CAR_Public/131206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 242

                             Headlines


AGUIRRE HONEY: Recalls Certain Goldenrod Honey Due to Lead
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Workers' Comp-Related Suit in Illinois
AT&T INC: Deadline for Cramming Charges Refund Passes
BACK FORTY: Employs Illegal Tip Pooling, New York Suit Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Court Remands "Deepwater Horizon" Litigation

BRIDGESTONE-FIRESTONE: Recalls Certain Models of Tires
BT CONFERENCING: Court Orders Arbitration in "Smith" Suit
CATHAY FOREST: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
CHICAGO, IL: Ill. Appeals Court Revives Service Tax Class Action
CLEANNET USA: Judge Approves $7.5MM Class Action Settlement

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Seeks to Rebut Bankwest Deal Allegations
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Deceives HVAC Systems Customers, Suit Claims
CYTOSPORT INC: Wins Prelim. OK of Muscle Milk Suit's $5MM Deal
DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Windshield Washer Systems
DEP'T STORES NAT'L: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Zevon" Class Action

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Order Against Strip-Search Suit Affirmed
FLORA MANUFACTURING: Recalls Certain Organic Ginger Herbal Tea
FLORIDA: Judge Okays APD Class Action Settlement
FORGE GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Threats
H&R BLOCK: TaxWorks Software for 2012 a Disaster, Suit Claims

HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls Certain Chicken Rice Soup Due to Plastic
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls MDX SUV Due to Defective Drive Shaft
HONDROS COLLEGE: Defrauded Students Over Accreditation, Suit Says
ISUZU MOTORS: Recalls Certain Models Due to Transmission Failure
JANSSEN PHARMA: $11MM Verdict Awarded in Topamax Birth Defect Suit

JOHN BEAD: Recalls Beadalon BeadFix Superfast Adhesive
LEXISNEXIS: 6th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Crockett" Suit
LULLY'S INC: Feb. 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Right One Suit
MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Hazella Chocolatey Hazelnut Spreads
MARY ANN'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Niman Ranch Applewood Petite Ham

MARTY COLEY FARM: Accused of Being Model of Abusive Employers
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls S Class Model
MICROS SYSTEMS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Tennessee
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by College Players for Head Trauma
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Lawyer Wants Vaive Removed From Concussion Suit

SEAPORT MARINE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Smith" Class Action
SEQWATER: Premier Warns on Class Action Plaintiff Law Firms
SEQWATER: Tully Balks at Newman's Criticism of Class Action
SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls Kizashi and SX4 Models
TELEBRANDS USA: Refused to Honor Guaranteed Refund, Suit Claims

TGI FRIDAYS: Faces Class Action Over Cheap Liquor Imitations
TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Certain Shredded and Flaked Coconut Products
TRUEBLUE INC: Atty. Fee Bid in "Brown" FLSA Suit Gets Court OK
UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Certain Wu-Mu Noodles Due to Food Color
UNITED REFINING: Class Certified in "Cottillion" Case

VALICOR INC: Contaminated Cincinnati Neighborhood, Suit Says
VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Bradley" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Manley" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Turbow" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Migraine

WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
WYNDHAM VACATION: Arbitration Ordered in "Crook" Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claimants Hire Lincoln as Investment Banker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Corp. Has Until April 17 to File Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Frieder" PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bechtel" PI Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses Aviva's Suit v. Flintkote

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Modifies Order in "Steiner" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Reverses Krafft-Murphy Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Consolidating 3 NY Suits for Trial Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l. Increases Reserves by $130MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 7,880 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,073 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 800 Exposure Suits Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Continues to Defend PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 25,000 PI Claims Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 355 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $1.03-Bil Reserves as of Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Calif. PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Pays $19-Mil. to Settle Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increases Gross Asbestos Reserves by $33MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Le@P Technology Unit Continues to Defend PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 282 Suits Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 437 Pending Cases at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Oakdale Water Tank
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fibro Experts Welcome HSE Drive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Hopes New Bill Makes a Difference

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Dist. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dearborn Man Sentenced for Not Removing Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Son Vows to Fight for Father's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years of Fibro Exposure Led to Grandma's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheshunt Flytippers Show Disregard for Residents

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magic Toy Could Contain Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Materials Removed from Berkley Offices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Wants Public to Inform on Infested Pits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board to Hold Hearing on Fibro Removal at School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scunthorpe Steelworker Exposed to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Steelworkers Had "Snowball Fights" With Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Angered Over Payout for Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Workers Asked for Info on Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Delays Work on $8MM Grammar Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Mesothelioma Lawsuit Moves to Brazil

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abounds at U of T's Sidney Smith Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Fibro Products Get Past Aussie Customs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Te Puna Contractor Fined for Burning Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Audit Due in Fibor-Plagued Kyneton Kindergarten
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Slows Knox County Project

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Is Parents' Concern at Weymouth School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Oppose Wisconsin Fibro Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denials Over Christchurch Hospital Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landfill Operator Fined for Handling Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brad Black Works to Treat New Libby Patients

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railway Workers Exposed in Chinese-Made Trains
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broward Water Providers Missed Testing Deadline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Properly Removed at Montague School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Killed by Fibro Inhaled in Classrooms

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congresswoman's Fibro Suit Drew Criticism
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Zwolle "Best School"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Furniture Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wellington County Buys Closed Daycare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contaminated Soil in Sarnia

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Northampton Royal Mail Centre
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Tool Created to Combat Airborne Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warwick Accommodation Takes Action on Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillor Issues Plea to Fly-tippers


                             *********


AGUIRRE HONEY: Recalls Certain Goldenrod Honey Due to Lead
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aguirre Honey Farms
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8482

Affected products: 500g. and 1 kg. Aguirre Honey Farms Goldenrod
Honey


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Workers' Comp-Related Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jack Bouboushian reports that
American International Group underreported workers' compensation
premiums for decades, causing employers to pay inflated premiums
and state surcharges, a medical marketing group claims in a
federal class action in Illinois.

Beach Medical Marketing sued AIG and 12 subsidiaries; it's the
fourth such class action against AIG this fall.

It follows on the heels of three coordinated lawsuits filed in San
Francisco, Manhattan, and Newark federal courts one month ago.
All the lawsuits contain similar allegations of fraud, unjust
enrichment, and racketeering.

Insurance companies that offer workers' compensation coverage are
required to report the workers' comp premiums they receive yearly
to state insurance departments, which set certain financial
obligations on the insurance careers based on the share of
premiums collected.

But since the 1970s, AIG has conspired "to evade and/or reduce
their financial obligations, defendants engaged in a scheme to
underreport the amount of WC [worker's compensation] insurance
premiums they collected.  As a result, WC insurance policyholders
were overcharged for certain surcharges and fees assessed by the
states," according to the new lawsuit.

Beach Medical, a California business required to purchase workers
compensation insurance, seeks to represent employers in
California, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New
York and West Virginia.

"By engaging in a systematic underreporting of WC premiums
written, defendants not only wrongly enriched themselves, but also
caused plaintiff and other WC policyholders in the relevant states
to pay improperly inflated state insurance surcharges and to
suffer other damage," the complaint states.

An internal memorandum uncovered in 2005, written by AIG's general
counsel Michael Joye in 1992, shows AIG was aware of its illegal
activity, and strove to continue it, while concealing its
deception from government authorities by keeping more than one set
of books and records, according to the complaint.

AIG has since admitted its false-premium reporting, and paid
billions to settle related claims.

But businesses have not been compensated for the higher premiums
they paid for decades due to AIG's illegal underreporting, the
complaint states.

Beach Medical seeks disgorgement and punitive damages for RICO
violations, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Former CEO Maurice Greenberg is also a defendant.

Beach Medical Marketing is represented by:

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


AT&T INC: Deadline for Cramming Charges Refund Passes
-----------------------------------------------------
N2ChristianCounty reports that Attorney General Chris Koster
Nov. 26 reminded AT&T customers that a deadline to seek a refund
of unauthorized third-party charges was approaching.  Consumers
had until Dec. 2 to apply for a refund of cramming charges on
their AT&T landline telephone bills since 2005.

Refunds are available through the Nwabueze et al. v. AT&T et al.
class action settlement by filing a claim at
http://www.attthirdpartybillingsettlement.com

AT&T included bill inserts containing the Notice of Settlement to
eligible customers earlier this month.  Customers also had until
Dec. 2 to ask for a billing summary showing all third party
charges incurred since 2005, which can be returned to the claims
administrator after the customer marks any unauthorized charges.

"Today's phone bills often include numerous pages of numbers and
charges, and it can be difficult to discern legitimate from
illegitimate charges," Mr. Koster said in a press release.  "Our
office will seek to protect consumers from companies that take
advantage of them with unauthorized charges."

Cramming is the practice of third party content providers placing
unauthorized or misleading charges on customer phone bills.
Crammers often obtain consumer information through sweepstakes,
drawings, free offers or trials, or other incentivized marketing
schemes that lure consumers to submit their names, addresses,
phone numbers and birth dates.

This information is then often used to enroll consumers in third-
party products or services billed through the consumer's telephone
bill without their knowledge or consent.  More recently, spam text
messages to cell phones or links to advertisements in cell-phone
applications are used to enroll consumers in alerts such as
celebrity gossip, love tips and horoscopes for recurring monthly
fees.

Mr. Koster announced a settlement with V&T Communications, doing
business as Odyssey Communication Services, resolving a civil
lawsuit arguing that the company charged some Missouri consumers
$14.95 per month for a commercial-free streaming internet radio
service consumers did not consent to purchase.  Under the
settlement, the company will pay $7,729.15 in refunds to non-AT&T
customers in Missouri who were charged for Odyssey Streaming Radio
without their consent.

Mr. Koster encouraged consumers to check their monthly phone bills
for any suspicious charges.  Consumers should contact their
carrier if they detect unauthorized charges.  Consumers can also
request to block third-party charges to prevent cramming from
occurring.

If you suspect cramming, contact the Attorney General's Consumer
Protection Hotline at (800) 392-8222 or online to file a
complaint.


BACK FORTY: Employs Illegal Tip Pooling, New York Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kasey Williamson, Kelli L. Adamczyk and Michael Pirigyi,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated
v. Back Forty L.L.C., Case No. 1:13-cv-07716-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2013) alleges that the Defendants are entitled to
unpaid minimum wages and illegally retained tips for illegal tip
pooling.

Back Forty owns and operates two restaurants in New York City.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felice B. Ekelman, Esq.
          Douglas Joseph Klein, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP (NY)
          666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4005
          Facsimile: (212) 972-3213
          E-mail: ekelmanf@jacksonlewis.com
                  douglas.klein@jacksonlewis.com


BP EXPLORATION: Court Remands "Deepwater Horizon" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
appealed the district court's decision upholding the Claims
Administrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement between
it and the class of parties injured in the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. BP also appealed the district court's dismissal of its
action for breach of contract against the Administrator and denial
of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal of BP's suit against the Claims
Administrator but reverses the district court's denial of BP's
motion for a preliminary injunction and the district court's order
affirming the Administrator's interpretation of the Settlement.
The matter is remanded to the district court for further
consideration.

The case is IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON
LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; BON SECOUR
FISHERIES, INCORPORATED; FORT MORGAN REALTY, INCORPORATED; LFBP 1,
L.L.C., doing business as GW Fins; PANAMA CITY BEACH DOLPHIN TOURS
& MORE, L.L.C.; ZEKES CHARTER FLEET, L.L.C.; WILLIAM SELLERS;
KATHLEEN IRWIN; RONALD LUNDY; CORLISS GALLO; JOHN TESVICH; MICHAEL
GUIDRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
HENRY HUTTO; BRAD FRILOUX; JERRY J. KEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY; BP PIPE LINE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants
IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON
LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; BON SECOUR
FISHERIES, INCORPORATED; FORT MORGAN REALTY, INCORPORATED; LFBP 1,
L.L.C., doing business as GW Fins; PANAMA CITY BEACH DOLPHIN TOURS
& MORE, L.L.C.; ZEKES CHARTER FLEET, L.L.C.; WILLIAM SELLERS;
KATHLEEN IRWIN; RONALD LUNDY; CORLISS GALLO; JOHN TESVICH; MICHAEL
GUIDRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
HENRY HUTTO; BRAD FRILOUX; JERRY J. KEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellants
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; BON SECOUR
FISHERIES, INCORPORATED; FORT MORGAN REALTY, INCORPORATED; LFBP 1,
L.L.C., doing business as GW Fins; PANAMA CITY BEACH DOLPHIN TOURS
& MORE, L.L.C.; ZEKES CHARTER FLEET, L.L.C.; WILLIAM SELLERS;
KATHLEEN IRWIN; RONALD LUNDY; CORLISS GALLO; JOHN TESVICH; MICHAEL
GUIDRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
HENRY HUTTO; BRAD FRILOUX; JERRY J. KEE, Intervenor Defendants-
Appellees
DEEPWATER HORIZON COURT SUPERVISED SETTLEMENT PROGRAM; PATRICK A.
JUNEAU, in his official capacity as Claims Administrator of the
Deepwater Horizon Court Supervised Settlement Program
administering the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages
Settlement Agreement, and in his official capacity as Trustee of
the Deepwater, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-30315, CONSOLIDATED
WITH 13-30329.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 4, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/VNKVVffrom Leagle.com.


BRIDGESTONE-FIRESTONE: Recalls Certain Models of Tires
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Tire
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           882
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013399
TC ID number:             2013399

In certain tires, irregularities in the manufacturing process may
lead to cracking of the inner liner, which could result in a
sidewall bulge.  Continued operation in this state could result in
a slow inflation pressure leak, which could affect vehicle
handling and increase the risk of tire failure.  This could result
in a vehicle crash causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Retailers will replace affected tires.

Affected products: BRIDGESTONE 2012, 2013, 2012, 2013, 2012, 2013
models


BT CONFERENCING: Court Orders Arbitration in "Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Rose granted a motion to dismiss and to
compel individual arbitration in the case captioned GREGORY M.
SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BT CONFERENCING, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
3:13-CV-160, (S.D. Ohio).

Gregory M. Smith brought his collective action suit against BT
Conferencing, Inc. to recover unpaid overtime wages.  Mr. Smith
makes three Claims for Relief in this suit: (a) for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq., regarding overtime compensation, (b) for violation of Ohio's
Wage Payment Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 4111.03, and (c) for
unjust enrichment. Mr. Smith asked that his complaint be
considered a collective action and that he be awarded attorneys'
fees.  BT filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1,
et seq. and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(h)(3).

According to Judge Rose, the Arbitration Clause is enforceable and
Mr. Smith has agreed to arbitrate his overtime-related claims. Mr.
Smith, who has the burden, has not shown otherwise. Therefore,
Smith has agreed to arbitrate his claims. Further, he must be
compelled to do so, ruled Judge Rose. Class arbitration is not
warranted, he added.

The Sixth Circuit permits district courts to dismiss actions where
all of the claims are to be submitted to arbitration and retaining
jurisdiction would serve no purpose. Since all of Mr. Smith's
claims are to be submitted to arbitration and retaining
jurisdiction would serve no purpose, Judge Rose ordered
termination of the case.

A copy of the District Court's November 5, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/w6UkJifrom Leagle.com.


CATHAY FOREST: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you acquire shares of Cathay Forest Products Corp. between
November 9, 2009 & August 21, 2013?

Siskinds LLP on Nov. 29 disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice has approved a class action settlement which permits a
defined group of people to share in the settlement fund.  The
settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of
the Defendants.

To be eligible for compensation, Class members must submit a
completed Claim Form no later than March 31, 2014.

The long form Notice of Settlement Approval provides detailed
information about the settlement which, along with the Claim Form,
Settlement Agreement, Orders of the Court and other information
are available at http://www.cathayforestclassaction.comby calling
1 (866)432-5534 or scanning the QR code in the attached image.


CHICAGO, IL: Ill. Appeals Court Revives Service Tax Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Villmer, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
appeals court on Nov. 26 revived a class action challenging the
city of Chicago's passage of a service tax on a local
neighborhood, saying a lower court erred in finding the suit was
not filed in time.

The Illinois Court of Appeals for the First District found that by
ignoring the service tax itself and focusing solely on flawed
procedural steps taken by the city council when establishing the
new tax, property owner Raymond Hawkins was not bound by the
city's tax laws and their 165-day objection period.

"[The city and the Cook County Treasurer's is attempting] to
recharacterize plaintiff's amended complaint as a tax objection
despite its lacking a formal tax objection claim," Justice Patrick
J. Quinn wrote in his opinion.  "[The 165-day statute of
limitations] applies when a taxpayer is seeking to challenge a
tax, assessment or levy.  In the instant case, [Hawkins] did not
object to any tax, assessment or levy in his amended complaint."

In his suit, Mr. Hawkins claimed that in passing the 3 percent tax
based on assessed property values, the city council violated its
own tax law procedures by failing to record the new law within 60
days of adoption and by failing to receive an affected property
owner's signature on the law's application.

In response, the city claimed that despite procedural problems,
the case was about a disputed tax, requiring application of the
city's tax laws.

The appellate court acknowledged Mr. Hawkins mentioned the tax's
unfairness in his complaint on several occasions, citing a 62
percent increase in property taxes since the law's passage,
immediately ratcheting up his tax liability from about $66,000 to
more than $107,000.  But Justice Quinn pointed out the theory
behind the lawsuit was a procedural invalidation of the new
service tax, not a demand for a tax refund due to unfairness.

Before the trial court, Mr. Hawkins argued in favor of the same
simplistic approach later taken by the appellate court: Either the
Chicago City Council met the requirements to set up an enforceable
tax ordinance or they did not.  But after repeated urgings by city
attorneys, the court dismissed the case, saying it involved tax
issues, and therefore the city's 165-day statute of limitations on
tax issues required the case's dismissal.

Representatives for the parties could not be reached for comment
on Nov. 27.

Raymond Hawkins is represented by John S. Xydakis with the Law
Offices of John Xydakis PC and attorney Thomas Courtney.

The city of Chicago is represented by Chicago's Corporation
Counsel Stephen Patton.

The case is Raymond E. Hawkins v. Far South CDC Inc., The City of
Chicago and Maria Pappas, case number 1-12-1707 before the
Illinois Court of Appeals for the First District.


CLEANNET USA: Judge Approves $7.5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mahoney, writing for Law360, reports that a Massachusetts
federal judge on Nov. 26 approved a $7.5 million settlement in a
class action accusing office cleaning company CleanNet USA Inc. of
misclassifying "franchisee" employees as independent contractors
in order to push franchisee fees and other costs on them.

The settlement, approved by U.S. District Judge John Tauro,
follows five years of litigation in state and federal court,
according to court records. The settlement includes a provision
awarding $2.5 million for attorneys' fees.

"This action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice,
permanently barring the class representative or settlement class
members (other than those who timely and validly opted out) from
prosecuting any of the specified claims, and class counsel from
proceeding any of the class counsel's released claims," the order
said.

The class consists of more than 100 members and had been removed
from state court, according to court records.

The case also alleged that CleanNet engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices by improperly inducing class members to
purchase cleaning franchises, and by improperly requiring class
members to purchase general liability and workers' compensation
insurance for the benefit of CleanNet, the complaint said.

CleanNet's marketing material "represents to potential cleaning
'franchisees' that they are buying a lucrative business, when in
fact they are buying the right to become CleanNet's low-paid
janitorial cleaning workers," the complaint had said.

CleanNet had allegedly charged initial franchise fees and fees for
franchise upgrades to the franchises, even though the company was
supposed to foot the bill, the complaint alleged.

CleanNet denies all of the allegations, according to court
records.

Allegedly misclassifying the individuals as independent
contractors allowed the company to avoid timely payment of wages
and overtime pay, the complaint alleged.  Some franchisees were
also found ineligible for unemployment and workers' compensation,
the complaint said.

The company also targeted non-English speakers for its allegedly
deceptive practices, the complaint said.

"CleanNet targets individuals with limited fluency in English
because they are easily victimized by CleanNet's
misrepresentations and other systemic legal violations, as
described herein. These individuals are primarily non-English-
speaking immigrants."

The plaintiffs are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Hillary Schwab -- hschwab@llrlaw.com -- and
Claret Vargas -- CVargas@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten & Liss-Riordan
PC.

CleanNet is represented by Arthur L. Pressman --
apressman@nixonpeabody.com -- and Devon Little --
dlittle@nixonpeabody.com -- of Nixon Peabody LLP.

The case is Siffredo Sola v. Cleannet USA Inc., case number 1:12-
cv-10580, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Seeks to Rebut Bankwest Deal Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that
Commonwealth Bank has exposed the entrails of its controversial,
AUD2.1 billion Bankwest deal, seeking to rebut allegations ahead
of a planned class action next year that it benefited by
engineering Bankwest loan defaults.

Responding to extracts of the 2008 Bankwest share-sale deed,
obtained by The Weekend Australian, CBA group general counsel
David Cohen detailed the impact of key items in the agreement,
including vendor warranties and a price adjustment mechanism to
lower or raise the purchase price depending on impairments
identified during intensive, post-acquisition due diligence.

Mr. Cohen revealed that, contrary to CBA reaping a windfall gain
by foreclosing on Bankwest commercial customers and then invoking
the adjustment provisions, the financial impact of changes made
after the deal's December 19, 2008 completion was insignificant.

The price adjustment mechanism resulted in a AUD26 million
increase in the Bankwest purchase price, while the warranty claims
resulted in a payment to CBA of "less than AUD6 million".

"If a class action does emerge, CBA will confidently defend its
position," Mr. Cohen told The Weekend Australian.

At the height of the financial crisis, after three days of rushed
due diligence, CBA snared Bankwest from its distressed parent,
British-based HBOS, at the knockdown price of 0.8 times 2007 book
value -- far less than Westpac's purchase of St George Bank at 2.7
times book value.

The acquisition team was led by Ian Narev, since promoted to CBA
chief executive, with Mr. Cohen drafting the terms and conditions
of the Bankwest share-sale deed.

While the deal enabled CBA to consolidate its position as the
nation's leading home lender, the bank has become dogged by
allegations that it unfairly foreclosed on some of Bankwest's
commercial customers.

Among the claims, consistently rejected by CBA, is that it
"manufactured" defaults -- for example, by pressuring valuers to
undervalue properties -- so it could lower the Bankwest purchase
price under the "claw back" arrangements with HBOS.

The claims were aired in a federal Senate inquiry last year, and
the founder of the Unhappy Banking lobby group Geoff Shannon has
said they will form the core of a class action next year
potentially worth "billions of dollars".

Individual borrowers like Rory O'Brien, developer of the AUD282
million Whisper Bay luxury resort in the Whitsundays, have also
taken private litigation.

Mr. O'Brien has launched a $512m cross-claim against Bankwest,
alleging unconscionable conduct by the bank in terminating his
loans.

The developer has spoken of a "clandestine" internal strategy,
called Project Magellan, to trash a number of large and
fundamentally viable Bankwest loans, saying CBA was "in a rush to
trigger the required impairments to maximize the clawback discount
before the prescribed time limit".

CBA has persistently denied the allegations, saying it gains no
benefit from foreclosing on customers.

In a strongly worded Senate submission in July, Mr. Cohen said any
loan impairment expense recognized by CBA or Bankwest during the
balance of the 2009 financial year, or in any subsequent financial
year, had no potential "whatsoever" to influence the Bankwest
purchase price.

The bank has now gone further in its response to The Weekend
Australian.  It said the price adjustment mechanism was
unremarkable, and applied to the Bankwest loan book as it was on
the last day under HBOS ownership -- December 18, 2008.  With CBA
only able to do limited due diligence before effectively agreeing
to a bailout, the bank conducted a detailed stock-take after
Bankwest served up a draft completion balance sheet.

CBA, however, had to undertake the review based on its
understanding of Bankwest's lending and impairment standards, not
its own.

According to a document seen by The Weekend Australian, Mr. Cohen
dispatched a dispute notice to his HBOS counterpart in April 2009
in relation to the Bankwest draft completion balance sheet.

The notice culminated in a dispute resolution process, with
accounting firm Ernst & Young appointed as the final arbiter.

While CBA had some "wins" on its view of impaired Bankwest loans,
HBOS emerged in front overall, with E&Y ruling that the purchase
price should be lifted by AUD26 million under the price adjustment
mechanism in the share-sale deed.  The ruling was made in July,
but its impact was included in CBA's accounts for the June 2009
financial year.

The warranties, covering a laundry list of items ranging from tax
liabilities and ownership of the Bankwest shares to assets such as
leases, were another matter altogether -- quite separate from the
impairments.

As the extract shows, the maximum amount recoverable under the
warranty claims was the initial purchase price; that is, AUD2.1
billion.

Apart from the seven-year period in which to make a claim under
the tax warranty, all other warranty claims had to be lodged
within a year of the December 19, 2009 completion date.

CBA is believed to have made only two warranty claims, resulting
in a payment of less than AUD6 million from HBOS.  "No price
adjustment for impaired loans could be made through the warranty
regime, and none was made," Mr. Cohen reiterated.

"There was only a minor level of warranty claims, for matters
unrelated to impaired loans, of less than AUD6 million."
As to the price adjustment mechanism, it could only be invoked for
loans up to the last day of HBOS's ownership of Bankwest, which
was December 18, 2008.

"So CBA's subsequent ownership had no influence on the level of
impaired loans that could result in a price adjustment for
Bankwest," Mr. Cohen said.

At the CBA annual meeting earlier this month, chairman David
Turner did his best to bury the whole Bankwest issue.  He
acknowledged there was a perception among some Bankwest customers
that CBA had "a long period" after it bought the bank in which it
could "foreclose on debts and then reclaim from HBOS".

"That is absolutely not right," the chairman said.  "Once the deal
was completed and we had the bank, that was the end of that."

If nothing else, the aggrieved Bankwest customers are focused and
resilient.

They are unlikely to be deterred by Mr. Turner's emphatic
response.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Deceives HVAC Systems Customers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Costco deceives customers by advertising its air-conditioning and
heating systems as energy-efficient enough to qualify for a
rebate, a member claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Stephen Simoni claims Costco Wholesale made
millions of dollars by pulling the wool over thousands of
customers' eyes.

Costco's "knowingly false statements are a key component of the
company's marketing strategy and contribute substantially to
company's gross revenues and net income at the expense of members
who suffer the damages of company's knowingly false statements,"
the 16-page complaint states.

Simoni claims the company's HVAC units are too big and inefficient
to earn a rebate.  He claims Costco sold him a 5-ton HVAC system,
though a 4-ton system was needed to qualify for a rebate with his
utility company.

When he complained, Simoni says, Costco blamed the humidity levels
he had set on the system.  He claims that Costco simply lied, and
refused to remedy the problem.

Simoni seeks restitution, an injunction and damages violations of
consumer law, false advertising, unfair competition, unjust
enrichment and fraud.

Simoni, an attorney in Rancho Mirage, California, filed the case
for himself and the proposed class.

The case is Stephen Simoni v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08498, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


CYTOSPORT INC: Wins Prelim. OK of Muscle Milk Suit's $5MM Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that consumers
duped into buying Cytosport's line of Muscle Milk products will
share a $5 million settlement tentatively approved by a federal
judge.

Lead plaintiff Claire Delacruz sued Cytosport last year over
alleged violations of California's consumer protection, unfair
competition, and false advertising laws.  The complaint, which
also alleged fraud and negligent misrepresentation, claimed that
Cytosports used an extensive media campaign to have consumers
believe that its products are healthy and nutritious, and "should
be regularly consumed to help them diet and live a healthy
lifestyle."

However, "with almost 50 percent of their caloric content coming
from fats, the products are equivalent to fat-laden junk food,"
Delacruz said.

Indeed Cytosport's Muscle Milk Ready-to-Drink allegedly contains
the same number of calories and almost as much fat and saturated
fat as a cream-filled Krispy Kreme doughnut.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken directed Delacruz to fix
defects in her original complaint, and eventually certified the
former Muscle Milk user's class action.

Delacruz and Cytosport then agreed earlier this year to a
settlement that creates a $5 million fund for anyone who bought
Muscle Milk products between 2007 and 2012 and releases all but
personal injury claims.

Judge Wilken tentatively signed off on the agreement Tuesday,
November 19, 2013, pending a fairness hearing set for May 15,
2014.  She also gave preliminary certification of the class and
directed Cytosport to begin notifying Muscle Milk users of the
settlement.

All claims must be submitted by March 12, 2014, Wilken said.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com

Cytosport is represented by:

          G. Charles Nierlich, Esq.
          Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
          Matthew L. Berde, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: gnierlich@gibsondunn.com
                  tloose@gibsondunn.com
                  mberde@gibsondunn.com

The case is Claire Delacruz v. Cytosport, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-
03532-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Divison.


DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Windshield Washer Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ifeoma Adams, Melissa Barron, David Bernstein, Tenisha Burgos,
Kent Busek, Jennifer Chase, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica
Decastro, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Jason Grala, Ian Groves,
Curtis Gunnerson, Paul Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, John
Hollingsworth, Carol Ann Kashishian, Robert Klingler, Kelly
Klosterman, Susan Lacava, James Marean, Ellis Winton Mcinnis,
Nilsa Mercado, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey
Nickell, Sophie O'keefe-Zelman, Roger Olson, Susan Olson, William
Picotte, Jesse Powell, Lauren Primos, Cindy Prince, Virginia
Pueringer, Janne Rice, Robert Rice Jr., Frances Gammellroach,
Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Richard
Stoehr, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor, Michael
Tracy, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, Thomas Wilson, and Phillip
Young, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated
v. Denso Corporation, Asmo Co., Ltd., Asmo North America, Llc,
Asmo Manufacturing, Inc., Denso International America, Inc.,
Mitsuba Corporation, and American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No.
2:13-cv-14550-GER-RSW (E.D. Mich., October 31, 2013) is an class
action lawsuit relating to Windshield Washer Systems.

"Windshield Washer Systems" whether sold together or separately,
are defined to include one or more of the pump, hoses, nozzle and
tank necessary to deliver washer fluid to vehicle windows.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a long-
running conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain
and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Windshield Washer Systems.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Windshield Washer
Systems throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Adam T. Schnatz, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ats@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@rkmc.com
                  bpersky@rkmc.com
                  wvreiss@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214)754-1933
          E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
                  wburns@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Damrell, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Gene W. Kim, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: fdamrell@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  gkim@cpmlegal.com
                  etran@cpmlegal.com


DEP'T STORES NAT'L: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Zevon" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty denies defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint captioned MARCY ZEVON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT STORES
NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, NO. 12 CIV. 7799 (PAC), (S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiff Marcy Zevon, a holder of a Macys credit card issued by
Defendant Department Stores National Bank (DSNB), claimed that
DSNB violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Section
1601, et seq., and TILA's implementing regulation (Regulation Z),
12 C.F.R. pt. 1026, et seq., by failing to include the full text
of Regulation Z's model billing rights notice in monthly
statements sent to Macys credit card holders.  The Plaintiff
sought to represent all persons who were sent, on or after October
18, 2011, a statement with a billing rights notice containing
substantially the same text as the billing rights notice sent to
Plaintiff. On March 15, 2013, DSNB moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint or, in the alternative, to strike
Plaintiff's request for $1,000,000 in statutory damages.

Judge Crotty granted the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiff's request for $1,000,000 in statutory damages.

A copy of the District Court's November 4, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/qDD0gmfrom Leagle.com.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Order Against Strip-Search Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Female prisoners, who say they were unconstitutionally strip-
searched prior to their post-arrest hearings in Washington cannot
seek damages, the D.C. Circuit ruled, according to Dan McCue at
Courthouse News Service.

Dianna Johnson and Rubbiya Muhammed led a class of women suing the
District of Columbia and U.S. Marshal Todd Dillard in 2002,
challenging the constitutionality of strip-searches to which they
were subjected while awaiting presentment hearings on nonviolent
and nondrug-related charges in the district's Superior Court.

Dillard instituted the strip-search policy in the mid-to-late
1990s in response to concerns that detainees were bringing
weapons, drugs and other contraband into the cellblock.

As part of their prehearing processing, all incoming detainees
were made to pass through a metal detector, then patted down by
deputy marshals, and finally, were required to strip, squat, and
cough to dislodge any hidden contraband.

"We infer from the evidence presented that despite Dillard's
facially gender-neutral policy, deputy marshals in fact subjected
male detainees to strip searches only upon individualized
reasonable suspicion," according to appellate ruling on Friday,
November 15, 2013.  "By contrast, all women were forced to drop,
squat and cough."

In their complaint the women contended that the searches, which
were conducted regardless of whether they were suspected of having
contraband on their persons, violated their Fourth Amendment
rights, and, in instances where male arrestees were not similarly
strip-searched, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer nevertheless granted the
district summary judgment in 2011, concluding that because the
Dillard was a federal official acting under the color of federal
law as he administrated the cellblock, the city had no authority
to prevent the strip searches.

Collyer also granted Dillard summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity.

Agreeing that the Superior Court marshal is not a district
official, an appellate panel found Friday, November 15, 2013, that
"Dillard was hardly as much 'part of the organic government of the
District of Columbia . . . as the mayor.'"

As such the district cannot be held liable for Dillard's actions,
according to the ruling.

The class members could not prevail on an entrustment theory
without showing that the district had actual or constructive
notice of the allegedly unconstitutional strip-searches, and that
it had discretion to stop sending pre-presentment arrestees to
Dillard's cellblock.

Ultimately the panel concluded that, because Dillard was acting
under the color of federal law, "the district had no authority to
prevent him from conducting strip searches of arrestees upon their
arrival at the Superior Court."

Turning to the question of Dillard's liability, the three-judge
panel relied on its resolution of an earlier challenge to
Dillard's strip-search policy brought by male arrestees.

The circuit had concluded in Bame v. Dillar that any Fourth
Amendment rights Dillard might have violated "were insufficiently
clearly established at the time of the violation."

In the case of the female arrestees, no equal protection violation
occurred because "nothing in the record indicated that Dillard
intended to treat women differently from men," Judge David Tatel
wrote for the court.

"Finally, although Bame plaintiffs, like class members here,
challenged the sufficiency of Dillard's contraband justification,
we concluded that 'the record here substantiates Dillard's point
that the Superior Court had a persistent problem with contraband
being smuggled into the cellblock, the very reason for strip
searches.'"

"Although class members obviously disagree with Bame, that
decision is binding on us," Tatel added. "As a result, Dillard is
entitled to qualified immunity."

The women's equal protection claim also failed.

"Although class members point to some evidence from which we might
infer that Dillard knew deputies were implementing his gender
neutral policy in a gender imbalanced manner, plenty of other
evidence suggests that Dillard was largely missing in action
throughout the class period," Tatel wrote

He added: "But even assuming class members could show that Dillard
knew what was going on at the cellblock, they have pointed to no
evidence from which we could infer that Dillard himself intended
to treat women differently from men . . . thus agree with the
district court that 'there is no circumstantial or direct evidence
that Marshal Dillard purposefully directed that women and men be
searched differently at the Superior Court cellblock.'"

In a concurring opinion, Judge Judith Rogers emphasized that the
court should have clearly established -- as she said 10 others
circuits have -- that "indiscriminate strip searching of
individuals awaiting presentment on non-violent, non-drug offenses
who are not held in the general population is unconstitutional
under the Fourth Amendment . . . in the absence of reasonable
suspicion an individual possesses contraband or weapons."

Perhaps anticipating Rogers' concerns, Tatel noted that, since the
women filed their lawsuit, the policies applied to arrestees
temporarily housed in the D.C. Superior Court's cellblock had
changed and strip-searches are now conducted only in cases of
individualized reasonable suspicion.

As a result, there was no reason to get into the broader
constitutional question of whether such searches should be allowed
to continue, according to the ruling.

The appellate case is Dianna Johnson, et al., Appellees, and
Rubbiya Muhammed, et al., Appellants v. Government of the District
of Columbia and Todd Dillard, Individually and Officially, United
States Marshal, D.C. Superior Court, Appellees, Case No. 11-5115,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.  The original case is Dianna Johnson, et al. v.
Government of the District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
02364), in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The Appellants are represented by:

          William Charles Cole Claiborne III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM CHARLES COLE CLAIBORNE III
          717 D St. NW, Suite 210
          Washington, DC 20004-2813
          Telephone: (202) 824-0700

               - and -

          Lynn E. Cunningham, Esq.
          Professor Emeritus of Clinical Law
          THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
          2000 H Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20052
          Telephone: (202) 994-1010
          Facsimile: (202) 994-8980
          E-mail: lcunningham@law.gwu.edu

The Appellees are represented by:

          Ronald C. Machen, Jr., Esq.
          United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
          Robin M. Meriweather, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney
          R. Craig Lawrence, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney
          W. Mark Nebeker, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242
          Washington, DC 20530-0001

               - and -

          Stacy L. Anderson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          Irvin B. Nathan, Esq., Attorney General
          Todd S. Kim, Esq., Solicitor General
          Donna M. Murasky, Esq., Deputy Solicitor General
          Louis A. Kleiman Esq.,
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DIST. OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          Facsimile: (202) 347-8922


FLORA MANUFACTURING: Recalls Certain Organic Ginger Herbal Tea
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Flora Manufacturing & Distributing Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8481

Affected products: 35.2 g. Flora Organic Double Ginger Herbal Tea
Blend with 0 61998 03757 7 UPC


FLORIDA: Judge Okays APD Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------
Margie Menzel, writing for Sunshine State News, reports that a
federal judge on Nov. 27 approved a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit against the Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities
about the way the agency notified clients that their funding for
services would be cut.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker accepted the settlement, which
requires the agency to restore funding within 60 days to anyone
who suffered a cut during the agency's transition to the iBudget
system, a revamped program that funds services for about 30,000
developmentally disabled Floridians.

Also, the agency is required to revise its notices to clients
about future budget allocations.  From now on, identical copies of
notices that change benefits will be sent to caregivers and
guardians -- in their primary language -- as well as to the
clients themselves.

"It's a very significant settlement in terms of ensuring that
vulnerable people with developmental disabilities who receive
services from the state are being given all of the rights they're
entitled to under both the Medicaid Act and the Constitution,"
said Kirsten Clanton, an attorney with Southern Legal Counsel Inc.
of Gainesville, representing the plaintiffs.

Ms. Clanton said those entitlements include changes in the
agency's policies regarding notices of cuts in benefits to people
with disabilities such as autism, Down syndrome and cerebral
palsy.

APD also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

"After an extensive litigation where the issues, we feel, were
fully and properly vetted by both sides and the court, we've
reached an amicable solution that addresses the constitutional
issues raised by the plaintiffs in this case," said Glenn Burhans
-- burhansg@gtlaw.com -- an attorney with Greenberg Traurig, which
represented the agency.

The hearing was devoted mainly to housekeeping issues, such as
specific language in court documents, since Judge Walker had
already approved a preliminary settlement.

"I find the settlement is reasonable, fair and adequate," he said
on Nov. 27.

The lawsuit was brought by 10 named plaintiffs who were affected
by the agency's transition to the iBudget system over the last two
years.  The agency and the Legislature had long grappled with how
to provide services while reining in costs, and after years of
deficits at APD, lawmakers signed off on the iBudget system, which
began being phased in across the state in October 2011.

The basic concept of iBudgets is to provide set amounts of money
to the agency's clients, depending on their needs, and to give
them flexibility in how the money is spent on their services.
That differs from past systems that required money to be spent on
specific services.

But the new system has led to cuts in many "cost plans," which
drive how much APD clients receive overall.

Representatives of Southern Legal Counsel argued that when APD
clients got their notices, no information was included about why
funds were being reduced.

"The resolution of this case involves providing a notice that
specifies individualized reasons for the reductions in funding for
each particular client as a member of the class," Mr. Burhans
said.

Judge Walker said the process of calculating individual
allocations had no bearing on the settlement.

"We're not here discussing a specific allocation," he said.  "That
will be for a different time in a different court."

APD did not run a deficit during the 2012-13 fiscal year, and
officials partly credit iBudgets for that.  The 2013 Legislature
also provided money to take hundreds of people off a longstanding
waiting list for services.


FORGE GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Threats
---------------------------------------------------
Paul Garvey, writing for The Australian, reports besieged
contractor Forge Group is battling to appease angry shareholders
amid threats of class-action lawsuits and expectations it will be
drawn into a dilutive equity raising.

In one of the bloodiest examples of the carnage inflicted on
Australia's mining contractors by the slowdown in the nation's
mining sector in recent times, shares in Perth-based Forge
plummeted more than 82% in a frenetic day of trade that wiped more
than AUD300 million off the company's value.  Institutional
investors were among the hardest hit from the price fall.

The representation of institutional shareholders on the Forge
register increased substantially when engineering group Clough
offloaded its major holding in March at AUD6.05 through a block
trade managed by Macquarie, but those shares were worth just 68.5c
at the close of trade on Nov. 28.

Forge emerged from a three-week trading halt to confirm that
issues with two power station contracts would force it to wear a
AUD127 million writedown and require it to spend a further AUD45
million in the coming weeks to rectify the problems.  With Forge
having only AUD44 million to its name at the end of October, it
was forced to negotiate costly lending concessions with its
bankers at ANZ to avoid a cash squeeze that would have threatened
the company's survival.

The group now expects to record a loss before interest, taxation,
depreciation and amortization for 2014 of AUD85 million-AUD90
million, compared with EBITDA in 2013 of AUD115.5 million.

Forge managing director David Simpson told The Australian that
several senior managers from the company's power division had left
the company as a result of the problems, while up to 40 jobs would
be axed as the group moved to pull AUD15 million-AUD20 million in
costs out of the business.

Mr. Simpson said he believed the expanded ANZ lending facilities
would be a "full fix" for the company's current issues, and said
the group could retain and win work despite the intense scrutiny
of its balance sheet.

"We've got the support of the lenders, we've got the support of
the customers and I have the support of the board," Mr. Simpson
said.  "The true test of leadership as an individual and as a team
is going to be how we come out of this in the next 18 months, and
how we rebuild the wealth and the value for the shareholders.  I
think I'm the best person to do that."

The sudden reversal of fortunes at Forge has drawn suggestions of
a class action from aggrieved shareholders.

But Forge chairman David Craig said he believed the company had
met its continuous disclosure obligations.

"I understand that sort of talk (about class actions), but from my
perspective the board and the management have done everything
right," Mr. Craig said.

"We've followed our disclosure obligations to a T.  We've been
well advised all along, so the board does not think there's an
issue there."

Contractors including WorleyParsons, Ausdrill and Monadelphous
have all been caught up in profit downgrades and warnings in
recent weeks.

Another engineering group, Brisbane-based Ausenco, on Nov. 28
announced it would raise AUD31 million through an entitlement
offer at 70c a share as it looked to reinforce its balance sheet
amid challenging market conditions.

The offer price represented a steep 41.7% discount to its previous
trading price.  Ausenco said it now expected to record a loss for
2013 of AUD35.7 million.


H&R BLOCK: TaxWorks Software for 2012 a Disaster, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Missouri federal class
action claims these defendants' TaxWorks software for 2012 tax
year was a "disaster . . . riddled with programming defects": H&R
Block, Redgear Technologies, and Taxworks.


HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls Certain Chicken Rice Soup Due to Plastic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Healthcare Food Services Ontario Inc.
Distribution:             Nunavut, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8478

Affected products: 3 x 2.2 kg. Healthcare Food Services Chicken
Rice Soup with Daycode: 3294


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls MDX SUV Due to Defective Drive Shaft
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           3074
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013406
TC ID number:             2013406

Affected products: ACURA MDX 2014 model

On certain vehicles equipped with all wheel drive, drive shaft
bolts may have been insufficiently tightened at time of assembly
and could loosen over time.  This could cause the drive shaft to
detach, which would result in excessive noise and possible damage
to the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect the bolts and repair as necessary.


HONDROS COLLEGE: Defrauded Students Over Accreditation, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former nursing students at the Independence, Ohio campus of
Hondros College, Tabatha Vickery of Mantua, Ohio, and Bryan Lynn
of Twinsburg, Ohio, filed a class-action lawsuit against the
College, alleging that its Chief Executive Officer and other staff
members actively recruited new students for its LPN and RN
programs, and encouraged current students to continue their
enrollment in the programs, while concealing information the
College knew would likely result in a denial of accreditation by
the National League of Nursing Accreditation Commission ("NLAC"),
now known as the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing
("ACEN" or "Accreditation Commission"), according to a statement
released by The Chandra Law Firm LLC.  The Accreditation
Commission is recognized as the accrediting body for all types of
nursing education by, among other government agencies, the U.S.
Department of Education.

When it became clear that the RN program would not receive
accreditation, the complaint further alleges, the College
affirmatively withdrew its candidacy for that status, breaching an
implied contract with students and guaranteeing that they would
not graduate from an accredited program.  The College also
fraudulently misrepresented these reasons for the withdrawal,
according to the complaint, falsely claiming "severe
inconsistencies in the NLNAC accreditation process" and suggesting
improprieties on the part of the Accreditation Commission.

Because most reputable hospitals and healthcare providers hire
only graduates from accredited programs, and because most nursing
schools accept transfer credits only from such programs, Hondros's
action placed students at a significant disadvantage.  It even
placed their federal financial assistance in jeopardy, according
to the complaint.

The proposed class consists of students who enrolled in either the
College's LPN or its RN program in the Summer or Fall of 2011.  It
is believed that approximately three-fourths of these students
withdrew from the program when they learned that their diplomas
would essentially have no value.

The suit, captioned Vickery et al. v. Hondros College, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV 13 817299, was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas and is assigned to Judge Joan Synenberg.

Subodh Chandra, Esq., -- Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com -- and
Donald P. Screen, Esq., -- Donald.Screen@ChandraLaw.com -- of The
Chandra Law Firm, LLC, represent the representative Plaintiffs.

"Students investing in their education deserve not to be misled by
for-profit institutions about whether the students will receive an
accredited education with value in the marketplace," Chandra said.

Former Hondros students and others wishing to share information
with Plaintiffs' counsel may call (216) 578-1700 or send an e-mail
to the Plaintiff's counsel.


ISUZU MOTORS: Recalls Certain Models Due to Transmission Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           67
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013408
TC ID number:             2013408

Affected products:

   Maker       Model      Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----      ----------------------
   ISUZU       NQR        2013
   ISUZU       NRR        2013
   ISUZU       NPR-HD     2013

Certain trucks equipped with an automatic transmission could
experience a sudden transmission failure.  This would result in a
loss of vehicle propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and
road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the
risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the transmission assembly.

Note: This is an expansion of recall 2013-165 for vehicles not
previously included in the campaign.


JANSSEN PHARMA: $11MM Verdict Awarded in Topamax Birth Defect Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
an $11 million verdict has been awarded to the parents of a child
born with congenital defects due to an anticonvulsant drug his
mother took during pregnancy.

Stanley Thompson, director of the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas' Complex Litigation Center, said that out of the 132 Topamax
mass tort cases currently under way, Powell v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals was the second to render a verdict.

The first case to produce a verdict was Czimmer v. Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which rendered a $4 million verdict
Oct. 31, according to Thompson.

The jury in Powell returned an $11 million verdict to Haley Powell
and Michael Gurley, the parents of Brayden Gurley, on Nov. 18
after deliberating seven hours in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas.  The verdict was divided into $335,000 for future health
care expenses and $10.6 million for non-economic loss.

The plaintiffs were represented by Laura Feldman and Rosemary
Pinto of Philadelphia-based Feldman & Pinto and Shelley Hutson of
Clark, Love & Hutson in Houston.

Powell's pretrial memorandum alleged that Powell's ingestion of
the drug Topamax (also called topiramate) -- prescribed to control
her migraine headaches and hand tremors during the first trimester
of pregnancy in 2007 -- caused her son to be born with right
unilateral cleft lip.

According to court papers, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of
the drug, knew about the risk of birth defects associated with
Topamax, but failed to provide adequate warning to users.

"A decade before Janssen got around to changing its label [in
2011], internal Janssen documents concluded that Topamax can cause
birth defects," court papers alleged, adding that a 2001 informed
consent form draft from Janssen stated, "Topiramate has the
potential to cause serious birth defects in children."

Powell was prescribed several different anticonvulsant medications
since 2005, when she suffered a single seizure.  According to
court papers, Powell's doctor prescribed Topamax for her tension
headaches and migraines in March 2006.

When Powell exhausted her supply of the drug, Powell's mother --
who was also prescribed Topamax -- began sharing her supply with
her daughter, court papers said.

Powell took Topamax regularly from March 2006 to December 2007.
Powell discovered she was pregnant Nov. 21, 2007, according to
court papers.

After being notified of the pregnancy, Powell's doctor instructed
her to taper off her dosage; however, neither Powell nor her
doctor were aware that Topamax could cause birth defects, court
papers said.

Brayden Gurley, diagnosed in utero with right unilateral cleft lip
and alveolar defects, was born July 7, 2008.  According to court
papers, Brayden's condition has not yet been corrected.

Brayden suffers from misalignment of teeth, overbite and speech
and language disorders related to his cleft lip and alveolar
defects.  Court papers said he will require surgery and multiple
treatments to address multiple complications "which will likely
include" middle ear fluid accumulation, hearing loss, dental
abnormalities, speech difficulties and "psychosocial problems that
children born with clefts, such as Brayden, endure."

The plaintiffs maintained in court papers that Powell's previous
use of the drug Keppra and maternal underweight were not causative
of Brayden's birth defects.  Powell's and Gurley's families also
showed no genetic history of clefting and Powell took prenatal
vitamins during pregnancy, according to the court filings.

However, Topamax, the plaintiffs alleged, increased the risk of a
child being born with birth defects, such as a cleft lip or
palate, by 1,200 percent.

Janssen's pretrial memorandum alleged that Powell received at
least two warnings from her doctor as to the potential risks of
anticonvulsant and antiepileptic drugs and "the importance of not
becoming pregnant while taking the medication."

Defense papers also said Powell's doctor's suggestion that she
taper her Topamax dosage during pregnancy suggested his "concern
for its potential effect on fetus."

Additionally, defense papers asserted that the plaintiffs' claims
were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations in
Pennsylvania.

Another claim made in Janssen's papers was that Powell taking her
mother's medication prevented the plaintiffs from establishing
causation.

"If Ms. Powell, in fact, took Topamax prescribed to her mother,
this intervening act was not reasonably foreseeable to Janssen and
Janssen, therefore, is immune from liability," defense papers
said.

Kenneth Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- of Philadelphia-based
Drinker Biddle & Reath represented Janssen and declined to comment
on the case.

Ms. Pinto said her firm is handling the majority of the Topamax
cases in Philadelphia, and she is serving as liaison counsel for
plaintiffs for the entire series of cases.

Of the Powell case, Ms. Pinto said Brayden will have "a lot of
emotional stress accompanying his surgeries.  One of them involved
taking bone from his hip to place it in the portion of the gum
that they're trying to repair.  There's scarring, trauma, it's a
tough road for the child."

Ms. Pinto added that the defendants in the ongoing Topamax
litigation "should be looking at these cases with a different
view.  They have to exercise extreme care and caution and follow
the rules to make sure the physicians are aware of all the risks,
so that doctors know not to prescribe it to pregnant women."


JOHN BEAD: Recalls Beadalon BeadFix Superfast Adhesive
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 27, 2013
Posting date:             November 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36937

Affected products: Beadalon BeadFix Superfast Adhesive

Beadalon BeadFix Adhesive Superfast Adhesive sold in 10 g.
container with yellow, white and blue packaging.  UPC 035926056701
is written on the back of the package.

Health Canada has established that this chemical product is not
packaged in a child-resistant container.  Under Canadian law, this
product must be packaged in a child-resistant container, as it is
classified as a quick skin-bonding adhesive.  The lack of child-
resistant packaging could result in unintentional exposure to the
product and may lead to serious injuries.

Health Canada and John Bead have received one report of an
incident relating to the use of this product.

3,341 of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from September 2005 to September
2013 and were made in Taiwan and packaged in the USA.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Beadalon/Wire & Cable Specialities Inc.
                    Coatesville
                    Pennsylvania
                    United States

   Importer         John Bead Corp.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Retail consumers should stop using the recalled products
immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  For more information, consumers may contact John Bead at
1-416-747-3287 or 1-888-755-9055.


LEXISNEXIS: 6th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Crockett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed a
district court judgment entered in REED ELSEVIER, INC. v.
CROCKETT.

Craig Crockett's law firm signed an adhesion contract with
LexisNexis that contained an arbitration clause. Eventually the
parties had a billing dispute. The arbitration clause provided
that any arbitration with respect to LexisNexis's charges must
occur in the city where LexisNexis is located. That provision and
others made arbitration of Mr. Crockett's individual claims
economically unfeasible, so Mr. Crockett filed an arbitration
demand on behalf of himself and a putative class of other
LexisNexis customers.

According to the Sixth Circuit, the arbitration clause says
nothing about classwide arbitration, and the Supreme Court has
recently made clear that arbitration clauses must be interpreted
according to their terms.  The Sixth Circuit, therefore, agree
with the district court that the arbitration clause does not
permit the classwide arbitration that Mr. Crockett seeks.

The case is REED ELSEVIER, INC., through its LexisNexis Division,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRAIG CROCKETT, as alleged assignee of
Dehart and Crockett, P.C.; C RAIG M. CROCKETT, P.C., d/b/a
Crockett Firm, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 12-3574.

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's November 5, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/INnNeYfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Blair C. Fensterstock -- bfensterstock@fensterstock.com --
FENSTERSTOCK & PARTNERS LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants.

Charles J. Faruki -- cfaruki@ficlaw.com -- FARUKI, IRELAND & COX,
P.L.L., Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Blair C. Fensterstock, Eugene D. Kublanovsky --
ekublanovsky@fensterstock.com -- FENSTERSTOCK & PARTNERS LLP, New
York, New York, Patrick F. Haggerty -- haggerty@frantzward.com --
Lindsey A. Carr-Siegler -- lcarrsiegler@frantzward.com -- FRANTZ
WARD LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.

Charles J. Faruki, Donald E. Burton -- dburton@ficlaw.com --
FARUKI, IRELAND & COX, P.L.L., Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.


LULLY'S INC: Feb. 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing in Right One Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS
PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

If you paid money for a membership to the matchmaking service The
Right One (Lully's Inc. d/b/a The Right One) between March 26,
2008 and March 7, 2013, you may be a member of a proposed
Settlement Class in an adversary action styled Mattoon, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Theodore
D. Law and Rachel A. Law, Cause No. 12-30885, Adversary No. 12-
30137-hdh, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division relating to various class
allegations in connection with the dating service memberships,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of warranty, and
fraud.

The Bankruptcy Court in Dallas, Texas, has preliminarily approved
the settlement and will hold a hearing on February 10, 2014 at
10:30 a.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  If the proposed settlement is approved,
a cash settlement fund, in the amount of $200,000, will be used to
make payments to members of the Settlement Class, as well as to
pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses as approved by the
Court.  The Settlement Fund, less any amount of reasonable
attorney's fees and expenses awarded by the Bankruptcy Court and
any Incentive Payments discussed below, will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to members of the Settlement Class who timely
submit valid claim forms.  The Class Representatives have
requested of the Court, and will seek to be awarded, an incentive
payment equal to the full amount paid by that member for his or
her membership in The Right One that will be paid from the
Settlement Fund prior to payments to the remainder of the
Settlement Class The amount of cash payments to any member of the
Settlement Class shall not exceed the amount paid by that Class
Member for his or her membership in The Right One.  Pro Rata
distributions to the Settlement Class will be made on an annual,
periodic basis until either (1) the entirety of the Settlement
Fund has been paid out or (2) all timely submitted claims,
approved attorney's fees, and expenses have been paid in full from
the Settlement Fund.  The proposed settlement is memorialized in
Class Settlement Agreement dated July 23, 2013 (filed as Exhibit 1
to Docket Entry 58), which is on file with the court and available
for viewing or copying at the Office of the District Clerk, 1100
Commerce St., Room 1452, Dallas, TX 75242, or online at the
Bankruptcy Court's website for a fee.

The Bankruptcy Court has appointed W. Ralph Canada, Jr. and K.
Adam Rothey, Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP, 12377 Merit Drive,
Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75251, (214) 572-1700 and Nancy Anglin
Yates, P.O. Box 511, 112 N. Bell Street, Hamilton, Texas 76531,
(254) 385-8558 as Class Counsel.  As part of the settlement,
subject to the Bankruptcy Court's approval, Class counsel shall
receive reasonable attorney's fees in an amount not to exceed one-
third (1/3) of the Settlement Fund plus their reasonable and
necessary expenses associated with prosecution and settlement of
this litigation.

To be eligible for his or her pro rata distribution from the
Settlement Fund, a potential Class Member must timely submit the
approved Claim Form to Kevin Buchanan & Associates, P.L.L.C., 900
Jackson Street, Suite 350, Dallas, Texas 75202, Attn: The Right
One Settlement.  The Claims Form must be completed and post marked
by May 23, 2014.  A Settlement Claim Form has been mailed to each
Class Member with their Notice of this Settlement and may also be
obtained by requesting one in writing from counsel for The Right
One: Kevin Buchanan & Associates, P.L.L.C., 900 Jackson Street,
Suite 350, Dallas, Texas 75202 , by calling Kevin Buchanan &
Associates, P.L.L.C. at 214-378-9500.

If the settlement is approved, approximately ninety (90) days
after May 23, 2014, a hearing will be held regarding the claims
that have been tentatively determined to be valid and allowed and
those claims tentatively determined to be invalid that will not be
allowed, either because of untimely filing or other substantive or
procedural defect.  Upon objection by Class Counsel to the list of
claims that have been tentatively disallowed, the Court will make
a final determination regarding challenged claims that have been
tentatively disallowed.

If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
send a letter or postcard stating your name, address, telephone
numbers, and a statement that you wish to be excluded from the
Settlement Class.  Your request must be submitted to:

     Kevin Buchanan & Associates, P.L.L.C.
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 350
     Dallas, TX 75202

with a copy to Class Counsel:

     W. Ralph Canada, Jr.
     K. Adam Rothey
     LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY, LLP
     12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
     Dallas, TX 75251

          - and -

     Nancy Anglin Yates
     P.O. Box 511
     112 N. Bell Street
     Hamilton, TX 76531

and must be received by January 24, 2014.  If you validly and
timely request exclusion from the Class, you will be excluded from
the Class, you will not share in proceeds from the Settlement
Fund, you will not be bound by the judgment described, and you
will not be precluded from timely prosecuting your claims against
The Right One.

If you do not request to be excluded from the Class, whether or
not you submit a Claim Form, you will be bound by any and all
judgments, orders, or settlements entered or approved by the
Bankruptcy Court, including this Settlement.

If you are a Class Member and do not request to be excluded, you
may object to the terms of the Settlement and/or Class Counsel's
application for fees and expenses.  If you object, you will be
precluded from bringing your own individual lawsuit regarding the
claims asserted in this Litigation and will be bound by the final
judgment and release and all other orders entered by the
Bankruptcy Court.  If you object to the Settlement or Class
Counsel's application for fees and expenses, you must both (1)
file with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division and specifically reference
Adversary Case No. 12-30885 and (2) serve upon Kevin Buchanan &
Associates, P.L.L.C., 900 Jackson Street, Suite 350, Dallas, Texas
75202 (with a copy to Class Counsel: W. Ralph Canada, Jr. and K.
Adam Rothey, Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP, 12377 Merit Drive,
Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75251, and Nancy Anglin Yates, P.O. Box
511, 112 N. Bell Street, Hamilton, Texas 76531), a written notice
of appearance, your written objections, and a statement signed by
you under penalty of perjury that you are a member of the
Settlement Class on or before January 24, 2014.  Class Members who
do not properly or timely object will waive all objections and
shall not be heard or have the right to appeal approval of the
Class Settlement.

Please call 214-378-9500 to obtain a Settlement Class Claim Form
or obtain one by requesting one in writing from counsel for The
Right One: Kevin Buchanan & Associates, P.L.L.C., 900 Jackson
Street, Suite 350, Dallas, Texas 75202 , or by downloading one off
the Kevin Buchanan & Associates, P.L.L.C. website at
http://www.kevinbuchananlaw.com

You also may write to Class Counsel, Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP,
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75251, for more
information regarding this Notice, the Litigation, or the proposed
Class Settlement.  The Settlement Agreement and case file may be
reviewed at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the North
District of Texas, Dallas Division, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas,
Texas 75242.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT


MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Hazella Chocolatey Hazelnut Spreads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Magid Brothers Distribution Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- 150 g. Hazella Chocolatey Hazelnut Spread with 13035 UPC;

   -- 150 g Hazella Chocolatey Vanilla Hazelnut Spread Duo* with
      13035 UPC

The food recall warning issued on November 28, 2013 has been
updated to include additional product information.  This
additional information was identified during the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Freres Magid Brothers Distribution is recalling Hazella brand
Chocolatey Hazelnut Spreads from the marketplace because they may
contain almonds which are not declared on the label.  People with
an allergy to almonds should not consume the recalled products..

The following products have been sold nationally.

If you have an allergy to almonds, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food

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


MARY ANN'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Niman Ranch Applewood Petite Ham
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann's Specialty Foods, a Webster City, Iowa, establishment,
is recalling approximately 3,536 pounds of Niman Ranch Applewood
Smoked Uncured Petite Ham because the establishment number was not
included on the label, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   -- Various weight packages of "Niman Ranch Applewood Smoked
      Uncured Petite Ham," bearing the following identifying use
      by/ freeze by dates: "2/5/2014," "2/10/2014," "2/11/2013,"
      and "2/13/2013."  The package covered by the recall may lack
      the establishment number "1221W" inside the USDA mark of
      inspection or elsewhere on the label.  Although the
      producing establishment number was not included, which is a
      regulatory requirement, the distributor information was
      available.  The products were distributed to retail stores
      nationwide.  These products were produced between Oct. 23,
      2013 and Oct. 31, 2013.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during
routine label verification and may have occurred due to a printing
error.

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

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact Kelly Korleski, Mary Ann's Plant Manager, at
(515) 832-4740.

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


MARTY COLEY FARM: Accused of Being Model of Abusive Employers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that a
Tennessee tobacco farm subjected migrant child workers to
"horrendous living and working conditions," seven workers, all
hired as minors, claim in court.

Lead plaintiff Pedro Chavez Velasco et al. sued Ralph M. Coley Jr.
and Connie Coley dba Marty Coley Farm, in Federal Court.  The farm
is in Lafeyette, Tenn.

"Defendants are the model of abusive employers," the 19-page
lawsuit begins.  "They abuse their workers, and thumb their noses
at the legal protections in place to protect those workers.  They
recruit child workers from overseas, subject them to horrendous
living and working conditions, pay them less than minimum wage,
and, if one suffers some injury that interrupts his ability to
work, they cast them out without a second thought."

The workers sued individually, but say they may change it to a
class action.

The plaintiffs were all hired as minors and "defendants knew that
plaintiffs were minors at the time they hired them because they
asked them their ages," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs Ivan Ventura Alavez says he lost three fingers in a
machine the defendants made "by welding together the blade and
other parts of a push lawnmower and other metal."

"The shearing machine in question had no guards or other safety
features," the complaint states.

Ventura, who was 17 at the time, says the defendants compensated
him for the loss of his fingers with a $100 check.

The workers say the farm stuffed as many as 18 employees in a
small three-bedroom building "infested with rats, cockroaches,
mosquitoes, and stray cats."

The building "was at risk of collapsing, and the chimney had
already begun to collapse."  It was 20 feet away from "four
greenhouses containing manure . . . pesticides and other
chemicals," and "the discolored water from the tap was not
potable," according to the complaint.

Rent was free, but the housing arrangement "allowed defendants to
maintain access to and control over their workforce" and the
defendants sometimes "deducted amounts from plaintiffs' pay for
electricity and water services in the house," the workers say.

The workers had to buy a washing machine, stove and refrigerator
for the house and were not reimbursed for it, they say.

The defendants made them work Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m.
until 8 p.m., with a one-hour lunch break, and sometimes "a full
day or partial day on Sunday," according to the complaint.  The
workers were routinely visited at the dilapidated house and made
to perform tasks during non-working hours, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs were paid ambiguously, without "a pay stub or other
statement detailing accurately the hours worked, wages,
withholding, etc.", according to the complaint, and the defendants
never gave them "notice of their wage and hour or other employment
rights."

The Coleys did not reply to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages and liquidated, statutory and
punitive damages, and Ventura seeks "damages stemming from his
work-related injury."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Toll Free: (877) 369-0267
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
          E-mail: gerards@branstetterlaw.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls S Class Model
------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013409
TC ID number:             2013409

Affected products:

   Maker              Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----              -----       ----------------------
   MERCEDES-BENZ      S CLASS     2014

On certain vehicles, the seat belt anchor fittings of the front
seats might not be mounted correctly.  As a result, the connection
at the seat belt anchor fitting could release under heavy loading.
This may affect the restraint performance of the seat belt and
result in an increased risk of injury in the event of a crash.

Dealers will inspect the seat belt anchor fittings.


MICROS SYSTEMS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that hospitality
software firm Micros Systems Inc. was hit on Nov. 27 with a
proposed class action in Tennessee federal court, in which the
company is accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law by not
paying workers required overtime wages.

The complaint alleges the software provider knowingly failing to
pay overtime wages to employees it had misclassified as exempt,
even though they had worked more than eight hours in a day or 40
hours in a week.  In addition, the complaint alleges Micros did
not allow those employees meal and rest breaks as necessitated by
state and federal laws.

"Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, the California Labor Code
and its [Industrial Welfare Commission] wage orders by failing to
pay [the class] for all overtime hours worked at a rate of time
and one-half the required regular rate," the complaint says.

Micros, based in Maryland, develops, markets and sells software,
services and solutions to the restaurant and hotel industries,
among others.  According to the company's website, it employs more
than 6,400 people in 50 countries.

Micros willfully violated the FLSA and the California Labor Code
by forcing employees to work more than 40 hours in a week without
receiving overtime compensation, the complaint says, adding the
company failed to make, keep and preserve records of hours worked
by the employees, which also violated the FLSA as it makes it
near-impossible for employees to prove what they are owed unless
they themselves kept detailed records of the hours they worked.

"Defendant's conduct herein constitutes a willful violation of the
FLSA," the complaint says. "Defendant knowingly and intentionally
failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements
including hours worked . . . impeding them from knowing the amount
of wages to which they are and were entitled."

Micros also allegedly failed to provide employees with rest and
meal breaks as necessitated under the California Labor Code,
according to the complaint.  The rest-break and meal-period
provisions require that companies provide employees with a meal
period of at least 30 minutes per five hours worked and with a
rest period of at least 10 minute per four hours worked.

Further, the provisions mandate that employers are prohibited from
requiring employees to work during these breaks, and that if
employers fail to provide the requisite breaks or make employees
work through the breaks, they must pay one additional hour of pay
at the employees' regular rate.

The complaint states that all of Micros' infractions violate
California Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful or
unfair business practices.

The court has been asked to grant the employees class status and
to order Micros to pay the unpaid overtime wages with prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, in addition to costs, attorneys' fees
and further relief as the court deems just, according to the
complaint.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Nov. 27.

The proposed class is represented by Michael L. Russell of Gilbert
Russell McWherter PLC and Andrew Head of Fried & Bonder LLC.

Counsel information for Micros was not immediately available on
Nov. 27.

The case is Wilson et al. v. Micros Systems Inc., case number
3:13-cv-01328, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by College Players for Head Trauma
------------------------------------------------------------
Former college football players sued the NCAA in two federal class
actions, demanding court-supervised medical monitoring for risks
of brain injuries from their playing days, and damages for gross
negligence, according to Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jerry Caldwell sued the NCAA in Atlanta; lead
plaintiff Paul Morgan and sued in Minneapolis.

Caldwell was a defensive back for the Georgia Institute of
Technology from 1995 to 1998.  He claims he suffered repeated
traumatic head impacts and concussions during his college days.

For example, in a scrimmage during practice, he collided with a
teammate, suffered a concussion, and lost consciousness and the
1997 season he collided with another player in a game versus the
University of Maryland and lost consciousness, suffered a
concussion, and experienced lightheadedness and nausea which he
reported to the team trainer," Caldwell says in the 35-page
lawsuit.

It continues: "Caldwell believes that he suffered other similar
head impacts in his collegiate career, but cannot recall them with
specificity.  After graduation, Caldwell has experienced frequent
severe headaches.  Caldwell is at increased risk of latent brain
injuries caused by repeated head impacts in his collegiate
football career and therefore is in need of medical monitoring."

Caldwell seeks medical monitoring for the class, and damages for
gross negligence and breach of contract.  He is represented by
Roger Orlando and Mark Zamora, of Decatur, Ga.

In the Minneapolis lawsuit, Morgan says he was a running back and
special teams player for Vanderbilt from 1994 to 1997.  He makes
similar claims about repeated head trauma and concussions.

"In 2002, a doctor informed Mr. Morgan that he had suffered
untreated degenerative disk disease and a cervical fracture
several years previously," the complaint states.  "Mr. Morgan has
experienced headaches, mood swings, loss of memory, fatigue, sleep
problems, irritability, and numbness and tingling sensations.  As
a result of the head injuries he sustained during his football
career, Mr. Morgan is in need of medical monitoring.  He has also
incurred out-of-pocket costs and continues to pay for his ongoing
medical treatment related to the repeated traumatic head impacts."

Jerry Caldwell is represented by:

          Roger Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1800
          Facsimile: (404) 373-6999

               - and -

          Mark Zamora, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK ZAMORA & ASSOCIATES
          5 Concourse Parkway, Suite 2350
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 451-7781
          Facsimile: (404) 506-9223

Paul Morgan is represented by:

          James C. Selmer, Esq.
          J. Selmer Law, P.A.
          500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2010
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 338-6005
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4120
          E-mail: jselmer@jselmerlaw.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Lawyer Wants Vaive Removed From Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Gordon, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that A lawyer
for former Toronto Maple Leafs captain Rick Vaive has asked an
American law firm leading a wide-ranging suit against the National
Hockey League to remove the three-time 50-goal scorer's name from
list of plaintiffs.

"He was surprised by the content of the lawsuit, he thought it was
related to a workers' compensation claim in California," said
Trevor Whiffen, a Toronto-based lawyer who has handled Mr. Vaive's
legal affairs for the past 15 years.  "In those cases, claims are
usually paid by a fund. He has no interest in taking legal action
against the NHL."

According to Mr. Whiffen, Mr. Vaive was approached "some time in
the last 10 days" about adding his name to the action, and agreed
without having seen the final text of the statement of claim.

"He didn't sign anything," said Mr. Whiffen, who only learned of
the class-action suit when he read about it in the media.

Asked whether Mr. Vaive's request means he has ruled out
participating in the suit at a later date, Mr. Whiffen said: "I
don't think he wants to be involved."

It's not clear what the removal of a high-profile former player
will mean to the suit, which has thus far attracted more than 200
plaintiffs, including Stanley Cup winner Bob Bourne, a former New
York Islanders centre.

The class action is seeking unspecified damages from the league,
and accuses the NHL of "fraudulent concealment" and "negligence"
in withholding information from its players on the dangers
associated with concussions.

Mr. Whiffen says Mr. Vaive, who the statement of claim said
suffers from "cephalgia, tinnitus, light-headedness, depression,
and memory loss," was familiar with the workplace compensation
claims that several former players have filed in California and
other states.

Mel Owens, one of the lawyers involved in the class action filed
this week in Washington is a California-based lawyer who
specializes in compensation cases.  Neither he nor his Maryland-
based co-counsel could be reached for comment.


SEAPORT MARINE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Smith" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur Smith, initiated the putative class action WILBUR SMITH,
Plaintiff, v. SEAPORT MARINE, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 12-0501-WS-B, (S.D. Ala.) against defendants, Seaport
Marine, Inc. and Odyssea Marine, Inc., predicating subject matter
jurisdiction on the general maritime law pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1333(1).  The case arises from Mr. Smith's contractual
relationship with Seaport Marine, pursuant to which the latter
provided him job placement services in exchange for Mr. Smith
agreeing to remit a recruitment fee to Seaport Marine in a series
of installment payments via an assignment of wages.

Seaport Marine successfully found work for Mr. Smith with Odyssea
Marine, which then honored Mr. Smith's assignment of wages.
Through that assignment, Seaport Marine received the entire
agreed-upon fee of $3,640, and Mr. Smith received the balance of
his earned wages for each subject paycheck.  Mr. Smith now brings
what he terms a "Seaman's Claim for Wages" under the general
maritime law against Seaport Marine and Odyssea Marine. The
Plaintiff contends that the wage assignment was "unauthorized and
unlawful," and demands "the balance of [his] wages allotted and
forwarded to and retained by Seaport Marine."

All three parties now move for summary judgment as to the Seaman's
Claim for Wages. Although the litigants have collectively devoted
more than 120 pages of briefing to the dueling Rule 56 motions,
the issue presented is actually quite narrow, to-wit: On a set of
undisputed material facts, does general maritime law entitle Smith
to recover agreed placement fees paid out by his employer pursuant
to a written wage assignment that contains the word "irrevocable"?

Chief District Judge William H. Steele found that there are no
genuine issues of material fact, and that Defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.  The Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied, and the Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment are granted. Plaintiff's claims against both
defendants are dismissed with prejudice, ruled Judge Steele.

A copy of the District Court's November 4, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/g82HaOfrom Leagle.com.


SEQWATER: Premier Warns on Class Action Plaintiff Law Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that Queensland premier Campbell Newman has
warned class action plaintiffs to read the fine print when dealing
with law firms or face the possibility of a diminished settlement
payout.

Maurice Blackburn, backed by litigation funder IMF, will represent
thousands of Brisbane and Ipswich residents seeking compensation
after floods in 2011 destroyed homes and businesses.

Premier Newman said on Nov. 27 that he doesn't discourage
residents from pursuing legal action, but offered this warning:
"Have a very clear deal with the legal firm or legal firms
involved", reported ABC News.

"I would hate to see any sort of payout to them, if that
ultimately happened, being gobbled up in legal fees," he added.

Around 5000 plaintiffs have signed up to the class action so far,
with claims against the Queensland Government, Sunwater and
Seqwater totalling more than AUD1 billion.

Maurice Blackburn and IMF have claimed that extensive modelling of
the disaster supports the claim that unnecessary flooding was
caused by the negligent operation of Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams.

In an ASX statement published on Nov. 27, IMF said: "Funded
parties' unnecessary loss and damage is sufficient to make
proceedings viable and, accordingly, it's funding of the claim is
unconditional and the class action will now proceed with Maurice
Blackburn acting for the class members."


SEQWATER: Tully Balks at Newman's Criticism of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Gould, writing for Ipswich Queensland Times, reports that
flood victims have been urged by Cr Paul Tully to sign up to a
potential AUD1 billion class action that could see them
compensated for damage to their homes and businesses.

The class action, launched by litigation backer IMF Australia and
law firm Maurice Blackburn against the Queensland Government,
Sunwater and Seqwater, is now certain to go ahead.

Cr Tully has also rejected the criticism of the class action by
Premier Campbell Newman

Mr. Newman warned those signing up for the class action that
lawyers may end up being the major beneficiaries of the class
action.  He said: "I would hate to see any sort of payout to them
(victims), if that ultimately happened, being gobbled up in legal
fees."

But Cr Tully said "Maurice Blackburn and IMF are on a maximum
takeout of about 30%".

"Campbell Newman was suggesting that if people get involved they
might end up with nothing, but he is just trying to scare people
out of lodging," Cr Tully said.

"But 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

"I am encouraging people to sign up because this is the only
opportunity for residents and business owners to be compensated
for their losses caused by the mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam
in 2011.

"The flood commission of inquiry found that the dam had not been
managed in accordance with the manual, and that will form one
element of the claim against the state government."

IMF Australia and Maurice Blackburn are the ones taking the risk
on behalf of flood victims.

"They are in for millions of dollars already," Cr Tully said.

"There are a very few flood victims who would be able to employ
engineers, hire experts and hydrologists from overseas and put
together a legal case against the state government.

"Clive Palmer is about the only person in Queensland who could run
his own legal action."

Goodna was the hardest hit suburb in south-east Queensland in
January 2011 with 600 flood-affected properties.

Cr Tully lost his family home in the flood and said the
announcement the class action would go ahead was a "major ray of
hope for all flood victims".

He called on the State Government to enter negotiations in good
faith for a settlement of the class action without the need for an
expensive legal trial.

"The State Government must act as a model litigant to ensure all
flood victims are fairly compensated for their losses," he said.

Flood victims must sign up for the class action by February 28,
2014.

Meetings for registrants will be held on Sunday, December 15, at
The Greek Club, South Brisbane, commencing at 1:00 p.m., and on
Monday, December 16, at the Metro Hotel International, Ipswich, at
7:00 p.m.

For more information about the meetings or to register for the
floods class action visit imf.com.au/wivenhoe or call 1800016464.


SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls Kizashi and SX4 Models
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           353
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013407
TC ID number:             2013407
Manufacturer recall
number:                   100

Affected products:

   Maker      Model           Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----           ----------------------
   SUZUKI     KIZASHI         2013
   SUZUKI     SX4             2013

On certain vehicles, the bolts that fasten the drive plate to the
torque converter may not have been sufficiently tightened during
vehicle assembly.  Should these bolts loosen, they could become
caught between the drive plate and the cylinder block, which may
cause the engine to stall, resulting in a loss of motive power.
This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Dealers will affect repairs.


TELEBRANDS USA: Refused to Honor Guaranteed Refund, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telebrands advertised its "pocket hose" with false claims and
refused to honor its guaranteed refund, Courthouse News Service
reports, citing a class action commenced in San Bernardino County
Court.


TGI FRIDAYS: Faces Class Action Over Cheap Liquor Imitations
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Pignataro, writing for EastBrunswickPatch, reports that an
East Brunswick man has filed a lawsuit against a chain of
TGI Fridays restaurants that were raided in May for allegedly
substituting cheap imitations for top-shelf liquor.

Ross Weinberg of East Brunswick joined Scotch Plains resident
Todd Tarczynski in filing suit.

Mr. Tarczynski said he can't be sure he was duped, according to
MyCentralJersey.com, but said he sent back drinks he felt were too
weak at the TGI Fridays in Springfield and Old Bridge -- two of
the 29 locations charged in "Operation Swill."

The Briad Restaurant Group, based in Livingston, owns 13 of the
implicated restaurants and agreed to a $500,000 fine and will not
contest the accusations.

But Mr. Tarczynski said the penalty needs to be more severe.

"For them to misplace the trust in the consumer is priceless," he
told MyCentralJersey.com.


TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Certain Shredded and Flaked Coconut Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Trophy Foods Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8473

Affected products:

   -- 400 g. Co-Op Fancy Flake Sweetened Flaked Coconut with 0
      57316 01421 4 UPC;

   -- 200 g. Co-Op Sweetened Coconut Fancy Flake with 0 57316
      01441 2 UPC;

   -- 350 g. Safeway Sweetened Shredded Coconut with 0 58200 52070
      5 UPC;

   -- 350 g. Safeway Sweetened Fancy Flake Coconut with 0 58200
      52072 9 UPC;

   -- 200 g. Sweetened Shredded Coconut with 0 60383 65750 5 UPC;

   -- 400 g. Sweetened Shredded Coconut with UPC 0 60383 65751 2;
      and

   -- 1 kg. Sweetened Shredded Coconut with 0 60383 09211 5 UPC


TRUEBLUE INC: Atty. Fee Bid in "Brown" FLSA Suit Gets Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvette Kane granted a motion to approve an award of
attorneys' fees in the class action captioned STEPHEN BROWN, JR.
et al., Plaintiffs v. TRUEBLUE, INC., et al., Defendants, NO.
1:10-CV-00514, (M.D. Penn.) brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs in this class action alleged that Defendants TrueBlue
and Labor Ready Northeast's wage policies resulted in Plaintiffs
being paid less than minimum wage, and thus violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Wage and Hour Laws. Following
extensive discovery, the parties proceeded to arbitration and
reached a proposed settlement of Plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs
filed an unopposed motion for approval on May 16, 2013, and
submitted a copy of their proposed settlement agreement on July
25, 2013.  On September 24, 2013, the Court approved the proposed
settlement agreement in part, and requested that the parties
submit evidence supporting their proposed award of attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs timely filed an amended application for their
requested fees, and a memorandum in support.

A copy of the District Court's November 5, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/FhAu6Qfrom Leagle.com.


UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Certain Wu-Mu Noodles Due to Food Color
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8468

Affected products:

   -- 320 g. Wu-Mu Spinach Noodles with 4 710175 567166 UPC;
   -- 321 g. Wu-Mu Steam Spinach Ramen with Onion Flavor with 4
      710175 565209 UPC;
   -- 321 g. Wu-Mu Shiitake Flavor Spinach Ramen with 4 710175
      565438 UPC


UNITED REFINING: Class Certified in "Cottillion" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cathy Bissoon certified the class in the case
captioned JOHN COTTILLION, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-140E, (W.D. Penn.).

This litigation class is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (b)(2):

All terminated vested participants in the United Refining Company
Pension Plan for Salaried Employees ("Plan"), who were employed
by United Refining Company and vested under either the 1980 or
1987 version of the Plan at any time between January 1, 1987 and
March 18, 2003, and their beneficiaries under the Plan.

The Court approves Plaintiffs John Cottillion and Beverly Eldridge
as representative plaintiffs of the class; and appoints Tybe A.
Brett, Ellen M. Doyle, Joel R. Hurt, and Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec, LLC as class counsel.

Judge Bissoon further granted Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings and dismissed with prejudice Counts I, II and III of
the Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs' Motion Proposing Final Remedy is granted in part
and denied in part.

According to Judge Bissoon, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion
and Order issued by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on April 8, 2013, all
members of the certified class had accrued an unreduced early
retirement benefit under the 1980 and/or 1987 Plan Document and
that Defendants' reinterpretation of the 1980 and 1987 Plan
Documents in 2005 and 2006 as providing an actuarially reduced
early retirement benefit violated the anti-cutback rules contained
in ERISA Section 204(g), 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g).

The Defendants are enjoined from applying any actuarial reduction
for early commencement to the unreduced early retirement benefits
that class members accrued under the 1980 and/or 1987 Plan
Documents.

With respect to those class members who have reached their early
retirement date and have commenced receiving their benefits,
judgment is entered for the difference between the amount of the
unreduced benefit payments they should have been paid and the
amount of the benefit payments they actually received, plus
interest at 7.5 percent. The parties are directed to meet and
confer to agree upon payment amounts for each of these class
members and submit those amounts to the Court by December 6, 2013.

With respect to those class members who have reached their early
retirement date but have not yet commenced receiving benefits, the
Court directed the Defendants to provide each class member so
situated with the opportunity to immediately elect to commence
receiving an unreduced benefit if they so choose.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to determine the final
composition of the certified class.  The parties must file a joint
stipulation to the Court, by December 6, 2013, identifying the
final composition of the class. Any disputes as to the composition
of the class or the amount of restitution owed to any individual
class member will be submitted, in a joint report to the Court, by
December 6, 2013, ruled Judge Bissoon.

A copy of the District Court's November 5, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/ivk2Xsfrom Leagle.com.


VALICOR INC: Contaminated Cincinnati Neighborhood, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Nickels, et al., commenced a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio,
against Valicor Inc., and Valicor Environmental Services, LLC.
They allege that they are victims of discrete discharges of
offensive, irritating and noxious odors and chemicals emanating
from Valicor in its processing of contaminated fluids.

The Plaintiffs are property owners, employers, employees, and
visitors in the geographical vicinity of Valicor Environmental
Services located in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Valicor Environmental Services is a centralized waste treatment
facility processing contaminated fluids.  Valicor Environmental
Services is the alter ego of Valicor Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Gustavson, Esq.
          778 Old State Route 74
          Cincinnati, OH 45245-1213
          Telephone: (513) 621-4477
                     (513) 752-5912
          Facsimile: (513) 752-0428
          E-mail: wmg@gustavsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan P. Saxton, Esq.
          RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 381-9288
          Facsimile: (513) 391-9206
          E-mail: jsaxton@rendigs.com

               - and -

          Daniel N. Moore, Esq.
          THE MOORE LAW FIRM
          1060 Nimitzview Drive, Suite 200
          Cincinnati, OH 45230
          Telephone: (513) 232-2000
          Facsimile: (513) 232-0700
          E-mail: danmoore@moorelaw.com


VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Bradley" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Bradley, On Behalf of herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ViroPharma Incorporated, Vincent J. Milano, Paul A.
Brooke, William D. Claypool, Michael R. Dougherty, Robert J.
Glaser, John R. Leone, Julie H. McHugh, Howard H. Pien, Venus
Newco, Inc., and Shire Pharmaceutical Holdings Ireland Limited,
Case No. 9104 (Del. Ch. Ct., November 19, 2013) is brought on
behalf of public stockholders of ViroPharma arising from the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Shire.

ViroPharma is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Exton,
Pennsylvania.  ViroPharma is a pharmaceutical company that
specializes in rare diseases.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Shire is incorporated in Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire plc, a company incorporated in Jersey, Channel Islands.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire created to facilitate the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Ave.
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          E-mail: jmp@weiserlawfirm.com
                  jmf@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Manley" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Manley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ViroPharma Incorporated, Vincent J. Milano, Paul A.
Brooke, William D. Claypool, Michael R. Dougherty, Robert J.
Glaser, John R. Leone, Julie H. McHugh, Howard H. Pien, Shire
Pharmaceutical Holdings Ireland Limited, Venus Newco, Inc., and
Shire PLC, Case No. 9108- (Del. Ch. Ct., November 20, 2013)
alleges that the merger consideration in the proposed merger of
the Company with Shire significantly undervalues the Company and
the Merger Agreement unlawfully binds the parties to the unfair
terms of the Proposed Transaction and impermissibly deters
potential topping bids.

ViroPharma is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Exton,
Pennsylvania.  ViroPharma is a pharmaceutical company that
specializes in rare diseases.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Shire is incorporated in Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire plc, a company incorporated in Jersey, Channel Islands.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire created to facilitate the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC
          901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com
                  dmurray@oeblegal.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
                  sbartone@zlk.com


VIROPHARMA INC: Faces "Turbow" Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orrin H. Turbow, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ViroPharma Incorporated, Paul A. Brooke, William D.
Claypool, Michael R. Dougherty, Robert J. Glaser, John R. Leone,
Julie H. McHugh, Vincent J. Milano, Howard H. Pien, Shire
Pharmaceutical Holdings Ireland Limited, Venus Newco, Inc., and
Shire PLC, Case No. 9108- (Del. Ch. Ct., November 21, 2013) arises
from alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with a
proposed transaction in which Shire will acquire ViroPharma
through a tender offer to be commenced by Merger Sub for $50 in
cash for each share of ViroPharma common stock for a total of
approximately $4.2 billion.

ViroPharma is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Exton,
Pennsylvania.  ViroPharma is a pharmaceutical company that
specializes in rare diseases.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Shire is incorporated in Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire plc, a company incorporated in Jersey, Channel Islands.
Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shire created to facilitate the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Ofer Ganot, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  oganot@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: info@bgandg.com


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Migraine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Newsome, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07714-WHP
(S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Defendant
deceptively and falsely advertises, and markets Equate Migraine
Relief as being a superior and more potent drug for headache
relief as compared to Equate Extra Strength Headache Relief
despite the fact that the pills are identical.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.  Wal-Mart sells Equate Migraine and Equate
ES.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
          Robert Corbett, Esq.
          ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC
          40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 400-7223
          Facsimile: (212) 400-7224
          E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com
                  rob@zbblaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          Douglas J. Bench, Jr., Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY, P.C.
          101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com
                  bench@gskplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caroline Jean Heller, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-2165
          Facsimile: (212) 805-9488
          E-mail: hellerc@gtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel denied motions for reconsideration
filed by plaintiffs in DAVID FERNANDEZ, JIM AKASALA, JOSEPH
SCUTTS, ROBERT LONGO and OSWALDO V. LEE, III, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WFC HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, Defendants.  JOSEPH SCUTTS, DAVID FERNANDEZ, JIM
AKASALA, ROBERT LONGO, OSWALDO V. LEE, III and FARHAN HAROON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WACHOVIA CORP., WACHOVIA BANK N.A., WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WFC HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
Defendants, NOS. 12 CIV. 7193 (PKC), 12 CIV. 7194 (PKC), (S.D.
N.Y.).

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and
Order of August 28, 2013, which denied Plaintiffs' motions for
conditional certification as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for class certification of their New York
Labor Law claims under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.  In denying those
motions, the Court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to come
forward with evidence of a common policy concerning certain
allegedly unlawful compensation practices, and therefore failed to
make a factual showing that common issues predominated over
individual ones.

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


WYNDHAM VACATION: Arbitration Ordered in "Crook" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted a motion to compel
arbitration filed by defendants 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.).

Plaintiffs Thomas and Donna Crook are senior citizens who own
vacation time shares sold by Wyndham.  They alleged that Wyndham
targets senior citizens and intentionally misleads them about the
terms of their time share purchase contracts to increase its
sales.  The Plaintiffs' putative class action complaint brings
causes of action against Wyndham and two of its employees, Anita
Howell and Linda Tanner, for (1) elder financial abuse under CAL.
WELF. & INST. CODE Section 15610.30; (2) fraud; (3) age
discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CAL. CIV. CODE
Sections 51 et seq.; (4) unfair business practices under CAL. BUS.
& PROF. CODE Sections 17200 et seq.; (5) violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CAL. CIV. CODE Sections 1750 et seq.;
and (6) intentional misrepresentation.

"[T]he Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and this action is
DISMISSED," Judge Orrick concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 4, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Co5OX7from Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claimants Hire Lincoln as Investment Banker
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants of
Specialty Products Holding Corp. and its debtor-affiliates seeks
authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware to retain Lincoln Partners Advisors LLC as investment
banker, nunc pro tunc to Nov. 18, 2013.

As set forth in the Application, the services that Lincoln
Advisors may perform for the Committee in assisting the Committee
in connection with implementation of that certain Third Amended
Plan Proposed by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative for
Specialty Products Holding Corp., and any amendments thereto, may
include:

   (a) development of a transition plan for the involuntary
       separation of SPHC from its parent International, including
       analysis and advice regarding financial, valuation and
       related issues that may arise in the course of the
       separation and liquidation;

   (b) analysis and advice regarding maximizing the value of the
       Debtor for the benefit of the Asbestos PI Trust created
       under the proposed Plan, including the liquidation of
       SPHC and its subsidiaries and holdings;

   (c) expert testimony on financial and business matters, if
       requested; and

   (d) such other services as the Committee's co-counsel may
       request.

The Committee requests that Lincoln Advisors be paid a fee of up
to $75,000 per month, plus any reasonable out of pocket expenses.
On a monthly basis, counsel for the Committee will confer with
Lincoln Advisors and any adjustment to the monthly fee shall be
made based on Lincoln's activity level for such month. Should
Lincoln Advisors be requested to perform other work on behalf of
the Committee other than as a financial advisor, the terms upon
which Lincoln Advisors will undertake such representation will be
the subject of a renewed application.

Joseph J. Radecki, Jr., managing director and partner of Lincoln
Advisors, assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any interest adverse to the
Debtors and their estates.

Lincoln Advisors can be reached at:

       Joseph J. Radecki, Jr.
       LINCOLN PARTNERS ADVISORS LLC
       360 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor
       New York, NY 10017
       Tel: (212) 277-8117
       E-mail: jradecki@lincolninternational.com

                     About Specialty Products

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Corp. Has Until April 17 to File Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware extended
Yarway Corporation's exclusive periods to file a plan of
reorganization until April 17, 2014, and solicit acceptances for
that plan until June 16, 2014.

Yarway Corporation sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Case No. 13-11025) on April 22, 2013, to deal with claims arising
from asbestos containing products it allegedly sold as early as
the 1920s.

Yarway was founded in 1908 by Robert Yarnall and Bernard Waring as
the Simplex Engineering Company and originally manufactured pipe
clamps, steam traps, valves and controls.  Based in Pennsylvania,
Yarway was a privately-owned company until 1986 when KeyStone
International, Inc. bought equity in the company.  Yarway became a
unit of Tyco International Ltd. when Tyco purchased KeyStone in
1997.

Yarway's asbestos-related liabilities derive from Yarway's (i)
purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing,
manufactured by others, in its production of steam valves and
traps from the 1920s to 1970s, and (ii) alleged manufacture of
expansion joint packing that was allegedly made up of a compound
of Teflon and asbestos from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Over the past five years, about 10,021 new asbestos claims have
been asserted against Yarway, including 1,014 in Yarway's 2013
fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

The Debtor estimated assets and debts in excess of $100 million as
of the Chapter 11 filing.

Attorneys at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. and
Sidley Austin LLP serve as the Debtor's counsel in the Chapter 11
case.  Logan and Co. is the claims and notice agent.

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed an
official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants.  The
Committee tapped Elihu Inselbuch, Esq. at Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered, as lead bankruptcy counsel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Frieder" PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant General Electric
Company 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 its products were a substantial
contributing cause of plaintiff Morton Frieder's injuries.

From 1972 to 1979, Morton Frieder worked as a cashier at a small
dining trailer known as the Dashing Dan Diner located within the
Long Island Railroad's Morris Park maintenance facility.  The LIRR
employees who patronized the Diner included electricians,
carpenters, machinists, and metal workers.  The Plaintiffs contend
that the sole source of Mr. Frieder's asbestos exposure was the
asbestos-laden clothing that the LIRR workers wore into the Diner.
It is undisputed, however, that Mr. Frieder did not know what
tasks the LIRR employees who patronized the Diner performed for
the LIRR or the source of the dust on their clothing.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the GE's summary judgment motion, holding that while
circumstantial evidence may be used to support liability where
there is a link between the plaintiff and the alleged asbestos-
containing product, the connection alleged in the case is too
attenuated to preclude summary judgment.  Judge Heitler pointed
out that Mr. Frieder never identified a GE product as a source of
his exposure, nor did Diner patron George Muckian, who was deposed
on behalf of the Plaintiffs.  Judge Heitler further pointed out
that there is also nothing to show that Norman McCollum, who
testified in his own asbestos personal injury action, or any other
tradesperson that allegedly worked with GE's products ever came
into contact with Mr. Frieder.  On this record, therefore, the
Plaintiffs can only speculate that Mr. Frieder was exposed to
asbestos fibers released from a GE product, Judge Heitler said.

The case is MORTON FRIEDER and ROSALIND FRIEDER, Plaintiffs, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON CO, INC., et. al., Defendant(s), DOCKET NO.
190212/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Heitler's Decision and Order, dated Nov. 15, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/BDMftdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bechtel" PI Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois granted a motion to remand filed
by the plaintiffs in the asbestos personal injury action captioned
CHARLES AND VIRGINIA HEATH, Plaintiffs, v. BECHTEL CORP., et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-329-GPM (S.D. Ill.), after finding that
the removal of the case was untimely.

A full-text copy of Judge Murphy's Nov. 21, 2013, memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/cMGRQsfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses Aviva's Suit v. Flintkote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted defendant The Flintkote
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the
declaratory action filed by Commercial Union Assurance Company
Ltd., now known as Aviva PLC.

CU U.K. asked the bankruptcy court overseeing Flintkote's Chapter
11 case to compel Flintkote to resolve through arbitration their
disputes arising from an agreement concerning asbestos-related
claims.  Flintkote moved to dismiss CU U.K.'s action in light of
an action the company first filed in a Delaware district court,
which tackles the same factual and legal issues.

Judge Illston found that the interests of comity, consistency, and
judicial economy dictate that the action be dismissed.  Judge
Illston noted that the parties do not dispute that the issues in
CU U.K.'s claim for declaratory relief are identical to those in
the Delaware action.  Judge Illston also noted that CU U.K. will
have the opportunity to resolve all issues it sought to have
adjudicated in arbitration.  If CU U.K. is successful with its
appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, it
may once again move the Delaware court to dismiss or transfer the
case, and it will be provided a full opportunity to vindicate its
rights in that court, Judge Illston said.

The case is AVIVA PLC, formerly known as COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Plaintiff, v. THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY,
Defendant, NO. CV 13-00711 SI (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Illston's Nov. 21, 2013, order is available at
http://is.gd/9GxnKafrom Leagle.com.

                    About The Flintkote Company

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, The Flintkote Company
is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and
distributing building materials.  Flintkote Mines Limited is a
subsidiary of Flintkote Company and is engaged in the mining of
base-precious metals.  The Flintkote Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 04-11300) on April 30, 2004.
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for Chapter 11 relief (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 04-12440) on Aug. 25, 2004.  Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.,
Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq., Dennis M. Twomey, Esq., Jeremy E.
Rosenthal, Esq., and Christina M. Craige, Esq., at Sidley Austin,
LLP, in Los Angeles; James E. O'Neill, Esq., and Laura Davis
Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Elihu
Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York,
N.Y.; Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., Ronald E. Reinsel, Esq., at
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.; and Philip E.
Milch, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington, Del.,
represent the Asbestos Claimants Committee as counsel.

When Flintkote filed for protection from its creditors, it
estimated more than $100 million each in assets and debts.  When
Flintkote Mines Limited filed for protection from its creditors,
it estimated assets of $1 million to $50 million, and debts of
more than $100 million.

The Debtors' Chapter 11 cases have been re-assigned to Judge Mary
F. Walrath in line with the retirement of former Bankruptcy
Judge Judith Fitzgerald.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Modifies Order in "Steiner" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six,
issued an order modifying an opinion issued on Oct. 30, 2013,
which denied a petition for a writ of mandate filed by the
plaintiffs in an asbestos-related personal injury action and their
counsel.  A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated
Nov. 26, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/BvF0SIfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is CHRISTIE STEINER et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA et al., Real Parties in Interest, 2D CIVIL NO. B235347
(Cal. App.).

The Petitioners are represented by:

         Simona A. Farrise, Esq.
         Carla V. Minnard, Esq.
         FARRISE FIRM, P.C.

              - and -

         Sharon J. Arkin, Esq.
         THE ARKIN LAW FIRM
         225 South Olive, Suite 102
         Los Angeles, CA 90012
         Tel: 1-800-748-6186
         Fax: 1-510-588-4536

No appearance for Respondent.

Laurie J. Hepler, Esq., and Nathaniel K. Fisher, Esq., at Carroll,
Burdick & McDonough LLP; and Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., for Real
Party in Interest Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Herzfeld & Rubin may be reached at:

         HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
         125 Broad Street,
         New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 471-8500
         Fax: (212) 344-3333

John M. Thomas, Esq., at Dykema Gossett LLP, for Real Party in
Interest Ford Motor Co.

McKenna Long & Aldrige LLP for Real Party in Interest Pneumo Abex.
The firm may be reached at:

         MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIGE LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue
         14th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Tel: (213) 688-1000
         Fax: (213) 243-6330


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Reverses Krafft-Murphy Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal was filed from a judgment of the Court of Chancery in an
action to appoint a receiver for Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc., a
dissolved Delaware corporation.  The Appellants, who are tort
claimants in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits pending
against the Corporation in other jurisdictions, seek the
appointment of a receiver to enable them lawfully to pursue those
claims against the Corporation in those other courts.

The Corporation argues that because it holds no assets other than
unexhausted liability insurance policies, Delaware law does not
authorize the appointment of a receiver and that, in any event, it
is not necessary to appoint one.  The Court of Chancery granted
summary judgment in favor of the Corporation. The Petitioners
timely appealed.

The case raises three interrelated questions of first impression
in the Supreme Court of Delaware, plus a third question directly
addressed by settled Delaware law:

   (1) Does a contingent contractual right, such as an insurance
       policy, constitute "property" within the meaning of 8 Del.
       C. Section 279?

   (2) Does Delaware's statutory corporate dissolution scheme
       contain a generally applicable statute of limitations that
       time-bars claims against a dissolved corporation by third
       parties after the limitations period expires?

   (3) After 8 Del. C. Section 278's three year winding-up period
       expires, does a dissolved corporation have the power to act
       absent a court-appointed receiver or trustee?

The Supreme Court concluded that under 8 Del. C. Section 279,
contingent contractual rights, such as unexhausted insurance
policies, constitute "property" of a dissolved corporation, so
long as those rights are capable of vesting.  The Supreme Court
further held that Delaware's dissolution statutes impose no
generally applicable statute of limitations that would time-bar
claims against a dissolved corporation by third parties.  Finally,
the Supreme Court held that the existence of the "body corporate"
continues beyond the expiration of the statutory winding-up period
of 8 Del. C. Section 278 for purposes of conducting litigation
commenced before the expiration of that period.  But, for
litigation commenced after the expiration of that statutory
period, a dissolved corporation may act only through a receiver or
trustee appointed under 8 Del. C. Section 279, the Supreme Court
said.

Because the judgment of the Court of Chancery rests on legal
determinations inconsistent with these holdings, the Supreme Court
reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, INC., A
Dissolved Delaware Corporation relating to ROBERT F. ANDERSON, et
al., Petitioners/Intervenors Below, Appellants, v. KRAFFT-MURPHY
COMPANY, INC., Respondent Below, Appellee, NO. 85, 2013 (Del.).

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision dated Nov. 26,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/LvNYa5from Leagle.com.

Raeann Warner, Esq. -- raeann@jcdelaw.com -- and Jordan J. Perry,
Esq. -- jordan@jcdelaw.com -- at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., in
Wilmington, Delaware; Jeffrey P. Wasserman, Esq. --
jwasserman@cicontewasserman.com -- at Ciconte, Wasserman & Scerba,
LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Jennifer L. Lilly, Esq., at
The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland;
Daniel A. Brown, Esq. -- dbrown@brownandgould.com -- and Eileen M.
O'Brien, Esq. -- eobrien@brownandgould.com -- at Brown & Gould
LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellants.

Francis J. Murphy, Esq., at Murphy & Landon, in Wilmington,
Delaware; Of Counsel: Joseph L. Ruby, Esq. --
joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com -- at Lewis Baach PLLC, in Washington,
DC, for Appellee.

Mr. Murphy may be reached at:

     Francis J. Murphy, Esq.
     MURPHY & LANDON
     1011 Centre Rd, Suite 210
     Wilmington, DE
     Tel: (302) 482-4381
     Fax: (302) 472-8135


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Consolidating 3 NY Suits for Trial Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order consolidating
the three asbestos-related personal injury cases for trial.  An
appeal was filed timely.

In a decision dated Nov. 26, 2013, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the
decision, holding that given that the plaintiffs in the cases were
exposed to asbestos products for vehicles in their work as
mechanics over a substantially overlapping period of 40 years, and
each is represented by the same counsel, and each case is trial
ready, it cannot be said that the IAS court abused its discretion
in ordering the three cases consolidated for trial.

While there are some differences, including that one plaintiff has
mesothelioma while the other two have lung cancer, and other
differences pointed out by the Defendant, this does not outweigh
the substantial overlap of factual and legal issues, or suggest
the prejudice of the Defendant's right to a fair trial, the
Appellate Division said.

The cases are IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
ESTER BARUCH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, 190468/12; KARL FERSCH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, 190315/12; and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, 190367/12 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/GziOSafrom
Leagle.com.

MIRIAM SKOLNIK, Esq. -- MSkolnik@herzfeld-rubin.com -- at HERZFELD
& RUBIN, P.C., in NEW YORK, of counsel, for Appellant.

ALANI GOLANSKI, Esq., at WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., in NEW YORK, of
counsel, for respondents.  Mr. Golanski may be reached at:

         Alani Golanski, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Tel: (212) 558-5500
         Fax: (212) 344-5461


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits arising from products
manufactured by its subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal quarter ended September 28, 2013.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined.  The
Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related
to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the
combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity
obligations will cover any future costs of these matters.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of Falk, Hamilton
Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The
Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations,
Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with
respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are not
subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Certain of Rexnord's Water Management subsidiaries are subject to
asbestos litigation. As of September 28, 2013, Zurn and an average
of approximately 80 other unrelated companies were defendants in
approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing
approximately 26,000 claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal
injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in
industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn.
Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead,
Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled
pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord), formerly Rexnord Holdings, Inc., is
a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two
platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management.
Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes
gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and
seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment,
and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including
Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform
operates in the commercial construction market for water
management products and the municipal water and wastewater
treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes
drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow
prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered
valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets.
In August 2013, Rexnord Corp announced that it has acquired the
assets of Micro Precision Gear Technology Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, 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 have been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with
numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are
similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a
defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it
was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts.

As of September 30, 2013, we were subject to these claims, as well
as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen
in the ordinary course of business.

Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the
outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
custom-built vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers
worldwide. The Company's products include steam jet ejector vacuum
systems, surface condensers for steam turbines, vacuum pumps and
compressors, various types of heat exchangers, including helical
coil heat exchangers marketed under the Heliflow name, and plate
and frame heat exchangers. The Company's products produce a
vacuum, condense steam vapor or transfer heat, or perform a
combination of these tasks. The Company's products are available
in a range of metals and non-metallic corrosion resistant
materials. The Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include
Graham Vacuum and Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l. Increases Reserves by $130MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. increased its net asbestos
reserves by $130 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company completed its
annual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluation. As part of this
evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domestic
insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well as
assumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures for
both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance. Based on this
evaluation, the Company increased its net asbestos reserves by
$130 million. The Company found estimates for individual cases
changed based upon the particular circumstances of such accounts.
These changes were case specific and not as a result of any
underlying change in the current environment. The Company
experienced moderate increases in claim frequency and severity as
well as expense and costs associated with litigating asbestos
coverage matters, particularly against certain smaller, more
peripheral insureds. The Company also experienced unfavorable
development on certain of its assumed reinsurance accounts driven
largely by the same factors experienced by the direct
policyholders. The Company currently expects to continue to
perform an evaluation of its asbestos liabilities annually.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates for
asbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions with
respect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of those
claims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with no
payment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty with
respect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos and
environmental adds a greater degree of variability to these
reserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditional
exposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the size
of the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range may
still not be indicative of the potential variance between the
ultimate outcome and the recorded reserves.

The recorded net reserves as of September 30, 2013 of $2.1 billion
($1.78 billion and $289 for asbestos and environmental,
respectively) is within an estimated range, unadjusted for
covariance, of $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion. The process of
estimating asbestos and environmental reserves remains subject to
a wide variety of uncertainties.  The Company believes that its
current asbestos and environmental reserves are appropriate.
However, analyses of future developments could cause the Company
to change its estimates and ranges of its asbestos and
environmental reserves, and the effect of these changes could be
material to the Company's consolidated operating results and
liquidity.

Consistent with the Company's long-standing reserve practices, the
Company will continue to review and monitor its reserves in
Property & Casualty Other Operations regularly, including its
annual reviews of asbestos liabilities, reinsurance recoverables
and the allowance for uncollectible reinsurance, and environmental
liabilities, and where future developments indicate, make
appropriate adjustments to the reserves.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., formerly The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., is an insurance and financial
services company. The Company is a provider of investment products
and life, property, and casualty insurance to both individual and
business customers in the United States of America. The Company
maintains a retail mutual fund operation, whereby the Company,
through wholly owned subsidiaries, provides investment management
and administrative services to The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc. and
The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. (collectively, mutual funds),
consisting of 57 mutual funds, as of December 31, 2011. The
Company operates in four segments: Commercial Markets, Consumer
Markets, Wealth Management and Runoff Operations. In October 2011,
the Company sold Trumbull Services, LLC to ExlService Holdings,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 7,880 PI Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 7,880 pending asbestos-related personal injury claims
against TriMas 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.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company was a party to 1,078 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,950 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries. For the nine-months ended September 30, 2013, there
were 7,880 pending claims, 283 filed claims, 179 dismissed claims,
34 settled claims.  The average settlement amount per claim was
$2,001 and the total defense costs was $1,981,00, exclusive of
amounts reimbursed under the Company's primary insurance, at the
applicable date and for the applicable periods.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,950 claims pending at September 30, 2013,
133 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those
stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace &
Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America. On September 13, 2011, the Company purchased all of
the assets of a standard ring type joint gasket manufacturer
located in Faridabad. On August 1, 2011, it acquired the stock of
Innovative Molding (Innovative). On January 14, 2013, the
Company's business, Lamons acquired Gasket Vedacoes Tecnicas Ltd.
On January 28, 2013, it acquired Martinic Engineering, Inc. In
August 2013, TriMas Corporation closed on a transaction to sell
the operating assets of its Rieke Italia business. In October
2013, the Company announced that it has acquired Mac Fasteners,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Has 1,073 PI Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to defend itself against 1,073
unresolved asbestos-related cases, 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 have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These
complaints generally do not provide specific information about the
amount of damages being sought, the time period in which the
alleged injuries occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to
the asserted liability. This information, which would be central
to any estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained
through legal discovery.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our nineteen-year
experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

There were 1,073 unresolved cases at the end of the period for the
nine-months ended September 30, 2013, for which service has been
received that we have tendered to the indemnifying party, all of
which have been accepted by the indemnifying party.

We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As of
September 30, 2013, we had an accrued liability of approximately
$10 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable
of approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2013.

Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subject
to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we may
be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of these
cases. For the nine-months ended September 30, 2013, there were 50
unresolved cases, which include all cases for which service has
been received by us. Certain prior cases that were filed in error
against us have been dismissed.

We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $48,000 and $82,000 during
the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
As of September 30, 2013, we had an accrual of $375,000 relating
to these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not
exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these
cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate
the amount or range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional
asbestos exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and
such claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2013."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company
operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC
(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range
of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a
range of consumer and industrial customers. The Company is a
global producer in product lines, including methyl diphenyl
diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer
formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and
titanium dioxide. The Company operates in five segments:
Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced Materials, Textile
Effects and Pigments. Effective March 14, 2013, it acquired 20%
interest in Nippon Aqua Co Ltd. In August 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of the business of
Oxid L.P.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 800 Exposure Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 800 active asbestos-related cases involving
approximately 3,340 plaintiffs remain pending against United
States Steel 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.

At September 30, 2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant in
approximately 800 active cases involving approximately 3,340
plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant
in approximately 790 active cases involving approximately 3,330
plaintiffs. For the period ended September 30, 2013, settlements
and dismissals resulted in the disposition of approximately 175
claims and U. S. Steel paid approximately $6 million in
settlements. New filings added approximately 185 claims.
About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent, of these claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience
in such cases, it believes the actual number of plaintiffs who
ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a
small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the
claims filed in recent years involve individual or small groups of
claimants.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products formerly manufactured by U. S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and general
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel.
The ultimate outcome of any claim depends upon a myriad of legal
and factual issues, including whether the plaintiff can prove
actual disease, if any; actual exposure, if any, to U. S. Steel
products; the duration of exposure to asbestos, if any, on U. S.
Steel's premises and the plaintiff's exposure to other sources of
asbestos. In general, the only insurance available to U. S. Steel
with respect to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance,
which has multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date,
U. S. Steel has received minimal payments under these policies
relating to asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
260 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases where the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related to
U. S. Steel or our products or premises.

In every asbestos case in which U. S. Steel is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against numerous named defendants and
generally do not contain allegations regarding specific monetary
damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages
is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named
defendants and in no case is there any allegation of monetary
damages against U. S. Steel. Historically, approximately 89
percent of the cases against U. S. Steel did not specify any
damage amount or stated that the damages sought exceeded the
amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed. (Jurisdictional amounts generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000). U. S. Steel does not consider the amount of
damages alleged, if any, in a complaint to be relevant in
assessing our potential exposure to asbestos liabilities.

U. S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for the dismissal of U.
S. Steel from pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where
we believe litigation is appropriate. U. S. Steel also makes
efforts to settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma
cases, for reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against us
allege so-called "premises" liability-based exposure on U. S.
Steel's current or former premises. These claims may be made by an
indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers, railroad
workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees, government
inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers. In most
cases, the claimant was exposed to asbestos in non-U. S. Steel
settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S. Steel and
non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant, and the strength
or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel exposure and
any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity of the injury
claimed.

The Company states, "We are unable to estimate the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite
this uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, although the resolution of such
matters could significantly impact results of operations for a
particular period. Among the factors considered in reaching this
conclusion are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steel
employed maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestos
containing products; (2) most asbestos containing material was
removed or remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago and
(3) U. S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and
dismissals."

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) produces and sells
steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products,
in North America and Europe. Operations in North America also
include iron ore and coke production facilities, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations) and real estate
operations. U.S. Steel has three reportable operating segments:
Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and
Tubular Products (Tubular). An integrated producer uses iron ore
and coke as primary raw materials for steel production. U. S.
Steel has annual raw steel production capability of 31.7 million
net tons (tons) (24.3 million tons in North America and 7.4
million tons in Europe). On January 31, 2012, it sold U. S. Steel
Serbia d.o.o. (USSS). On February 1, 2012, U. S. Steel completed
the sale of the majority of the operating assets of Birmingham
Southern Railroad Company, as well as the Port Birmingham
Terminal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Inc. Continues to Defend PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Xylem Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
personal injury 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.

The Company states: "From time to time claims may be asserted
against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products
resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous
legal defenses available for such claims and would defend
ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement
("Distribution Agreement") dated October 25, 2011 among ITT
Corporation, Exelis Inc. and Xylem, ITT has an obligation to
indemnify, defend and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product
liability matters, including settlements, judgments, and legal
defense costs associated with all pending and future claims that
may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT
remains a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources
to honor its obligations to us.

As part of the Spin-off, ITT, Exelis and Xylem will indemnify,
defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to
such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the
Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement
or related spin agreements. ITT's indemnification obligations
include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica liability
claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of asbestos
or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior to
October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited
exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the
structure or material of any building or facility, subject to
exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem
buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with
pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not
recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to
be indemnified by ITT or Exelis through the Distribution Agreement
and we are not aware of any claims or other circumstances that
would give rise to material payments from us under such
indemnifications."

Xylem Inc. (Xylem), formerly ITT WCO, Inc., is a provider of
equipment and service for water and wastewater applications with a
portfolio of products and services addressing the full cycle of
water, from collection, distribution and use to the return of
water to the environment. It operates in two segments: Water
Infrastructure and Applied Water. The Water Infrastructure segment
focuses on the transportation, treatment and testing of water,
offering a range of products, including water and wastewater
pumps, treatment and testing equipment, and controls and systems.
The Applied Water segment encompasses the uses of water and
focuses on the residential, commercial, industrial and
agricultural markets. The segment's products include pumps,
valves, heat exchangers, controls and dispensing equipment. In
March 2013, it acquired MultiTrode Pty Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 25,000 PI Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation has approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos-related personal injury 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.

The Company states: "We had approximately 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at both September 30,
2013 and December 31, 2012. In addition, approximately 1,000
mostly inactive claims have been settled and are awaiting final
documentation and dismissal, with or without payment. We have
accrued $77 million for indemnity and defense costs for settled,
pending and future claims at September 30, 2013, compared to $83
million at December 31, 2012. We use a fifteen-year time horizon
for our estimate of this liability.

At September 30, 2013, we had recorded $45 million as an asset for
probable recovery from our insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $50 million
recorded at December 31, 2012. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. We have coverage agreements in place
with our insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the
amount we would expect to recover if we paid the accrued indemnity
and defense costs.

As part of our reorganization, assets and liabilities associated
with asbestos claims were retained in Dana Corporation which was
then merged into Dana Companies, LLC, a consolidated wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dana. The assets of Dana Companies, LLC include
insurance rights relating to coverage against these liabilities, a
callable note received in connection with a divestiture in 2004
and other assets which we believe are sufficient to satisfy its
liabilities. Dana Companies, LLC continues to process asbestos
personal injury claims in the normal course of business, is
separately managed and has an independent board member. The
independent board member is required to approve certain
transactions including dividends or other transfers of $1 million
or more of value to Dana."

Dana Holding Corporation is global provider of technology
driveline, sealing and thermal-management products for vehicle
manufacturer in the on-highway and off-highway markets. The
Company operates in four business units: Light Vehicle Driveline
Technologies (Light Vehicle Driveline (LVD)), Commercial Vehicle
Driveline Technologies (Commercial Vehicle), Off-Highway Driveline
Technologies (Off-Highway) and Power Technologies. The Company's
LVD segment includes front and rear axles, driveshafts,
differentials, torque couplings and modular assemblies. The
Company's commercial vehicle segment includes axles, driveshafts,
steering shafts, suspensions and tire management systems. The
Company's off-highway segment includes axles, driveshafts and end-
fittings, transmissions, torque converters and electronic
controls. Power Technologies includes gaskets, cover modules, heat
shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat transfer
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against an inactive
subsidiary, 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.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. As of Sept.
30, 2013, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been
disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse
judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of
the existing and anticipated future claims against this
subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total
liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately
$3,300,000 (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has
also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no
claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the
Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of
these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were
handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had
agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all
damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing
and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the
policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage
was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for $15,000 and $20,000,
respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and
can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated
with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third
quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary
insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding
Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27% of defense and
indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in
connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of
five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement continues until
terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing
the other party with a minimum of two years prior written notice.
As of September 30, 2013, no notice of termination has been given
under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the
subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this
insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The
Company also believes that, if the coverage issues under the
primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely
to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the
subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state
guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the
subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in
respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to
the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of the
parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not
probable that the Company will incur any material losses. All of
the asbestos cases pursued against the Company challenging the
parent-subsidiary relationship are in the early stages of
litigation. The Company has been successful to date having claims
naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company
may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not
possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter
Industries S.r.l.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Pending PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 1,400 asbestos-related personal injury claims pending
against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., 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 lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through September 30, 2013, we have been named
a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,300 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,400 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through September 30, 2013, the claims alleging exposure to
asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled
for an average settlement amount of approximately one thousand
dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make
accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of
the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. We do not
believe that any unresolved asserted claims will have a material
adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial
position or cash flow, and, at September 30, 2013, we had
approximately $2,900,000 accrued for liability and related
expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to
pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses
through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources,
we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect
to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) is one of the integrated
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services providers
and process technology licensors, delivering solutions to
customers primarily in the energy, petrochemical and natural
resource industries. CB&I consist of three business sectors: Steel
Plate Structures, Project Engineering and Construction, and Lummus
Technology. Through these business sectors, the Company offers
services both independently and on an integrated basis. As of
December 31, 2012, the Company had more than 900 projects in
process in more than 70 countries. On February 13, 2013, it
acquired The Shaw Group Inc. (Shaw).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 355 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 355 asbestos-related personal injury claims pending
against Rogers 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.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of September 30, 2013, there were
355 pending claims compared to 319 pending claims at December 31,
2012. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in
personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed. Of the 355 claims
pending as of  September 30, 2013,  73 claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought,  281 claims cite jurisdictional amounts,
and only one (1) claim (less than 1.0% of the total pending
claims) specifies the amount of damages sought not based on
jurisdictional requirements. This one (1) claim, which names 21
defendants, alleges compensatory and punitive damages of $20
million each. However, we do not believe that this data allows for
an accurate assessment of the relation that the amount of alleged
damages claimed might bear to the ultimate disposition of these
cases.

We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. There was also a
significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily
injury cases in Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume
of claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort
reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries),
which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in
a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi
by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by
the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number
of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in
2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008
and increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011 and 2012 was significantly higher than in 2010.
No meaningful trend for 2013 is available at this time. The higher
number of recent lawsuits is reflected in the National Economic
Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) and Marsh USA, Inc. (Marsh)
reports.

In the majority of cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of
exposure to our asbestos-containing products. We believe that this
trend will continue and that a majority of the claimants in
pending cases will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss.
This belief is based in large part on two factors: the limited
number of asbestos-related products manufactured and sold by us
and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in such products.
In addition, even at sites where the presence of an alleged
injured party can be verified during the same period those
products were used, our liability cannot be presumed because even
if an individual contracted an asbestos-related disease, not
everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos
containing products that we manufactured. Based on these and other
factors, we have and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
in asbestos-related matters.

Cases brought against us typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants. We have obtained the dismissal of many of these
claims. For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, we were able
to have 81 claims dismissed and we settled nine (9) claims. For
the year ended December 31, 2012, 94 claims were dismissed and
sixteen (16) were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by
our insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the
small number of cases that have been settled. Such settlements
totaled approximately $1.5 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2013, compared to $6.3 million for the year ended
2012.  Although these figures provide some insight into our
experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made as
to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience in
the future.

Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness and the availability of legal defenses, as well as whether
the action is brought alone or as part of a group of claimants. To
date, we have been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the
majority of the claims and have settled only a limited number. The
majority of settled claims were settled for immaterial amounts,
and the majority of such costs have been paid by our insurance
carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been required to pay
any punitive damage awards.

NERA, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
mass tort litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has
historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future
asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to
pending claims and claims which have not yet been filed.
Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict, including the number of
claims that might be received, the type and severity of the
disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies that
are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore,
any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to
even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In
light of these inherent uncertainties, the  variability of our
claims history and consultations with NERA, we currently believe
that 10 years is the most reasonable period for recognizing a
reserve for future costs, and that costs that might be incurred
after that period are not reasonably estimable at this time. As a
result, we also believe that our ultimate asbestos-related
contingent liability (i.e., our indemnity or other claim
disposition costs plus related legal fees) cannot be estimated
with certainty.

Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both settlement
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
insurance coverage and the likelihood of recovery for asbestos-
related claims, has historically been engaged to work with us to
project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.
Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our
coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the
allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices,
an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports.

Our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all of the
settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-related
claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and such
insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of such claims by the carriers until
the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. This four year
agreement expires on January 25, 2015 and replaced an older
agreement that had expired.

During 2012 and 2013, the primary layer insurance policies
providing coverage for the January 1, 1966 to June 30, 1969 period
exhausted. The cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess
carrier providing insurance coverage over exhausted primary layer
carriers will become a party to the cost sharing agreement,
replacing the coverage provided by the exhausted primary policies
if the carrier providing such excess coverage is not already a
party to the cost sharing agreement. The excess umbrella carrier
providing coverage for the 42-month period is not a party to the
cost sharing agreement. Such umbrella excess carrier was notified
of the aforementioned exhaustion and is currently providing
applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the cost sharing
agreement, even though it is not a party to such agreement.

The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related
insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models
contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results
generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are
reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty
based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation.
Historically, due to the inherent uncertainties of the forecast
process and our limited amount of settlement and claims history,
we utilized a forecast period of five years, which we concluded
was the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for
projected asbestos liabilities, and that costs that might be
incurred after that period were not reasonably estimable at that
time. In the fourth quarter of 2012, we reviewed this assumption
and determined that it was appropriate to extend the forecast
period from 5 years to 10 years. We reached this conclusion due to
the fact that we now have considerably more experience in
addressing asbestos related lawsuits and have a longer history of
activity to use as a baseline to more accurately project the
liability over a longer period than previously disclosed. Further,
settlement trends have become more meaningful in recent years and
we believe that we now have a more meaningful history of data on
which to base projections. Further, we determined that a 10 year
projection period is now appropriate as, although we have a longer
and more consistent history of data over the last few years, we do
not believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection
period at this time. As of December 31, 2012, the estimated
liability and estimated insurance recovery for the 10 year period
through 2022 was $51.4 million and $48.3 million, resulting in an
additional charge of $2.9 million recognized in the fourth quarter
of 2012 ($0.2 million was previously recognized throughout 2012).
There were no changes to these projections during the first nine
months of 2013. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually
in the fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances
materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze
these forecasts.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables described were based on facts known
at the time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting
future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each
year, the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of
time it takes to dispose of such claims, 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
liability and insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded.

There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this asbestos litigation."

Rogers Corporation (Rogers) is the supplier of a range of
specialty materials and components for the portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean
technology. The Company operates in two business segments: Core
Strategic and Other. Core Strategic segment includes High
Performance Foams, Printed Circuit Materials, Power Electronics
Solutions, Curamik Electronics Solutions and Power Distribution
Systems. Its other segment consists of elastomer rollers, floats
and non-woven composite materials products, as well as its
inverter distribution activities. On January 4, 2011, the Company
acquired Curamik Electronics GmbH (Curamik), a manufacturer of
power electronic substrate products. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, the Company discontinued its Thermal Management
Solutions operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $1.03-Bil Reserves as of Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation has $1.03 billion reserves for asbestos
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.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.03 billion and
$1.03 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $482 million and
$496 million, as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $213 million
and $193 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $60 million
and $48 million, as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. Approximately 57% and 58% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of September 30, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively, were for incurred but not
reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. It conducts its business primarily in the United
States. Allstate has four business segments: Allstate Protection,
Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages and Corporate
and Other. In October 2011, the Company acquired Esurance and
Answer Financial from White Mountains Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has 16,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to defend itself against approximately
16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability 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.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. The
Company believes that its involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of both September
30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately
16,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
respectively. Of the approximately 16,000 outstanding claims at
September 30, 2013, approximately half were pending in
jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial
reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2013, of the approximately 1,200
claims resolved, 217 (18%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2012,
of the approximately 2,400 claims resolved, 308 (13%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $264.6 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The
net balance of $139.8 million, is expected to be fully recovered,
of which approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered
within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action or additional
negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2012, insurers owed $111.0
million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $139.8 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $109.0 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at September 30, 2013.
The Company also has a related asset of $109.0 million to
recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected
to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected
prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action, which,
more-likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to June 30, 2014. At
December 31, 2012, the comparable value of the accrued liability
and associated insurance asset was $85.6 million.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company's total accrued liabilities
is $109 million.

The 2013 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to defend itself against a declaratory
judgment action filed by an insurance company in an Illinois 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.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all asbestos-related personal injury claims were paid by the
Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a series of
funding arrangements. In addition to the primary insurance
available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial
excess insurance coverage available for potential future asbestos-
related product claims. In June 2004, primary layer insurance
carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their
policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Calif. PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to defend itself against an asbestos-
related personal injury action pending in a California 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 August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this action and to appeal the verdict. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of this pending litigation and therefore
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of possible loss, if any,
that could result from this action.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
defend asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2013.

The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries-Spence
Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke
Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets
they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or the financial
condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets.
The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary
manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's
Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012
, the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors
and the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100
countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups
The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio
of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Pays $19-Mil. to Settle Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., paid $19,000,000 to settle 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.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-
related liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown
Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are
successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved
with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future and, with
the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and
Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the
fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted
for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company paid
$19,000,000 to settle outstanding claims and had 52,500 pending
claims.

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an
analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes by year of exposure
and state filed. As of December 31, 2012, the Company's total
outstanding claims were 51,000.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given our settlement experience
with post-1964 claims, we do not believe that an adverse ruling in
the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any
other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a
material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

As of December 31, 2012, the total percentage of outstanding
claims related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily
mesothelioma and other malignancies) was 19% and the pre-1964
claims in states without asbestos legislation was 36%.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of September 30,
2013.

As of September 30, 2013, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
$237,000,000 including $175,000,000 for unasserted claims. The
Company's accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims
through the year 2022. The Company's accrual excludes potential
costs for claims beyond 2022 because the Company believes that the
key assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 88% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2012), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its business is
organized within three divisions: Americas, Europe and Asia
Pacific. Its segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. Its segments within the European
Division are European Beverage and European Food. Americas
Beverage includes beverage can operations in the United States,
Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico. North America Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in the United States
and Canada. European Beverage includes beverage can operations in
Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. European Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in Europe and Africa.
Its Asia Pacific Division consists of beverage and non-beverage
can operations, primarily food cans and specialty packaging. As of
December 31, 2012, it acquired Superior Multi-Packaging Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increases Gross Asbestos Reserves by $33MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., increased its gross asbestos
reserves by $33 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.

In the nine-month period ended September 30, 2013, AIG increased
its gross asbestos reserves by $33 million and its net asbestos
reserves by $17 million to reflect a small amount of uncollectible
reinsurance, minor changes to reserves from two accounts and
accretion of discount. In the nine-month period ended September
30, 2013, AIG increased its gross environmental reserves by $61
million and its net environmental reserves by $38 million as a
result of actuarial analyses performed during the year as well as
development on one large account.

In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve
amounts, AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating
to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $121 million
gross and $100 million net as of September 30, 2013. The asbestos
reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities
were $140 million gross and $116 million net as of December 31,
2012.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance
and other financial services to customers in more than 130
countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that
help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks
and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily
from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance
and investment products, and income from investments. Its segments
include AIG Property Casualty and AIG Life and Retirement. During
the year ended December 31, 2012, the Chartis segment was renamed
AIG Property Casualty and the SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG
Life and Retirement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos lawsuits, 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 is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

As of September 30, 2013, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 2,600 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis
of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2012, approximately 66%
of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought,
or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to
invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.
Approximately 30% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of $15
million or less, and 4% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than
$100 million.

Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
September 30, 2013, has disposed of the asbestos claims of
approximately 392,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,600. Certain of
these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over
time. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $8 million at
September 30, 2013 ($24 million at December 31, 2012) and are
included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The
Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim
basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over
time.  A part of the Company's objective is to achieve, where
possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-
handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical
and product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative
claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of
marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have been
received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have
reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims
that the Company otherwise would have received. These developments
generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-
claim average indemnity payment.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion
through 2012, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns, the expanding list of
non-traditional defendants that have been sued in this litigation,
and the use of mass litigation screenings to generate large
numbers of claims by parties who allege exposure to asbestos dust
but have no present physical asbestos impairment.

The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior periods
arising under its administrative claims-handling agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel; (iii) the liability for asbestos
claims not yet asserted against the Company, but which the Company
believes will be asserted in the next several years; and (iv) the
legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection with the
foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   (a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants
       who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
       insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   (b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the
       Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms
       comparable to those set forth in those agreements;

   (c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of
       serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such
       cases;

   (d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself
       successfully at trial;

   (e) the extent to which courts and legislatures eliminate,
       reduce or permit the diversion of financial resources for
       unimpaired claimants;

   (f) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
       bankruptcies;

   (g) the extent to which bankruptcy trusts direct resources to
       resolve claims that are also presented to the Company and
       the timing of the payments made by the bankruptcy trusts;
       and

   (h) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial
       resources and assets continue to participate significantly
       in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2012 were
materially affected by the $155 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81
glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures
these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. It has four
geographical segments: Europe, North America, South America, and
Asia Pacific. On September 1, 2010, it completed the acquisition
of Brazilian glassmaker Companhia Industrial de Vidros (CIV). On
December 23, 2010, the Company acquired Hebei Rixin Glass Group
Co., Ltd. On December 7, 2010, the Company acquired the majority
interest in Zhaoqing Jiaxin Glasswork Co., LTD. On March 11, 2010,
the Company acquired the majority interest in Cristalerias
Rosario.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos-
related lawsuits, 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 and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by
insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company
cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be
available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs,
or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them.
Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance have been settled for various
insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in
a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

IDEX Corporation (IDEX) is an applied solutions business that
sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets worldwide. IDEX operates in three business segments:
Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and
Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Fluid & Metering Technologies
segment consist of Banjo; Energy and Fuels; Chemical, Food &
Process and Water & Waste Water. Health & Science Technologies
segment consist of IDEX Health & Science; IDEX Optics and
Photonics; Precision Polymer Engineering; Gast; Micropump and
Materials Process Technologies. Fire & Safety/Diversified Products
segment consist of Fire Suppression; Rescue Tools and Band-It. In
July 20, 2012, it acquired Matcon Group Limited. In March 2013, it
announced the acquisition of FTL Seals Technology, Ltd. On April
11, 2012, it acquired the stock of PPC. On April 30, 2012, it
acquired the stock of ERC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,000 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were 8,000 asbestos-related claims pending against Cytec
Industries Inc., 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 the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of our or certain of our
predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating
to product liability and personal injury, including asbestos,
environmental, contractual, employment and intellectual property
matters.

As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the aggregate
self-insured and insured contingent liability was $46.2 million
and $49.8 million, respectively, and the related insurance
recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past
payments was $20.3 million at September 30, 2013 and $20.7 million
at December 31, 2012. The asbestos liability included at September
30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was $38.0 million and $39.3
million, respectively, and the insurance receivable related to the
liability as well as claims for past payments was $20.0 million
and $20.4 million, respectively. We anticipate receiving a net tax
benefit for payment of those claims for which full insurance
recovery is not realized.

We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one
of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the
U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or
formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for
specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous
defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically,
most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed
without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no
assurances that this pattern will continue.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, there were 8,000
pending claims.

Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which updated our last study prepared in the third quarter of
2009. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and
nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the
incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments
for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049.

In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of
$2.1 million to our self-insured and insured contingent
liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated
probable future claims and recorded a decrease of $1.0 million
related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for these
pending and future claims. The reserve decrease was attributable
to lower projected claim filings offset by more severe malignancy
rates and settlement value projections. The decrease in the
receivable was a result of the lower gross liability and a shift
in the types of future claims expected. Overall, we expect to
recover approximately 48.0% of our future indemnity costs. We have
completed coverage in place agreements with most of our larger
insurance carriers.

The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables 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)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc. (Cytec) is a specialty chemicals and
materials company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. Its products serve a diverse range of end
markets, including aerospace and industrial materials, mining and
plastics. Cytec has four business segments: Engineered Materials,
Umeco, In-Process Separation and Additive Technologies. Engineered
Materials segment principally includes advanced composites, carbon
fiber, and structural film adhesives. The Umeco segment includes
composite and process materials, primarily for the aerospace and
defense, wind energy, automotive, recreation and other industrial
segments. The In Process Separation segment includes mining
chemicals and phosphines. The Additive Technologies segment
includes polymer additives, specialty additives and formulated
resins. On July 20, 2012, the Company acquired Umeco plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., has approximately 6,900
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.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company
(Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies, currently is
named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-related
claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of
products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in
the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending
claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs
against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for
Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid
claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-
containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while
Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain
jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the
availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this
time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as
defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage
with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of
experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to
cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material.

CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and
natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which
include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking
industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company
produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu)
bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In
addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock
services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal
waste disposal services and land resource management services. The
Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In July 2012,
Cloud Peak Energy Inc. acquired Youngs Creek Mining Company, LLC
(Youngs Creek) joint venture and other related coal and surface
assets from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron) and the Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Le@P Technology Unit Continues to Defend PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Le@P Technology, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend an
asbestos-related lawsuit, 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.

One or more subsidiaries of the Company (including Sealcraft
Operators, Inc., which was acquired by virtue of a merger with a
predecessor entity of the Company) are involved in legal
proceedings originally brought by seven separate plaintiffs in the
early 1990s alleging damages arising out of asbestos-related
material aboard certain maritime vessels allegedly owned or
operated by such subsidiaries. In the interests of efficiency and
avoiding potentially extensive and expensive litigation
proceedings, the Company has been and is pursuing settlements with
respect to all such known proceedings. Of the seven legal
proceedings, two were dismissed in early 2013, four were settled
and dismissed with prejudice in September 2013 and one remains
outstanding (with respect to which a settlement is being pursued
and is anticipated). In 2013, the Company accrued approximately
$25,000 in the aggregate to fund settlement amounts and related
fees and expenses in connection with these legal proceedings. As
of September 30, 2013 (and for the nine months then ended), the
Company has expended $32,000 in settlement payments and
approximately $19,700 in legal fees and expenses related to these
legal proceedings and settlements. In view of the inherent
uncertainty of predicting the outcome of matters such as these
until fully resolved, the Company's management is unable to
predict what the eventual outcome and related costs and expenses
of the remaining legal proceeding will be. However, based on
current information and after consultation with the Company's
special litigation counsel, the Company's management believes that
any remaining payments and legal fees and costs associated with
this proceeding will be in line with our [previously reported
estimate (and budgeted amount) of $5,000.

Le@P Technology, Inc. (Le@P) owns the property in Broward County,
Florida (the Real Property). As of December 31, 2011, the Company
had no revenue-producing activities. Parkson Property LLC
(Parkson), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, owns the Real
Property. The Real Property is zoned light industrial and consists
of approximately one and one-third acres. The Company leased the
Real Property to an unrelated third party tenant. The Company's
previous tenant lease on the Real Property has expired.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 282 Suits Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. has 282 asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that MRC purportedly distributed. As
of September 30, 2013, we are named a defendant in approximately
282 lawsuits involving approximately 934 claims. No asbestos
lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a
majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to
predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in
our opinion, there are no pending legal proceedings that are
likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial statements."

MRC Global Inc., formerly known as McJunkin Red Man Holding
Corporation is a holding company. The Company is the distributor
of pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related products and
services to the energy industry. The Company operates in two
segments: North American segment and International segment. Its
North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six
distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center
in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe
yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America.
Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations
throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers
in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10
automation service centers in Europe and Asia. In July 2013, MRC
Global Inc announced that it has completed the previously
announced acquisition of the operating assets of Dan H. Brown,
Inc., D/B/A Flow Control Products (Flow Control).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury 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.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

During the third quarters of 2013 and 2012, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable. In the third quarter of 2013, management determined
that the liability remained appropriate and no change was
recorded. In the third quarter of 2012, management recorded a
decrease in expense of $15 million due primarily to favorable
settlements. The Company plans to update its study again in the
third quarter of 2014.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks
in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a
network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of
the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of
that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and
permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet
of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal
facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and
industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities
and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with
short-line partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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 has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege
injury from exposure to asbestos. To date, the Company has not
been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in
settlement in any case. The Company believes its minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company
maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and
believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated
asbestos liability.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational
provider of engineered, technologically advanced products and
services. The Company operates through three segments: Flow
Control, Motion Control, and Metal Treatment. Its principal
manufacturing facilities are located in the United States in
California, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and
internationally in Canada and the United Kingdom. In January 2013,
the Company acquired the assets of F.W. Gartner Thermal Spraying,
Ltd. In October 2013, the Company acquired Parvus Corporation, a
business unit of Eurotech S.p.A. In October 2013, Curtiss-Wright
Corp announced that Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company acquired
the assets of Ovalpath, Inc. In October 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of 100% interests
of Arens Controls, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, 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.

At September 30, 2013, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 15,056 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 23
claims from those previously reported.  In each instance, the
Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 41,345 of those claims were dismissed, 20 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of
which are being appealed, and one of the two verdicts has been
vacated), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 631 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding
power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages,
fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The
Company's product offering also includes computer numeric
controlled (CNC) plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and
regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and
brazing. The Company operates in five segments: North America
Welding, Europe Welding, Asia Pacific Welding, South America
Welding and The Harris Products Group. In March 2012, the Company
acquired Weartech International, Inc. In May 2012, the Company
acquired Wayne Trail Technologies, Inc. In November 2012, ITT Corp
sold its shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and
Kaliburn brands to the Company. In January 2013, the Company
acquired Tennessee Rand, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Continues to Defend Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2013.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently
has 72 pending silica cases and 14 pending asbestos cases. To
date, 1,394 silica cases and 34 asbestos cases have been
dismissed. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the third quarter
of 2013, and an additional one case was filed at the beginning of
the fourth quarter. Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date. The Company states: "We are unable to state an amount or
range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state
court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of
the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the
legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense are reimbursed
by Pfizer Inc pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in
1992. Of the 14 pending asbestos cases, all allege liability based
on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public
offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to
indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our experience has
been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these
lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or
jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. The
Specialty Minerals segment produces and sells the synthetic
mineral product precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) and processed
mineral product quicklime (lime), and mines mineral ores then
processes and sells natural mineral products, primarily limestone
and talc. The Refractories segment produces and markets monolithic
and shaped refractory materials and specialty products, services
and application and measurement equipment, and calcium metal and
metallurgical wire products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 437 Pending Cases at September 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 437 total pending asbestos-
related cases, 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.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have
been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current
or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases
pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific
dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific
dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a
monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary
claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not
attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various
defendants.

There are 437 total asbestos cases pending at September 30, 2013,
129 of which are claims with specific dollar claims for damages
involving a total of 2,385 plaintiffs and 17,626 defendants.

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of
the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at
the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, total amount paid in
settlements is $0.9 million.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution
in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have
a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be
suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of
legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).
The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations
produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,
cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip
form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into
welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Oakdale Water Tank
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Paloma, writing for OakdaleLeader.com, reported that
demolition of a city water tank has been halted due to city
engineers discovering asbestos inside the 100-year-old concrete
storage tower.

According to the report, in October, the City of Oakdale,
California, finalized plans for $1.2 million toward construction
of a new 1-million gallon storage tank which also required
demolition of the two standing Valley View water tanks.

The city contracted with Ford Environmental Services to perform an
asbestos survey of the existing concrete and piping at the site
above Valley View Park. Samples of the exterior of the concrete
tank came back negative for asbestos and demolition began in
November. No sample was taken from the interior of the tank since
there was no access at that time.

Once the demolition work began, the demolition crews detected a
questionable coating material on the inside of the tank.  Work
immediately stopped and site was secured while Ford Environmental
Services examined the material and took samples for testing. The
material came back positive for asbestos and a report was provided
to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District which
included suggested methods of removal.

Oakdale City Manager Bryan Whitemyer said it is the city's goal to
always follow the appropriate and required protocols to protect
the environment and community from any toxic materials.

Asbestos is a fibrous mineral sometimes used for fireproofing. It
has long been used to strengthen cement used to construct water
pipes. It was commonly used for this purpose in 1912 when the
tower was built.

The concrete tank was replaced with a steel storage unit in 1963
and hasn't been used since then. The steel tank was demolished
earlier this month.

Asbestos is known to cause several types of cancer, including
mesothelioma and colon cancer. It can enter the human body by
being inhaled and by being ingested through food or drink.
Although it is more commonly associated with cancer when it is
inhaled, asbestos is still dangerous when it is ingested because
most inhaled asbestos is eventually coughed up and swallowed.

"The city's consultant and contractor met with SJVAPCD at the site
to review the material and agree upon steps to remedy the issue,"
Whitemyer said. "We have given the contractor approval to proceed
with additional containment measures while the abatement and
disposal process takes place."

Whitemyer added that the demolition phase of the project budgeting
will be revised due to getting bids for proper disposal of the
material.

"It's one of those unavoidable costs," Whitemyer said. "You can't
just leave it. We have to be responsible and look out for the
health and safety of the community."

Since the material was discovered, Ford Environmental Services has
been taking down-wind air samples to verify no increase in
asbestos exposure was caused by the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Fibro Experts Welcome HSE Drive
---------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that the UK Asbestos Training Association has
welcomed a new Health and Safety Executive campaign to raise
awareness of issues relating to asbestos among trades people and
the general public.

According to the report, the association says a spate of recent
prosecutions has shown not all tradespeople are getting the
message on the continuing dangers from asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Hopes New Bill Makes a Difference
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Collins, writing for Wales Online, reported that Jo Barnes-
Mannings' hard-working dad lost his life to a deadly cancer after
coming into contact with asbestos.

Keith Barnes, who was a carpenter by trade, came into contact with
asbestos while working briefly in a West Midlands factory in the
1960s. But it wasn't until May 2007 that he was diagnosed with the
rare cancer.  He died in January, 2009, having been treated in
Wales. He was 63.

Keith's case was one of many which spurred Pontypridd AM Mick
Antoniw to sponsor a bill to recover the costs of treating Welsh
asbestos patients from businesses or insurers.

The bill was passed by Assembly Members and, barring legal
challenges, will become law within a month. It is estimated the
new law could raise up to GBP1m a year for the NHS in Wales.

Mr Antoniw. a solicitor who dealt with asbestos cases before
becoming an AM, said: "This is a first for Wales, but I would not
be surprised if Scotland, Northern Ireland and even England follow
suit. It will certainly help people whose lives had been blighted
by this terrible disease."

One of those people is Jo Barnes-Mannings, Keith's daughter who
cared for him during his final years in Pembrokeshire.

Jo, who helped set up Asbestos Awareness and Support Cymru, said:
"We are delighted that Wales has taken this huge step forward and
shown that it cares. There is a lack of understanding about the
illness. People don't know where to turn, but now this legislation
will help them.

"We know the NHS in Wales is hard pressed. This legislation will
help provide further training and development of health care
professionals. It is only reasonable that negligent companies
reimburse the NHS."

Recalling her father's illness and death, she said: "Dad had
always been the strong one in our family, both mentally and
physically. One day we were walking along the coast path in
Broadhaven when he lagged behind. It was then he said, 'Jo,
something's wrong.' as he tried to regain his breath.

"His left lung had completely collapsed. An asbestos fibre had
embedded itself in his lung and his journey after that lasted 19
months."

Jo can still remember when doctors told them it was Mesothelioma.

"As we sat in the waiting room for what seemed like an eternity,
we exchanged fearful glances as we noted families who had arrived
after us, going into 'the room of doom' before us, Dad was pale
with anxiety and I saw for the first time in my life in my
'teacher', the expression of a child as he nervously clasped his
hands and tried to align his thumbnails. Nervousness and
apprehension bubbled in the pits of our stomachs and eventually,
we found ourselves alone in the big white waiting room and were
called in.

"As the image of the scan that to me looked like a black and white
picture of the ocean floor was presented to us, the words, 'I'm
afraid you have Mesothelioma.' hit us like a sledge hammer
although they had been delivered in a gentle voice.

"Dad's jaw dropped and his lip quivered, the saddest sight I've
seen in a man's face that was always associated with wry smiles
and laughter."

She continued: "There is no cure for Mesothelioma. He was
devastated that he wasn't going to see his granddaughter grow up.
He felt robbed.

"He said it was ironic that after all the things he had done it
was an honest day's work that killed him.

"It was also devastating for me, knowing that he would not see me
get married."

Myrtle Lawrence, of Barry, whose 76 year-old husband, Lloyd died
of Mesothelioma two-and-half-years ago, said: "People have
suffered in silence.

"I know this has started in Wales, but hopefully it will soon
spread to the rest of the UK and internationally.

"In coming years we will see an increasing number of cases coming
to light because it takes so long for the symptoms to become
apparent. This legislation is a positive step forward."

Mr Antoniw, who before becoming an AM was a solicitor at a legal
firm which has acted for many asbestos victims and their families,
said: "I believe that where an employer has been negligent and
civil compensation is due, NHS Wales should be reimbursed with the
cost of medical treatment."

The bill was opposed by the Association of British Insurers who
said it was is unnecessary and impractical. It also warned that
the administrative burden of recovering money would outweigh what
it is estimated to bring in.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Dist. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that Bloomington asbestos lawyer James Wylder, who lost cases at
the Fourth District appellate court in September and October, lost
another on Nov. 15.

According to the report, three justices affirmed McLean County
Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski, who granted summary judgment to
three defendants and entered a jury verdict against a fourth.

Gasket and packing product maker John Crane Inc. won the verdict
against claims of product exposure and failure to warn, after an
eight day trial last year.

Drazewski had granted summary judgment to Honeywell International,
Pneumo Abex, and Owens-Illinois on a civil conspiracy claim prior
to trial.  He wrote that any activity as consistent with innocence
as with guilt is not clear and convincing proof of a
conspiratorial agreement.

Drazewski also ruled prior to trial that plaintiff Carolyn
Garrelts could not introduce evidence of events that occurred
after her exposure to asbestos.

At trial, medical expert Arthur Frank testified that Garrelts
suffered from mesothelioma.  He said John Crane products were a
substantial contributing cause to her disease.

Garrelts testified that when former husband Al Garrelts returned
from work at Kraft Foods in Champaign, from 1963 to 1979, his
uniform was dusty, dirty and greasy.  She said she shook out his
uniform before laundering it. She showed jurors videotape of Al,
though his memory differed from hers.

He said the plant wasn't dusty and Kraft used air purifiers
throughout it. He said Kraft used tarps or other sanitation
efforts when performing dusty work, and he didn't remember his
clothes being dusty when he got home.

For John Crane, radiologist Peter Barrett testified that no
medical literature linked packing to mesothelioma.  He called
Garrelts' disease idiopathic, meaning it developed without
exposure to asbestos.  He said 60 percent of women who develop the
disease do so without asbestos exposure.

John Crane also called toxicologist Amy Madl, after Drazewski
barred cross examination about the profits of her employer or the
money her colleagues made.

Madl testified that a study showed handling gaskets and packing
materials would not produce significant airborne concentrations of
asbestos.  She said there was no risk that Garrelts was exposed to
asbestos in concentrations great enough to cause her disease.

On cross examination, she said she billed $375 an hour.

Jurors sided with John Crane, and Drazewski entered judgment.

Wylder moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new
trial, and Drazewski denied the motion.

Wylder appealed the verdict and the orders rejecting the
conspiracy claims.

On conspiracy, Fourth District judges agreed with Drazewski that
Garrelts showed no evidence beyond parallel conduct among
defendants.

Justice James Knecht wrote that Drazewski required Garrelts to
present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a civil
conspiracy.

"The court concluded she did not, and we agree," Knecht wrote.

As for the trial, he found no evidence Drazewski committed errors
or abused his discretion in excluding evidence of events after
exposure.  He wrote that limits on Madl's cross examination didn't
affect the outcome of the trial.

"The jury was aware of sufficient facts from which it could
conclude Madl was biased and had a motive to opine in favor of
company defendants in exposure cases," he wrote.

In September, Fourth District judges affirmed Drazewski in tossing
out a jury's $80 million award of punitive damages in a Wylder
conspiracy case.

Jurors had awarded Charles Gillenwater $40 million from Owens-
Illinois and $20 million each from Honeywell International and
Pneumo Abex.

Justice Thomas Appleton wrote that a showing of parallel conduct
between Owens-Corning and Owens-Illinois didn't prove they
conspired.

"One company did not have to tell another to continue making
money," Appleton wrote. "One company did not have to tell another
on which side its bread was buttered."

In October, Fourth District judges affirmed Adams County Circuit
Judge Mark Drummond in granting summary judgment against Wylder
client Virginia Bowles.  She blamed Owens-Illinois and John Crane
for the death of husband Jerald Bowles.

Fourth District judges held that she presented no testimony
indicating he worked with John Crane products or was around people
who regularly did so.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dearborn Man Sentenced for Not Removing Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slezak, writing for Press & Guide, reported that a man who
authorities said took a shortcut while demolishing a warehouse in
Dearborn, Michigan, last year has landed in federal prison.

According to the report, Khalil Mahmoud Saad, 40, of Dearborn was
sentenced to 14 months in federal prison by U.S. District Judge
Paul Borman for violating the Clean Air Act.

Saad was hired in November 2011 to demolish a vacant commercial
warehouse at 10401 Ford Road, just west of Wyoming, and dispose of
the debris. He hired an asbestos consultant who identified more
than 1,000 linear feet of pipe insulation that contained asbestos
and more of the same on a large boiler.

Federal law says that all asbestos must be properly removed before
any activity that would break up, dislodge or otherwise disturb
it.  Authorities said Saad hired workers in April 2012 to tear
down the building and didn't wet the asbestos so it wouldn't go
into the air.

"Exposure to asbestos can lead to serious, even fatal, diseases,
and unsafe asbestos removal and demolition practices put the
health of both the workers and the public at risk," said Randall
Ashe, special agent in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's criminal investigation division in Chicago. "For that
reason, it is critical that those in charge of demolition
operations strictly comply with the federal asbestos laws. The
defendant chose to ignore those legal requirements, potentially
putting others at risk."

According to the EPA, asbestos had been used in a variety of
building construction materials for insulation and as a fire
retardant. Three of the major health effects associated with
asbestos exposure are lung cancer; mesothelioma, a rare form of
cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest,
abdomen and heart; and asbestosis, a serious progressive, long-
term, noncancerous disease of the lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Son Vows to Fight for Father's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Brown, writing for Daily Repord, reported that when David
Bavaird used to come home from work, he was cloaked in so much
asbestos dust that his sons dubbed him the "snowman".

According to the report, the teenage boys would follow him into
the garden and laugh as they dusted him down.

His son Derek, 60, said: "It would be all over his hair and his
overalls and we would be breathing it in, with no idea of what it
could do to him or us."

In a landmark ruling, South Lanarkshire Council have been held
liable over David's death, closing a loophole that lawyers claim
would have had victims staring into a "black hole" in their bid to
win compensation.

David was 79 when he died in 2008 -- 12 years after South
Lanarkshire Council assumed the liabilities of his ex-employers,
the East Kilbride Development Corporation.

The Court of Session rejected the council's case that they were
not liable as he was not ill in 1996.

The ruling gives David's family the green light to fight on in
their bid for justice.  He was exposed to asbestos when he worked
for the corporation in the 60s, in the maintenance of their
houses.

Derek said: "He was drilling in the ceilings and the asbestos
would be falling on to his face. The authority already knew how
dangerous it was but my father didn't. No one warned the men."

The ruling has an impact not only on existing claimants but there
could be secondary action from those like Derek, his brother
Gordon, 63, and his sister Christina, 51, who were exposed to it,
unwittingly.

Derek said: "It does worry me, of course it does.

"They have known the dangers of this substance for 100 years or
more, so there was no excuse for putting so many people at risk of
a horrendous disease."

He still struggles to keep it together when he talks of the
devoted father he lost.

When he died, David had 25 grandchildren and great-grandchildren
and they would pile into the cottage he shared with wife Ruby in
Jackton, Lanarkshire. Derek said: "It was like Walton's mountain.
It was full of children. They loved him."

He married Ruby in 1949 and she died two years after him, utterly
devastated by his death.

Derek said: "They loved each other very much and she was never the
same without him."

David didn't drink or smoke and was always active. He worked until
three months before his death.

Derek, who owns a firm selling prams and nursery equipment, said
David would often help out.  He explained: "He worked at the same
pace as me when he was in his 70s."

David's illness took hold when he came home from a holiday and his
breathing was badly strained. Derek took his dad on a delivery
from his base in East Kilbride and found him uncharacteristically
subdued.  He said: "He just knew himself there was something
seriously wrong."

Three months later, he was dead. Derek said: "It was horrible. He
had tubes coming out of his back. The death is like drowning.

"Ultimately it leads to pneumonia and heart failure. To see such a
strong, fit and loving man die like that was the worst experience
of my life.

"He was looking at me with sadness in his eyes. It was awful."

He said the latest bid by the council to dodge liability was "a
cynical ploy" but he refuses to give up the fight.

On his deathbed, David signed the legal papers allowing his case
to go ahead and he told Derek to ensure that the message got out
to others of the perils of asbestos.

"They have dragged it out . . . but I feel that justice will
prevail. We are determined and our lawyers are tenacious.

"People have to know about this. It is so horrible and I want
other people to know what asbestos does."

Paul Manning, Executive Director of Finance and Corporate
Resources, said: "The tragic death of a father and husband was at
the centre of this court case, and our sympathies are with David
Bavaird's family.

"This was a highly complex case, as was reflected by Lord
Brailsford's earlier ruling that the Council could not be held
liable. Mr Bavaird worked for a number of employers, including
East Kilbride Development Corporation 33 years before he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma and 22 years before South Lanarkshire
Council even came into existence.

"We will now consider the Court of Session ruling."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years of Fibro Exposure Led to Grandma's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Record reported that a grandmother died after a
long career working with asbestos, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Winifred Stephens, 72, died of malignant
mesothelioma after more than 30 years as a factory worker in
Southampton, England.

A Southampton Coroner's Court inquest heard how she soldered
components and carried out machine work at a plant in the city,
where she is believed to have been exposed to asbestos dust from
steam pipe lagging.

Mrs Stephens, of Redbridge Hill, Southampton, died at Southampton
General Hospital on August 7, five months after being diagnosed
with the illness.

Southampton coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death from
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheshunt Flytippers Show Disregard for Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Ford, writing for Hertfordshire Mercury, reported that
flytippers put resdients' health at risk when they dumped waste
containig asbestos outside homes in in Cheshunt, in the United
Kingdom.

According to the report, residents living in Andrews Lane found it
had been blocked by the pile of rubbish dumped on the afternoon of
November 4.  It was two weeks before the last of it had been taken
away by specialist contractors working for Broxbourne Council.

Jacqui Murphy, 59, who lives off Andrews Lane with her husband
John discovered the rubbish when her daughter Nikki, 29, visited.
She said: "It completely blocked the road, you couldn't get access
in or out.

"There was a concern when it blocked the road up and my daughter
had touched it."

The council sent an officer to the scene "straight away", she
added, and eventually the rubbsh was moved to one side of the road
and tape erected around it.

However, there followed a long period of inactivity.

There were bits of metal, bricks, asbestos -- it was all falling
into the road.

"I rang the council four times."

Finally contractors arrived to begin clearing the rubbish, which
had been confirmed as containing asbestos, which can harm the
lungs if breathed in.

Mrs Murphy added: "They left the bags for a few days and there
were still bits of asbestos.

"It has taken two weeks, it has been there quite a while."

The final skip was finally removed.

A spokeswoman for Broxbourne Council said: "Council officers
attended to investigate the waste and to initially move it to the
side of the road to allow residents access to their homes.

"Further investigation raised concerns about the waste containing
asbestos -- this was confirmed by a specialist contractor who took
samples and carefully removed the waste.

"The culprit has shown a blatant disregard not only for the
environment but local residents too.

"The investigation into this incident is ongoing."

Flytipping can be reported by phoning (01992) 785577.

The spokeswoman added that details such as identities, vehicle
make and registration numbers, and the time of day and dates can
help the council in the tracing and prosecution of the culprits
where possible.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magic Toy Could Contain Deadly Dust
----------------------------------------------------
Sky News reported that a magic toy sold at the Royal Melbourne
Show and online could expose consumers to potentially deadly
asbestos fibres, authorities are warning.

According to the report, the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission says so-called fire wallets, which look like regular
leather wallets but produce a large flame when opened, have been
sold as novelty or magic props.

The ACCC tested a small number of fire wallets after receiving a
complaint from a member of the public, and discovered some
contained asbestos.

'The wallets were sold by an eBay trader and at a stall at this
year's Royal Melbourne Show,' the ACCC said on its website.

'Consumers are warned that these fire wallets may contain asbestos
and therefore may be hazardous.'

The eBay trader, All Media Collectables, has told the ACCC it has
recalled the fire wallets and plans to contact all affected
customers.

Anyone who has purchased one of the wallets has been warned to
double-bag it in durable plastic bags, store it well out of reach
of children, and contact the ACCC for advice about safe disposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Materials Removed from Berkley Offices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Larocque, writing for Taunton Gazette, reported that all
hazardous material has been removed from the old Berkley,
Massachusetts Town Office building.

According to the report, the Johnston, R.I.-based Vinagro
Corporation gave a presentation at the Board of Selectmen meeting
announcing that all asbestos-laden material was removed from the
building, said Berkley Executive Secretary Paul Modlowski.

The building is now a shell of what it once was and is ready to be
bulldozed, Modlowski said.

"The building is transparent now," Modlowski said. "There is
nothing except studs. It's amazing. It looks like it's just being
built."

Modlowski said all the windows and doors were removed from the
building as well, along with all PVC pipes.

Modlowski said the committee behind the project to build a new
$2.6 million Berkley Town Hall, which will be built on the site of
the old Berkley Town Offices. The entire project is budgeted for
$3.5 million.

"We are currently working on the next estimate for the cost for
building the building," Modlowski said. "We are hoping to have
that in another week or so and see how close we are to the $2.6
million, below, over or whatever, to see how we can proceed."

The new building will be 9,800 square-feet, all on one floor,
Modlowski said previously, and the new building will also include
a space for the Berkley Council on Aging. The design firm selected
hired by the town for the project is the Somerville-based Johnson
Roberts Associates.

The old Town Office Building has been closed to the public since
2010 because of extensive structural problems. Built in 1926, the
former Town Hall originally served as an elementary school. A
trailer is currently set up across the street, where town boards
meet and other town offices are temporarily located.

In December 2010, two-thirds of the old Town Office Building was
condemned, leading to the creation of the Town Office Building
Project Committee in March 2011. In November 2012, Berkley
citizens voted to fund the project during Town Meeting, by a vote
of 186-36.

Modlowski has said construction on the new building would start as
soon as possible in 2014, with a goal of opening the building in
March 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Wants Public to Inform on Infested Pits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Taylor, writing for ZDNet, reported that Telstra is relying
on the public and its contractors to report pits suspected to be
infested with deadly asbestos material, because records of all of
the company's pit and duct infrastructure do not go back far
enough to cover all the pits, Telstra's chief risk officer Kate
Hughes has said.

According to the report, in late May, following community concern
over absestos handling, Telstra downed tools over work its
contractors and subcontractors were doing on remediation of pit
and duct infrastructure across the country in preparation for NBN
Co equipment. This work was required because NBN Co's equipment
doesn't fit into the existing pits and ducts.

Work on the pits recommenced in August, after Telstra had
retrained contractors, deployed specialists out into the field to
oversee remediation work, and the company overhauled its community
communication procedures ahead of any remediation work being done
in a particular area. The company is currently only allowing
contractors with Class B asbestos-handling licences to work on the
pits, and Telstra itself will hold off putting its own workers
back out in the field until it gets a Class B licence.

Given the scale of Telstra's network, Hughes told a National
Absestos Forum in Sydney that Telstra does have an asbestos
register in place to locate and prioritise those pits that have
asbestos in them, but the records do not go back far enough to
cover all pits and ducts in the Telstra network.

"We do have an asbestos register. Unfortunately when, and it dates
back to when we were the Post-Master General, and many of those
pits were first laid, none of those records were kept of the
content of those pits, and there are literally millions of them,"
Hughes said.

"Every time we find one containing asbestos containing material,
we add it to the register."

Hughes said that if the public does notice a pit in poor
condition, it should be reported to Telstra so the company can
prioritise it to be assessed for asbestos.

"Unless people tell us about the pits, because there are so many,
we can't always assess and prioritise them."

Hughes said Telstra was "very supportive" of the establishment of
a telco industry standard for asbestos management.

Hughes said that the asbestos issue first popped up in her first
two months in the Chief Risk Officer role, and it was a "baptism
of fire". She said that prior to the incident she was unaware of
what pits or ducts were, but said she eventually got "neck deep"
in the issue.

Although Telstra took full responsibility for the asbestos
problem, Hughes said that the company could not prepare for all
events and risks it could potentially encounter. She recalled a
recent incident of an explosion in a pit in suburban Melbourne
that the company could not foresee.

Unbeknownst to us, a natural gas leak, we don't know where from,
had caused a build up of gas in our pit and pipe network. A crow,
flew into a transformer on a pole above our pit which caused a
spark which ignited the gas, which caused an explosion," she said.

"At least one pit was damaged and the fire spread across the
footpath, the nature strip and the roadway.

"We are always quite prepared for this. We have safety procedures
for managing gas in our network. We're prepared for it.
Unfortunately we can't predict where gas leaks will occur and we
certainly can't prepare for birds flying into our transformers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board to Hold Hearing on Fibro Removal at School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wind, writing for WCF Courier, reported that the Board of
Education will hold a public hearing on removing asbestos from the
old Irving Elementary School, in Texas.

According to the report, public hearings are required for projects
expected to exceed $100,000. Asbestos removal is a precursor to
tearing down the building at 728 Hawthorne Ave. A demolition
contract would be approved at a later meeting.

The old Irving has been largely vacant since 2003, when a new
school bearing the same name opened at 1115 W. Fifth St. Waterloo
Community Schools has entertained several proposals to reuse the
building that didn't pan out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scunthorpe Steelworker Exposed to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a former steelworker was
exposed to asbestos when he removed the linings of furnaces, an
inquest heard.

According to the report, George Altoft, 79, of Newland Drive, in
Scunthorpe, United Kingdom, spent 15 years working for British
Steel at the old melting shop as a pitman.

A statement from the late Mr Altoft to his solicitors, read by
coroner's officer Walter Smith, said this involved removing the
linings -- which contained asbestos -- from furnaces.

The statement said there was "a lot of asbestos", that no
protective equipment was available and no warning was given
regarding the risks involved.

Mr Altoft, who was born in Barton-Upon-Humber, died on June 26
this year after originally falling ill last December.

Recording his verdict, deputy coroner Andrew Pascoe said Mr Altoft
died of malignant mesothelioma -- an industrial-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Steelworkers Had "Snowball Fights" With Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that sadly, it appears to be an
old story but one that still has a few chapters yet to be written.
To that end, experts conversant with asbestosis disease in the UK
say that asbestos cases from exposure dating back decades are not
expected to peak before 2016.

According to the report, findings are similar in North America.

The latest round of asbestosis lawsuits appear to be stemming from
the former East Moors Steelworks, a plant that operated in Splott,
Cardiff, until its closure in 1978. However, the fact that the
facility has been idle for 35 years has not prevented claims of
asbestosis disease from individuals who toiled at the plant in its
heyday.

One of those workers, according to WalesOnLine (9/30/13), is
William Tobutt, a spry Welshman from Llanrumney who worked at East
Moors as a bricklayer and union convener for a period of 20 years.
His tenure ended with the closure of the plant.

He's 83 now and has had no health problems to speak of, until he
bent over to tie his shoelaces one day this past January and
suddenly had trouble breathing. He was diagnosed with asbestos
mesothelioma and given, at the outside, 14 months to live. Tobutt
is undergoing chemotherapy treatment in hopes of extending that
timeline.

One asbestosis attorney close to the case indicated in the report
that while he has been pursuing many an asbestosis claim connected
to the former East Moors plant for several years now, he has seen
a spike in the number of cases recently. Asbestosis disease,
including mesothelioma, has the uncanny capacity to lay dormant
for as long as decades following exposure to asbestos, before
suddenly emerging to result in certain death.

Asbestosis is difficult to treat and impossible to cure. In most
cases, a diagnosis of asbestos lung disease is akin to a death
sentence. Victims have little choice but to file an asbestosis
claim to help with medical bills or to provide funds to their
family after the victim's death.

Asbestos was used historically as insulation and sheathing at a
number of industrial sites over the years, and used widely for
lagging pipe, furnace ducts and roof sheathing. Its use has been
curtailed in recent years. However, there is evidence to suggest
that asbestos was known as a carcinogen dating back to the early
1900s. Litigants suffering from asbestos pleural plaques claim
that owners and operators of plants should have known about the
dangers of asbestos, and should have mandated precautions on
behalf of workers, to minimize or completely mitigate exposure.

Workers at the various sites had little idea that the material
they were either working with or exposed to was dangerous in any
way. One government official, who is attempting to table a private
members bill to force employers to fund treatment for affected
workers, noted that former employees of such facilities claim to
have witnessed "snowball fights" with asbestos while on site. The
allegations are that no employee was given protective gear, and
there was no suggestion that the material was at all dangerous.

"I have heard of stories that came about with people having
snowball fights in the 60s," said Mick Antoniw. "Young apprentices
that would join a workplace and then they'd have 'snow time' where
they came in and they'd tip asbestos down on him, because they
didn't know about it."

It is not known if Tobutt has filed an asbestosis lawsuit.
However, various attempts at asbestosis compensation are being
filed through Zurich Commercial, the insurer of record for the
East Moors plant at the time it was operating. East Moors was
owned by British Steel when the decision was made to close the
facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Angered Over Payout for Husband's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig McDonald, writing for Daily Record, reported that a widow
has spoken of her disgust after she received just GBP1500 damages
following her husband's asbestos-related death.

According to the report, Frank Nicholson was diagnosed with
pleural plaques, a lung condition caused by exposure to the dust,
after working for years at Glasgow's Southern General hospital.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde face possible prosecution after
health and safety chiefs confirmed asbestos had been found at the
hospital.

The deadly material was discovered at the section containing heavy
machinery for maintenance where Frank worked for over 25 years
before his death in 2009.  His family pursued a case for damages
and were awarded GBP5000, but they received just GBP1500 after
legal costs were deducted.

Frank's widow Euphemia, 69, of Linthouse, Glasgow, said: "We were
sent a cheque for GBP1500 which we felt was an insult. The whole
thing has left us very angry.

"Our legal firm, Thompsons, initially told us they could go ahead
with a case in relation to Frank's death.Then, months later, they
said it was time-barred. Later we were offered GBP5000 but by the
time I'd discussed it with the rest of the family, Thompsons'
position was that I had already accepted what the offer."

A spokesman for Glasgow-based Thompsons said: "We have represented
many people whose lives have been devastated by the terrible
effects of asbestos-related illness.

"Mr Nicholson's case was difficult because Scots Law says it was
time-barred and most solicitors would have abandoned his case.

"But we left no stone unturned and managed to secure the best
possible settlement available under the law.

"Thompsons did not benefit financially in any way from Mr
Nicholson's settlement."

The firm say the GBP3500 was swallowed up in court costs and
obtaining medical records and reports.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheffield Workers Asked for Info on Fibro Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that the daughter of a Sheffield factory worker
is appealing for his ex-colleagues to help her find out how he was
exposed to asbestos.

According to the report, Ian Ivinson who worked for engineering
firm Jonas Woodhead, which had a factory in Sheffield, died of
asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in May 2012, aged 66.  He was
found dead in his home in Malta after his worried daughter,
Catherine Lowdon, contacted police when she was unable to make
contact with him.

A post mortem examination revealed his death was due to industrial
exposure to asbestos.

Mr Ivinson, originally from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, began
working for Jonas Woodhead as a draftsman in 1963 and performed
various roles over the next 20 years, finishing as technical
manager in 1995.

It is believed he often spent time on the factory floor, working
near furnaces used to manufacture ironwork and automobile springs
in sites across the country, including Sheffield.

Industrial illness lawyers at Sheffield-based legal firm Irwin
Mitchell are now trying to find out where and how he was exposed
to the deadly dust.

Mrs Lowdon said: "Mesothelioma is a horrible illness and it is
shocking to think that my dad may have suffered from it due to the
dedication he had for his work.

"He had known for some time that something was wrong with him and
the breathlessness he suffered from had really started to impact
on his quality of life."

Anyone with information should call Ian Bailey on 0870 150 0100.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Delays Work on $8MM Grammar Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Raggatt, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
work has been delayed on construction of Canberra Grammar School's
$8 million Asian century centre after bonded asbestos was found in
pieces of cemented material on the Red Hill campus.

According to the report, the find was made by the construction
company beneath the top layer of soil of the excavation area
within the senior school campus, with parents informed by email
the risk of asbestos exposure to students and staff was
negligible.

Canberra Grammar School principal Justin Garrick said a small
number of hand-sized pieces of the cemented material had been
found.

"It appears to be a single spot of broken cladding or some kind of
tile or something that's been broken," Mr Garrick said. "Such
findings on construction sites are not unusual and our
construction contractors use licensed experts to test any areas
affected and to remove any material in compliance with ACT
Government regulations."

A statement provided to parents from consultants Robson
Environmental said an assessment of the scope of the contamination
and options for its removal was about to begin, with all related
work to happen outside of school hours either on weekends or after
school hours during weekdays.

"As the soil will be disturbed during the asbestos removal, dust
control measures, such as spraying the soil with water will also
be used," the statement said.

"Air quality monitoring will also be undertaken in conjunction
with all work to assess the effectiveness of dust control
measures."

The risk of exposure was described as negligible as the asbestos
was in bonded form, unlikely to be disturbed until removed and the
area had been isolated.

A mesh construction fence surrounds the excavation area, with the
cemented materials found near a bike shed removed in recent weeks.
There are about 950 boys on the senior school campus, with
December 6 the final day of school.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said he was not
personally aware of the Canberra Grammar find, but bonded asbestos
posed very low risk as long as it was handled appropriately.

"In that case -- when bonded asbestos of that nature is found --
it can be handled appropriately outside hours, but quite frankly
it would be fine to be removed during school hours by licensed
removalists," Mr McCabe said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Mesothelioma Lawsuit Moves to Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported a
complaint alleging that Alcoa products caused the mesothelioma of
a Brazilian factory worker has been removed from the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings in a
Brazilian court.

According to the report, In Untura v. Alcoa, Judge R. Stanton
Wettick ruled in favored of Alcoa's motion to have the court venue
in Brazil, both for expense and expeditiousness reasons. Judge
Wettick ordered Alcoa to submit jurisdiction to the Brazilian
courts, and said the company cannot raise any statute-of-
limitation defenses against any case the plaintiffs file within
the next year.

The underlying case involves the estate of Dante Untura Filho, who
worked at a factory in Pocos de Caldas, Brazil, from 1970 until
1987. The factory was owned by Alcoa Aluminio, of which Alcoa is a
60 percent owner.

Juliano Cesar Bertozzi Untura, the administrator of Filho's
estate, claimed that Filho worked in maintenance and was exposed
to asbestos directly and indirectly on a daily basis. He died in
2010 of mesothelioma.

The plaintiffs filed their case in Allegheny County and contended
that the venue was appropriate because Alcoa controlled Aluminio
from its headquarters in Pittsburgh. The plaintiffs further argued
that Alcoa not only controlled the factory's use of asbestos and
its industrial hygiene practices from its Allegheny County
headquarters but also purchased the asbestos-containing products
in the United States before exporting them to the Brazilian
factory.

Records and witnesses relating to these actions could be most
easily located at the Pittsburgh headquarters, the plaintiffs
argued.

According to Judge Wettick's Oct. 29 ruling, the plaintiffs also
claimed that the decisions in Hunter v. Shire US and Wright v.
Aventis Pasteur, cases presenting fact patterns identical to
Untura, had to be followed.

In Hunter, the plaintiff was prescribed medication in Georgia,
took medication in Georgia and then suffered a heart attack in
Georgia. The plaintiff then filed suit in Pennsylvania, where the
drug manufacturer was headquartered. The manufacturer appealed,
claiming that the litigation had no connection to Pennsylvania.
The Superior Court, however, kept the suit in Pennsylvania because
it dealt with the development, testing and marketing of the drug,
all of which occurred in Pennsylvania.

But Alcoa argued that it only assisted Aluminio in improving its
occupational health operations, and contended that Aluminio had
its own industrial hygiene program and ran the factory
independently of Alcoa.

The Untura case was distinguishable from Hunter and Wright, Judge
Wettick reasoned, since the critical issues in the latter two
cases involved warning labels and development that took place in
Pennsylvania.

The action in Untura, by contrast, involved exposure that
allegedly occurred in Brazil.

According to Judge Wettick, arguments in the case will focus on
Filho's daily activities, his interaction with the asbestos-
containing products, and what safety provisions Alcoa provided. He
said that because of the fact-specific issues in the case,
testimony from other employees at the same workplace will be
important.

Noting Alcoa's contentions, Judge Wettick said the case will also
focus on how Aluminio ran its business. In this regard, the
majority of the evidence could again be found in Brazil, Judge
Wettick said.

"In all likelihood, nearly all the witnesses will speak Portuguese
as a first language, and the records, described above, in
Aluminio's possession, custody and control will probably be in
Portuguese," he said. "Since credibility will be an issue, live
testimony is desirable."

He also noted that, of seven listed U.S.-based witnesses, one now
lives in Brazil, two are deceased and none is a current Alcoa
employee. He argued that it would not prejudice the case to have
the U.S. witnesses deposed in Pennsylvania, with their testimony
shown via videotape.

Andrew J. DuPont of Locks Law Firm, who represented the plaintiff,
and Michael J.R. Schalk and Thomas E. Birsic of K&L Gates in
Pittsburgh, who represented Alcoa, did not respond to calls for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abounds at U of T's Sidney Smith Hall
------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Slind, writing for The Varsity, reported that on the walls
throughout Sidney Smith Hall, in the University of Toronto, one
can find triangular yellow stickers marking the presence of
asbestos in the ceilings above. Students on the geography- and
psychology-dominated ground floor, however, may feel slightly more
secure.

According to the report, an asbestos removal (or "abatement" as
it is properly known) began in room 612 on the morning of
November 19. "I'm kind of annoyed they didn't talk to us or give
us any warning it was going to happen," said Marc Acton, president
of the U of T Undergraduate Geography Society, which has an office
immediately beside the room currently being abated.

He was not alone in this grievance. Three other rooms on the same
floor were recently abated (504-506). These rooms were once
psychology laboratories and a graduate lounge for students of the
psychology department. Students in the neighbouring undergraduate
lounge said that they were at no point explicitly told that the
process next door entailed asbestos removal.

"We weren't even approached about removing it in this room," said
Daniel Jubas-Maltz, a psychology undergraduate. The wall of the
department's undergrad lounge sports one of the aforementioned
yellow stickers.

Acton remarked that a group of geography graduate students became
so upset with the noise caused by the removal work that they
approached the workers in room 612 and asked them to continue in a
quieter manner.

However, Acton also said that he was confident that the process
was perfectly safe. Indeed, the university will not re-open rooms
504--506 until favourable air samples are provided by Pinchin, a
third party environmental consulting company.

"Essentially, this is part of a planned renovation and not
uncommon in buildings of that age," said Althea Blackburn-Evans,
acting director of News and Media Relations at U of T.

Rooms are completely sealed off during their abatements. Asbestos
was commonly used insulation material when many of the older
buildings on campus were being built, and is still present in many
of them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Fibro Products Get Past Aussie Customs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Nicolas, writing for 7News Adelaide, reported that large
shipments of products containing asbestos are entering Australia
undetected by customs officials and it has some groups worried
about worker safety.

According to the report, fibres were recently found in almost a
dozen train engines and it is feared many more dangerous imports
are slipping through.  While the manufacture of asbestos has been
banned in Australia for more than quarter of a century, it is
still rife in China, Russia and Brazil.

"It's cheap to produce a product for housing and things like that,
but it's also killing people," Terry Miller from the Asbestos
Victims Association said.

Products containing the deadly fibres are then exported around the
globe, including to Australia.

In October, asbestos was found in the engines of ten trains during
routine testing, sparking fears for worker safety.

"Our security system in Australia is so lax and through customs,
if it looked like asbestos, these guys picked it, they should've
done an analysis themselves," Ian Sheppard from the Asbestos
Diseases Society said.

It follows the recall of more than 20,000 Great Wall and Chery
vehicles with asbestos gaskets last year.

In June, customs officials in Adelaide intercepted and destroyed a
shipment of motorcycles containing asbestos.

Mechanics admit they do not expect to find asbestos in motorbikes
and therefore do not undertake precautionary measures, but they
fear cheap imported parts could be putting them at risk.

Those caught trying to bring asbestos merchandise into the country
face fines of up to $850,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Te Puna Contractor Fined for Burning Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voxy.com reported that a Te Puna earthworks and rubbish removal
company and its owner were convicted and fined $16,400 in Tauranga
District Court, in New Zealdn, for discharging and burning
asbestos, treated timber and other contaminants.

According to the report, Bay of Plenty Regional Council prosecuted
Contour Limited and owner Stephen Mark Miller for the offence,
which happened in January at the defendant's premises in Waikaraka
Drive East, Te Puna.

In January The Relocatable House Company asked Mr Miller to
demolish and remove several structures from a Bellevue property,
including a workshop, fence and a garage clad with cement board.
He took roofing iron to a recycling company, tyres to a tip and
removed three truckloads of demolition waste which he burned at
his own property. Later that week the Regional Council received a
complaint that a contractor had disposed of asbestos in an
unapproved place.

A Regional Council officer saw a large pile of demolition waste at
the property, including polystyrene, treated timber, electrical
wire, pastic, cement board, laserlight sheeting, greenwaste and
tyres. Some of the waste had been buried and some burned. Samples
taken at the property were found to contain white asbestos, brown
asbestos, arsenic and copper.

Miller told the officer he had not worked with asbestos before and
did not know the rules on dumping waste, but knew about special
requirements for disposing of asbestos. He did not have a consent
for the waste, but knew it was illegal to burn plastic, electrical
wire and treated timber.

The court heard that asbestos in cement board was not particularly
hazardous but if it became fragmented the risk increased. While
burial was the proper disposal method, some areas of New Zealand
had large quantities buried which became a problem when land was
later converted to residential use.

Proper removal of asbestos cement board includes spraying it with
PVA glue and water, breaking it as little as possible, wrapping it
in plastic sheeting and removing it in plastic-lined bins and
disposing of it at an approved site.

A total of 821 asbestos-related diseases were recorded in New
Zealand in the past 12 years, including lung cancers and
asbestosis, according to the Asbestos Diseases Association of NZ's
annual report.

Regional Council Pollution Prevention Manager Nick Zaman said the
Regional Council was concerned about the increasing number of
illegal waste disposal cases, particularly those involving
asbestos.

"This is a local and national problem. The increasing costs of
waste disposal and more stringent earthquake-strengthening
requirements means that some demolition and waste disposal
contractors are taking the risk of disposing of waste illegally to
get their business ahead of their competitors," he said.

"By disposing of asbestos and other hazardous waste unlawfully,
some contractors are putting themselves and the wider community at
risk. They are also putting future users of affected land at risk.
Many reputable demolition contractors in the Bay of Plenty now
routinely engage asbestos specialists to confirm whether or not
buildings contain asbestos.

"Anyone arranging demolition or renovation work should ensure that
steps are taken to confirm whether asbestos is involved and if so,
use a reputable company. The cheapest quote is not always the
safest option," Mr Zaman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Audit Due in Fibor-Plagued Kyneton Kindergarten
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Valente, writing for Sunbury & Macedon Ranges Weekly,
reported that the history of works at Lady Brooks Kindergarten, in
Kyneton, Australia, will be examined after more asbestos was
uncovered at the site.

The Weekly reported that the council had closed the kindergarten
for a week after two small pieces of asbestos material were found
in the playground.  It reopened after asbestos experts issued a
'clearance certificate'.  But it was later revealed that a plastic
shopping bag full of 'non-friable' building material had been
found under the cover of a sandpit in the playground while the
kindergarten was closed.

Non-friable asbestos, or bonded asbestos, is the product of mixing
asbestos with other materials, including concrete.

Macedon Ranges council removed sand, soil and mulch from the site.

A WorkSafe spokesman said it had been notified of a small amount
of asbestos being discovered at Lady Brooks Kindergarten.

"WorkSafe was notified before removal works began and was
satisfied they were carried out in accordance with asbestos
regulations," he said.

Council's community well-being director, Karen Stevens, said the
council would develop an audit management plan for the kinder.

"It will involve a full investigation into the site's history,
including past building work," she said. "It will outline the
process when planning and carrying out work at the site." The plan
will also identify non-digging areas, introduce raised garden beds
and set out a process if new trees or shrubs are introduced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Slows Knox County Project
--------------------------------------------------------
Allison Goodrich, writing for The Register-Mail, reported that
though the ongoing hot water issue is being addressed at Moon
Towers, the rate of progress has virtually been cut in half,
according to the Knox County, Illinois Housing Authority executive
director.

According to the report, during a regular monthly meeting, Derek
Antoine informed the board of commissioners at least 73 units have
restored consistent hot water service after some have been without
for over three months. The estimated completion date for the whole
project -- all 177 units -- is now the end of December.

The repairs -- which began after exhaustive diagnostic tests to
determine the reason for inconsistent hot water -- officially
commenced Nov. 5. In early October, the board approved the
replacement of shower valves in order to solve the problem, but
work was stalled after the delivery of parts was delayed.
The issue now, Antoine said, is the work seems to be more
extensive than originally predicted by Mechanical Services Inc.
and Iowa Illinois Taylor Insulation.

"There's another element now," Antoine said, in regard to
additional issues that have come up since the repairs began.
"While demolishing that mortar, concrete and possible asbestos-
containing material is falling down into the vents, so IITI is
going from only working on asbestos removal from areas around the
valve assembly, (to) having to go through and clean the vents
out."

The original plan was to compete the work in 10 to 12 units per
day, but that estimate has gone down to about five to six units
per day.

"It's a little bit disappointing from the aspect that we really
thought they would be done within three to four weeks," Antoine
said. "... but I'm pleased with the results.

"The installation looks good and we do have hot water returning to
the units."

For those who are still affected -- as of September, about 20
units officially reported experiencing intermittent hot water
issues -- he said there are still two available showers for
residents to utilize.

"They have been patient, which is much appreciated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Is Parents' Concern at Weymouth School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Kelly, writing for The Digby Courier, reported that parents
arranged a meeting at the Weymouth Consolidated School to get
answers from the Tri-County Regional School Board about noise and
asbestos concerns with a renovation project at the school.

According to the report, a panel of TCRSB representatives
consisting of Lisa Doucet, Superintendent, Steve Stoddart,
Director of Operations, Gerry Purdy, Director of Human Recourses
and Jamie Moses, Occupational Health and Safety Officer answered
questions at  public meeting held in the school's cafeteria on
Nov. 25.

The project began in October with the demolition of an entire wing
of the school with very little communication or information from
the board.

Members of SAC, staff and parents attended the meeting looking for
answers to questions about the noise level from the renovations
during school hours, the removal of asbestos around the heating
pipes and the board's lack of communication about the project.

Stoddart took responsibility for the lack of communication on the
whole project.

"The what and when things happened did not get clearly
communicated to the public especially in regards to the demolition
in October," said Stoddart.

The Primary to Three wing of the school was demolished the last
weekend in October and generated concern in the community.

Retired principal Larry Kelly said many parents and community
members did not know this was happening.

"Several expressed their fears that other sections of the school
would be removed until the building was too small for the existing
population," Kelly said.

Stoddart said that the old audio-visual room and both washrooms at
the north end of the building were not slated for removal at this
time.

"There are no plans to remove this section of the school," said
Stoddart. "Right now we are looking at the pricing to install new
heating for that area."

Noisy construction work will be done after school hours and
asbestos pipe wrap removal would take place during the Christmas
break added Stoddart.

"Air quality test will be conducted to ensure there is no asbestos
particulate in the air prior to staff and students returning
January 6th. No staff or students will be allowed to return if the
air quality tests are not within acceptable standards."

Renovations to the school's cafeteria beginning in January were
also discussed during the meeting.

WCS principal Terry Gaudet said members of the board met with her
staff after school to discuss their concerns about the project.

Stoddart said project updates could be found on the board's
website and would be automatically linked to the school's website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Oppose Wisconsin Fibro Bill
-----------------------------------------------------
Fuzz Spangler, writing for Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel,
reported that it was disappointing to read Christian Schneider's
column regarding Senate Bill 13, which would delay and deny
justice for asbestos victims.

According to Mr. Spangler, SB 13 would add burdensome delays to
veterans and other asbestos victims, and that is unacceptable.
Some clarification and context are needed to many of Schneider's
arguments made in support of SB 13.

Mr. Spangler further states, "In his column, Schneider fails to
mention that the Wisconsin Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military
Order of the Purple Heart and the American Legion are all
officially opposed to the bill. To come to a decision on whether
to support or oppose a bill, these veterans' organizations have an
independent and democratic process, which means the majority of
their members and the leadership of each organization would have
to be opposed to a bill to declare official opposition. So, a vast
majority of Wisconsin veterans are opposed to SB 13 and with good
reason.

Veterans oppose SB 13 because we make up 30% of all mesothelioma
deaths but make up only 8% of the population. Mesothelioma is an
incredibly painful and incurable cancer caused by asbestos
exposure.

Naval ships were insulated with several tons of asbestos. Military
barracks and vehicles were insulated with asbestos. In fact,
hundreds of barracks and thousands of military vehicles that were
insulated with asbestos are still being used today. So while our
veterans were honorably serving our country, they were unknowingly
exposed to the deadly product. Keep in mind that asbestos
companies knew their product was deadly but kept it a secret for
many decades.

A widow of a veteran and mesothelioma victim from Neenah recently
shared the story of her husband, Mike, who worked as a machinist
on World War II submarines and inhaled asbestos dust every time he
worked on the pumps and engines of his submarine. His work area
was literally covered with asbestos insulation. In 2007, he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma and underwent a variety of treatments
including tomotherapy and chemotherapy. He suffered greatly due to
mesothelioma and died in 2008.

Our veterans deserve better than that. Mike and other veterans
like him deserve unimpeded access to justice. The prognosis once
someone is diagnosed with mesothelioma is about 18 months, and
many times mesothelioma victims die much sooner. Veterans and
other asbestos victims deserve to see their day in court and live
their final days with dignity.

Schneider also fails to mention that SB 13 would add unnecessary
delays, force disclosure of filings with federal personal injury
trusts and take away choice from veterans and other asbestos
victims. A substitute amendment containing language that removes
the delays and burdensome discovery requirements was proposed and
defeated in the Wisconsin Legislature. We support that substitute
amendment because that would provide additional transparency
without adding hurdles to justice.

SB 13 would only serve to prolong an excruciating and time-
intensive process.  We agree that more transparency is needed, but
delay for even one veteran suffering from the fatal effects of
mesothelioma is unacceptable -- justice delayed is justice denied.
Wisconsin veterans and our organizations stand together with other
asbestos victims in opposition to SB 13."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denials Over Christchurch Hospital Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylianou, writing for The Press, reported that the
Canterbury District Health Board and Christchurch firm Goleman Ltd
entered not guilty pleasto two asbestos-related charges in the
Christchurch District Court on Nov. 27.

According to the report, the Ministry of Business, Employment and
Innovation, which laid the charges, said in a statement that both
charges related to breaches of the Health and Safety in Employment
Act 1992.

No further comment on the case could be made as it was now before
the courts, the statement said. The CDHB and Goleman Ltd will
appear in court next year.

                 CONTRACTORS EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS

Early this year contractors exposed to asbestos while working at
Christchurch Hospital were outraged they may have unknowingly put
patients and staff at risk of the poisonous substance while
walking through active wards.

Official test results confirmed subcontractors for Goleman were
exposed to asbestos while working on the roof of the hospital's
earthquake-damaged Parkside building in early April.

Several workers say they walked through wards and saw patients in
hospital beds, unknowingly wearing potentially contaminated
material, for more than a week after Goleman had received test
results that confirmed the presence of white asbestos on the roof
site.

Staff maintained they were not told about the risk and continued
to work on the site for 10 days after the company was made aware
of the test results.

A group of workers approached Fletchers, the project manager for
the hospital, amid growing concerns their workplace could be
contaminated. Fletchers immediately shut the site down.

At the time The Press published the story, Goleman general manager
Luke Goleman disputed his employees' claims and said the firm
"took action the moment we found there has been the slightest risk
of asbestos".

Goleman changed the work methodology to protect staff.

Clothing samples taken from the workers for testing have all
returned free of any contamination, he said.

Four Goleman employees provided Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove with
written statements and a copy of the tests results. Cosgrove then
informed CDHB chief executive David Meates about the ''serious
allegations''.

Meates said he was confident CDHB staff acted "promptly and
appropriately" when they were first alerted to the possibility of
asbestos being present in the roofing material and said there was
no risk to patient and staff safety.

                         UNION: 'INEXCUSABLE'

EPMU Construction, a union for construction works, also issued a
statement saying it was inexcusable for workers and their families
to be put at risk.

Union organiser Ron Angel said this case highlighted a lack of
proper training and precautions where ''employers just don't take
[asbestos risk] seriously''.  He said Pasifika and Filipino
migrant workers were particularly at risk.

''We're asking [them] to come here and help us but [we] may send
them home with chronic illnesses that could be avoided. That's not
right.''

He said EPMU Construction was calling on the Government to create
a register of sites where asbestos has been identified, ban the
importation of products that contain the potentially fatal
substance and create a national plan to eliminate asbestos from
the built environment by 2030.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landfill Operator Fined for Handling Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bonacci, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the company
operating the Fitchburg-Westminster Landfill, in Massachusetts,
has been fined $18,000 after inspectors found a violation that
could have allowed asbestos fibers to become airborne, according
to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

"It is critical that this landfill operator follow the required
asbestos-handling procedures to prevent asbestos fibers from
becoming airborne," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's
Central Regional Office in Worcester in a press release. "That
way, the company can ensure a safe environment for landfill
workers and the public."

In September, MassDEP inspectors observed open asbestos waste bags
in the asbestos disposal area of the landfill operated by Resource
Controls, Inc., according to the release, in violation of the law.
The regulations are designed to minimize the potential for
asbestos fibers to become airborne and thus reduce the exposure to
workers and the public, according to MassDEP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brad Black Works to Treat New Libby Patients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Searcey, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
new patients still arrive at the little medical clinic just off
Mineral Avenue in Libby, Montana, the former mining town, some
with cancer, others with a cough that won't go away and some with
no symptoms at all.

According to the report, all are recent victims of what is now a
well-known disease in this community, which for years was poisoned
by asbestos fibers from a nearby mine, according to government
health officials.

The mine closed in 1990, but the lung disease is just now showing
up in some people. In the past two years, the clinic has diagnosed
roughly 15 new patients a month with asbestos-related ailments.

At first, no one could believe the mine that offered a livelihood
for so long could be harming so many people in town. Brad Black,
who runs the clinic and diagnosed the new patients, couldn't
believe it either.

"I didn't know what was going on," said Dr. Black, chief executive
and medical director of the nonprofit Center for Asbestos Related
Diseases. "We just didn't see it. I was pretty well in denial."

W.R. Grace & Co. had mined vermiculite and processed the
fireproof, flaky mineral at sites in Libby. But its mine was
contaminated with asbestos deposits, and those fibers eventually
traveled through the air. The needlelike, cancer-causing fibers
lodged in the lungs of not just Grace workers but people who lived
in the town, the officials said.

Grace has said that once it learned of the hazards at the mine it
took steps to reduce dust there and that its operation complied
with standards and laws of the day.

Dr. Black, a square-jawed 64-year-old who arrived in Libby as a
pediatrician, said he is determined to make sure other doctors
don't make the same mistake he did. "You feel bad you couldn't
have recognized it early on so you could have protected more
people," said Dr. Black. "You can't go back and make people
healthy."

Dr. Black has been a tireless advocate for trying to get more
medical assistance to people who suffer from the effects of the
amphibole asbestos that tainted Grace's vermiculite, which appears
to be more toxic than other kinds of asbestos.

Dr. Black and other health officials estimate that 400 people have
died and more than 2,000 have been diagnosed with diseases that
can be tied to the Grace operation in Libby. They also fear that
hundreds of others across the U.S. may be suffering from the
effects of Libby's asbestos, having worked in or lived by one of
the dozens of plants across the U.S. where Grace processed its
vermiculite.

A Nov. 11 study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine concluded that people who worked with Libby asbestos even
at low levels of exposure faced increase risks for lung disease.
Treatment can range from portable oxygen tanks to surgery -- even
removing a lung -- depending on how severe the illness.

Meantime, Grace's asbestos-contaminated insulation products still
are in homes and office buildings across the country. "Folks do
not understand that this material is widespread throughout the
U.S. in the attics of millions of homes, where even small
disturbances such as moving boxes around the attic, can result in
hazardous exposures," said Aubrey Miller, senior medical adviser
at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Gerry Stahlberg of Kalispell, Mont., never worked in the mine or
lived in Libby but worked for years in buildings insulated with
Grace products, which Dr. Black said likely caused his disease.
"There are scads of people in the same boat," said the 73-year-old
Mr. Stahlberg, whose lungs are so scarred he has coughing fits and
trouble sleeping.

Dr. Black, a native Midwesterner whose mountaintop property is
prowled by cougars and other wildlife, has paired with research
partners from universities and from New York's Mount Sinai Medical
Center, who are comparing Libby patients to a set of steamfitters
who were exposed to another kind of asbestos found in U.S.
products, chrysotile. His team has found that Libby's asbestos
appears to trigger an autoimmune reaction in patients, who
sometimes have lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.

"These rates are 10 times higher in Libby than in the normal
population," said Jean Pfau, associate professor of
immunotoxicology at Idaho State University in Pocatello. With
chrysotile-exposed patients, she said, "we don't see any of that."

Dr. Black is tracking 5,540 people across the U.S. who lived near
or worked at the mine to monitor their health. So far he said just
over half of them show signs of asbestos disease. Along with U.S.
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), he is fighting to expand a Medicare
pilot program that offers to sick patients in the Libby area free
medicine, gear and home modifications so that 886 other patients
outside the area can also have access.

James Coburn, 72, worked in a Grace mill in Libby and now lives in
Blackduck, Minn. He showed films of his lungs to his local doctor,
who he said dismissed the gray spots on his lungs as a shadow.
"They don't understand it," said Mr. Coburn, who travels to Libby
for annual checkups with Dr. Black.

Asbestos disease can be difficult to detect and takes years to
show up. But with Libby's asbestos, once it does, its effects can
be rapid, causing shortness of breath, severe chest pain and,
eventually, suffocation.  Patients of Dr. Black -- people who as
kids played in piles of vermiculite in town -- have died in their
50s.

Dr. Black moved to Libby in 1977. He breathed the asbestos-tinged
air and, like many others here, spread Grace's vermiculite in his
garden. About a year ago, he began having sharp pains in his
chest. He was tested and now joins the ranks of his patients in
showing signs of asbestos disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railway Workers Exposed in Chinese-Made Trains
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Peacock, writing for ABC News, reported that Australian
railway workers have been exposed to potentially hazardous
asbestos after the deadly dust was found in locomotives brought in
from China.

According to the report, breach of a 10-year ban on the import of
products containing the carcinogenic fibre is not the first
incident of its kind.

Unions are now demanding tougher policing of Chinese imports,
describing the current asbestos-free certificates as a farce.

Last year freight carrier SCT imported 10 locomotives made by
China Southern Rail (CSR) to tow iron ore bound for China to port.

To comply with the decade-old Australian ban on asbestos imports,
they were certified asbestos-free. However, this was not the case.

National secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union Bob Nanva says
maintenance workers raised concerns about the dust.

"We had our maintenance workers repairing a number of diesel
engines," he said.

"They identified a lot of white dust among those engines and asked
the question as to whether or not that dust was safe."

The workers' concerns were justified. White asbestos -- or
chrysotile -- was found throughout the locomotives, in insulation
around the exhaust and muffler system, around coolant pipes and in
the brake exhaust section near the roof of the driver's cabin.

                 Workers reassured despite dangers

Mr Nanva said workers were initially told there was nothing to
worry about.

"They were assured on numerous occasions that there was nothing to
be alarmed about, but on subsequent testing of that dust they have
identified asbestos," he said.

In October, at a cost of more than $1 million, the locomotives
were pulled from service.

Most were quarantined at SCT's centre at Penfield in northern
Adelaide, where professional asbestos removalists in protective
suits and masks have been stripping the asbestos out of the
trains.

The company's subsidiary Specialised Bulk Rail says its first
priority has been the safety of its staff, some of whom it
concedes may have been at "some risk" when the asbestos-containing
insulation blankets were "damaged or ripped".

Mr Nanva says the workers would have been regularly at risk.

"These are maintenance workers that repair these trains day in,
day out, and would have been exposed to these fibres day in, day
out," he said.

Chief executive of the Asbestos Safety & Eradication Agency Peter
Tighe says it shows certifications from China are questionable.

"It's another example, I think, of the lack of compliance in
relation to certification from Asia, and more specifically China,
that asbestos-free certification is really questionable out of
those areas," he said.

                     Asbestos ban broken before

This is not the first time China has broken the Australian ban on
asbestos.

Last year more than 25,000 Chinese-made Great Wall, Chery and
Geely cars were recalled after asbestos was discovered in their
engine gaskets and brakes.

In decades to come experts expect hundreds of thousands of Chinese
casualties from asbestos.

They were assured on numerous occasions that there was nothing to
be alarmed about, but on subsequent testing of that dust they have
identified asbestos.

               Bob Navana, Rail, Tram and Bus Union

A 1980s film by Szechuan University smuggled out from China shows
the tragic story of China's own Wittenoom -- at Dayao, in the
province of Yunnan -- where asbestos exposures had led to the
fatal cancer -- mesothelioma.

Back in Australia, it was the same type of blue asbestos, from the
Wittenoom mine, that lined Melbourne's blue Harris trains,
potentially poisoning passengers when the walls were broken.  So
dangerous were the trains they were sealed in plastic and buried
in quicksand at a quarry in Clayton.

Blue asbestos, which is more likely to cause the cancer
mesothelioma, is now banned in both countries -- but China is now
the world's largest user of white asbestos, which Perth's asbestos
expert Professor Bill Musk warns still causes cancer.

"The risk of lung cancer from white asbestos may be more than from
blue asbestos given the same amount of exposure," he said.

                 Growing cancer epidemic in China

Much of China's white asbestos has been mined near Mongolia by
prison labour.

Conditions there and in Chinese factories are extremely dusty and
long-term studies of asbestos workers have revealed a growing
cancer epidemic.

Mr Navna says asbestos is a "ticking time bomb".

"The fact that you have family station wagons, trains, numerous
components from China being imported into Australia without the
requisite checks is a grave concern to us," he said.

"It should be a great concern to Australian consumers."

The giant state-owned China Southern Rail, exhibiting at this
week's AusRail conference in Sydney, said in a statement that
asbestos was clearly excluded from the specifications for the
locomotives. It blames a sub-contractor for supplying the asbestos
and insisted it will not happen again.

But, CSR's assistant general manager Li Huling said: "Although
there was an explicit restriction in the use of asbestos, the
interpretation of the definition of asbestos by our sub-contractor
did not include chysotile [white asbestos] - as it was widely used
in the world."

                   Several cases of Chinese companies
                          breaking asbestos ban

White asbestos use in Asia is expanding, and China is not the only
country to break the Australian ban.

Recently asbestos was discovered in engine gaskets of two tugboats
imported from Singapore in 2008 for use in the port of Fremantle.

Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers assistant
federal secretary Martin Byrne says two tugboats that came to
Australia had asbestos-free certificates.

"There were declarations by the shipyard that built the vessels
that there was no asbestos-containing material at all in those
vessels," he said.

"When we started to work them and needed to repair them and
started to have to take them apart, it was discovered that there
were asbestos-containing materials."

Like the train drivers' union, Mr Byrne says the marine engineers
institute has bitter experience from past exposures to asbestos of
its tragic consequences.

"We get the phone calls. We have the members coming to us after
they had the diagnosis from the doctor of mesothelioma," he said.

"I know, personally, deep inside me, that as soon as the guy tells
me that it's a death sentence."

Mr Nanva says he is now wondering whether Sydney's new fleet of
Waratah passenger trains -- part of which were sourced from China
-- might also contain asbestos, something Transport for NSW says
it is satisfied is not the case.

"We have no confidence that any component or train that is
manufactured in China and imported into Australia is free of
asbestos," Mr Nanva said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broward Water Providers Missed Testing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa J. Huriash, writing for Sun Sentinel, reported that despite
nine years notice, Plantation missed a deadline to check for
asbestos in the water supply -- by 18 months -- and is notifying
every homeowner now of its mistake.

According to the report, Plantation's utility was one of six
water-service providers in Broward County, Florida, that missed
December 2011 deadlines to test for asbestos. The others were
Davie, Deerfield Beach, Lauderhill, Margate and Royal Utility, a
private utility that serves part of Coral Springs.

State health officials said no asbestos was ever detected in
subsequent tests for all the water providers.

The test was supposed to be done once sometime between January and
December 2011 -- and agencies are on a nine-year cycle to do it.

In Plantation, the test wasn't conducted until June 2013.
Notification of the error to the city's 26,000 water customers was
required by the Florida Department of Health. Notices mailed out
in the November water bill assure residents that there are no
problems, and asbestos was not detected. Plantation officials
called it an "oversight."

"It was a sampling delay on our part," said Chuck Flynn, the
city's utilities director. "It was human error. In the future, it
won't happen again."

In Davie, the testing was done quickly enough -- on Jan. 24, 2012
-- so notification to residents wasn't necessary, said town
spokesman Phillip Holste. Still, the town hired a manager to keep
up with government regulations, he said.

Lauderhill also did their testing in January 2012, one month late,
and sent residents a letter apologizing for it, especially since
their water system "is susceptible to asbestos contamination"
because of its pipes.

"As our customers, you have a right to know what happened," stated
the letter mailed last year. "During 2011 we did not monitor for
asbestos and therefore cannot be sure of the quality of our
drinking water with respect to this constituent during that time."

Leslie Johnson, Lauderhill spokeswoman, said the city is now
committed to yearly testing, even though it's not required.

Margate did sample on time -- but sampled in the wrong spot. Staff
mistakenly collected water from the water plant instead of the
water in the pipes, said Douglas Smith, assistant city manager. A
notice was posted last year on the website.

Royal Utility said an increase in population caused it to adjust
its testing schedule, and "we incorrectly tested under the
previously established cycle for a lower population." It said it
has a new testing cycle, ensuring the deadline isn't missed again.

In Plantation, Steve Urich, the utility's assistant director, said
the department also created a new job -- a Regulatory Compliance
Coordinator "so that there is additional oversight to prevent a
lapse of this nature in the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birmingham Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
H&V News reported that Birmingham Glass Services and Equitas
Academies Trust -- owner and operator of Aston Manor Academy --
have been prosecuted by Birmingham Magistrates' Court after the
Health and Safety Executive identified several asbestos failings.

According to the HSE, strips of asbestos insulating board packers
were discovered during the installation of new windows.  It is
believed that two BGS workers broke the asbestos boards, and
dumped them next to an asbestos decontamination unit, which
licensed asbestos contractors were using for an unrelated work on
the site.

As reported by the press release, the two workers had not received
asbestos awareness training, nor were they provided with any
protective equipment. As a consequence of their actions, asbestos
fibres were unwittingly released on the site, and workers were
exposed to the deadly material.

Commenting on the news, Asons Solicitors executive Adriano
D'Ambrosio said: "According to the HSE Press Release, it is
alleged, that the two employees who carried out the work had not
been warned about the presence of asbestos.

"As a result, several people were put at risk of being exposed to
a serious health hazard. The exposure to airborne asbestos fibres
was entirely preventable, and these circumstances highlight the
importance of asbestos surveys.

"Any firm that is appointed to carry out work to the fabric of a
property, built prior to the year 2000, must ensure that they have
taken all reasonable steps to check whether asbestos is present
before any work starts; such information must be available to
anyone involved in the work."

Birmingham Glass Services were fined GBP5,000, and ordered to pay
GBP1,969 in costs, after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1)
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Equitas Academies Trust was fined GBP7,500, with GBP3,000 in
costs, after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Properly Removed at Montague School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Ross, writing for The Guardian, reported that work to remove
asbestos from the former Montague Regional High School was all
done properly and followed all the rules, says the project manager
for the demolition.

According to the report, Tyler Richardson, the province's building
design and construction manager, said he didn't have concerns
about the way the building's demolition was handled.

"We did it according to protocols laid out by other agencies and
our own department and per our specifications," he said.

Opposition Leader Steven Myers raised the issue in the legislature
where he questioned whether asbestos was removed properly before
the contractor demolished the old high school.

Nova Scotia-based A & L Concrete Forming was the lowest bidder for
the demolition contract, which included the asbestos removal.

Richardson said an independent hazardous materials consultant was
on site throughout the demolition, as was someone from the
Infrastructure Renewal Department.

The contractor disposed of the asbestos at Verhagen Demolition in
New Glasgow, N.S.

In an interview with The Guardian, Myers questioned how long it
took to demolish the old school and said the contractor tore the
building down in only three weeks.

"They had to be tearing it down while asbestos was being removed,"
he said.

But Richardson disagreed and said the company was able to start
demolition work earlier in some parts of the building where there
wasn't asbestos.

The rest took about five to six weeks of work to deal with the
asbestos, which included double bagging it and sealing off areas
with negative air pressure to ensure particles didn't get out, he
said.

Richardson said any workers involved wore proper clothing and used
respirators while air filters made sure nothing made it into the
air outside the building.

As for the time it took to finish the project, Richardson said the
contractor worked a lot of weekends and was resourceful.

"He was hard at it."

Myers wondered if the proper precautions were taken and he called
for the government to test the soil at the site.

"I think it's a concern the government isn't taking seriously," he
said.

Transportation Minister Robert Vessey said he didn't have any
concerns that the contractor failed to follow proper guidelines.

"The process was followed to a T," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Killed by Fibro Inhaled in Classrooms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Curtis, writing for Southern Daily Echo, reported that Marion
Potts, a teacher describeas "passionate and dedicated," never knew
that during her time in the classroom she was being exposed to
deadly asbestos -- which would go on to claim her life.

According to the report, it is thought to be the first case of its
kind in south-west Hampshire, in the United Kingdom.

Mrs Potts, known to family and friends as Jane, died at
Southampton General Hospital in June of mesothelioma, a cancer
associated with the substance, an inquest heard.

The 63-year-old, from Brockenhurst, worked in schools across the
country throughout her career, including Hardley School in Holbury
-- now the New Forest Academy -- and Romsey School, where she was
head of English until she retired two years ago.

But the inquest could not pinpoint where in the country or when
she was exposed to asbestos and education bosses insist both of
the Hampshire schools where she worked are safe.

Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the only place Mrs Potts
could have come in contact with asbestos was in school walls,
where it can be released by something as simple as putting up a
display with drawing pins.

Now there have been calls for the substance to be removed from
schools.

Coroner Keith Wiseman said: "It's certainly the first case that I
have dealt with but I understand it's turning into a matter of
major concern.

I hope all the necessary steps are taken in the future to ensure
the elimination of this substance."

Mr Wiseman added: "Mrs Potts particularly mentioned a variety of
occasions such as basic matters like putting up a display with
drawing pins where this material would come out of the walls or
when they were damaged by pupils.

"It looks as if Mrs Potts was very unlucky during her working life
as this is the only possible asbestos exposure identified."

He recorded a verdict of death from an industrial disease.

Only last year an all-party Parliamentary group warned that 75 per
cent of schools nationwide expose children and staff to the
material and more than 140 UK teachers have died from mesothelioma
in the past decade.

Mrs Potts' husband Michael said he was considering legal action.

He said: "These buildings are 50 years old and asbestos will come
out because kids are always running around, banging into things
and people stick things into the wall.

"She was never made aware of these dangers. That annoys me beyond
belief and I intend to make a nuisance of myself as there has been
a lot of complacency."

Former colleagues have paid tribute to Mrs Potts.

Jonathan de Sausmarez, executive head teacher at The Romsey
School, said: "Jane was a very good teacher, very thorough and
very professional. She cared very much for the students, was
extremely passionate about her subject and always wanted every
child to do well."

                    Asbestos 'is a huge problem'

ASBESTOS is closely associated with Second Consortium of Local
Authorities (SCOLA) schools, prefab buildings developed as a
temporary measure in the 1960s in response to the baby boom.

There are 456 school buildings of SCOLA construction across
Hampshire and work is under way to strip asbestos from walls.

Pete Sopowski, Southampton rep for the National Union of Teachers,
said teachers were very concerned about the situation.

He said: "There's a huge problem in schools because asbestos is
there and is being managed.

"It's a case of which schools don't have it rather than which do.
"The best thing to do is to have it totally removed but the
Government doesn't want to pay for it.

"It would create jobs as well as protect staff and youngsters.
Westminster will pay to have it removed from the Houses of
Parliament but not from schools, it seems."

The call comes two years after Hampshire County Council launched a
ten-year strategy to tackle deteriorating SCOLA schools.

Leader Roy Perry said the authority had been "managing" asbestos
since 1997 and that a detailed survey of schools commenced in 2005
with regular checks still carried out with any damage acted on "as
a matter of urgency".

Asbestos-containing materials in a sound condition were left in
place to avoid risking health through disturbing it during
removal. He added that standards of work were monitored by the UK
Accreditation Service as well as an in-house team.

He added: "We inspected all asbestos-containing materials at the
New Forest Academy -- formerly Hardley School -- in August and can
reassure staff, governors, parents and pupils that the school site
is safe and that there is no risk to health, providing the
materials remain intact and undisturbed."

"Romsey School will have been checked by the council from 2005
onwards, prior to becoming an academy, and it would have received
a clean bill of health as we are not aware of any problem there."

There are also SCOLA schools in Southampton which contain the
substance.

City council education boss Sarah Bogle said the council wanted to
get rid of asbestos from all schools but did not have the funding.

Cllr Bogle insisted the council was on top of the issue but could
not confirm how many schools in Southampton contain asbestos.  She
said: "We produce surveys on all our schools so we know where
asbestos is, if there is any.

"It's not harmful unless it is released like when there is repair
work or things are moved, so we make sure we always have risk
assessments in place and we remove it if necessary."

Asbestos was widely used in the UK as a building material up until
1985 when the use of most types was banned.  It was completely
banned from new buildings in 1999.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congresswoman's Fibro Suit Drew Criticism
----------------------------------------------------------
Pallavi Sharma, writing for Top News, reported that Carolyn
McCarthy, a New York Congresswoman, has now been suffering of lung
cancer and making out her plans to grab compensation from the New
York government.  A 69-year-old Democrat woman spent her 40 years
of life smoking heavily.

According to the report, as per the government's policy, some
compensation will be offered to those who are suffering with lung
cancer caused by asbestos.

In order to seek some benefits of this policy, McCarthy said
decided to make some plans. She said that she was caught by the
asbestos fibers, which were being carried home by her brother and
father, who worked on navy ships and in utilities.

According to this report, her claims have been criticized because
her lawyers were politically connected with firms of Weitz &
Luxenberg. According to McCarthy, there seems to have disturbing
trends between corporate defendants and the true victims of
asbestos-related disease.

Because court started to least bothering the cases not linked with
the asbestos disease, plaintiff lawyers start turning towards lung
cancer. Some strategies were being formed by the plaintiff lawyers
according to which, government will again seek to benefit asbestos
victims.

It has been reported that lung cancer claims have been doubled
since 2010, which has been increased to about 600 per year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Zwolle "Best School"
--------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Hosktam, writing for NL Times, reported that 1600 students
of the Thorbecke School community in Zwolle were kept away from
classes when school management reported that there was asbestos in
the buildings. The initiative to have the standard asbestos tests
carried out came from management.

According to the report, the school located at Dr. van Heesweg in
Zwolle was closed; students and teachers will hear when classes
will resume, and where they will be held.

The Thorbecke School Community made the news earlier this month,
when local newspaper Volkskrant published an annual list of "best
schools in the Netherlands". Thorbecke got the highest score
possible, a 10.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Furniture Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunderland Echo reported that a family-run furniture firm has been
fined GBP3,000 after two workers were exposed to asbestos.
According to the report, the offence happened when employees with
Interior Designs (NE), based in Station Road, Fulwell, Sunderland,
removed plasterboard from a garage ceiling and transported it
outside to a van on January 10 this year.

Magistrates were told that, after the work started, one of the
workers, Graham Cleghorn, became suspicious that the dust from the
plasterboard was "rather sharp and spiky" and warned his colleague
Paul Bell of his concerns.  They immediately stopped the work.

The area -- in Cleadon Village, South Tyneside -- was sealed off
and a licensed asbestos contractor was called to removed the
debris -- which was confirmed to be asbestos after analysis.  The
company admitted contravening a health and safety regulation. It
was fined GBP3,000, with a GBP120 victims surcharge and GBP168
costs.

Keith Partington, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive,
told South Tyneside Magistrates' Court that the firm failed to
carry out the required checks for asbestos before work started.

Mark Balysz, defending, said the offence was "born entirely of
ignorance" and that the firm's managing director, Janice McBeth,
was a person of "impeccable good character".  He said: "Interior
Designs regrets the commission of this offence, but the director
is a person of good character and this is the company's first
offence.

"This was an offence born entirely of ignorance. That is not to
denigrate or under-estimate the need for asbestos controls, but it
must be appreciated that Mr Cleghorn is Janice McBeth's own son.

"He will now have to wait for 20, 30 or even 40 years before he
knows whether he will suffer any ill-effects from this."

Graham Cleghorn pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of
contravening a health and safety regulation. His case will be
heard at Newcastle Crown Court on December 10.

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Authority said asbestos-
related ill-health was well documented across the UK -- with some
victims waiting for decades before the impact on their health was
known.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wellington County Buys Closed Daycare
------------------------------------------------------
CTV Kitchener reported that more than six months after a Guelph
daycare facility was closed due to asbestos concerns, plans are
moving forward for the future of the building.

According to the report, Willowdale Child Care and Learning Centre
on Willow Road in Guelph's west end was closed in May after
insulation containing small amounts of asbestos was found behind a
baseboard.

At the time, officials said the asbestos would be cleaned up
within a week, but further discoveries prompted a longer-term
closure.

The City of Guelph announced that it would sell the Willowdale
property to Wellington County for $150,000, with the county
promising to redevelop it into a new child care centre by late
2014.

"We've been working hand-in-hand with the county to come to a
conclusion really quickly," Derrick Thomson, Guelph's executive
director of community and social services, tells CTV News.
Of the 55 families that previously relied on Willowdale for child
care, 39 were able to make alternative arrangements before the
summer.

Zoning conditions and an agreement of purchase must still be
finalized.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contaminated Soil in Sarnia
--------------------------------------------------
Peter Kenter, writing for Daily Commercial News, reported that the
City of Sarnia, in Ontario, Canada, recently found itself in a
unique position. Consultants had identified a soil contaminant in
the city for which no Canadian standards exist. Ground zero is
Centennial Park, a waterfront location facing Sarnia Bay. Among
the main soil contaminants: asbestos.

"Finding asbestos contamination in soil is so rare that our
consultants could find no North American standard for it," says
Sarnia operations manager Bryan Prouse. "A literature search
revealed only one Australian standard, so it's out there on the
edge of typical environmental problems."

The park has a storied industrial history. Various portions of its
12 hectares of land were used for a lumber company, a pesticide
manufacturing facility and a power plant. The Empire Salt Company
commenced operations on the site in 1903, eventually becoming the
Sifto Salt division of Domtar Chemicals, which shut down in 1964.

The land was subsequently sold to the city for $250,000 and
designated for parkland. Three salt wells were capped and 70,000
cubic yards of material were dredged from the harbour to replace
salt-contaminated soil in preparation for Canada's 1967 centennial
celebration.

"In June 2012, someone reported an environmental spill of a tar-
like substance in the park," says Prouse. "We had Golder
Associates investigate and they discovered that the substance was
actually bubbling up from the ground."

The investigation expanded to Phase I and II Environmental Site
Assessments. A report from the consultant revealed that the site
contained a list of contaminants that included petroleum
hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lead... and
asbestos.

"Part of the original park was marsh land," says Prouse. "It
appears that the contamination is primarily related to the fill
material that was brought in to reclaim the land."

Test pits matched the historical records for the site, with
samples ranging from native material, to wood scraps from the
lumber mill. The tests revealed no off-site migration of the
contaminants.

About two-thirds of the park, including the playground, were soon
fenced off and restricted to the public. The remaining third was
identified as safe for public use.

A report prepared by Golder Associates and presented to Sarnia
city council in November outlined a series of observations and
recommendations for remediating the site.

The report noted that most soil impacts were found fewer than two
metres below the ground surface. Groundwater samples were reported
within Ontario Ministry of the Environment guidelines, except for
one location containing an excess of sodium.

"The asbestos was found in the topsoil, so there were concerns
that even mowing the grass could cause asbestos to be disturbed,"
says Prouse.

The report notes that it is ". . . difficult to correlate
concentration of asbestos fibres in soil to air; therefore, we
have assumed that removal or risk management would be required to
address the potential risk of exposure."

The report presents four options for site remediation, including
ballpark pricing:

   -- Shallow soil cover (0.5 m): $3 million to $5 million;

   -- Partial soil removal (0.5 m), replaced with clean soil:
      $10 million to $15 million;

   -- Full soil removal: $30 million to $40 million;

   -- A hard cap, such as concrete or asphalt: $5 million to
      $10 million.

However, the report suggests that the park could be parceled,
allowing the most suitable remediation measure to be applied to
each parcel.

"There was also a recommendation that we strike a committee that
includes the public and other stakeholders to look at future uses
of the park," says Prouse. "If it makes sense to use a hard cap on
one of the parcels, then why not build something interesting like
an open-air farmer's market? The exercise will present some
interesting possibilities."

A financial plan for remediating the site will be presented to
council for approval in July 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Northampton Royal Mail Centre
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Bontoft, writing for Northampton Chronicle, reported that a
section of Royal Mail's postal centre in Northampton, in the
United Kingdom, has been closed following an asbestos scare.

According to the report, the transport office at the South
Midlands Mail Centre in Swan Valley has been closed amid fears a
postal lorry may have unwittingly transported asbestos into the
site from Nuneaton.

Royal Mail spokesman, Jennifer Bird, told the Chron the lorry had
hit a wall in Nuneaton, causing asbestos to fall onto its roof,
before it was driven to Northampton, 40 miles away.  She said;
"The Nuneaton Delivery Office is currently closed, following an
incident during which a vehicle reversing into the loading area
damaged a small section of the ceiling.

"The ceiling contains an asbestos coating which may have been
disturbed as a result of the incident.

"We believe the vehicle involved carried a small piece of debris
back to the South Midlands Mail Centre. The transport office area
has been totally isolated and the necessary testing will take
place."

Royal Mail has said the incident will have no impact on its
operations from the centre.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Tool Created to Combat Airborne Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kenter, writing for Daily Commercial News, reported that
legacy asbestos in buildings is as much a problem in the United
Kingdom as it is in Canada. Researchers at the University of
Hertfordshire in England have given construction workers a new
tool to detect airborne asbestos on any worksite in real time,
without the need to send air samples to a laboratory for testing.

The sensor, which uses lasers and magnets to identify asbestos
particles, will be commercially available in the U.K. in 2014
under the trade name Asbestos Alert.

A team of researchers, including Paul Kaye, a professor at the
Centre for Atmospheric and Instrumentation Research at the
University of Hertfordshire, began working on the concept in the
late 1990s.

"Our field of research included using laser light-scattering to
identify airborne biological particles, such as spores and fungi,"
says Kaye. "Somebody suggested that we might look at a way of
identifying asbestos fibres using this technology."

The concept was simple -- and effective. All types of airborne
particles are drawn into the device in single file. Laser light-
scattering makes the particles visible and allows identification
of any particles that are fibres by their shape and angle of
orientation in the laser beam. The fibres then pass between two
magnets. Since asbestos fibres try to align with the magnetic
field, a second laser detects this change in angle and
differentiates asbestos fibres from non-asbestos fibres such as
glass or gypsum that are not influenced by the magnetic field.

"The technique was successful," says Kaye. "But the test unit was
too large and too computationally intensive and the equipment was
too expensive to reproduce commercially. We let the research go
dormant."

Fast-forward to 2009 when a U.K. company, Select Group Ltd., which
specializes in selling tools and safety gear to the construction
trades, contacted the team regarding the device.

"They were constantly being asked for a device that could detect
airborne asbestos on the job site," says Kaye. "They'd come across
our patent and were keen to see us get back to it. Given that
there's now more computing power in a mobile phone than a desktop
computer of 15 years ago, we realized the device now had the
potential to be both smaller and economically viable. The magnetic
field is supplied by two rare earth magnets that cost about 50
Canadian cents each and the circuits and processors were now
orders of magnitude less expensive."

Select Group set up a European consortium of companies, which
raised funding to develop the technology. The Hertfordshire team
produced a half-dozen working prototypes that were sent to various
construction sites for real world testing by companies
specializing in asbestos remediation.

"We wanted to test its ability to detect asbestos fibres, but we
also wanted to know the ergonomic factors involved in using the
device," says Kaye. "We wanted to know how large it could be, and
how robust it needed to be to survive working conditions. These
aspects were determined by another consortium member based at the
Biomechanical Institute in Valencia, Spain."

The final working design will be small enough to be carried by any
construction worker or tradesperson and can be left activated at
the worksite, where air is passively scanned for asbestos.

"When the machine alerts the user with an audible or visual
signal, it's 99 per cent certain that the air around you contains
asbestos," says Kaye. "At that point, the worker can choose to
either put on a mask or pack up the tools and leave the work area.
I know which one I'd do."

Kaye says the Alert unit can detect asbestos fibres down to about
5 to 15 microns in length. These fibres tend to get trapped in the
alveoli where they can trigger a carcinogenic reaction that may
lead to mesothelioma over the space of many years. He notes that
carrying an asbestos detector may be particularly important for
those who are least likely to believe they're exposed to asbestos.

"In the U.K., a surprising number of surveyors were among the
fatalities from mesothelioma," he says. "That's probably because
they tend to perform surveys in existing buildings without using
personal protective equipment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warwick Accommodation Takes Action on Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Sian Elvin, writing for The Boar, reported that Warwick
Accommodation has decided to take further precautions regarding
the asbestos present in University of Warwick-managed
accommodation.

According to the report, those living in off-campus accommodation
received an email from Warwick Accommodation property manager
Stuart Smyth.  It stated: "We are planning to conduct a building
survey of off-campus accommodation managed by Warwick
Accommodation during the period 2nd - 20th December 2013."

This follows a report in the Boar on October 30 that all bedrooms
in on-campus accommodation Westwood and Tocil contain asbestos.
The majority of surveys will be during the Christmas period when
students are not staying in their accommodation.  They will be
carried out by an Environmental Essentials contractor, accompanied
by a member of Warwick Accommodation staff, therefore no students
need to be present in the building at the time of the survey.

Surveys are expected to take approximately one hour.

Dan Warr, fourth-year Chemistry student and Warwick Accommodation
off-campus resident, told the Boar: "I hear that they're just
doing it as a precautionary measure.

"I'm not particularly worried about it affecting me or my
housemates and hopefully the checks can happen over the holidays
when it won't cause disruption to us."

Mr Smyth explained that in the majority of cases, there should not
be any problems resulting from the building survey and it is just
a check-up: "As you may know, asbestos was a common (and legal)
building material used by the construction industry until its
prohibition in 1999.

"Asbestos is normally sealed inside other materials and therefore
completely safe. . .  It is unlikely that any further action will
be required."

Shareen Rikhraj, a second-year Psychology student who previously
expressed concern over the asbestos in the campus accommodation
she was living in last year (Rootes), commented on the
developments.

"I think it's great that they're being proactive and checking
these accommodations when as far as I know people living there
haven't really kicked up a fuss.

"And it's nice that they have addressed the issue again and
explained why the asbestos isn't dangerous, because I didn't
understand it before. It is responsible of them to be doing this
before it becomes an issue."

Cat Turhan, welfare and campaigns officer at Warwick Students'
Union, said: "It's really important that students don't worry
about this.

"We are pleased that Warwick Accommodation are being proactive in
protecting students from asbestos, and wish that private landlords
would be as vigilant!"

Mr Smyth further stated in the email that if students have any
questions about the survey they should contact their respective
property managers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councillor Issues Plea to Fly-tippers
------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Crosthwaite, writing for EADT24, reported that a senior
councillor has blasted the people responsible for leaving
hazardous materials near a public toilet in Holland-on-Sea, in the
United Kingdom.

According to the report, Nick Tuner, Tendring District Council's
cabinet member for environment and coast protection, has
highlighted just how much it cost to clear up the asbestos that
was left in Ipswich Road.  And an urgent plea has been made to
help track down those responsible for the incident that was
reported.

Specialist contractors had to be brought in by TDC to remove the
asbestos, which can cause cancer.

The cost of this was around 600 and came just three days after a
general build-up of rubbish had been cleared from the same site.

Mr Turner said: "These environmental terrorists are not just
costing the council -- they will have got the work because they
will no doubt have been paid cash, hold no waste carrier's
credentials or be VAT registered or paying income tax -- so the
cost to UK plc is huge.

"Residents have a social responsibility to check all these points
before employing a contractor and if they can't demonstrate
legitimacy then use someone else.

"One of our own residents will know full well who did this because
it would be their home, or their neighbour's home, that this toxic
waste came from and I would ask them to come forward urgently."

The area where the material was dumped is between a resident's
fence and the Ipswich Road public toilets, which are owned by the
council.

A photo of the material dumped has been released by council in the
hope someone may recognise it and be able to help in the
investigation.  It can be viewed on the council's latest news page
on their website www.tendringdc.gov.uk

Anyone who can help is asked to contact TDC on 01255 686788.


                             *********

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  * * *