of the
likelihood of any further asbestos being present.

"That survey has now been presented to us and identifies the
presence of asbestos in numerous parts of the building.

"We want to stress that these subsequent findings of asbestos are
safely contained and not airborne and it remains the case that
there has been no risk to patients or visitors."

Mr Jones said one other problem was that the hospital was already
due for modernisation of its heating and electrical systems.  He
said talks were ongoing with health bosses about the "best way
forward".

Mr Jones said: "The extensive presence of asbestos, which
compounds the defects previously identified, will make the
necessary upgrading of the hospital's infrastructure -- including
a new heating system, rewiring, fire alarm systems and
telecommunications -- more complex and expensive."

It is not yet known when the hospital will be re-opened.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lumberton Man Gets Over 3 Years in Fibro Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Fichera, writing for Courier-Post, reported that a
Lumberton, New Jersey man was sentenced to 3 and a half years in
prison for hiring workers to improperly remove asbestos from a
Philadelphia warehouse.

Gene Cornell Smith was found guilty of conspiracy and violating
the federal Clean Air Act in January.

Smith, 46, bought an old construction warehouse on Stenton Avenue
in the city's Logan section in 2007. The structure contained a
large boiler and pipes, both of which were covered in insulation
that contained asbestos.

After receiving an estimate for professional work to remove the
material, Smith recruited a co-conspirator, Clarence Cole, to hire
unqualified workers who ripped out the contaminated materials
without safety equipment, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a
release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Pushes for Controlled Ban on Deadly Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick L. Abad, writing for Business Mirror, reported that
concerns about the health risk on the use of asbestos in the
country and the hardline stance of various advocacy groups for its
ban have been allayed by a toxicology expert.

Dr. David M. Bernstein, a consultant in toxicology, said that
asbestos is a very valuable product being used in many countries,
including the Philippines.

Attributing the lack of knowledge on asbestos as the main reason
to strong opposition on its use, he advised the public that
"there's no reason to panic" prior to the three-day seminar at the
6th Asian Asbestos Initiative (AAI) International in Manila, which
concluded on November 15.

Organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) with the
Philippines's Department of Health and the Department of Labor and
Employment as host, the AAI meeting discussed strategic approaches
toward elimination of asbestos-related diseases.

Contrary to this event, however, it was preceded by a gathering of
major players from the asbestos industry in Southeast Asia led by
the Association of Chrysotile Industry of the Philippines held on
October 25 in Makati to promote chrysotile as a safe form of
asbestos to invited guests, including key government officials,
academicians, journalists, politicians and construction industry
contractors.

The meeting was condemned by ban-asbestos advocates from around
the world and the country's Associated Labor Unions, Building Wood
Workers International, along with other advocacy groups and
individuals.

According to Bernstein, "The contradicting views on asbestos could
be attributed to a fact that it is generally known as a technical
term rather than a trade name of a group of natural minerals whose
crystals occur in fibrous forms."

With this, he said that the public should be educated on the
differences between its two forms and the types of fibers they
possess.

"There are two minerals called asbestos. One is called chrysotile.
The other is amphibole," he  stressed, while noting their
differences in chemical composition, acid-resistant properties and
effects on health. The chrysotile (white asbestos), he said, is
made out of a sheet comprised of magnesium and silica. Because
it's so thin at 8 Angstroms, he noted that it's actually a very
fragile material and soluble in acid.

In contrast, he said that amphibole (blue and brown asbestos) is a
solid block of silica that makes it insoluble either in water or
acid. Since it persists in the lungs after inhalation and could
not be eliminated in the body, he cited scientific evidence
showing that it's mainly responsible for mesothelioma (cancer of
the pleural cavity) and pulmonary diseases, and could cause
illness even after short exposure.

With amphibole's hazardous effect to the health, this kind of
asbestos has been totally banned worldwide, unlike chrysotile
which, according to Bernstein, is still used in "80 percent of the
world."

The Philippines, for instance, annually imports from Canada,
Brazil, South Africa and China up to 6,000 metric tons of
chrysotile.

This, nevertheless, is smaller compared to Malaysia and Thailand
that import up to 10 times that amount.

Apart from brake linings for the country's automobile industry,
chrysotile is mainly used as a raw material in fiber cement
boards, which is a cheaper, non-corrosive, durable, as well as
fire-, water-, termite-, rust- and warp-proof alternative to
plywood.

Such kind of asbestos poses a little risk to the people's health
and environment as its fibers are firmly locked in or enclosed
within the cement matrix during production process which, in turn,
could not be emitted into the atmosphere once used. While there
have been no known medical studies or statistics supporting that
it causes health maladies in the country, Bernstein said that a
ban on its use would create a number of impacts.

For one, he said that using other materials as substitutes for
chrysotile does not mean they are risk-free. He pointed out recent
studies have found out that other fibers used as substitutes for
it have been equally or even riskier, such as fiber glass, rock
wools, aramid fibers and refractory ceramic fibers.

"Logically from a health point of view, you may be introducing
something which is worse or far worse, adding that in tropical
countries like the Philippines, they are more expensive and less
efficient," said Bernstein.

As for its economic effects, the ban on chrysotile could lead to
loss of jobs to workers in its manufacturing plants. What's more,
Bernstein stressed that it would result in litigation cases
demanding not only hefty amounts of compensation from defendant
companies but also big payments from the government.

Citing positions of experts convened by the WHO and the
International Labor Organization in the past, Bernstein is for
controlled use and not a ban on chrysotile.

"And today, any industry whether mining, cement, automotive,
construction, etc., understands that it's sensible to do
controlled use of it; to have clean work environments; and to have
safety for their workers. It's an issue which has become in the
forefront today of our society," stressed Bernstein.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NHS Treatment Cost Recovery Bill Voted into Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a bill to recover the costs of treating
Wales asbestos patients from businesses or insurers has been
passed by assembly members.

It is estimated the new law could raise up to GBP1m a year for the
Welsh NHS.

The bill's sponsor, Labour AM Mick Antoniw, said it would help
people whose lives had been blighted by "this terrible disease".

The insurance industry has raised concerns, questioning whether
the move is within the assembly's powers.

Before becoming an assembly member, Mr Antoniw was a solicitor at
the legal firm which has acted for many asbestos victims and their
families.

Speaking before the bill was passed, he said: "It is only right
that medical costs incurred by the NHS should be recovered from
those who caused the disease and used to give more support to
asbestos victims and their families -- for example, a cancer nurse
costs GBP50,000 per annum.

"We could employ an additional 20 cancer nurses or a mixture of
cancer nurses and counsellors or additional research into the
cause and treatment of asbestos disease.

"It is my belief this new Welsh law can make a significant
improvement to the quality of life of those whose life is blighted
by this terrible disease."

Last December assembly Presiding Officer Rosemary Butler certified
that the bill was within the institution's powers, but admitted it
was a "finely balanced" decision on some aspects of the
legislation.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) wrote to her and the
secretary of state for Wales with a number of what it called
"serious concerns" about the bill's lawfulness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Lawyer Predicts Fibro Cancer Death Spike
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Telford, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that pay-
outs for people suffering from asbestos-related illness are
hitting figures as high as GBP92,500, a leading Plymouth, United
Kingdom lawyer says.

Russell Pearce, head of dispute resolution and personal injury at
Bretonside-based Gard & Co, also said a recent study suggests
there will be a spike in asbestos-related deaths in 2016.

This is because UK workers were exposed for longer periods to
brown asbestos (amosite) than in other countries during the 1980s.

Health and Safety Executive figures show 373 Plymouth men died
from mesothelioma -- a type of lung cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos -- between 1981 and 2005.

Mr Pearce is now backing a proposal for a specialist court to be
set up devoted to asbestos-related claims.

"The disease can take 30 to 40 years to develop and this often
causes difficulties in identifying the correct insurance company,
given the period of time that has elapsed since exposure," Mr
Pearce said.

"The Government is in the process of introducing legislation
changing the way in which claims are brought.

"A Government fund is being proposed that would pay the sufferer
75 per cent of the value of the claim if the defendant insurer
cannot be traced.

"A new web-based system is also being considered to speed up the
process. There is controversy as to the benefits of such change."
Mr Pearce supports the alternative proposal, a specialist court,
and said: "This would ensure speedy and informed justice."

He added: "Awards for pain and suffering range from GBP51,500 to
GBP92,500, depending on the duration and severity of the symptoms.

"Claims can also be made for care and assistance provided to the
sufferer by relatives and dependants.

"There are some life-prolonging treatments available to sufferers,
but often their main concern is to ensure future financial support
and assistance for their family and loved ones."

Last year Plymouth was highlighted as one of the UK's worst
hotspots for asbestos-related diseases.

It is likely this is because the substance was heavily used as
insulation in ships and dockyard workers and servicemen may have
been exposed during fitting-out and ship-breaking.

Although it is now illegal to use asbestos, a ban was only imposed
in 2000.

Mr Pearce said mesothelioma could affect not only the sufferer
himself but the worker's family if, for example, fibres have been
brought into the home.

"A recent study suggested there would be a spike in deaths in
2016," Mr Pearce said.

"Expertise in diagnosis has improved so doctors are now more
likely to accurately identify cases. A conclusive diagnosis is
essential to making a successful claim. The focus then shifts to
obtaining the necessary evidence to positively identify the
correct defendant.

"Tragically, it appears such claims will be around for the next 20
years or so as results of the dormant disease continue to come to
light."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialists to Clear Toxic Dust From Tuam St.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylianou, writing for stuff.co.nz, reported that
asbestos will be removed from the former Christchurch civic
building in Tuam St while a neighbouring site continues to be
dampened down after contamination hot spots were identified.

The multi-storey building was occupied by the Christchurch City
Council from 1980 until 2010 and was recently sold to the Central
Christchurch Development Unit as the land is earmarked for the new
inner-city bus interchange.

Earlier this month, preliminary testing of an adjoining vacant
site identified isolated traces of asbestos in the soil between
Lichfield St and Struthers Lane.

Ceres New Zealand was awarded the demolition contract for the Tuam
St building and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(Cera) is managing the project. A Cera spokeswoman confirmed the
building contained the potentially lethal substance as well as
lead-based paint.

"That will have to be disposed of properly too," she said.

Both hazards were "normal things" expected of many buildings
constructed before the mid-1980s.

Specialists would be handling the removal of all hazardous
substances, she said.

Meanwhile, an asbestos investigation had been conducted on the
vacant land and the report was due back this week.

Staff would then be able to decide how to remediate the land, she
said, but in the meantime sprinklers continued to keep the site
damp to minimise dust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warn of Fibro Exposure After Widow Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clive Beck, who died at the age of 71, claimed he had been exposed
to asbestos while teaching history at Ratton School in Eastbourne,
between 1972 and 1998.

As reported by the Eastbourne Herald and The Argus, Mr Beck died
18 months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable
form of lung cancer. It is alleged, that the hazardous material
was within the shelves of a cupboard, used by Mr Beck to store
books and equipment.

Mrs Beck spoke of her relief after securing justice from East
Sussex County Council, she stated:

"No amount of money will ever bring Clive back," said Mrs Beck,
who was married for 28 years. "He wasn't here to walk our daughter
up the aisle when she got married and he would have so enjoyed
being a grandfather to our granddaughter. But the fact is the
council should have done more to protect him and it didn't."

"Losing Clive to mesothelioma was devastating and my family and I
have been determined to get the answers we feel we deserve over
his death. To see the impact that the illness had on him was
unbearable and it is difficult to take when nowadays the risks of
being exposed to asbestos are so well known.

"It has been a difficult few years but we are relieved this legal
battle is now over. Nothing will ever bring Clive back but we felt
it was important to get justice over everything he has faced."

Commenting on the news, Thomas Fairclough, Executive at Asons
Solicitors, said that:

"An asbestos related illness like Mesothelioma can lead to a slow,
painful death, and it can take up to 40 years for the symptoms to
present themselves."

"According to the HSE statistics, 183 teachers and lecturers died
from mesothelioma between 1980 and 2000. Asbestos exposure is not
limited to those in the building trade."

"If Mr Beck had been exposed to asbestos, as a result of his
employment, it is unjust that measures were not taken to protect
his welfare, and that of his colleagues, who may also have been
exposed to asbestos, whilst working at Ratton School."

Asons Solicitors have a dedicated team of industrial disease
specialists, dealing with cases of asbestos related diseases;
giving people legal advice, particularly in the area of
mesothelioma claims. Exposure to asbestos can be deadly, and Asons
urge anyone who feels they may have been exposed to asbestos
fibres to consult their GP immediately for a consultation, and
contact an industrial disease specialist for legal representation.

Asons Solicitors suggest that if someone would like to learn more
about the industrial disease compensation process, or if they
would like to better understand the condition, that information is
available at http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an expert helpline on
01204 521 133

                     About Asons Solicitors:

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Research Takes a Hit
--------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the future of
the National Mesothelioma Virtual Tissue Bank is in jeopardy after
its federal funding was eliminated earlier this year, sending
researchers scrambling to find other options.

As part of a budget-cutting move, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Centers for Disease
Control eliminated the annual grant of more than $1 million,
delivering a serious blow to future mesothelioma research.

Mesothelioma is the rare, but aggressive cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos. There is no cure and there are few treatment options,
but recent advancements have been made despite minimal research
funding.

"For a lot of people now, this will make research even more
difficult," said Michael Feldman, M.D., PhD, respected professor
of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "This was not good."

The National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank (NMVB) was the only
federally funded program specifically designed for mesothelioma
research, receiving similar funding amounts annually since 2006.
Many of the other grants from the CDC were reduced in the 2013
budgeting, but the NMVB grant was eliminated totally.

The CDC had rewarded the NMVB in 2011 with a five-year renewal of
the grant, which was expected to take it through 2016. Then the
federal budget cuts hit, and funding was dropped.

"We expected to take a cut and see funding reduced. Everyone is
tightening their belt these days," said Feldman, a member of the
Research Evaluation Panel for the NMVB. "But to just have it
yanked with virtually no warning, it was pretty shocking."

                    Collaborative Effort

The NMVB is a collaborative effort involving the University of
Pittsburgh, New York University, the University of Pennsylvania,
Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Mesothelioma Applied
Research Foundation.

It is designed to provide annotated mesothelioma biospecimens that
are available to researchers from around the world. Throughout the
past seven years, those biospecimens have been used for clinical,
scientific and translational research to advance mesothelioma
pathophysiology.

The goal has been to speed the development of preventative
measures, and help develop novel therapeutics to fight the
disease.

That fight just became harder.

Mesothelioma researchers anywhere were eligible to apply for NMVB
tissue specimens. There are more than 1,300 biospecimens in the
Tissue Bank today and more than 1,100 annotated cases available.

The belief was that researchers at every level and from every
discipline could benefit from the shared resources, and spark new
ideas. The goal of the Bank was to make it a national model and
tissue-banking leader. There are other mesothelioma tissues banks
on both the West and East coast, but none that promoted the open-
to-all availability.

                     Future Plans On Hold

The NMVB is based at the University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine and under the direction of Michael Becich, M.D. PhD,
chairman of the Department of Biomedical Informatics. Without the
annual grant from the CDC, no new specimens will be added, access
will be reduced, and researchers will have to pay for anything
they are provided.

Among the original advantages of using the NMVB was a continued
annotation of mesothelioma biospecimens. It included
epidemiologic, demographic and clinicopathologic follow up and
recurrence data.

Specimen collection was expected to expand with the potential
addition of new collaborating academic medical centers.

The specimen types available to researchers were fresh frozen
tissues, blood products, tissue microarray with clinical data
annotation and paraffin embedded blocks.

"These kind of things are not super sexy, but they are the
building blocks for research," Feldman said. "They are very
important in terms of making progress. It becomes a little harder
now."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two New Suits Added to St. Clair County Docket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that another two asbestos lawsuits have been added to St. Clair
County's asbestos docket.

Colin Crumpton filed an asbestos lawsuit Nov. 5 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against 75 defendant corporations while
Lavail Gulledge filed another one Nov. 5 against 68 defendant
corporations on behalf of her father, Bobby Gulledge. Crumpton
does not specify where he resides, but Lavail Gulledge says she
lives in Vancleave, Miss.

Both Crumpton and Lavail Gulledge are represented by Randy L. Gori
and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

In their complaints, Crumpton and Lavail Gulledge allege the
defendant companies caused them or their deceased relatives to
develop lung cancer after their exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout their careers.

Crumpton worked as an electrician aboard the USS Stribling-DD867
from 1962 until 1964, as an electrician at Georgia Power Harllee
from 1964 until 1965, as an electrician at Brosman Yard Rail Road
from 1964 until 1966, as an electrician at Sinclair Office
Building in 1967, as an electrician at Georgia Kraft in 1968 and
as an electrician at Pabst Blue Ribbon Refinery from 1968 until
1970, according to the complaint.

Bobby Gulledge worked as a boiler tender in the U.S. Navy from
1955 until 1958, as a self-employed mechanic from 1958 until 1975,
as a pipefitter at Ingall's Shipyard from 1975 until 1979 and from
1985 until 2001, as a pipefitter at BAE Systems Shipyard from 1979
until 1980, as a pipefitter at Avondale Shipyard from 1980 until
1983 and as a self-employed roofer from 1983 until 1984.

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

As a result of their asbestos-related diseases, Crumpton and Bobby
Gulledge became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs
and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint
says. In addition, he was prevented from pursuing his normal
course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money
that would have accrued to him, the plaintiff claims. In addition,
Gulledge died on Aug. 4, 2012, according to the complaint.

In his 11-count complaint, Crumpton is seeking a judgment of more
than $200,000, economic damages of more than $150,000,
compensatory damages of more than $50,000, punitive and exemplary
damages of more than $100,000 and other relief the court deems
just.

In her complaint, Lavail Gulledge is seeking economic damages of
more than $200,000, a judgment of more than $100,000, punitive and
exemplary damages, compensatory damages of more than $100,000 and
other relief the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 13-L-564, 13-L-563.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Court Dismisses Crane Co. From Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has
dismissed asbestos claims asserted against Crane Co., ruling that
the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was exposed to
asbestos in the defendant's product.

Without more evidence linking the defendant's valves to the
vicinity in which the former seaman worked, the plaintiff's claims
are speculative, the New York Supreme Court for New York County
ruled on Nov. 13.

Plaintiff Donald Tobin asserted the claims, contending that he
developed pleural mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos
while serving in the U.S. Navy as a seaman and storekeeper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Trial Court "Erroneously" Rewrote Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Wisconsin appellate court
has reversed a trial court's decision to "rewrite" a jury verdict
in an asbestos case involving mesothelioma and lung cancer claims
asserted by a smoker.

In the Nov. 19 decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District
I, said that if the trial court was concerned that the jury's
decision wrongfully accounted for the plaintiff's smoking history,
it should have asked the jury to resume deliberations or ordered a
new trial.

Instead, the trial court "erroneously rewrote" the jury's
decision, the appellate court ruled.

The plaintiffs contend that Steven Lemberger was exposed to
asbestos.


                             *********

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  * * *