CAR_Public/131227.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 256

                             Headlines


ABRAMS ROYAL: Recalls Sterile Products Following Adverse Event
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Name Plaintiff in No-Poach Class Action Killed
ALLIANCEONE INC: Accused of TCPA Violations by "Pacleb" Class
AMERICAN SECURITY: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Mo. Appeals Court Ruled in Red Light Camera Suit

AMN HEALTHCARE: Reached Settlement in Wage & Hour Litigation
B. BRAUN: Probe Shows Infusomat Killed Seattle Musician
BASF SE: Bid for Add'l. Discovery in Antitrust Litigation Denied
BERTUCCI CONTRACTING: Court Grants Sanctions Bid
BEVERLY HEALTH: Ex-Worker's Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

BP PLC: Two Top Officials Quit Oil Spill Claims Office
CA HOLDING: Faces "Cox" Suit Alleging Collection Act Violations
CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Class Cert. in Suit vs. CDCR Officers
CAMPBELL SOUP: Falsely Represents AHA-Certified Product Benefits
CARBO CERAMICS: Briefing on Bid to Amend Securities Suit in Q4

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Removes "Prindle" Suit to M.D. Fla.
COCA COLA CO: Motion to Dismiss Labor Code Violation Suit Denied
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Strikes Expert Reports in "Franco" Case
DIAKON LOGISTICS: Bid to Reconsider "Soto" Class Cert. Tossed
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses Suit vs. OBC Ass. Counsel

DRIL-QUIP INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Suit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Sells Defective Refrigerators, Class Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Investors' Suit Over May 2012 IPO
FDL HOLDINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages in Florida
FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Superior Court

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces Suit Over RESPA Violations
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Certain Healthy Times Oatmeal Cereal
IKEA U.S.: Motion to Compel Notice to Class Approved
JEM GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirmed Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration
LG ELECTRONICS: $25-Mil. Settlement of CRT Suit Has Initial Okay

MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Court Yet to Rule on Property Owners' Suit
MATRIX: Recalls Johnny G. Krankcycles With Detachable Seats
MDG DESIGN: Removes "Cuaya" Suit to S.D.N.Y.
MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert brand A La King Sauce
MERSCORP INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Dallas County Suit

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Recalls 1.3 Million Truck Tires
MONACO RV: 3,980 Travel Trailers Recalled in Canada
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Rollins" Class Suit Remanded to MDL Court
PACCAR: 702 Trucks Recalled in Canada
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas

POLYCOM INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California Court
PROSPECT OF TAMPA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ex-Employee Says
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Landfill
SPARTAN: Recalls 3 Chassis Cab Due to Seat Belt Problems
STARCRAFT RV: Recalls AR-ONE Travel Trailer Due to Overloaded Tire

STATE FARM: Del. Supreme Court Flips Ruling in "Davis" Suit
TAYLOR CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over MB Financial Merger
VINS ARISTA: Recalls Glass in Dublin's Pub Cider Products
YUM! BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Chickens Overdosed With Antibiotics

* 3-D Printing Not Covered Under Traditional Product Liability Law


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Absolved in Injury Caused by Bankrupt Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Corp. Has 5,000 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Rockwell Int'l. Has 2,600 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Insists on Cleanup at Burned Queensbury Biz

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coolidge Elem. School Cleanup Costs Reach $4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Hutt Valley Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brewery Demolition Halted Due to Fibro Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Earl Bell Center to Be Closed for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial of Calif. Case Ends in $8.6MM Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Depot Roof to Be Removed Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Alleging Exposure to Fibro Awarded $6.4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Win in Case May Not Be Defense's Loss
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Telstra's Brisbane Work Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped at Exmoor Beauty Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $8.6MM Settlement Awarded to Saller Family
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Drop Reinsurance Suit v. Excalibur
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheets on Bom Jesus Basilica to Be Changed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Planned for River Heights School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Workplace Statute of Limitations Revamped

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvard Town Hall to Close for Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Supreme Court Resolves Lung Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Chiefs Failed to Act on Hospital Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chester Experts Claim GBP6MM For Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex's Bid to Summarily Junk "Olds" Suit Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Leave to Appeal NYCAL Suit Ruling Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in "Smith" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Deemed Act 152 Unconstitutional
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Experts in "Lipson" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Fibro Removal Suit


                             *********


ABRAMS ROYAL: Recalls Sterile Products Following Adverse Event
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brie Zeltner, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that
Abrams Royal Compounding Pharmacy, a Dallas-based pharmaceutical
product supplier, is recalling all of its unexpired sterile
products after an adverse event related to their use, according to
a Food and Drug Administration news release.

The products include injectable medications, IVs, eye drops,
pellet implants, nasal sprays, inhalation solutions and eye
ointments, and were shipped nationwide to health care facilities,
physicians and patients from June 17 to Dec. 17.

The company is recalling the products because a patient in
California who received a compounded medication from the pharmacy
had an adverse event, according to the FDA.  In August, the FDA
recalled all sterile products from another Dallas compounding
pharmacy, ApotheCure, Inc., after 15 people in two Texas hospitals
became ill with bacterial bloodstream infections.

All the recalled products have the compounding pharmacy's name on
the label as well as a lot number.  Some may not include an
expiration date, but consumers can call their pharmacy to find the
date based on the product's lot number.

Anyone who has an affected product should stop using it and
contact their pharmacy to return it, according to the FDA.
For help, call Abrams Royal at 214-349-8000, Monday through Friday
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST.

To report a medication side effect to the FDA's MedWatch program,
submit a report online or call 1-800-332-1088.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Name Plaintiff in No-Poach Class Action Killed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that a name plaintiff
in the no-poach litigation against some of Silicon Valley's
largest companies was killed by a Santa Clara County sheriff's
deputy, who said he feared for his life.

Brandon Marshall, 43, was shot Dec. 10 outside the Saratoga office
of Roku, a video streaming software company where he worked.
Marshall had been among five named class members suing Adobe
Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar for conspiring to suppress wage growth by
agreeing not to recruit each other's employees.

Mr. Marshall had worked for Adobe as a software engineer for
roughly six months in 2006, according to the complaint.

Colead plaintiffs lawyer Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein confirmed Mr. Marshall's death at a status conference on
Wednesday in the San Jose courtroom of U.S. District Judge Lucy
Koh.

"We're very sad," said Ms. Dermody, adding, "We wanted to let the
court know and it impacts some of the language in the notice."

Ms. Dermody, who is representing the class along with Joseph
Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- of the Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, requested that Marshall's name be removed as a
representative for the class.  But she said that the estate of the
deceased plaintiff should be eligible for a service award.

Defense lawyers did not oppose Ms. Dermody's suggestion.  Among
those present at the hearing were Robert Van Nest --
rvannest@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest for Google, Robert
Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day for
Adobe, and Michael Tubach -- mtubach@omm.com -- and George Riley -
- griley@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers for Apple.  Intuit,
Lucasfilm and Pixar have agreed to settle.

Judge Koh, who certified a class of roughly 60,000 high-skilled
workers in October, signaled that she would approve the change as
long as it is explained to other class members.

Nicole Diller -- ndiller@morganlewis.com -- a labor and employment
partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, said defense lawyers generally
consent to substituting a name plaintiff when one dies.

"In the event of a bad relationship between opposing counsel, one
party files a notice of death, triggering the time period for the
attorney representing the decedent to file a motion to
substitute," said Ms. Diller, who is not involved in the no-poach
case.  "But generally the court would grant the motion so there's
no point to the adversarial route on this issue."  Police and
media accounts of Mr. Marshall's death point to a confusing scene.

Shortly after noon on Dec. 10, Mr. Marshall's coworkers at
Roku called 911 to report his erratic and possibly suicidal
behavior, according to a report by Sgt. Kurtis Stenderup of the
Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Marshall had left a meeting and gone to the lobby, where he
knelt on the floor and popped a handful of prescription pills, one
witness told the San Jose Mercury News.

He then ran outside the office where he was confronted by
sheriff's deputies, and struck Deputy Aldo Groba with a five-and-
a-half-inch metal spike, according to Stenderup's report.  Fearing
for his life, Mr. Groba shot Mr. Marshall once in the chest.  But
Mr. Marshall "was still combative and had to be restrained before
medical aid could be rendered," according to the incident report.
Mr. Marshall later died at a hospital.

Mr. Groba, a 14-year veteran, has been placed on administrative
leave -- a policy his department calls "routine" following
officer-involved shootings.


ALLIANCEONE INC: Accused of TCPA Violations by "Pacleb" Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allianceone Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-08164-
DMG-AS (C.D. Cal., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated seeking damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
alleged illegal actions of Allianceone Inc. in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading his privacy.

Allianceone Inc. is a corporate entity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNILAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
          SIMMONDS AND NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4816
          Telephone: (415) 283-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: jtopor@snllp.com


AMERICAN SECURITY: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action lawsuit brought
by Martha Schilke.

Ms. Schilke's class action alleged that Wachovia Mortgage, FSB,
her lender and holder of a mortgage on her home, fraudulently
placed insurance on her property when her homeowner's policy
lapsed. Wachovia secured the replacement coverage from American
Security Insurance Company (ASI) and charged her for it, as
specifically permitted under her loan agreement. The premium was
more than twice what she had paid for her own policy and included
a commission to Wachovia's insurance-agency affiliate, again as
permitted under the loan agreement.  Ms. Schilke calls the
commission a "kickback."

On behalf of herself and a class, Ms. Schilke sued Wachovia and
ASI asserting multiple statutory and common-law claims for relief,
most sounding in fraud or contract. The district court dismissed
the complaint in its entirety -- and also rejected two attempted
amendments -- based on federal preemption and the filed-rate
doctrine.  Ms. Schilke assigned her claims to Randy Cohen after
filing an appeal.

In a November 4, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/Vocm2V
from Leagle.com, the Seventh Circuit said the dismissal is
affirmed but on different grounds.  The Seventh Circuit said the
complaint and the proffered amendments do not state any viable
claim for relief. The loan agreement and related disclosures and
notices conclusively demonstrate that there was no deception at
work. It was Ms. Schilke's responsibility to maintain hazard
insurance on the property at all times; if she failed to do so,
Wachovia had the right to secure the insurance itself and pass the
cost on to her, ruled the Court. Moreover, Wachovia fully
disclosed that lender-placed insurance may be significantly more
expensive than her own policy and may include a fee or other
compensation to the bank and its insurance-agency affiliate. In
short, maintaining property insurance was Ms. Schilke's
contractual obligation and she failed to fulfill it; because the
consequences of that failure were clearly disclosed to her, none
of her claims for relief can succeed, the Seventh Circuit
concluded.

The case is RANDY COHEN, both individually and as a representative
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB
f/k/a WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 11-3422.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Mo. Appeals Court Ruled in Red Light Camera Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly and Anthony Edwards, Gregory and Amanda Bissell, John and
Shella Annin, and Joseph and Salvatore Cusumano appeal from the
judgment of the trial court granting separate and joint motions to
dismiss filed by City of Ellisville (Ellisville) and American
Traffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS).  Appellants received violation
notices from Ellisville alleging that they had violated
Ellisville's red light camera ordinance and challenged the
Ordinance in an eight-count purported class action petition.  The
petition sought declaratory judgment regarding the Ordinance's
constitutionality, validity, and conformity with state law, as
well as Ellisville's authority to enact the Ordinance.  Appellants
also asserted that the Ordinance violated procedural due process
and the privilege against self-incrimination, and they alleged
claims of unjust enrichment, money had and received, and civil
conspiracy against Ellisville and ATS.

Ellisville and ATS each filed separate motions to dismiss as well
as a joint motion to dismiss, all of which were granted by the
trial court. The trial court dismissed all of Appellants' claims
with prejudice. The trial court did not provide an extended
opinion, but rather adopted the conclusions of Respondents in
their motions to dismiss. Appellants now appeal the trial court's
judgment.

According to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District,
Division Three, the Annins and Cusumanos have an adequate remedy
at law available to them through their municipal court proceeding.
Because they may raise their claims and defenses in their
municipal court proceedings, the judgment of the trial court
dismissing their claims is affirmed.

The Edwards and Bissells have standing to challenge the validity
of the Ordinance and whether the Ordinance conflicts with state
law because they have been directly and adversely affected by the
Ordinance, the Missouri Appeals Court said.  Therefore, the
judgment of the trial court and its dismissal of Count I on the
issue of standing is reversed.  The Missouri Appeals Court
nevertheless affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Edwards'
and Bissells' constitutional due process claims because they
waived whatever constitutional claims they may have had by not
raising said claims at the municipal court proceeding. The Edwards
and Bissells are also estopped from raising their constitutional
due process claims because they accepted their convictions and
paid their corresponding fines in the municipal court proceeding.
Because the Edwards and Bissells are precluded from now raising
their constitutional claims due to waiver and estoppel, the
Missouri Appeals Court did not address the substantive issues of
whether the Ordinance violates procedural due process or whether
sovereign immunity protects Ellisville from constitutional claims.

With regard to Ellisville's authority to enact the Ordinance, the
Missouri Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment
declaring that the Ordinance was properly enacted pursuant to
Ellisville's police power for regulating public safety, and
reversed the trial court's dismissal of Count I in that respect.

"We normally would remand this matter to the trial court for
discovery relating to the revenue-generation allegations set forth
in the petition, but any remand is mooted by our holding that the
Ordinance is void because it conflicts with state law," the
Missouri Appeals Court's Judge Kurt S. Odenwald said in a November
5, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/gUrJp1from Leagle.com.

"We reverse the trial court's judgment dismissing Count I because
the Ordinance conflicts with Missouri law on the same subject in
violation of Section 304.120.3. Specifically, the Ordinance
conflicts with Sections 304.281, 302.225, and 302.302.
Accordingly, the Ordinance is void and unenforceable as a matter
of law.

"Despite our holding that the Ordinance is invalid, void, and
unenforceable, the Edwards and Bissells are not entitled to
restitution of the fines they paid under the Ordinance because the
voluntary payment doctrine operates as a complete defense to
actions for unjust enrichment and money had and received.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Edwards'
and Bissells' claims for unjust enrichment and money had and
received."

The case is MOLLY EDWARDS, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF
ELLISVILLE, and AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondents, NO.
ED99389.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Reached Settlement in Wage & Hour Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. reached a settlement in a class
action related to wage and hour claims in the second quarter of
2013, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions in the
ordinary course of its business. Some of these matters relate to
professional liability, tax, payroll, contract and employee-
related matters and include individual and collective lawsuits, as
well as inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies
regarding the Company's employment practices. The most significant
matter of which the Company is currently the defendant is a class
action related to wage and hour claims. In the second quarter of
2013, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in such
action (and a related action) for an immaterial amount, which
settlement is subject to the final approval of the Court.  At
September 30, 2013, the Company had fully reserved for the
settlement of such action, which had been accrued in prior periods
and was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30,
2013.


B. BRAUN: Probe Shows Infusomat Killed Seattle Musician
-------------------------------------------------------
John Ryan, writing for KUOW, reports that when Eddie Creed, a
Seattle jazz musician, died at the Veterans Affairs hospital on
Beacon Hill last year, his death certificate said throat cancer
had killed him.

But a KUOW investigation reveals what his doctors knew: A medical
device called an Infusomat, which had been recalled the month
before, ended his life.  Still, nobody knows why.

The week the device was recalled, a trainer for B. Braun, the
German manufacturer that produced it, came to the Seattle VA to
teach nurses how to use the machine.  According to the nurses, the
trainer told them that a correction was coming soon for the
device's breakable plastic clip, but it was safe to use the
machines until they were repaired.  So the VA started using the
Infusomats despite the "urgent medical correction letter" posted
at FDA.gov.

That recall was the most serious kind -- a "Class I" recall.
Class I doesn't mean the product has to be pulled right away, but
it does mean someone could die or be seriously harmed if the
recall is ignored.  The manufacturer said that improperly loading
the Infusomat could lead to an uncontrolled flow of drugs. So
could closing its door too hard and breaking a small plastic clip
inside.

So far as anyone can tell, none of those problems happened with
the Infusomat hooked up to Mr. Creed.  But the machine
malfunctioned anyway, draining all its morphine into Creed --
three weeks after the recall.

VA officials in Seattle say they never received the recall letter.
B. Braun had sent it to the Department of Veterans Affairs'
central office in Washington, D.C., where most recall notices go,
according to VA Puget Sound Chief of Staff William Campbell.  He
said a Seattle VA nurse saw the urgent, Class I recall on the
FDA's website a few days after the recall was issued.

"It is the most urgent class, but it doesn't mean that something
needs to be done immediately," Mr. Campbell said.  "'Immediately'
would mean you cannot use that pump unless whatever fix it is, is
done right then and there."

Jason Ford, the US spokesman for B. Braun, a manufacturer with
more than $6 billion in annual revenue, declined to be interviewed
or answer questions for this story.

'Not very confidence inspiring'

When Mr. Creed was in the Army in the 1950s, he directed a choir
and played trombone in a marching band.  Later, he played piano
for Seattle's Chamber Jazz Quartet.

"When he would play the piano, it just melted my heart and made me
so proud of him," said Sherry Evard, his partner of several years.

Mr. Creed was 77 when he died at the VA hospital.  He had been
struggling with throat cancer and went to the VA for end-of-life
care in April 2012.

"The last time I saw Eddie was the night that he died, and as I
left him, I kissed his forehead and said, 'I love you,'" Ms. Evard
said.  "I had no idea that he was going to die that night, or I
would have stayed."

On his first day at the hospital, nurses hooked him up to a
morphine drip for his pain.  Ms. Evard said the nurses appeared to
have trouble setting it up.

Clinicians must be vigilant to be certain they are using the
technology as intended to achieve the maximum safety afforded by
the technology.

"They seemed concerned about how to get it started and a bit
uncertain, maybe, that it was administering the morphine
properly," she said.  But to the nurses' credit, she said, they
double-checked before they left.

"After they left, I said to Eddie, 'That was not very confidence
inspiring, was it?'" she said.  "He just simply said, 'No.'"

The Infusomat, a machine the size of a phone book, is designed to
send precise volumes of liquid from a hanging plastic pouch into a
patient's IV line.  B. Braun's training materials emphasize safety
and avoiding the danger of "free flow" -- that's drugs pouring
out, uncontrolled.

According to a B. Braun training video: "Clinicians must be
vigilant to be certain they are using the technology as intended
to achieve the maximum safety afforded by the technology."

But on Mr. Creed's second night at the VA, something went wrong
and the morphine flowed freely while he was asleep.  Around
11:00 p.m., a nurse found a drained pouch of morphine hanging
above his bed.  Mr. Creed had received about 10 times the dose he
was prescribed.  He was pronounced dead minutes later.

VA Puget Sound Chief of Staff William Campbell holds an Infusomat
Space pump.  VA Puget Sound took its 497 Infusomats out of service
shortly after one of them sent a lethal morphine overdose into
Eddie Creed's veins.

Fuzzy Recall

Recalls of medical devices rarely make headlines.  But over the
past decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has seen a
"dramatic increase" in the number of recalls affecting infusion
pumps.

"Sadly, we actually have much more access to information about
defective toasters, and certainly defective cars, than we seem to
about defective medical devices," said Diana Zuckerman, who heads
the National Research Center for Women and Families in Washington,
D.C.  The nonprofit focuses on medical-device safety.

Manufacturers are required to notify their customers of the
recalls.  Often, Ms. Zuckerman said, the medical-device recall
notice doesn't reach the right hospital department or doctor.

"There's a lot of ways that the information may not get to the
right person in a timely manner," she said.  "In some cases,
devices continue to get used that should have not been used at all
any more because they're so dangerous."

The FDA doesn't say how quickly a hospital must act on a
manufacturer's recall, even a Class I recall.  The VA's Campbell
said the VA handled this recall properly.

"This specific recall was something that needed to be scheduled in
a timely manner, but it didn't need to be done that day, and there
was no need to remove pumps from circulation," he said.  "If that
had been communicated, we would've done that without hesitation."

Sadly, we actually have much more access to information about
defective toasters than we seem to about defective medical
devices.

The night that Mr. Creed died, the VA hospital set his Infusomat
aside to investigate what went wrong.  VA staff couldn't find
anything, so they brought in medical-device experts from the ECRI
Institute in Pennsylvania.  ECRI, an independent nonprofit, is
listed as a federal patient safety organization by the US
Department of Health and Human Services and accepts no funding
from the medical-device or pharmaceutical industries.

"They did not find evidence of user error from the programming,"
Mr. Campbell said.  "They were not able to produce the free flow,
either."

In other words, the VA and the outside experts tried to make
fluids flow freely out of the electronic pump again -- as the
morphine had flowed into Mr. Creed -- but couldn't.  They also
ruled out anyone misusing or tampering with the pump.

"A clip had not broken," Mr. Campbell said. "When we first pulled
the pump out of circulation, that was one of first things that was
looked at, and the clip was intact."

Doctors Don't Indicate Accident

Why Mr. Creed died that night remains a mystery.  Would quicker
action on the recall have spared his life that night? Or would a
newly repaired pump have had the exact same problem? There's no
way to know.

But Evard wishes doctors had been more immediately forthcoming
with her about his death.

A doctor called me and informed me that Eddie had passed away, but
he did not indicate that an accident had happened.

The night Mr. Creed died, a VA doctor telephoned Mr. Creed's
sister and Evard with the bad news.  He asked if they wanted an
autopsy to be done.  They had no idea there had been a medical
accident.  They said no.

"A doctor called me and informed me that Eddie had passed away,
but he did not indicate that an accident had happened," Evard
said.

Mr. Creed's family members were informed of the accident the next
day.  But they were not asked again whether they wanted an
autopsy.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that seemed "a bit out of sequence,"
because the family wasn't able to make an informed decision.  Mr.
Campbell said the VA could examine how that happened.  But one
thing they can't do now, or ever, is an autopsy.  Mr. Creed was
cremated five days after he died.

The VA investigated the accident almost immediately and brought in
outside investigators as well.  The hospital only released the
findings to Mr. Creed's loved ones in the past two weeks -- after
KUOW first reported events leading to Mr. Creed's death.

The VA also did not report the accident to the county medical
examiner as required by state law.

"We're required to investigate any drug overdose or complication
of therapy.  Something goes wrong in surgery, a hospital reports
that to us and we take jurisdiction," Greg Hewett of the King
County Medical Examiner's Office said.  "That wasn't reported to
us in this case."

After KUOW brought the erroneous death certificate to the VA's
attention, VA Puget Sound officials issued a statement.  It
acknowledged the morphine accident as the main cause of Mr.
Creed's death.  It blamed an internal communication error and said
the VA is reviewing its policies to make sure such an error is not
repeated.

VA officials said they reported the accident to the FDA. Such
reports wind up in a national database of medical equipment
accidents.  The data is available to the public, but it is
scrubbed of all identifying information -- not just of patients or
doctors involved, but of the hospitals as well.

"I think the important point here is there was no attempt to cover
anything up. We were very open with the family from the get-go
about the morphine over-infusion," Mr. Campbell said.

Thousands Harmed By Medical Devices

Mr. Creed was just one of thousands of patients harmed by a
malfunctioning medical device in the US every year.  Finding out
how or even where those events happened can be an uphill climb for
families or others interested in hospital safety, particularly for
those whose loved ones are patients at the VA.

If a malfunctioning device harms a patient at almost any hospital
in Washington state, it has to be reported to the state health
department.  Those mishaps appear on a website the state has set
up to provide more transparency around hospital safety.

VA hospitals and state-run psychiatric hospitals are the only ones
exempt from that requirement.

As part of an agency-wide push for more transparency, the
Department of Veterans Affairs does put a lot of information
online about its hospitals, including various measures of the
quality of care the hospitals provide.

But the VA shares little about its medical mishaps.

Other hospitals in Washington state must publicly disclose 29
different kinds of mishaps any time they occur.  VA hospitals only
reveal four types of mishaps.  Those four mishaps don't include
what killed Mr. Creed: a medication error.  The only way to learn
about those at a VA hospital is if an individual involved comes
forward, as Evard did to KUOW.

Infusomat: One-Star Rating

A December 2012 review from the ECRI journal Health Devices gave
the Infusomat a one-star rating, lowest of the six drug pumps
reviewed.  With its general difficulty of use and risk of life-
threatening free flow, the Infusomat "should be avoided,"
according to the nonprofit journal's reviewers.

Medication errors aren't limited to any one brand.  According to
the latest numbers available from the FDA, the agency gets about
10,000 reports a year of infusion pump problems.  About 120 people
die each year and 3,800 suffer serious injuries from pump
malfunctions.

National medical organizations started warning of the risk of
drugs pouring uncontrolled out of infusion pumps more than a
decade before that exact thing killed Mr. Creed.

"Eliminate the use of IV pumps and administration sets that are
unnecessarily hazardous when alternatives exist," the VA's own
National Center for Patient Safety advised in 2002.

In 2010, the FDA concluded that infusion pumps have resulted in
"numerous, systemic problems with device design, manufacturing,
and adverse event reporting."

That year, the FDA started an infusion pump safety initiative.
Three years later, the agency is still drafting voluntary
guidelines for companies to use in manufacturing safer pumps.

FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky declined to answer questions
about the safety initiative, other than to state that most
manufacturers are following the draft guidelines.

In November, ECRI Institute, the medical-device research group
hired by the VA to investigate Mr. Creed's accidental overdose,
called infusion pumps the nation's number-two medical-technology
safety hazard.  They came in second only to an excessive din of
medical alerts causing alarm fatigue in hospitals.

Uneven Standards

According to FDA watchdogs, the problems don't stop at drug pumps.
More than 90 percent of all new medical devices are cleared by the
FDA without being clinically tested on humans.

"Implants and infusion pumps aren't held to the same standards as
a medication for tummy aches," Ms. Zuckerman said.  "If you're a
company, and you're making a new infusion pump, all you have to do
is paperwork that you say is evidence your new kind of infusion
pump is substantially similar to another infusion pump that's
already on the market.  It might be that infusion pump has never
been proven safe or effective either."

The FDA will even okay a new device if it's similar to another
device that's been recalled. Legislation to close that loophole
died in Congress last year.

"I understand Mr. Creed's loved ones' frustration with this; we
share that frustration."

The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy
of Sciences, said in 2011 that the FDA's screening of new medical
devices was unreliable and the process needed to be scrapped
entirely.

Medical device industry lobbying groups didn't respond to requests
for comment. But the website of the Advanced Medical Technology
Association praises the current FDA system, saying it "has a
remarkable 30-year track record of protecting the public health
while making safe and effective products available without
unnecessary delays."

As for the Infusomats at the Seattle VA, they were taken out of
service two weeks after Mr. Creed died and moved to a warehouse
where they've been sitting unused since.  That's $1.9 million of
medical equipment the VA isn't using because of Mr. Creed's death.
The VA returned to the older pumps the Infusomats were meant to
replace.

"We're all frustrated about not having a definitive answer,"
Mr. Campbell said.  "It prompted us to remove the pumps from
service, and we're comfortable having done that, but we really
would like to know exactly what it was that happened.  So I
understand Mr. Creed's loved ones' frustration with this; we share
that frustration."

VA Puget Sound hasn't taken any concrete steps to return the
Infusomats or recover any costs from B. Braun.  VA officials said
they haven't decided how to proceed.


BASF SE: Bid for Add'l. Discovery in Antitrust Litigation Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NOS. 04-MD-1616-JWL,
08-2617-JWL, before the court is a joint status report submitted
by the defendant The Dow Chemical Company and the Direct Action
Plaintiffs, outlining Dow's request for additional discovery
following the depositions of current and former employees of
Carpenter Co. and E.R. Carpenter.

Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas ruled that the court is not
persuaded that the additional discovery Dow seeks is appropriate
follow-up discovery arising from the depositions.  For this
reason, Dow's request for additional discovery is denied.

This Order Relates to the Polyether Polyol Case captioned
Carpenter Co., et al. v. BASF SE, et al.

A copy of the District Court's November 5, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/YP4Zosfrom Leagle.com.


BERTUCCI CONTRACTING: Court Grants Sanctions Bid
------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III, granted, in part, a
motion for sanctions filed in IN RE BERTUCCI CONTRACTING CO.,
L.L.C., NOS. 12-664, 12-697, 12-1783, 12-1912, 12-1914, (E.D.
La.).

Coastal Logistics, L.L.C. filed the Motion for Sanctions against
the Claimants for Breach of Discovery Order.

The Claimants are residents of Lakeshore Estates, who, on January
17, 2012, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive
Relief, and Class Action Lawsuit Related to Liability and Damages
in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Their
petition asserted that Shipowners' activities created noise, dust,
and vibrations that resulted in personal injury, property damage,
and nuisance to nearby residential areas.

The Shipowners are NASDI, L.L.C. and Bertucci Contracting Co.,
L.L.C. -- tasked to complete the process of demolishing and
removing the Twin Span Bridges and repurposing the concrete
remains.

Coastal Logistics argued that Claimants' responses to their
interrogatories and requests for production were deficient.
Coastal contended that Claimants simply refer them to other
responses, to state-court pleadings or transcripts, to expert
reports or file material, to entire deposition transcripts and to
other vast storehouses of data.  Coastal maintained that it is
improper to refer to whole depositions or to other large volumes
of testimony.

Judge Knowles agreed that the Claimants can not merely point to
other vast repositories of documents, deposition transcripts,
state-court pleadings, etc. and inform defendants to search the
documents for the information that they want. However, on the flip
side of the coin, the Court recognizes that this is a large amount
of documents requested from approximately 260 individuals, wrote
Judge Knowles.

"Claimants must respond to the interrogatories and requests for
production with regard to each individual claimant, if such
information exists at this time and provide defendants with Bates-
numbered documents that support such a claim. This, they must do
with respect to the disputed discovery requests . . . If claimants
contend that they have produced all in their possession at this
time, they need simply and formally state so. Claimants may always
supplement their responses under the federal rules as more
discovery is had," Judge Knowles concluded, in a November 5, 2013
Order available at http://is.gd/Pq16PZfrom Leagle.com.

The Court directed the Claimants to supplement their responses to
the discovery requests.  Coastal Logistics reserves the right to
file an appropriate motion with supporting documents to recover
its fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion, should
circumstances so warrant, the Court added.


BEVERLY HEALTH: Ex-Worker's Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen has dismissed the case captioned
ANDREW CARR, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, NO. C-12-2980 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Carr's action against Beverly Health (doing business as Golden
LivingCenter - Petaluma), asserts both individual claims and
class/collective claims, all related to his former employment with
the Company.  Approximately one month after he was terminated in
July 2011, Mr. Carr filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Beverly Health moved to dismiss the case contending that Mr.
Carr's claims should be dismissed based on judicial estoppel --
i.e., because (1) he knew of the facts underlying his claims prior
to filing bankruptcy in July 2011, but (2) he never disclosed the
existence of his claims to the bankruptcy court.

Judge Chen ruled that the dismissal of the case is with prejudice
"as, even when the Court takes Mr. Carr's declaration into
account, there is no plausible basis for finding that judicial
estoppel should not apply."

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in
accordance with the Court's opinion and close the file in this
case.

A copy of the District Court's November 5, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/XU7EOBfrom Leagle.com.


BP PLC: Two Top Officials Quit Oil Spill Claims Office
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two top officials of a fund that
pays compensation in connection with the 2010 BP oil spill have
resigned, just months after the two were accused of engaging in
improper conduct.

Program head Patrick Juneau confirms that CEO David Odom and Chief
Operating Officer Kirk Fisher have resigned.

"They desire to move on to other business opportunities," he said
in an emailed statement.

The process of paying claims will not be interrupted by their
departure, Mr. Juneau said.  Attempts at reaching both Messrs.
Odom and Fisher by phone or by other contact information were
unsuccessful.

Mr. Juneau refused to comment on BP's allegation that the
resignations follow reports that the men entertained subordinates
at a strip club that got $550,000 in oil spill claims.  The
allegation is online in an ad BP says will run Monday in three
major newspapers.  BP won't identify the club.

In September, former FBI head Louis Freeh -- appointed by the
federal district court in New Orleans to investigate allegations
of wrongdoing in the claims office -- said Messrs. Odom and Fisher
had formed a business that offered work in an unrelated lawsuit to
a company doing oil spill claims work.

"Actual and apparent conflicts of interest involved the most
senior officials" of the claims administrative office, he wrote.

BrownGreer, a vendor that has averaged more than $15 million per
month in fees for its work on the program, reported the offer to
Juneau, Freeh wrote.

"Ultimately, the proposal was withdrawn," he wrote.


CA HOLDING: Faces "Cox" Suit Alleging Collection Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucinda Cox, Marty Mills, Devin Harley and Robert Brown,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CA
Holding Inc., KRG Capital Management LP, CACH LLC, CACH Of NJ LLC,
Squaretwo Financial Corporation, Phillip Scott Lowery, Paul A.
Larkins, L. Heath Sampson, Brian W. Tuite, James B. Richardson,
Jr., Thomas G. Good, Mark M. King, Christopher J. Lane, Damon S.
Judd and John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:13-cv-01754-JMS-MJD (S.D.
Ind., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George M. Plews, Esq.
          Frederick D. Emhardt, Esq.
          PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN
          1346 North Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 637-0700
          Facsimile: (317) 637-0710
          E-mail: gplews@psrb.com
                  emhardt@psrb.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Boruta, Esq.
          Robert D. Cheesebourough, Esq.
          CHEESEBOUROUGH & BORUTA
          543 E. Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-7000
          Facsimile: (317) 638-2707
          E-mail: boruta17@hotmail.com
                  rdc@home-saver.org


CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Class Cert. in Suit vs. CDCR Officers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire has recommended certification of
the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) in the case
captioned SAM JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-1059 KJM AC, (E.D. Cal.).

Mr. Johnson is a California inmate serving an indeterminate life
sentence, who seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiff challenges the
constitutionality of the protocol adopted by the Board of Parole
Hearings' Forensic Assessment Division (the FAD protocol) for the
preparation of psychological evaluations to be considered in
determining prisoners' suitability for parole. The complaint
alleges that defendants, California officials including the heads
of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Board
of Parole Hearings (BPH), and BPH Forensic Assessment Division
(FAD), all of whom are sued in their official capacities only,
deliberately adopted a protocol requiring inter alia the use of
three risk assessment tools that they knew to be unreliable.

On October 16, 2013, the court held a hearing on: (1) the
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses; (2) the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and (3) the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge Claire said she finds class certification as
appropriate because "an identical class was certified in another
case in this district that challenged the constitutionality of
generally applicable parole consideration procedures."
Accordingly:

1. Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses is construed as
   a motion to reopen discovery and as such is granted in part;

2. The Court declines to order responses to Plaintiff's previously
   propounded discovery requests, but will set a new schedule for
   discovery and dispositive motions following the district
   court's ruling on the Findings and Recommendation that follow;

3. Within 14 days of the district court's ruling on the Findings
   and Recommendations regarding class certification and
   defendants' motion for summary judgment, the parties were to
   file status reports (preferably, a joint status report);

4. The status report(s) would notice a status conference for
   hearing on Magistrate Judge Claire's regular law and motion
   calendar on the earliest available date.

In addition, Magistrate Judge Claire recommends that:

1. Petitioner's motion for class certification be granted;

2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted in part and
   denied in part:

   a. granted as to plaintiff's equal protection and pendent state
      law claims;

   b. denied as to plaintiff's due process claims insofar as
      defendants rely on Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011);
      and

   c. denied in all other respects without prejudice to renewal
      following close of discovery.

These findings and recommendations were submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's November 1, 2013 Order and
Findings and Recommendations is available at http://is.gd/9sTWyr
from Leagle.com.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Falsely Represents AHA-Certified Product Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Powers, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly
situated v. Campbell Soup Company and American Heart Association
Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00394-RLM-JEM (N.D. Ind., November 4, 2013)
is brought to secure redress for alleged false representation of
the benefits of Campbell Soup certified and endorsed by the AHA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene PHV, Esq.
          Michelle R. Teggelaar, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          120 S LaSalle Street Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603-3403
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  mteggelaar@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Galen A. Bradley, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP - MER/IN
          8001 Broadway, Suite 100
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          Telephone: (219) 769-0413
          E-mail: gbradley@k-glaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Brown, Esq.
          KIGHTLINGER & GRAY LLP - IND/IN
          One Indiana Square Suite 300
          211 North Pennsylvania Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 638-4522 Ext 8119
          Facsimile: (317) 636-5917
          E-mail: mbrown@k-glaw.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Whistler, Esq.
          ICE MILLER LLP - IND/IN
          One American Square Suite 2900
          Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200
          Telephone: (317) 236-2349
          Facsimile: (317) 592-4790
          E-mail: philip.whistler@icemiller.com


CARBO CERAMICS: Briefing on Bid to Amend Securities Suit in Q4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motion of the plaintiffs in a securities suit
against Carbo Ceramics Inc. to file a second amended complaint
will take place during the fourth quarter of 2013, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A.
Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY
Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011 and January 26,
2012 (the "Relevant Time Period").

On April 10, 2012, a second purported class-action lawsuit was
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option
contracts during the Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY
Lawsuit", and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the
"Federal Securities Lawsuit"). In June 2012, the February SNDY
Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will
proceed as one lawsuit. The Federal Securities Lawsuit alleges
violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements
concerning the Company's business operations and business
prospects that were made during the Relevant Time Period and
requests unspecified damages and costs. In September 2012, the
Company and Messrs. Kolstad and Bautista filed a motion to dismiss
this lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the Federal
Securities Lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in June 2013.

In September 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave
to file a second amended complaint and sustain the lawsuit.
Briefing on this motion will take place during the fourth quarter
of 2013.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Removes "Prindle" Suit to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, removed on November 4, 2013,
the lawsuit styled Prindle v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC,
Case No. 16-2013-CA-008504-XXXX-MA, from the Fourth Judicial
Circuit, Duval County, in Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-01349 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          20 La Grande Blvd.
          The Villages, FL 32159-2384
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753-8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Max Story, Esq.
          COLLINS & STORY, PA
          233 E Bay St., Suite 920
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 355-0805
          Facsimile: (904) 634-1507
          E-mail: max@collinsstorylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin E. Hekkanen, Esq.
          Andrew B. Greenlee, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3100
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3700
          Facsimile: (904) 798-3730
          E-mail: justin.hekkanen@akerman.com
                  andrew.greenlee@akerman.com

               - and -

          Lawrence D. Silverman, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP
          1 SE 3rd Ave., 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: lawrence.silverman@akerman.com

               - and -

          William P. Heller, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP
          350 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1600
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301-2229
          Telephone: (954) 463-2700
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2224
          E-mail: william.heller@akerman.com


COCA COLA CO: Motion to Dismiss Labor Code Violation Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar has denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned DANIEL AMBRIZ, Plaintiff, v. COCA COLA COMPANY,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-03539-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action for violations of the California
Labor Code and related claims, the Defendant moved to dismiss on
the grounds that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.

Judge Tigar held, among other things, that Mr. Ambriz sufficiently
alleged that the Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage
statements caused him injury in the form of preventing immediate
challenges against Coca Cola's pay practices, and because the
inaccuracies have "required discovery and mathematical
computations to determine the amount of wages owed, has caused
difficulty and expense in attempting to reconstruct time and pay
records, and/or has led to the submission of inaccurate
information about wages and deductions to state and federal
government agencies."

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


CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Strikes Expert Reports in "Franco" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted a motion to strike
experts reports in the case captioned DARLERY FRANCO, Plaintiff,
v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-6039 (SRC), (D.N.J.).

The Defendants, collectively referred to as "Cigna," filed the
motion to strike the September 5, 2013 expert report of Dr.
Stephen Foreman (the 2013 Foreman Report) and the September 5,
2013 Declaration of Frank Cohen (the Cohen Declaration).  The
Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

In a November 1, 2013 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/sKffs3from Leagle.com, Judge Chesler explained that,
to force a re-opening of class expert discovery is completely
unacceptable.  Plaintiffs' argument that any delay would be of de
minimis impact on this litigation because a trial date has not yet
been set misapprehends the effect of their actions, the judge
added. Therefore, the sanction sought by Cigna for Plaintiffs'
disregard of the Court's orders and violation of disclosure
requirements is warranted and appropriate, he said.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), Plaintiffs
are precluded from using or relying on the September 5, 2013
expert report of Dr. Stephen Foreman and the Declaration of Frank
Cohen for any purpose, including but not limited to supporting a
motion for class certification under Rule 23.


DIAKON LOGISTICS: Bid to Reconsider "Soto" Class Cert. Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz denied a motion for reconsideration
of a court ruling granting class certification in the case
captioned JOSUE SOTO, GHAZI RASHID, MOHAMED ABDELFATTAH, on behalf
of All Aggrieved Individuals, All Others Similarly Situated, and
the General Public, Plaintiffs, v. DIAKON LOGISTICS (DELAWARE),
INC., a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 08CV0033 L (WMC), (S.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Lorenz, the Plaintiffs' counsel satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Plaintiffs' counsel has litigated this case for five
years, are all experienced litigators in California employment law
issues, have been appointed as class counsel on numerous employee
class actions, and have the resources of two law firms, he said.
Moreover, Judge Lorenz noted, the Defendant conceded that it "has
not challenged the appointment of Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel" and even requested that the Court appoint class counsel
before the notice is sent out to potential class members.

In a November 5, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/XfjHi1from
Leagle.com, the Court denied the Defendant's motion on this
ground. The Court further clarified that it has already appointed
Emge & Associates and The Michael Law Firm as class counsel in
this matter.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses Suit vs. OBC Ass. Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Yelverton filed an amended four-count complaint against
Hamilton Fox, III, in his capacity as the assistant bar counsel of
the Office of Bar Counsel of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals (OBC), seeking, among other things, an injunction that
would halt an ongoing disciplinary proceeding before the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals' Board of Professional Responsibility
(BPR) that could result in a temporary suspension of Mr.
Yelverton's ability to practice law in the District of Columbia.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss or for summary judgment,
arguing that, among other things, the Court should exercise
equitable restraint by dismissing this case to avoid interfering
with an ongoing District of Columbia court proceeding. Mr.
Yelverton opposes, and has moved for a preliminary injunction.

In his motion to file his amended complaint, Mr. Yelverton sought
to add additional theories under which the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals' disciplinary proceedings are improper, and to
certify a class action.

"Because Fox has shown that this Court should exercise equitable
restraint by dismissing Yelverton's complaint, his motion to
dismiss will be granted, and Yelverton's motion for a preliminary
injunction will be denied as moot," Chief District Judge Richard
W. Roberts said in a November 1, 2013 Memorandum Opinion available
at from http://is.gd/2mgoVwLeagle.com.

"Because none of Yelverton's proposed amendments affects the
analysis of whether to exercise equitable restraint, the motions
for leave to amend will be denied as futile," Judge Roberts
further ruled.

The case is STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON P.
FOX, III, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-314 (RWR), (D.D.C.).


DRIL-QUIP INC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The judge in the Deepwater Horizon Incident Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of
Dril-Quip, Inc. with respect to the court's prior order that
granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration &
Production, Inc. ("BP"), sank after an explosion and fire that
began on April 20, 2010. The Company's wellhead and certain of its
other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time
of the incident. The Company was named in both class action and
other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident that
were consolidated in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010 ("MDL Proceeding"). On January 20, 2012, the judge
presiding over the MDL Proceeding issued an order that granted the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims
asserted against the Company in those proceedings with prejudice.
On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final
judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the court's prior
order that granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.

One of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL
Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a
Texas state court for which the plaintiff has filed a motion to
remand the lawsuit back to the Texas state court. If that lawsuit
is remanded to the Texas state court, the Company intends to
vigorously defend that lawsuit and does not believe it will have a
material impact. Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in
conjunction with this matter.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Sells Defective Refrigerators, Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Watters, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-01759-LPL (W.D. Pa., December 10, 2013) is brought to
remedy violations of law in connection with Electrolux's design,
manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and
servicing of its Electrolux French Door and Side-by-Side model
refrigerators.

The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class are or were
owners of Electrolux refrigerators, all of which contain an
alleged inherent defect that causes the ice maker to fail to
produce ice and makes the Refrigerators prone to leaking,
resulting in damage to the Refrigerator and surrounding property.

Electrolux is a Delaware corporation doing business in
Pennsylvania.  Electrolux's corporate headquarters are located in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Bobby Wood, Esq.
          Jay Ward, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
          P.O. Box 1007
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: bwood@rpwb.com
                  jward@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Investors' Suit Over May 2012 IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook Inc.,
Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and dozens of banks must face a
lawsuit accusing the social media company of misleading investors
about its health before its $16 billion initial public offering, a
federal judge said.

In a decision made public on Dec. 18, U.S. District Judge Robert
Sweet in Manhattan said investors could pursue claims that
Facebook should have prior to its May 2012 IPO disclosed internal
projections on how increased mobile usage and product decisions
might reduce future revenue.

"The company's purported risk warnings misleadingly represented
that this revenue cut was merely possible when, in fact, it had
already materialized," Judge Sweet wrote in his 83-page decision.
"Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded material
misrepresentation(s) that could have and did mislead investors
regarding the company's future and current revenues."

In a statement, Facebook said: "We continue to believe this suit
lacks merit and look forward to a full airing of the facts."

Facebook went public at $38 per share.  The Menlo Park,
California-based company's share price rose as high as $45 on
May 18, 2012, its first day of trading, but quickly fell below the
offering price and stayed there for more than a year.

Investors including pension funds in Arkansas, California and
North Carolina claimed that Facebook negligently concealed
material information from its IPO registration statement that it
had provided to its underwriters' analysts.

They sought damages resulting from their having sold or holding
onto the shares as they fell below the IPO price, bottoming at
$17.55 on September 4, 2012.

The lawsuit does not allege fraud.  More than 40 defendants were
sued, including Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg,
lead underwriter Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and
JPMorgan Chase & Co.

In court papers, the defendants had argued that Facebook had no
obligation to make the requested disclosures, which they called
immaterial, and that Facebook's actual results exceeded original
projections.

They added that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
other courts have said revenue projections need not be disclosed
before an IPO because they are "inherently speculative and
unreliable."

Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Mary Claire Delaney declined to
comment.

The lead plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, and Labaton Sucharow.

Both firms "are quite pleased with the thorough and detailed
opinion by the court," said Thomas Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com --
a Labaton Sucharow partner, in a phone interview.  "We look
forward to prosecuting this action vigorously."

Mr. Dubbs said U.S. securities laws allow damages to be pursued by
IPO investors who sold shares at a loss, as well as by investors
who held on while the share price remained below what it would
have been absent the alleged violations.

Mr. Zuckerberg, 29, founded Facebook about a decade ago.  Forbes
magazine said he was worth $19 billion in September.

Judge Sweet oversees litigation arising from the IPO, and the
investor case combined 30 lawsuits brought around the country.

On Dec. 16, the judge issued a decision that investors could also
pursue claims accusing Nasdaq OMX Group Inc of concealing
technology problems that led to difficulties in processing trades
on Facebook's first day of trading.

He dismissed claims over Nasdaq's decision not to halt the IPO or
cancel trades.

Judge Sweet's decisions are dated Dec. 11 but were not made public
for several days.

The case is In re Facebook Inc IPO Securities and Derivative
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 12-md-02389.


FDL HOLDINGS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Hortensia Cisneros and other similarly situated individuals v. FDL
Holdings, Inc. and Frank D'Annunzio, individually, Case No. 0:13-
cv-62411-WJZ (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) is brought by the
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to recover from FDL
unpaid wages, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

FDL is a Florida Profit Corporation having its place of business
in Broward County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for FDL.
Frank D'Annunzio is an officer, director, manager or owner of FDL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Labor Lawsuit in Calif. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. is facing a purported class action alleging
various causes of action for unfair wage and employment practices,
according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

In August 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court naming the Company as a defendant and
alleging various causes of action for unfair wage and employment
practices. The identified plaintiff in the Complaint seeks to
represent a class composed of "All Non-Exempt Hourly Employees
. . . at [the Company's] Main Facilities in Livermore" from August
21, 2009 to the present. Substantive legal proceedings have not
yet begun in the case, and the Company lacks sufficient
information to assess its exposure at this time.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces Suit Over RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Genworth
Financial, Inc. provided updates on the status of several suits
filed against its U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries alleging
violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013,
one of the company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was
named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and
mortgage lenders as a defendant in 12 putative class action
lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements"
were in violation of RESPA.  The so-called Barlee case was
dismissed by the Court with prejudice as to the company's
subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013.  In
the so-called Riddle case, the defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied, but the Court limited discovery at this stage to issues
surrounding the statute of limitations. The Manners case was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in March 2013. In the
Moriba BA case, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss by
order dated June 26, 2013. In the White case, plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint to address the deficiencies that the
Court identified in previously dismissing the action. On July 22,
2013, the company's mortgage insurance subsidiary moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint. In the Hill case, the defendants'
motion to dismiss was denied on June 27, 2013, but the Court
limited discovery at this stage to issues surrounding the statute
of limitations. In the Samp and Orange cases, the plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The Menichino case was dismissed by the Court without
prejudice as to the company's subsidiary and certain other
defendants on July 19, 2013. In the Riddle case, on July 19, 2013,
the company moved for summary judgment dismissing the case. The
company intends to vigorously defend the remaining actions.


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Certain Healthy Times Oatmeal Cereal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Horizon Distributors Ltd., Indigo
                          Natural Foods Inc., Loblaw Companies
                          Limited, PSC Natural Foods Ltd.,
                          Puresource Inc., Satau Inc., UNFI Canada
                          Grocery West, UNFI Canada Central
                          Region, Nationwide Natural Foods
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8503

Affected products:

   -- 170 g. Healthy Times Oatmeal Cereal for Baby - Whole Grain
      with UPC: 0 48685 71786 8; and

   -- 170 g. Healthy Times Oatmeal with Peaches and Bananas Cereal
      for Baby with UPC 0 48685 12191 7


IKEA U.S.: Motion to Compel Notice to Class Approved
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes granted, in part, and denied, in
part, an Amended Motion to Compel Notice to the Certified Class
filed by plaintiffs in the case captioned REID YEOMAN and RITA
MEDELLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. IKEA U.S. WEST, INC.; DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 11CV701 WQH (BGS), (S.D. Cal.).

In this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant has a uniform policy of requesting and recording ZIP
codes from customers during credit card transactions, in violation
of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

Judge Hayes held that notice will be provided to the Class in the
manner agreed upon by the parties: (1) by the creation and
maintenance of a Web site containing the Long-Form Notice, case
information, and contact information for Class Counsel; and (2) by
posting the In-Store Notice at the customer service desk located
in each of Ikea's California retail stores.

The Plaintiffs' requests for (1) e-mail notice by Ikea to all of
its customers for whom Ikea has an e-mail address, and (2) the
posting of in-store notice at each point-of-sale register for 30
days, are denied.  Plaintiffs will bear all costs associated with
notice to the class ruled Judge Hayes, in a November 5, 2013 Order
is available at http://is.gd/DmSo5Kfrom Leagle.com.


JEM GROUP: 9th Cir. Affirmed Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court's denial of JEM Group, Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration arising from an arbitration clause in an attorney
retainer agreement.

The Panel held that the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington correctly decided that it, rather
than an arbitrator, should decide whether the arbitration clause
in the attorney retainer agreement was unconscionable.  The Panel
also held that the District Court properly concluded, using non-
preempted Washington law, that the arbitration clause was
unenforceable.

Rosita H. Smith filed a class action complaint against JEM,
Marshall Banks, LLC and Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC i the
District Court alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and breach of
Washington consumer protection statutes.  She contends that JEM
and Marshall Banks charge fees to Washington consumers that exceed
the statutory limitations on fees that may be charged by debt-
collection agencies.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com
                  jmurray@tmdwlaw.com
                  enusser@tmdwlaw.com
                  bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Darrell William Scott, Esq.
          THE SCOTT LAW GROUP, P.S.
          926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 680
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 455-3966
          E-mail: scottgroup@me.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Christopher Glenn Emch, Esq.
          FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3299
          Telephone: (206) 447-4400
          E-mail: emchc@foster.com

               - and -

          Bryan C. Graff, Esq.
          Jerry H. Kindinger, Esq.
          RYAN SWANSON & CLEVELAND
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101-3034
          Telephone: (206) 464-4224
          E-mail: graff@ryanlaw.com
                  kindinger@ryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP (SEATTLE)
          925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98104-1158
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com

               - and -

          Whitney J. Baran, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP (SPOKANE)
          618 W Riverside Ave., Suite 300
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 241-1597
          E-mail: whitney.baran@klgates.com

The appellate case is Rosita Smith v. JEM Group Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-35964, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Rosita Smith v. JEM Group Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:11-cv-05054-RJB, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington.


LG ELECTRONICS: $25-Mil. Settlement of CRT Suit Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Philip A. Janquart reports
that a federal judge gave preliminary approval for a $25 million
settlement of claims that LG Electronics schemed to corner the
market on cathode ray tubes, and forced inflated prices on
consumers.

LG is one of several companies involved in the international plot
that led to multidistrict litigation in 2007.  The antitrust suit
consists of direct purchasers -- companies that bought the tubes
directly -- and indirect purchasers, who bought products
containing the tubes.

Defendants Samsung, Philips, Daewoo, Chungwa, Toshiba, Panasonic,
Hitachi Mitsubishi and others "met or talked with their
competitors for the purpose of fixing the prices of CRTs"
beginning in 1995, according to a fourth amended complaint.

The indirect purchasers reached a preliminary settlement agreement
in September, after a federal court found they had standing to
pursue their claims against LG and Philips.

U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti granted preliminarily
approval on December 9, 2013.

"The court finds that the proposed settlement with LG, as set
forth in the settlement agreement, subject to final determination
following proper notice and a fairness hearing, is sufficiently
fair, reasonable and adequate to authorize dissemination of notice
to the settlement class," Conti wrote in his order.

The settlement resolves all state and federal claims against LG,
which agreed to pay $25 million in exchange for dismissal of
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection claims
brought by class members.  The agreement provides $525,000 for
notification costs and sets up a fund of up to $5 million for
litigation expenses.

The costs will come out of the $25 million, leaving over $19
million for class members.

Conti deferred the allocation and distribution of the net
settlement fund, however, "until a later date when there might be
additional settlement funds from other settling defendants to
distribute."

The Special Master, Honorable Charles A. Legge, represented
himself:

          Charles A. Legge, Esq.
          JAMS
          2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 774-2600
          Facsimile: (415) 982-5287
          E-mail: snevins@jamsadr.com

The Plaintiffs are represented by numerous law firms, including:

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Jonathan Mark Watkins, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  avargas@pswplaw.com
                  asheanin@pswlaw.com
                  jwatkins@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq.
          Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Esq.
          Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Esq.
          Richard Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          David Nathan-Allen Sims, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  zirpoli@saveri.com
                  grushing@saveri.com
                  gianna@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com
                  dsims@saveri.com

               - and -

          Christopher Wilson, Esq.
          Daniel D. Owen, Esq.
          Patrick John Brady, Esq.
          POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC
          Twelve Wyandotte Plaza
          120 W. 12th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-3355
          Facsimile: (816) 374-0509
          E-mail: cwilson@polsinelli.com
                  dowen@polsinelli.com
                  jbrady@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          David L. Yohai, Esq.
          Steven Alan Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES, LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: david.yohai@weil.com
                  steven.reiss@weil.com

               - and -

          Esther L. Klisura, Esq.
          SHER LEFF LLP
          450 Mission Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 348-8300
          Facsimile: (415) 348-8333
          E-mail: eklisura@sherleff.com

               - and -

          Anne M. Nardacci, Esq.
          Philip J. Iovieno, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          30 South Pearl Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
          E-mail: anardacci@bsfllp.com
                  piovieno@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Milici, Esq.
          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: jmilici@bsfllp.com
                  wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Daniel Battles, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          10 North Pearl Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
          E-mail: bbattles@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Stuart Harold Singer, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq.
          Lauren Clare Capurro, Esq.
          TRUMP ALIOTO TRUMP & PRESCOTT LLP
          2280 Union Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
          E-mail: malioto@tatp.com
                  laurenrussell@tatp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
          Austin Van Schwing, Esq.
          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8206
          E-mail: jsanders@gibsondunn.com
                  aschwing@gibsondunn.com
                  rbrass@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Eliot A. Adelson, Esq.
          James Maxwell Cooper, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1413
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: eadelson@kirkland.com
                  max.cooper@kirkland.com

               - and -

          James Mutchnik, Esq.
          Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: james.mutchnik@kirkland.com
                  kate.wheaton@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
          Dana E. Foster, Esq.
          George L. Paul, Esq.
          Lucius Bernard Lau, Esq.
          Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          701 Thirteenth Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-3600
          Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
          E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com
                  defoster@whitecase.com
                  gpaul@whitecase.com
                  alau@whitecase.com
                  twu@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Aya Kobori, Esq.
          WHITE AND CASE LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: akobori@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Bijal Vijay Vakil, Esq.
          Jeremy Kent Ostrander, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 213-0303
          Facsimile: (650) 213-8158
          E-mail: bvakil@whitecase.com
                  jostrander@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Douglas L. Wald, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 - 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5112
          E-mail: douglas.wald@aporter.com

               - and -

          Sharon D. Mayo, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: sharon.mayo@aporter.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          Eva W. Cole, Esq.
          A. Paul Victor, Esq.
          Aldo A. Badini, Esq.
          James F. Lerner, Esq.
          Jennifer Stewart, Esq.
          Molly Donovan, Esq.
          Sofia Arguello, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-4698
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
                  ewcole@winston.com
                  pvictor@winston.com
                  abadini@winston.com
                  jlerner@winston.com
                  jstewart@winston.com
                  mmdonovan@winston.com
                  sarguello@winston.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Jay Lederman, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1517
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: jlederman@winston.com

               - and -

          John M. Taladay, Esq.
          Stephen M. Ng, Esq.
          Tiffany B. Gelott, Esq.
          Charles M. Malaise, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 639-7700
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
          E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
                  stephen.ng@bakerbotts.com
                  tiffany.gelott@bakerbotts.com
                  charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Jon Vensel Swenson, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          1001 Page Mill Road
          Building One, Suite 200
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 739-7500
          Facsimile: (650) 739-7699
          E-mail: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Scarborough, Esq.
          James Landon McGinnis, Esq.
          Mona Solouki, Esq.
          Dylan Ian Ballard, Esq.
          Tyler Mark Cunningham, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: mscarborough@smrh.com
                  jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com
                  msolouki@sheppardmullin.com
                  dballard@sheppardmullin.com
                  tcunningham@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Thomas R. Green, Esq.
          Christine S. Safreno, Esq.
          Jonathan DeGooyer, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: tgreen@morganlewis.com
                  csafreno@morganlewis.com
                  jdegooyer@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          E-mail: jeverett@morganlewis.com
                  sstempel@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Tiffany, II, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          2550 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1114
          Telephone: (650) 233-4644
          Facsimile: (650) 233-4545
          E-mail: joseph.tiffany@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Hojoon Hwang, Esq.
          Jerome Cary Roth, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4009
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: hojoon.hwang@mto.com
                  Jerome.Roth@mto.com

               - and -

          William David Temko, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9266
          Facsimile: (213) 683-5166
          E-mail: william.temko@mto.com

               - and -

          Bambo Obaro, Esq.
          Gregory D. Hull, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES, LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 802-3083
          Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
          E-mail: bambo.obaro@weil.com
                  greg.hull@weil.com

               - and -

          David L. Yohai, Esq.
          David E. Yolkut, Esq.
          Diana Arlen Aguilar, Esq.
          Kevin B. Goldstein, Esq.
          Lara Elvidge Veblen, Esq.
          Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES, LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8275
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: david.yohai@weil.com
                  david.yolkut@weil.com
                  diana.aguilar@weil.com
                  kevin.goldstein@weil.com
                  lara.veblen@weil.com
                  adam.hemlock@weil.com

               - and -

          Kajetan Rozga, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL, & MANGES, LLP
          99 Suffolk St. Apt. 5D
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 310-8518
          E-mail: kajetan.rozga@weil.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Tillman, Esq.
          PAINE TARWATER BICKERS & TILLMAN
          800 South Gay Street
          Suite 1100 First Tennessee Plaza
          Knoxville, TN 37929-9703
          Telephone: (865) 525-0880
          E-mail: art@paineter.com

               - and -

          Joseph Richard Wetzel, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          101 2nd Street #2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
          E-mail: jwetzel@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Margaret Anne Keane, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 615-6004
          Facsimile: (415) 835-2501
          E-mail: margaret.keane@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Viola, Esq.
          Barry J. Bendes, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Czerniawski, Esq.
          EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-4411
          Facsimile: (212) 308-4844
          E-mail: aviola@eapdlaw.com
                  bbendes@eapdlaw.com
                  JCzerniawski@eapdlaw.com

               - and -

          David W. Evans, Esq.
          HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
          71 Stevenson Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2981
          Telephone: (415) 546-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 546-7505
          E-mail: devans@hbblaw.com

               - and -

          Ethan E. Litwin, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004-1482
          Telephone: (212) 837-6540
          Facsimile: (212) 299-6540
          E-mail: litwin@hugheshubbard.com

               - and -

          William Diaz, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
          Irvine, CA 92614-2559
          Telephone: (949) 851-0633
          Facsimile: (949) 851-9348
          E-mail: wdiaz@mwe.com

               - and -

          Terry Calvani, Esq.
          Bruce C. McCulloch, Esq.
          Christine A. Laciak, Esq.
          Craig D. Minerva, Esq.
          Richard Sutton Snyder, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 777-4505
          E-mail: terry.calvani@freshfields.com
                  bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com
                  christine.laciak@freshfields.com
                  craig.minerva@freshfields.com
                  richard.snyder@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Ostoyich, Esq.
          HOWREY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (212) 896-6572
          Facsimile: (202) 383-6610
          E-mail: OstoyichJ@howrey.com

               - and -

          Michael Frederick Tubach, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: mtubach@omm.com

               - and -

          Courtney C. Byrd, Esq.
          David Kendall Roberts, Esq.
          Kevin Douglas Feder, Esq.
          Haidee L. Schwartz, Esq.
          Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5229
          E-mail: cbyrd@omm.com
                  droberts2@omm.com
                  kfeder@omm.com
                  hschwartz@omm.com
                  bbradshaw@omm.com

               - and -

          Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Esq.
          William C. Cleveland, Esq.
          BUIST MOORE SMYTHE AND MCGEE
          P.O. Box 999
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 720-4621
          E-mail: sgillians@buistmoore.com
                  wcleveland@buistmoore.com

               - and -

          Calvin Lee Litsey, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          1950 University Circle, Suite 450
          East Palo Alto, CA 93403
          Telephone: (650) 324-6708
          E-mail: calvin.litsey@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Jason de Bretteville, Esq.
          Brendan P. Cullen, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1870 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 461-5600
          Facsimile: (650) 461-5700
          E-mail: debrettevillej@sullcrom.com
                  cullenb@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Curt Holbreich, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 882-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: curt.holbreich@klgates.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Marino, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS
          One Newark Center, 10th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4000
          E-mail: mark.marino@klgates.com

               - and -

          Kris Hue Chau Man, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 951-1100
          Facsimile: (415) 951-1180
          E-mail: kman@dl.com

               - and -

          Diane Leslie Webb, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1010
          E-mail: dwebb@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brent Caslin, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          E-mail: bcaslin@jenner.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Brody, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: mbrody@jenner.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Dosker, Esq.
          Nathan Lane, III, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
          E-mail: mark.dosker@squiresanders.com
                  nathan.lane@squiresanders.com

The case is In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1917.  The master file is In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-05944-SC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).


MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Court Yet to Rule on Property Owners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
not yet rendered a decision on the issue of class certification in
a suit filed against Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. by property
owners alleging damage from hazardous chemicals, according to the
company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, ARCO Midcon L.L.C. and WilTel Communications, L.L.C.
("WilTel"). The complaint alleges that the property owned by
plaintiffs and those similarly situated has been damaged by the
existence of hazardous chemicals migrating from a pipeline
easement onto the plaintiffs' property. The company acquired the
pipeline from ARCO Pipeline ("APL") in 1994 as part of a larger
transaction and subsequently transferred the property to WilTel.
The company is required to indemnify and defend WilTel pursuant to
the transfer agreement. Prior to the company's acquisition of the
pipeline from APL, the pipeline was purged of product. Neither the
company nor WilTel ever transported hazardous materials through
the pipeline. A hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification was held in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri in December 2012. The court has not yet
rendered a decision on the issue of class certification. The
company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will
not have a material impact on the company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.


MATRIX: Recalls Johnny G. Krankcycles With Detachable Seats
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 10, 2013
Posting date:             December 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37147

Affected products: Johnny G. Krankcycles by Matrix with detachable
seats.

The recall involves the Krankcycles that have handles that the
user turns in a circular motion for cardio exercise.

Consumers can use the machine in a seated or standing position.
The Krankcycles measure about 57 inches tall by 27 inches wide by
42 inches long.  They are black and silver-colored. "KRANKcycle"
and "Matrix "are printed on the machines.

The Krankcycle that is the subject of this recall has a seat that
can be detached from the frame.  If the seat is detached and the
user does not properly re-attach the seat, the seat can
inadvertently detach from the frame, posing a fall hazard to
users.

Health Canada has not received reports of injuries in Canada.

However, two injuries from falls when the seat detached have been
reported in the United States, including one report of broken ribs
and one report of a back injury requiring surgery.

Approximately, 1,652 units were distributed in the United States
and 284 units distributed in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
January 2008 through January 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.
                    Taichung Hsien
                    Taiwan, Province Of China

Consumers and exercise facilities should immediately stop using
the recalled Krankcycles with a detachable seat and contact
Johnson Health Tech North America toll-free at 1-866-218-3674 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST Monday through Friday, or firm's
website and click on Safety Notice at the bottom of the page for
further instructions.


MDG DESIGN: Removes "Cuaya" Suit to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
MDG Design & Construction LLC and The Rich Dad Construction Corp.
removed the purported class action lawsuit captioned Cuaya, et al.
v. MDG Design & Construction LLC, et al., Case No. 159105-2013,
from the Supreme Court of the state of New York, New York County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-07826-RA to the
proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they performed work
for MDG and RDCC on certain public works projects for which they
were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive prevailing
wages.  The Plaintiffs add that RDCC failed to pay them, and that
MDG failed to ensure that they were paid, prevailing wages as
provided in alleged contracts with certain government entities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq.
          Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AINBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
                  lcoyle@vandallp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Michael Ferguson, Esq.
          KOSTELANETZ & FINK, LLP
          7 World Trade Center, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 473-8260
          Facsimile: (212) 808-8108
          E-mail: cferguson@kflaw.com

               - and -

          Edward Scarvalone, Esq.
          DOAR, RIECK, KALEY & MACK
          217 Broadway, Suite 707
          New York, NY 10007-2911
          Telephone: (212) 619-3730
          Facsimile: (212) 962-5037
          E-mail: escarvalone@doarlaw.com


MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert brand A La King Sauce
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Meilleures Marques Limitee
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Quebec, Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8496

Affected products: 398 ml. St-Hubert A La King Sauce with UPC 0
66701 00106 7


MERSCORP INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Dallas County Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERSCORP, INC., et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2733-O, (N.D. Tex.),
case concerns the statutorily created system of recording
interests in real property in Texas, and the more recent use of
electronic technology for tracking such interests that Plaintiff
alleges either bypasses the State's recording system, or is
inconsistent with it.  Dallas County filed a lawsuit September 20,
2011, in Texas state court against MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A.
The gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that the Defendants
conspired to create a private electronic mortgage registration
system for tracking ownership interests and servicing rights
associated with residential mortgage loans, which usurps the
county clerk's role under the statutorily created recording
systems in a manner inconsistent with Texas law, thereby depriving
Dallas County of recording fees and corrupting its real property
records.

Before the Court are: Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for
Partial Summary Judgment; Defendants MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s Motion for
Summary Judgment; Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Bank of
America, N.A.; Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on Pending Motions
for Summary Judgment; and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion
to Strike Portions of Fourth Amended Complaint.

In a November 4, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/I27hQ0from Leagle.com, District Judge Reed C.
O'Connor grants MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; and the
Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

With respect to the remaining declaratory judgment claim, the
Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Defendants' pending
summary judgment motions. With respect to the request for
injunctive relief associated with the common law claims, the Court
grants the Defendants' pending summary judgment motions.
Furthermore, the Court denied as moot Dallas County's Motion and
Memorandum for Partial Summary Judgment; denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Hearing on Pending Motions for Summary Judgment; and
denies Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Strike Portions
of Fourth Amended Complaint.


MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA: Recalls 1.3 Million Truck Tires
-------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit News, reports that Michelin North America Inc. said on
Dec. 14 it is recalling 1.3 million tires -- including some used
on Ford Motor Co. trucks -- after receiving reports of tread
separation that could lead to a crash.

The recall includes 1.2 million tires in the United States.

The French tire maker said it had received 20 claims of property
damage, but no claims of death or injury.  "Several instances of
tread/belt endurance issues (exhibited as ride vibrations,
irregular wear, tread loss, or rapid air loss) were observed for
the subject tire in the third quarter of 2013," Michelin told the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker said the recalled tires are on some
2010 - 2013 Ford E-Series vans. "We are working with Michelin to
determine the best course of action for our customers," she said.

She didn't know how many vehicles or tires are impacted by the
recall or if there have been any complaints reported on Ford
vehicles.

The recalled tires are typically used on such vehicles as
commercial light trucks, full-sized heavy duty vans, small RVs and
some large pickup trucks.

Michelin will contact owners by early January.  The owner will
receive a letter, approved by NHTSA, which will explain the issue,
and include specific instructions as to how to obtain replacement
products, as well as procedures for collecting reimbursement

The recalled tires were produced at the company's Nova Scotia
plant from January 2010 through June 2012 and are LTX M/S tires,
size LT225/75R16 115/112R LRE.

The U.S. customer returns for these conditions are currently 0.015
percent of the total population, or less than 200 tires.  No
returns for tires with these conditions have been reported outside
the U.S.


MONACO RV: 3,980 Travel Trailers Recalled in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           3980
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013441
TC ID number:             2013441

On certain travel trailers, some deadbolt locks could fail and
lock the interior handle, preventing a person located inside the
travel trailer from being able to exit when the door is locked.
This could increase the risk of injury.

Dealers will replace affected deadbolt locks.

Affected products:

   Maker               Model               Model year(s) affected
   -----               -----               ----------------------
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     CAMPMASTER          2010, 2011
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     MINTARO             2010, 2011
   MCKENZIE            ION                 2009, 2010, 2011
   R-VISION            TRAIL-SPORT         2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   R-VISION            ONYX                2011, 2012
   R-VISION            TRAIL-LITE
                        CROSSOVER          2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL
                         EXPEDITION        2012
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL TC     2011
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL TL     2010, 2011
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL TS
                        ULTRALITE          2010, 2011, 2012
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL
                        XLT ULTRALITE      2010, 2011, 2012
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     ALUMA-LITE          2012
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     ALUMA-LITE ULTRA    2012
   R-VISION            TRAIL CRUISER       2011
   R-VISION            TRAIL-LITE          2010, 2011, 2012
   DISCOVERER CANADA   CABOT TRAIL SS      2011, 2012
   DISCOVERER CANADA   COBALT TRAIL TC
                        CLASSIC            2010
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     ION                 2011, 2012
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     SAVOY LX            2010, 2011
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     TRAVELER            2012, 2013
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     TRAVELER PLUS       2012, 2013
   MCKENZIE            STAR-LITE           2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
   MCKENZIE            STARWOOD            2010
   R-VISION            MAX SPORT           2010
   R-VISION            SILVER CREEK        2012, 2013
   R-VISION            SILVER CREEK PLUS   2012, 2013
   R-VISION            SUPER SPORT         2010, 2011
   R-VISION            TRAIL CRUISER
                        CLASSIC            2010
   R-VISION            TRAIL CRUISER
                        ULTRA LITE         2010


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Rollins" Class Suit Remanded to MDL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered a
limited remand of a purported class action lawsuit styled Dustin
Rollins v. MERS, et al., Case No. 12-16261, to the multidistrict
litigation court to specify whether the MDL court intended that
its dismissal order be treated as an appealable final judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order that split the claims presented in the "Rollins"
case and other cases with some claims transferred to the MDL court
and others remanded to the transferor courts.  The Panel held that
it was unable to determine whether they had jurisdiction to hear
this appeal from the MDL court's order because the claims in this
case that remain in the transferor court were still pending and
the MDL court did not expressly find that its dismissal order was
a final appealable order.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David C. Ates, Esq.
          DAVID ATES, P.C.
          805 Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 969-4104
          Facsimile: (404) 969-4141
          E-mail: ates_david@live.com

               - and -

          John R. Ates, Esq.
          ATES LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 647-7501
          Facsimile: (703) 229-6430
          E-mail: j.ates@ateslaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Robert M. Brochin, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: rbrochin@morganlewis.com

The appellate case is Dustin Rollins v. MERS, et al., Case No. 12-
16261, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Dustin Rollins v. MERS, et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-00027-JAT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.


PACCAR: 702 Trucks Recalled in Canada
-------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           702
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013432
TC ID number:             2013432
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13KWM

Affected products:

   Maker        Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----        -----       ----------------------
   KENWORTH     T800        2014
   KENWORTH     W900        2014
   KENWORTH     T66         2014
   KENWORTH     T370        2014
   KENWORTH     T270        2014
   KENWORTH     T440        2014
   KENWORTH     T470        2014
   KENWORTH     T700        2014
   KENWORTH     T170        2014
   KENWORTH     T680        2014
   KENWORTH     T880        2014

The stop/turn/tail lights used on certain vehicles may not comply
with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(CMVSS) 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices.  The
plastic lamp housing may shrink, causing the light to fall out of
the light retention ring.  In this situation, the light would no
longer comply with the mounting requirements of CMVSS 108 and
visibility to other motorists would be affected.  This could
increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Dealers will replace affected lights.


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. continues to face the suit KB Partners I,
L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and
Peter S. Roddy, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed against
the company and the company's executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by the company regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory
status during the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through
June 23, 2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are
being sought, but no amounts are specified.


POLYCOM INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Following Polycom, Inc.'s July 23, 2013 announcement regarding the
departure of its former Chief Executive Officer, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an investigation, a
class action lawsuit was filed, and two derivative lawsuits were
filed, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The SEC has commenced an investigation concerning the Audit
Committee's review of Mr. Miller's expenses and his resignation,
and it has requested information from the company. The company is
cooperating with the investigation.

Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder
class action, captioned Neal v. Polycom, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Polycom and certain of its
current and former officers. The lawsuit alleges that, between
July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, Polycom issued materially false
and misleading statements or failed to disclose information
regarding Polycom's business, operational and compliance policies,
including with respect to its Chief Executive Officer's expense
submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading. The lawsuit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. Polycom has not yet responded to the complaint.
At this time the company is unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss relating to the action.


PROSPECT OF TAMPA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ex-Employee Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Valdes, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Prospect of Tampa, LTD., Co., a Florida Corporation
and Scott Mucklow, individually, Case No. 8:13-cv-02818-EAK-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) seeks compensation for unpaid
overtime wages.

The Defendants failed to compensate him at a rate of one and one-
half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, Mr. Valdes alleges.  He asserts that he
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a workweek
during his employment.

Prospect of Tampa, LTD., Co., is Florida Corporation engaged in
business in, among other places, Hillsborough County, Florida.
Scott Mucklow is a resident of the state of Florida and was the
Plaintiff's supervisor and manager at Prospect.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc. is facing a suit filed on behalf of
tenants and owner-occupants of property located within a one-mile
radius of the Bridgeton Landfill, according to the company's
Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On March 20, 2013, a group of residents living near the Bridgeton
Landfill filed a purported class action in Saint Louis County
Circuit Court, Missouri, on behalf of tenants and owner-occupants
of property located within a one-mile radius of the landfill.
Defendants, Republic Services, Inc., Allied Services, LLC, and
Bridgeton Landfill, LLC subsequently removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The action alleges that odors escaping from the landfill due to a
subsurface smoldering event diminished the value of plaintiffs'
property, caused irritation to the eyes, nose or throat, and
negatively affected their use and enjoyment of their property. The
action also seeks an injunction requiring the landfill to take
action to prevent the subsurface smoldering event from reaching
radioactive materials buried in the adjacent Westlake Landfill.
The plaintiffs each seek $500,000 in punitive damages on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, and an unspecified amount
in compensatory damages. Plaintiffs allege that the tenant and
owner-occupant classes are comprised of approximately 269
households and 683 residents in total.


SPARTAN: Recalls 3 Chassis Cab Due to Seat Belt Problems
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Chassis Cab, Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013433
TC ID number:             2013433
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13026

Affected products:

   Maker       Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----         ----------------------
   SPARTAN     GLADIATOR     2010
   SPARTAN     METRO STAR    2014

On certain chassis cabs, the seat belt(s) may not comply with
Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.
Due to a defect in manufacturing, seat belt buckles may not
release as required by the standard.  This could increase the risk
of injury to the driver in a crash.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace affected seatbelt
assemblies.


STARCRAFT RV: Recalls AR-ONE Travel Trailer Due to Overloaded Tire
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           7
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013431
TC ID number:             2013431

Affected products: 2014 Starcraft AR-One Travel Trailer

Certain travel trailers may have been equipped with tires having
an insufficient load range.  Trailers in question were equipped
with ST175/80R13C tires instead of ST175/80R13D.  This could
result in the tires being overloaded, which could lead to tire
failure and result in a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Dealers will replace tires.


STATE FARM: Del. Supreme Court Flips Ruling in "Davis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below-
Appellant, v. MELVIN DAVIS, Plaintiff Below-Appellee, NO. 10, 2013
is an interlocutory appeal which involves whether Delaware's
personal injury protection (PIP) statute requires insurers to
reserve PIP benefits for lost wages when requested.  The plaintiff
suffered severe injuries as a passenger in a car accident.  While
he was in a coma, his mother signed for him an assignment of
insurance benefits in favor of the hospital. The Plaintiff has not
challenged the validity of this assignment. The hospital's claim
was promptly paid by the insurance company. When the Plaintiff
later requested the insurers to reserve his PIP benefits for his
past and future lost wages, he was informed that the benefits had
been exhausted by the payment to the healthcare provider.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court held sua
sponte that the unchallenged assignment to the healthcare provider
was invalid. The court also held that the policy underlying the
PIP statute requires insurers to reserve PIP benefits for lost
wages upon request. But the issue of the validity of the
assignment of plaintiff's benefits was not briefed or argued. The
Plaintiff's counsel conceded to the trial court, "[w]e haven't
contested the validity of the assignment" which he described as
"an assignment of medical expenses, not an assignment of lost
wages."

Mr. Davis filed his complaint in September 2010 asserting four
claims against State Farm seeking lost earnings, general damages
for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. In
May 2011, Mr. Davis filed an amended complaint, pleading the case
as a class action and seeking a declaratory judgment on State
Farm's obligation under 21 Del. C. Section 2118 to reserve lost
earnings benefits.

In a November 1, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/Lj4PYj
from Leagle.com, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that the
Superior Court erred as a matter of law in deciding this
uncontested issue. Because the assignment on behalf of the
Plaintiff resulted in the exhaustion of his PIP benefits before
the plaintiff requested the reservation of PIP benefits for his
lost wages, the legal issue of whether the insurer was required to
reserve PIP benefits for lost wages is moot, according to the
ruling.  Moreover, the Supreme Court said it is not persuaded that
Davis' claims fall within either exception to the mootness
doctrine.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the
Superior Court and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Thomas J. Frederick, Esquire -- tfrederick@winston.com --
(argued), of Winston & Strawn, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Colin M
Shalk, Esquire -- cshalk@casarino.com -- of Casarino, Chistman,
Shalk, Ransom & Doss, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for appellant.

John S. Spadaro, Esquire -- jspadaro@johnsheehanspadaro.com -- of
John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC, Hockessin, Delaware for appellee.


TAYLOR CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over MB Financial Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a stockholder suit against Taylor Capital Group,
Inc. over its planned merger with MB Financial, Inc. has amended
their complaint, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 26, 2013, a class action complaint, captioned James
Sullivan v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et al., was filed under
Case No. 2013-CH-17751 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, against Taylor Capital, its directors and MB Financial
challenging the pending merger. On August 8, 2013, a second class
action complaint, captioned Dennis Panozzo v Taylor Capital Group,
Inc., et. al., was filed under Case No. 2013-CH-18546 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against these same
defendants. Subsequently, the two cases were consolidated pursuant
to court order under the first-filed Sullivan case number. The
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Taylor Capital
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Taylor Capital and
its stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair
price pursuant to a flawed sales process and by agreeing to terms
with MB Financial that discouraged other bidders. Plaintiffs
further allege that certain Taylor Capital directors and officers
were not independent or disinterested with respect to the merger.
Plaintiffs also allege that MB Financial aided and abetted the
Taylor Capital directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and
experts' fees and certain other damages.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 24, 2013.  Among
other things, the amended complaint adds allegations relating to
disclosures contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
contained in MB Financial's registration statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC on October 17, 2013.  Taylor Capital, its
directors, and MB Financial believe these actions are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits.


VINS ARISTA: Recalls Glass in Dublin's Pub Cider Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 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:           Vins Arista
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8495

Affected products:

   -- 4 x 355 ml Dublin's Pub Red Irish Pub-Style Apple Cider with
      UPC 0 67311 76322 2;

   -- 4 x 355 ml Dublin's Pub Black Velvet Irish Pub-Style Cider
      Flavoured with Dark Beer with UPC 0 67311 76342 0;

   -- 4 x 355 ml Dublin's Pub The Authentic Irish Pub-Style Apple
      Cider with UPC 0 67311 76352 9;

   -- 12 x 355 ml Dublin's Pub The Authentic Irish Pub-Style Apple
      Cider with UPC 0 67311 75352 0; and

   -- 12 x 355 ml Dublin's Pub Collection Pack with UPC 0 67311
      75390 2


YUM! BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Chickens Overdosed With Antibiotics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors allowed Yum! Brands
to buy Chinese chickens overdosed with antibiotics and hormones,
and the stock price fell by 16 percent when it was exposed,
shareholders claim in a federal class action.


* 3-D Printing Not Covered Under Traditional Product Liability Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clifton B. Parker, writing for Stanford News Service, reports that
Associate Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom warns that in a world of
3-D printing, people may not be protected under traditional
product liability law.  Rather, they could be left to pursue
harder-to-prove negligence lawsuits.

While 3-D printing technology empowers people to create amazing
objects once unimagined, it also raises red flags on the legal
concept of strict product liability, according to a Stanford law
professor.

Nora Freeman Engstrom, an associate professor, published her
research in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, exploring
how 3-D printing is poised to challenge the American litigation
landscape.

3-D printers can produce elaborate three-dimensional products of
almost any shape, working from designs on a computer screen.  The
technology has become affordable for individuals, allowing them in
effect to become "manufacturers" of any number of objects, from
plastic vases to bionic ears, and from high heels to handguns.

What does this mean for consumer protection? That's the crux of
Ms. Engstrom's legal question.

"Following any significant technological breakthrough," she wrote,
"legal scholars, practitioners and policymakers must consider how
the innovation meshes with -- or poses challenges to -- our
existing laws and system of governance.  Will it fit? What must
change? Where are the pitfalls and opportunities? 3-D printing is
no exception."

Winning a lawsuit

Under current "strict liability" product law, a person who is
injured by a defective product can win a lawsuit without
necessarily showing that the maker or distributor of the product
was negligent.

"This means," she said, "if you fall ill from eating tainted
peanut butter you purchased at, say, Wal-Mart, you can sue
Wal-Mart for your injuries -- and you can prevail in that lawsuit
even if Wal-Mart used all possible care in the peanut butter's
selection, storage and sale."

On the other hand, Ms. Engstrom said, a person injured by a home-
printed product would likely only be left with a negligence-based
lawsuit.  Negligence focuses on proving that the manufacturer,
distributor or seller of the product was careless -- a higher
hurdle.

Why is the legal treatment different for home-printed products?
She said that part of the answer is due to the "commercial-casual
divide" in product liability doctrine.  "This divide refers to the
fact that product liability law only applies to 'commercial'
sellers -- defined as those engaged in the business of selling or
otherwise distributing products."

Casual sellers, such as a housewife who makes and sells jam or a
child who makes and sells lemonade, fall outside the scope of
product liability laws.  Ms. Engstrom said that hobbyist 3-D
inventors, who print products in their garages and on their
kitchen countertops, are arguably casual, rather than commercial
sellers -- so strict product liability laws likely won't apply.

As a result, she said, if home 3-D printing "really does take off,
product liability litigation as we know it may, in large measure,
dry up." At the least, she said, it will erode some of the
protections under the current doctrine.
Manufacturers embrace technology

If 3-D printing does become hugely popular, however, it does not
automatically mean that injury victims will be left without any
consumer protections. One wrinkle is that manufacturers are
increasingly using 3-D printers and commercial distributors are
making those products available to the public.  Ms. Engstrom's
analysis addressed only the legal claim a person would have if he
or she were hurt by a product made by a home 3-D printer.

"The various obstacles I identify in the path of a plaintiff
injured by a home-3-D-printed object don't necessarily stand in
the way of a plaintiff injured by a commercially-printed object,"
she said.

She also pointed out that the line between negligence and certain
product liability claims is "awfully thin."  This means some
plaintiffs injured by home-printed objects might actually prevail
in "old-fashioned negligence" lawsuits, despite the additional
burden of proving carelessness by the manufacturer, distributor or
seller.

Moreover, Ms. Engstrom cautioned, it's still not clear what 3-D
printers are capable of producing -- or how fully the American
public will embrace the new technology.  "Is this technology a
flash in the pan? Or will home 3-D printers really, as some claim,
fundamentally alter the goods we buy, the products we use, and the
world we inhabit?"


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Absolved in Injury Caused by Bankrupt Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Pfizer Inc. cannot be held accountable for
personal injury allegedly caused by its bankrupt subsidiary
Quigley Co.'s asbestos-containing insulation, because Pfizer had
nothing to do with the product beyond applying its trademarks, a
Washington state federal judge recently ruled.

According to the report, in a Dec. 13 order, U.S. District Judge
Thomas S. Zilly dismissed Pfizer from a deceased Seattle steel
mill worker's asbestos injury suit, predicting that the Washington
Supreme Court would not extend products liability under the
apparent manufacturer doctrine to a company acting exclusively
outside the product's trademark.

The case is Turner et al v. Fraser's Boiler Service Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01747 (W.D. Wash.).

                         About Quigley Co.

Quigley Co. was acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended
to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and
Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed
dust. Quigley filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and has a Chapter 11
plan and a settlement with Chrysler.

Quigley filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-15739) on Sept. 3, 2004, to implement a
proposed global resolution of all pending and future asbestos-
related personal injury liabilities.

Lawrence V. Gelber, Esq., and Michael L. Cook, Esq., at Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring
efforts.  Elihu Inselbuch Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When
the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it disclosed
$155,187,000 in total assets and $141,933,000 in total debts.

In April 2011, the bankruptcy judge approved a plan-support
agreement with Pfizer and an ad hoc committee representing 30,000
asbestos claimants.

A May 20, 2011 opinion by District Judge Richard Holwell concluded
that Pfizer was directly liable for some asbestos claims arising
from products sold by its now non-operating subsidiary Quigley.
The district court ruling was upheld in the appeals court.

In August 2013, the U.S. District Court reaffirmed the June 28,
2013 U.S. Bankruptcy Court order confirming Quigley's Chapter 11
Plan of Reorganization.  Because this proceeding involved
asbestos-related litigation, both Bankruptcy and District Court
approval was required.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair
services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007. We also are responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
RIC's divested measurement and flow control business. But in all
cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our
products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have
been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe this
arrangement will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley
asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos
liability.

The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture &
Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States,
Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily
through the independent distributors in conjunction with its
direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells
through a combination of its direct sales force. In March 2012,
the Company purchased SoftSwitching Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Maremont Corp. Has 5,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation had approximately 5,000
pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended September 29, 2013.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,000
pending asbestos-related claims at September 30, 2013 and 2012,
respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these cases,
very few cases allege actual injury and, in the cases where actual
injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that
a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers
often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual
lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking
damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease
or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a
particular product. For these reasons, Maremont does not consider
the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a
meaningful factor in determining its asbestos-related liability.

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution ("CCR") and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos
claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements. Since
the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled asbestos-
related claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a
more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the
merits of each asbestos-related claim. Although the Company
expects legal defense costs to continue at higher levels than when
it participated in the CCR, the Company believes its litigation
strategy has reduced the average indemnity cost per claim.

Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates White), a consulting firm
with extensive experience estimating costs associated with
asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost
of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have
been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
Maremont. Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible
to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the probable
settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain
assumptions with respect to events that occur in the future.

Bates White provided an estimate that consisted of a range of
equally likely possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos
personal injury claims over the next ten years of $73 million to
$80 million. After consultation with Bates White, Maremont
determined that as of September 30, 2013 the most likely and
probable liability for pending and future claims over the next ten
years is $73 million. At September 30, 2012, Maremont estimated
liability was $72 million. The ultimate cost of resolving pending
and future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Maremont. Historically, Maremont
has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with
recoveries expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the
estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future
claims changes. However, Maremont currently expects to exhaust the
limits of its settled insurance coverage prior to the end of the
ten year forecasted liability period. Maremont believes it has
additional insurance coverage, however, certain carriers have
disputed coverage under policies they issued. Because no insurance
receivable is recognized for these policies in dispute, Maremont
recognized a $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2013 associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-related
liabilities.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered
appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in
an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a
longer time period;

* Maremont believes that the litigation environment could change
significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will
be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact
Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims
including indemnity paid on those claims. The insurance receivable
related to asbestos-related liabilities is $58 million and $67
million as of September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The
receivable at September 30, 2013 is for coverage provided by one
insurance carrier based on a coverage in place agreement. Maremont
currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this
coverage sometime in the next ten years. Maremont maintained
insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management
believes covers indemnity and defense costs. Maremont has incurred
liabilities allocable to these policies, but has not yet billed
these insurance carriers and no receivable have not been recorded
for these policies, as those carriers dispute coverage. During
fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a lawsuit against these
carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to insurance for
asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection
of insurance proceeds. No settlement discussions have taken place
between Maremont and these insurers. The difference between the
estimated liability and insurance receivable is primarily related
to proceeds received from settled insurance policies and for
claims where coverage under Maremont's insurance policies are in
in dispute with the insurer. Certain insurance policies have been
settled in cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related
asbestos liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements
generally reduce recorded insurance receivables.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers, and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business
segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket &
Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its
Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest,
France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor's Rockwell Int'l. Has 2,600 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Rockwell International had approximately 2,600
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2013.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability
for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of
the Rockwell automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At
September 30, 2013 and 2012, there were approximately 2,600 and
2,500 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM,
together with many other companies, as defendants.

The Company states, "A significant portion of the claims do not
identify any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the
claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to
Rockwell's products, and past experience has shown that the vast
majority of the claimants will likely never identify any of
Rockwell's products. Historically, AM has been dismissed from the
vast majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment
to claimants. For those claimants who do show that they worked
with Rockwell's products, management nevertheless believes it has
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products involved and the lack of any impairing medical
condition on the part of many claimants. For these reasons, the
company does not consider the number of claims filed or the
damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining asbestos-
related liabilities. We defend these cases vigorously.

We engage Bates White to assist with determining whether it would
be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. Bates
White provided an estimate that consisted of a range of equally
likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos
personal injury claims over the next ten years of $40 million to
$45 million. We recorded a liability of $40 million and $37
million at September 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012. After
consultation with Bates White, management determined that as of
September 30, 2013, the most likely and probable liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years is $40 million
compared to $37 million as of September 30, 2012. In fiscal year
2012, the company began estimating its Rockwell asbestos-related
liabilities utilizing a ten-year forecast period. The company
utilized a four-year forecast period through fiscal year 2011 due
to the significant volatility in defense and processing costs and
lack of substantive history related to Rockwell asbestos claims.
In fiscal year 2012, the company recognized an $18 million charge
associated with this change in forecast period. The ultimate cost
of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the
history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law
firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell.

The following assumptions were made by the company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2023. The forecast period used to estimate a
reasonably possible range of claims was increased from four years
at September 30, 2011 to ten years at September 30, 2012. Rockwell
has reached certain longer-term agreements with key plaintiff law
firms that make payments beyond the four-year period more
reasonably estimable. In addition, filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years resulting in
an improvement in the reliability of future projections over a
longer time period;

* The company believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years, and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims, will
be at the level consistent with the company's longer-term
experience and will not have the significant volatility
experienced in the recent years;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $13 million and $7 million as of September 30, 2013 and 2012.
Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million
and $6 million at September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively that
are associated with policies in dispute. Rockwell maintained
insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and
defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most
of these claims. The company has initiated claims against certain
of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in
various stages of the litigation process. The company expects to
recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on
consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with
certain insurers and underlying analysis performed by management.
The remaining receivable recognized is related to coverage
provided by one carrier based on an insurance agreement in place.
If the assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature
of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations."

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers globally, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. Its new business
segments are Commercial Truck & Industrial; and Aftermarket &
Trailer. On January 2, 2012, it completed the sale of its
Commercial Truck manufacturing facility located in St. Priest,
France to Renault Trucks SAS, an affiliate of AB Volvo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Insists on Cleanup at Burned Queensbury Biz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lehman, writing for Post Star, reported that the the owner of
a Ridge Road car repair business in Queensbury, New York, that
burned over the summer will be forced to pursue a costly cleanup
for asbestos contamination after losing an appeal to the state,
but he said he does not have the money to pay for the work.

The state Department of Labor has denied Ridge Road Car Care owner
Andy Ratto's request for a demolition variance after a contractor
questioned whether asbestos was present on the property.

The Labor Department had ordered that any cleanup include
precautions for asbestos removal, but Ratto appealed, saying tests
he had done showed no evidence of asbestos.  That was not
sufficient to convince the state agency. Ratto said he does not
have the $40,000 needed for the demolition and removal, so he has
no plans for a cleanup anytime soon.

Ratto said he has demolition coverage through his insurance
company, Erie Insurance, but the company has paid nothing so far.

"We have plenty of coverage, but it's a process and they're
dragging their feet," he said. "Every day they hold on to their
money they are making more off it."

The July 31 blaze destroyed the business and damaged or destroyed
at least 14 vehicles, some of them classic cars or luxury vehicles
such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz sedans. The fire broke out in the
early morning, when the building was closed.

The cause of the fire has not been determined. The state Office of
Fire Prevention and Control headed the investigation because of
the magnitude of the loss, and it was determined that the fire
began inside the business, toward the middle of the building.

But the agency's investigators, who worked with Warren County fire
investigators and the county Sheriff's Office, could not figure
out how it started, Warren County sheriff's Lt. Steve Stockdale
said.

"They were unable to determine a cause," Stockdale said.

Ratto said a number of potential causes existed inside the
building.

The charred remnants of the building are now covered by snow. The
demolition equipment that was on the property as of the fall is
gone.

Ratto said all but two of the vehicles that were destroyed were
covered by their owners' insurance policies.

"I lost 18 years worth of tools in that fire," he said. "At some
point I hope we can get some closure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coolidge Elem. School Cleanup Costs Reach $4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meghin Delaney, writing for Press Connects, reported that an
asbestos issue that surfaced at a city elementary school during
the summer has already cost $4 million.

"It may be a little more than that," Karry Mullins, Binghamton
school district assistant superintendent, said at a board meeting.

Unsafe levels of airborne asbestos were discovered at the Coolidge
building in August. Officials shut down the building and relocated
the students for the first half of the school year while the
building was cleaned. The $4 million includes the cost of cleaning
the asbestos and replacing materials lost during the process.

Students and staff returned to the building Dec. 2, but teachers
discovered materials they thought would be in the building had to
be thrown out. The cost may creep upward as teachers need more
replacement materials.

A percentage of the cost will be covered by the state Education
Department. The district will be responsible for the remainder.
Mullins said she did not have an estimate of how much would fall
to the district. The district's portion will come from a
contingency fund for emergencies or from the general fund balance.

Mullins told board members she'd have a clearer picture at the
January meeting.

District officials also detailed plans for a $12 million capital
project at the meeting, which would include security upgrades for
each school.

In addition to security upgrades, the project would replace the
bleachers in the high school gym, replace a portion of the roof at
East Middle School and rebuild the retaining wall at West Middle
School.

The board will make a decision whether to move forward with the
project as proposed at the January meeting. If approved, a public
vote would take place in March.

The $12 million project would have a $900,000 local share, but is
not expected to raise the tax levy.

The local share would be covered by the existing capital reserve
fund. The project would need a 60 percent voter approval because
the district would exceed its debt limit when it borrows money to
cover immediate costs, which are reimbursed by the state.

Construction would begin in the summer of 2015, but officials are
planning an accelerated timeline to make some of the security
upgrades and changes.

Board members also heard an update on the plans to rebuild flood-
damaged MacArthur Elementary School. The plans for the school,
created by Ashley McGraw Architects, are under review from the
state. The project is about two months behind schedule, officials
said.

"It's a frustrating and ongoing process," said Ed McGraw, a
founding partner and CEO of Ashley McGraw.

District officials said they hope to make up the lost time during
the construction process and still hope to open the school in
September 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Hutt Valley Station
--------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reported that the Melling station building
at the end of a Hutt Valley, New Zealand commuter train line has
been closed after testing positive for asbestos.

Wellington Regional Council said tests revealed the presence of
asbestos dust but not airborne asbestos and there is no risk of
people inhaling it.

However, it said the building needs to be cleaned and will remain
closed until that is complete and tests show it is safe to reopen.

Tickets for single trips can be bought on trains servicing the
Melling line and 10-trip tickets and monthly passes at Wellington
station.

The dust was revealed as a result of a council testing programme
on all stations.

The council says non-public areas at three other stations have
been sealed off and will be cleaned thoroughly. At Taita station,
also on the Hutt Valley line, asbestos has been found in the
signal box.

This is now closed until it's been cleaned and the council warns
there is likely to be some delays to services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brewery Demolition Halted Due to Fibro Scare
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrian News Online reported that demolition of an old brewery
building in Aberystwyth, in West Wales, to make way for a car park
has been stopped following an asbestos scare.

Health and safety officers were called in following worried
residents' concerns about the removal of suspected asbestos panels
at the former Hancock's brewery site in Trefechan.

An investigation led to the suspension of work and it is
understood that the site owner, Clarach building merchant Stephen
Woods, was advised to contact a recognised asbestos removal firm
before resuming work.

One concerned resident told the Cambrian News shortly before work
was suspended: "I'm a local resident with kids and I'm very
concerned." Local councillor Aled Davies said he had contacted the
council's building control department and been told that work had
been suspended until a specialist firm was employed. Mr Woods
could not be contacted.

A spokesperson for the county council said: "Corporate health and
safety officers of Ceredigion County Council visited the premises,
and subsequently advised the site owner that work should be
suspended."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Earl Bell Center to Be Closed for Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Munn, writing for kait8.com, reported that the Earl Bell
Community Center, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, will be closed at the
beginning of the year to remove asbestos from the building.

The buckling basketball floor is not only a hazard but a pain to
play on. The city hopes getting it fixed will provide a safer
place for kids.

Whether it's outside or inside, pick up games are common at the
Earl Bell Community Center. Unfortunately, so are bumps and dead
spots in the flooring.

"We dribble and we hit like a bubble or somethin', we either lose
control and the ball just go out of bounds and we get mad about
it," Tra'Von Neal told Region 8 News.

Neal said he plays basketball at the Earl Bell Center three to
four times a week. He explained the floor doesn't just make it
more difficult to play but also more dangerous.

"We had a lot of injuries here, like I had an injury here before
and a couple of my friends had injuries here," he said.

That's because underneath the rubber floor, are the old, asbestos
floor tiles.

"We've had some issues with this gym sweating over the past
however long and the asbestos tile has actually buckled up and
made rivets all over the floor," Jonesboro Parks and Recreation
Director Wixson Huffstetler said.

The city has approved removing those old floor tiles but they only
have a short amount of time to do so.

"We start our City Stars Casketball in the first of February so we
really need to get it done in the month of January," Huffstetler
explained.

Players say closing the gym for a month will be worth it.

"This is where I'd be at every day," Neal said. "I normally go to
Parker Park because they've got better floors, better gym and
air."

The gym will be closed all day starting January 5th and should
reopen on February 3rd. The cost of the project is right at
$30,000 and will come out of the Jonesboro Parks and Recreation
2014 Budget.

That budget also has money set aside for putting an air
conditioning unit inside the gym.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial of Calif. Case Ends in $8.6MM Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Los Angeles Superior Court
jury has awarded $8.6 million to the family of a deceased refinery
worker who allegedly contracted mesothelioma from exposure to
asbestos dust from defendant Crown, Cork & Seal's thermal
insulation products.

The jury delivered their verdict Dec. 13 after a 17-day trial,
awarding $5 million in economic and non-economic damages and $3.6
million in punitive damages to the family of William Saller.
Crown, Cork and Seal Company Inc. was the only trial defendant.

Trial took place before Superior Court Justice Anthony J. Mohr.
Jurors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kingston Depot Roof to Be Removed Due to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Doherty, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
airtight walls and barriers will be installed during the removal
of a roof that contains asbestos at the old bus depot in Kingston
early next year.

The upper hall will be closed during the removal of the asbestos
cement roof sheeting, to start in mid to late January and continue
for five weeks. The roof replacement is expected to be finished in
late April.

The Old Bus Depot Markets will continue to operate during the
work, with stallholders moving from the upper deck to the Fitter's
Workshop and northern annexe, renamed the Lakeside Gallery by
market directors.

Land Development Agency chief executive David Dawes said the total
value of the project was $2.64 million and included extra works in
Kingston Foreshore, including demolishing the nearby former
morgue, which also contained asbestos. Capezio and Co is doing the
work. The demolition of the morgue was due to occur in mid-2014.
The land will be used for residential development.

Mr Dawes said the work area in the bus depot would be closed to
the public and sealed off from Wentworth Avenue offices. An
asbestos assessor would oversee the removal.

''Temporary airtight walls and barriers will be installed between
the upper hall and adjacent parts of the building. Isolation
screens and a decontamination unit will be installed and tested
before any actual asbestos removal activity is commenced. Air
monitoring equipment will be in place to monitor the environment
during the removal of the asbestos,'' Mr Dawes said.

The northern annexe, a 1980s addition, will be demolished in stage
two of the redevelopment, expected between May and August, to
allow Printers Way to be linked to the foreshore. By that stage
stallholders will be back on the upper level.

Old Bus Depot Markets director Diane Hinds said she was looking
forward to the redevelopment, which coincided with the markets'
20th year in 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Alleging Exposure to Fibro Awarded $6.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana jury has awarded
$6.4 million to a woman who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after
being exposed to asbestos manufactured and sold by Asbestos
Corporation Ltd.

After a seven-day trial, a jury sitting in the Louisiana District
Court, Parish of Orleans issued the $6,420,467 verdict in favor of
New Orleans resident Mary Morvant. The jury found that Morvant was
exposed to raw asbestos fiber supplied by ACL to a local plant
owned by Johns-Manville Marrero.

According to the suit, Morvant, a surgical nurse, was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in October 2012 after being exposed to asbestos
fibers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Win in Case May Not Be Defense's Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that recently, a Middlesex County, N.J., jury
awarded $1.6 million to a young man and his wife in an asbestos
lawsuit in which he alleged asbestos exposure through cosmetic
talc.

In Kaenzig v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels et al., the plaintiffs
claimed that the husband and father of four was exposed to
asbestos as a child between 1967 and 1975, when his father, who
worked for a company that manufactured personal care products
using talc powder, brought home asbestos-containing talc on his
work clothes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Telstra's Brisbane Work Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Bavas, Jake Sturmer and Mark Solomons, writing for ABC News,
reported that a union says it has grave concerns about work done
by a Telstra contractor to the north of Brisbane, after finding
asbestos near a recently replaced telecommunications pit.

Telstra's infrastructure is being used to roll out the National
Broadband Network, including old pits containing asbestos.

Coutts Contracting, which is under investigation, was responsible
for replacing dozens of pits in Caboolture and Morayfield between
August 2011 and October 2012.

A piece of asbestos was found near a replaced pit in the front
yard of a house in Caboolture River Road at Morayfield.

Phil Hughes from the Communication Workers Union says nobody knows
how long it has been there.

"It's very dangerous because it's dry and the sun breaks it down,"
he said.

"If you look really closely, you can actually see the fibres."

He says dangerous pieces of asbestos were left in the ground and
covered with a thin layer of land fill.

"The contaminated soil would actually be under probably an inch or
so of crusher dust; decomposed granite," he said.

"So underneath that would be all your contaminated soil from the
old asbestos pit with chunks . . . that would eventually work
their way to the surface of the ground.

"How many school kids walk past here every day; walking right past
that lethal piece of asbestos?"

Families live in street where asbestos was found

Resident Alex Chivers says he is shocked at the discovery.

"There's a family over the road with three kids and there's a
whole group of kids moved into the units over the back there, plus
my grandchildren turn up here all the time so I wouldn't be real
happy about them running around knowing there's asbestos in the
air," he said.

A Telstra spokesman says the company is awaiting the outcome of an
investigation by Queensland's Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection.

"If there is any indication that contractors have failed to use
appropriate procedures for the safe handling and disposal of
potentially asbestos-containing material then we will take
immediate action," he said.

Coutts Contracting denies the claims and has refused to comment.

Comcare, the federal department responsible for investigating such
claims, released a statement after sending workers to investigate.

"In its investigations, Comcare has not uncovered evidence of
exposure to workers or the community, or breaches of the WHS Act."

Comcare has received another 66 different complaints from around
the country this year but, after investigations, found no breaches
at any of those sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped at Exmoor Beauty Site
--------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that a beauty spot in Exmoor,
England, has been blighted after asbestos was dumped there -- just
24 hours after the site was cleared.

Breakneck Hole near Challacombe was subject to fly tipping in
January 2013 when a commercial operator dumped hundreds of items
of furniture at the site.

It took several months for the site to be cleared at a cost of
GBP1,500 to North Devon Council.

But just hours after the site was finally cleared someone dumped
asbestos on it which district councillor Rodney Cann is keen to
tell the public is highly toxic.

"I think this is just an irresponsible commercial operator," he
said. "They are trying to avoid the cost of disposing of a
dangerous substance.

"This is going to cost the tax payer a significant amount of
money."

Mr Cann, who is also the lead member for environment at the
council, said the asbestos will be removed as soon as possible.

"It is quite safe as long as people don't remove it," he added.

He said the council will foot the bill for removing the waste and
then look at clawing back some of the expense from other
authorities.

Clearing the site cost GBP1,500 last time, of which GBP300 was
contributed by Devon County Council.

"We found some of the material there previously was hazardous,
which actually cost more than the GBP1,500 quoted," said Mr Cann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $8.6MM Settlement Awarded to Saller Family
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that an $8.6 million settlement
has been awarded to the family of the recently deceased William
Saller, who died from asbestos disease. According to the lawsuit,
Saller allegedly contracted asbestos mesothelioma from exposure to
asbestos dust generated by a thermal insulation product known as
Mundet, made by defendant Crown, Cork & Seal (CCS), a manufacturer
of thermal insulation products. Mundet was used extensively in the
refinery where Mr. Saller worked.

After just 17 days, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury reached
their verdict December 13 awarding $5 million in economic and non-
economic damages and $3.6 million in punitive damages to the
family of Saller. The ruling comes after the Saller family lose
the case in 2007, but the original verdict was overturned on
appeal and sent back for retrial.

The sole defendant in the asbestos lawsuit, CCS, was found 30
percent responsible for the compensatory award and 100 percent
responsible for the punitive award.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Drop Reinsurance Suit v. Excalibur
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Travelers Casualty and
Surety Co. has voluntarily dismissed its suit against Excalibur
Reinsurance Corp. in which it demanded $86,721 in reinsurance
proceeds arising from an underlying settlement of asbestos injury
claims asserted against Zurn Industries Inc.

In the Nov. 27 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Travelers accused Excalibur of breaching
three facultative certificates that were in effect in the early
1980s. Travelers filed its notice of voluntary dismissal on
Dec. 18.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Sheets on Bom Jesus Basilica to Be Changed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Xavier, writing for The Times of India, reported that the
Basilica of Bom Jesus, one of the biggest and popular churches in
Goa, India, will soon be crowned with a more aesthetic cover for
its rooftop, as the asbestos sheets will be replaced with material
suitable for its heritage character.

A major fire due to an electric short circuit in October 2004 had
partly gutted a part of its roof. The archaeological survey of
India (ASI) had covered the roof with asbestos sheets, but this
had disappointed church authorities and heritage lovers.

"We have to replace asbestos sheets with Mangalore tiles to
maintain the aesthetic character of the church," Ramesh S
Mulimani, superintending archaeologist, ASI, Goa said.

The asbestos sheets not only marred the heritage ambience of the
grand monument in the world heritage complex but are also known to
be unhealthy. "There were lot of leakages and the material was
also a health hazard," Fr Savio Barreto, rector of the Basilica
said.

ASI carried out renovation of the roof in 2010, but somehow used
asbestos yet again. After taking note of the disadvantages of the
asbestos, the ASI and church authorities decided to restore the
roof to its pristine conditions. Sources said Mangalore tiles were
traditionally used to cover church roofs. The work is likely to
commence within a month.

The decennial exposition of the sacred relics of Goa's patron
saint, St Francis Xavier is scheduled to be held from November 22,
2014 till January 4, 2015.

The mortal remains of the Spanish saint are kept in a mausoleum in
the Basilica, but they are taken to the Se Cathedral during the
exposition to allow devotees to kiss the relics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Planned for River Heights School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Hart, writing for The Dunn County News, reported that during
Spring Break 2014, 21 classrooms at River Height's Elementary
School, in Wisconsin, will be closed for asbestos abatement. Bids
will be secured over the next couple of weeks.

"You hope that they get it cleaned up enough that you clear
testing, because if not, you don't go back to school until it's
cleared," said Mike Meyers, director of buildings and grounds at
the school board meeting.

Asbestos will also have to be abated at Downsville Elementary and
Menomonie High School.

Tom Twohig of SDS Architects presented a review of the
construction schedule and revised remodeling plans for MHS,
Downsville and River Heights.

Release for bidding will take place on Jan. 15, with bids to be
received Feb. 12 and approved Feb. 19. Construction is set to
begin April 15.

Twelve general contractors were approved to bid all the projects,
along with several for limited projects.

"Typically what happens is some of them decide not to bid, so it's
nice to have a large number," Twohig said.

Included in the improvements for Downsville Elementary are
mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades along with a
geothermal system.

"In setting up the construction zone for Downsville, it will
literally have to be the entire playground -- the entire
building," said District Administrator Chris Stratton, noting that
community usage will not be available during the summer.

At River Heights Elementary, remodeling and construction of an
addition will begin in April while classroom work begins in June.
Construction is expected to be completed in August. River Heights
will not be available for summer school.

Among the renovations at the high school is the conversion of the
existing gymnasium into a commons area and building a new
gymnasium with seating for approximately 2,000 spectators. Part of
the plan is to use part of the gymnasium floor with a Mustang logo
on a wall in the commons area and another part of the gym floor as
a backdrop for a display case.

"We have a student-owned manufacturing business at the high school
. . . with some fairly sophisticated laser engraving equipment,"
said Stratton. Students plan to engrave the Menomonie Mustang logo
into tiles that the designers will embed throughout the building.

The Menomonie Fire Department has requested three new hydrants
near the high school. Two are expected to be relatively easy to
install, but will cost about $25,000 each.

In other business, the school board will interview up to three
search firms to aid with the selection of a replacement for
Stratton, who will retire in June.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Workplace Statute of Limitations Revamped
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laywers and Settlements reported that recently, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court rendered a decision that could have widespread
implications with respect to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who
allege to have contracted illnesses from the workplace,
specifically asbestos disease.

In November, the high court ruled that occupational diseases that
manifest outside of a 300-week period prescribed by the Workers'
Compensation Act do not preclude an employee from filing a civil
action against his or her employer. The high court ruled that the
Workers' Compensation Act did not apply to latent occupational
diseases, or diseases that could take years to develop and be
diagnosed.

The justices' decision reverses an August 2010 order of the state
Superior Court, a lower-tier appellate bench, which in turn had
reversed a June 2008 Allegheny County Common Pleas Court ruling.
It was based on the justices' review of two consolidated appeals,
Tooey v. AK Steel Corp.and Landis v. A.W. Chesterton Co. In that
review, the justices were tasked with addressing whether workers
such as John Tooey and Spurgeon E. Landis could seek disability
compensation benefits, or file lawsuits against their employers,
since their respective mesothelioma diagnoses came well after 300
weeks of the date of their last asbestos exposure.

Tooey, the plaintiff in the first case, died less than a year
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. He had worked as an
industrial salesman of asbestos products for Ferro Engineering, a
division of Oglebay-Norton, from 1964 until 1982, according to
court documents.

Landis, who was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma in 2007, was
exposed to asbestos during his employment. He had worked for Alloy
Rods, Inc., predecessor in interest to Chemetron Corp., and ESAB
Group Inc., from 1946 until 1992.

In their decision, the justices specifically singled out
mesothelioma, which has an average latency period of 30 to 50
years, saying that even mesothelioma that manifests at the lower
end of that average would not occur for decades after an
employee's asbestos exposure. Therefore, the 300-week time window
in which to bring a claim "operates as a de facto exclusion of
coverage under the Act for essentially all mesothelioma claims,"
the high court wrote.

"Indeed, the consequences of Employers' proposed interpretation of
the Act to prohibit an employee from filing an action at common
law, despite the fact that the employee has no opportunity to seek
redress under the Act, leaves the employee with no remedy against
his or her employer, a consequence that clearly contravenes the
Act's intended purpose of benefiting the injured worker," the
ruling states. "It is inconceivable that the legislature, in
enacting a statute specifically designed to benefit employees,
intended to leave a certain class of employees who have suffered
the most serious of work-related injuries without any redress
under the Act or at common law."

Plaintiffs' attorneys welcome the Pennsylvania's Supreme Court's
ruling as a positive and humanitarian legal development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harvard Town Hall to Close for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Eliyesil, writing for The Harvard Press, reported that the
town hall of Harvard, Massachusetts, will be closed on Dec. 31 and
Jan. 2 while work to remove asbestos from the second floor is
completed. According to Town Administrator Tim Bragan, the
decision to close was made because "we wanted our employees to
feel safe and comfortable while the work was going on."

The work is expected to take three to four days. Town Hall will
reopen on Jan. 6, but the Town Hall meeting room will be closed
for two weeks, from Jan. 6 through Jan. 17, while asbestos is
removed from underneath the building. According to Bragan,
meetings that were scheduled to be held in the Town Hall meeting
room during that time will be moved to other locations around
town. Location possibilities include HES and Bromfield, Harvard
Public Library, Hildreth House, and the Center on the Common. The
hope is that revised meeting locations will be posted on the town
website. "We're currently working that through," said Bragan.

The estimated $27,000 cost of removal is included in the budget
for Town Hall renovation that was approved by voters in 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Supreme Court Resolves Lung Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that without
confronting massive matters of jurisdiction, bias and fault, the
Mississippi Supreme Court is resolving lung injury claims one by
one.

Last year the Court overturned judgments of $15.2 million and $2.6
million, on grounds that let them reject and ignore deeper
objections of defendants.

In the bigger case, Justices ruled that Jones County Circuit Judge
Billy Joe Landrum allowed irrelevant evidence and prejudicial
testimony against Phillips 66.

Thereby they excused themselves from ruling on Phillips 66's claim
that Landrum's very words in jury selection showed his bias.

The Court specifically rejected Phillips 66's claim that
widespread litigation of asbestos and silica claims in Jones
County produced bias in the jury pool.

In the smaller case, the Justices held that Warren County Circuit
Judge Isadore Patrick should have repaired a defendant's clumsy
jury instruction instead of rejecting it.

Thereby they excused themselves from ruling on three challenges on
fault allocation, three on post mortem procedure, and an
assignment of cumulative error.

Similarly cautious two years ago, they decided not to decide
whether Ruby Kelley could allege wrongful death as beneficiary of
David Bozeman.

They ruled that she couldn't sue as personal representative or
interested party, but she could sue if Judge Patrick recognized
her as common law wife.

Mississippi doesn't recognize common law marriage, but that didn't
matter because Alabama recognizes it and they lived in Alabama.

The Justices directed Patrick to hold trial solely on their
marital status.

"Our decision should not be read to imply that Kelley is in fact
Bozeman's widow," Chief Justice Bill Waller wrote.

These cases, and countless others like it pending in Mississippi
courts, trace back to mass X-ray screenings around the turn of the
century.

Lawyers filed single complaints for dozens or hundreds of
plaintiffs, from Mississippi and elsewhere, against dozens of
defendants.

Defendants removed the suits to federal courts and asked the
Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation to consolidate them
with cases from other districts.

The panel consolidated the cases and assigned them to District
Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi, Texas.

In a sensational ruling in 2005, she rebuked radiologists for
manufacturing diagnoses.

Radiologists lost licenses and reputations, and the lawyers who
paid them carried on without consequences.

Judge Jack sent the cases back to district judges, who remanded
many to state courts.

By then, the Justices in Jackson had shifted their position on
group litigation.

In 2004, they had directed Landrum to break up a drug defect suit
and transfer claims of 56 plaintiffs to appropriate courts.

Yet they endorsed mass litigation of asbestos claims.

"Asbestos claims lend themselves more easily to aggregation
because they arrive from a mature tort," Justice Kay Cobb wrote.

"This is because asbestos litigation has been around for decades,
and courts have had ample opportunity to evaluate medical,
scientific and other factual issues relating to asbestos exposure,
and the courts understand better when aggregation of claims is
appropriate," Cobb wrote.

Justices James Graves and Charles Easley concurred, arguing
separately that Mississippi should allow class actions.

"Mississippi is the only state that permits no class actions of
any kind, whether through common or statutory law," Graves wrote.

He wrote that joinder "slowly grew to encompass the massive and
unwieldy actions the majority rightfully struggles with today."

In 2006, the Justices dropped the shield of aggregation from lung
litigation.

They split up claims of just five former Illinois Central Railroad
workers alleging they inhaled asbestos and other toxins.

The Justices ruled that Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green
properly severed the cases but improperly retained jurisdiction
over all five.

Presiding Justice Jess Dickinson wrote, "We find the amended
complaint woefully inadequate in alleging sufficient information
to establish venue."

He wrote that the Justices couldn't say whether any of the five
was properly before the court in Hinds County.

The Justices held that Green should leave it to the five to sue in
appropriate venues.  They ruled that plaintiffs in group actions
could file new claims as a matter of form for a year without
triggering statutes of limitation.

Lawyers on both sides promptly agreed to dismiss mass actions
without prejudice, so plaintiffs could sue in appropriate courts.

The transition went smoothly, though dead plaintiffs occasionally
complicated matters.

Bozeman, the potential groom in the grave, originally joined 54
other plaintiffs in a silica suit in Holmes County in 2002.

He died in 2005, and Kelley filed a wrongful death suit in Warren
County in 2007.

Clark Sand moved for summary judgment and Judge Patrick denied it,
finding Kelley was Bozeman's personal representative or an
interested party.

The Supreme Court reversed Patrick in 2011, directing him to
decide whether Kelley could sue as common law wife.

The Justices also rejected a wrongful death suit that Diana Kinsey
filed as beneficiary of stepfather Ted Watkins.

Watkins and 24 other plaintiffs filed a silica suit in Humphreys
County in 2002.

He died in 2003, and no one substituted for him in the suit.

In 2006, when lawyers dismissed the group action, they couldn't
renew his claim.

Kinsey renewed it in 2007, as a wrongful death suit in Harrison
County.

Defendants argued that the statute of limitations ran out on
Kinsey three years after Watkins died, and Circuit Judge Roger
Clark agreed in 2010.

The Supreme Court affirmed Clark in 2011, concluding that the
statute barred Kinsey's suit because it was a new action
independent of Watkins's case.

Last year, in another action that outlived its plaintiff, the
Justices rejected Henry Morgan Jr. as beneficiary of Henry Morgan
Sr.

Henry Senior and 141 other plaintiffs sued 88 defendants in 2002,
in Jones County. He died five days after suing, but no one
notified the court.

In 2006, when lawyers dismissed the group action, they couldn't
renew his claim.

Henry Junior renewed it in 2007, as a wrongful death suit in Adams
County.

Defendants argued that the statute of limitations ran out, and
Circuit Judge Forrest Johnson ruled that it did not.

He tolled the statute of limitations from the date of Henry
Senior's death because plaintiffs and defendants treated his case
as if he had not died.

Johnson wrote that either side could have taken certain actions
while the Jones County litigation was pending, "but none were
undertaken."

The Supreme Court reversed him last year, finding the case similar
to Kinsey's.

Justices James Kitchens, David Chandler, and Leslie King
dissented, arguing that court rules don't place the burden of
suggesting death on either party.

A month later, the Justices wiped out a $15.2 million judgment
that Landrum had entered for former Phillips 66 mud driller Troy
Lofton.

Lofton and 22 others had sued Phillips 66 entities in Jones County
in 2004, and he had filed an individual complaint there in 2006.

By the time of trial, only Chevron Phillips Chemical remained as
defendant.

The jury assigned 100 percent liability to Chevron Phillips
Chemical, awarding Lofton $15 million in noneconomic damages and
$200,000 in economic damages.

An appeal succeeded, because Landrum let a lawyer read from
drilling records not in evidence while cross examining a defense
expert.

The expert had not seen the document, and couldn't answer when the
lawyer asked if he could dispute it.

The Justices ruled that Landrum abused his discretion because the
reports failed to identify any particular well where Lofton
worked.

Kitchens wrote, "At one point, the defense objected on the basis
that plaintiff's counsel was reading from a document from a time
period when Lofton was not even employed by that particular
drilling company, yet the trial court continued to overrule the
objections."

A month later, the Justices wiped out a $2.6 million judgment that
Patrick entered against Mississippi Valley Silica for the estate
of sandblaster Robert Eastman.

Six Justices ordered a new trial, finding Patrick should have
explained to jurors the sophisticated user defense.

Dickinson wrote that if Patrick felt "sophisticated user" would
confuse jurors, his remedy was to provide a definition sufficient
to remove confusion.

Waller and Presiding Justice Michael Randolph concurred in
ordering a new trial but argued that Patrick should have granted
the instruction the defense offered.

Justices David Chandler, Kitchens and King dissented, arguing that
the majority rewarded the defendant's failure to discern the
applicable law.

Chandler wrote that the defendant's jury instruction omitted the
element of reasonable reliance because the defendant didn't want
the jury to consider it.

He wrote that the decision would place an enormous burden on a
judge in the midst of a lengthy civil trial.

In a case currently before the Justices, former sand supplier
Dependable Abrasives seeks to preserve a favorable verdict that
Jones County jurors reached in April.

Landrum granted former sandblaster Richard Pierce a new trial in
June, finding the verdict ran against the manifest weight of the
evidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Chiefs Failed to Act on Hospital Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
STV News reported that a health board failed to remove asbestos in
the ceiling of a hospital despite being told in three surveys that
it was "high risk".

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board was fined over the
health and safety breaches.

Glasgow Sheriff Court heard that the board had failed to "properly
manage the risks of asbestos" in a ground floor neurology plant
and switch room at the Southern General Hospital.

The court was told that three surveys of the room were carried
out, which recommended the asbestos materials were removed and the
facility underwent "environmental cleaning" in response to the
discovery.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found the
health board had not taken any action over the asbestos since the
original survey highlighted it in 2004.

The executive's Inspector Aileen Jardine said: "The dangers posed
by the presence of asbestos are clear. There is no known 'safe
limit' and it is often many years after exposure before asbestos-
related diseases appear -- so it is important that exposure to
asbestos fibres is kept to an absolute minimum.

"Glasgow Health Board failed in its duty to properly manage the
risks of asbestos in its premises and as a result a number of
employees and external contractors over a period of several years
were exposed to harmful fibres."

In March 2011, following plans to run electrical installations
into the plant room, a specialist company carried out a survey
which found several highly damaged asbestos materials and debris
that posed a "high risk".

The executive said the monitoring of the asbestos in the room was
"insufficient". It added: "Employees of the health board and
outside contractors had been exposed to the harmful asbestos
fibres in the plant room during the seven year period."

The health board admitted breaching asbestos regulations and was
fined GBP10,000.

In response to the case, a spokeswoman for NHS Greater Glasgow and
Clyde said: "We fully accept that in this case, which we
proactively reported to the Health and Safety Executive in 2011,
our robust asbestos procedures fell short of the standards we
strive to maintain.

"We have taken rigorous action to reinforce our asbestos
procedure. This includes the appointment of a dedicated asbestos
manager -- a post created to further strengthen our already robust
asbestos procedures. Following these actions we are confident that
we are fully complainant with all the legislative requirements
around asbestos surveillance, management and disposal."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chester Experts Claim GBP6MM For Fibro Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Chronicle reported that during the course of the last 10
months, National Asbestos Helpline -- the Chester organisation
dedicated to supporting those affected by asbestos exposure -- has
helped its clients recoup compensation adding up to no less than
GBP6 million.

The payouts are absolutely crucial to help individuals, couples
and families to get on with their lives after suffering with lung
diseases related to asbestos. Among other things, the costs are
used to cover specialist medical attention, care roles for family
members and the financial impact of such life-changing health
complications.

The figures make for stark reading. The Health and Safety
Executive reports that in 2011 there was no fewer than 2000
asbestos related lung cancer deaths with the NHS reporting around
4000 deaths in the year. Despite the fact that the use of asbestos
was banned in the mid 1980's, exposure in the past to harmful
asbestos dust is today the largest single cause of work-related
deaths.

Spokesman for National Asbestos Helpline , Carl Griffiths,
declared: "The vast majority of asbestos sufferers currently
facing this terrible legacy are from an older generation that
values loyalty, hard work and a reserved attitude.

To them, claiming compensation does not come naturally and it's
really not about the money. It's about justice and the courts
recognising the sacrifice they made in the ordinary course of
their working life."

National Asbestos Helpline receives over 3,000 telephone enquiries
annually, 60 per cent of which come from those in need of support,
guidance and advice regarding asbestos, its effects and the nature
of the diseases it has been linked with.

Backed by Birchall Blackburn Law, Chester's National Asbestos
Helpline is widely regarded as one of the UK's leading teams of
experts in the field of civil claims and state entitlement
benefits for asbestos-related illnesses.

The production and implementation of asbestos enjoyed a boom from
the moment of its inception in the 1960s until the 1980s when its
harmful effects became known. The material, initially lauded for
its insulating and fire-resistant qualities, was officially banned
in 1985.

Experts have seen an increase in the rate of diagnoses of
asbestos-related lung diseases among the over 50s, largely because
of the 10 to 50 year delay that occurs between exposure to
asbestos dust and the onset of symptoms.

To learn more about National Asbestos Helpline and how to start
your claim please visit www.nationalasbestos.co.uk/asbestos-
claims-compensation/ or call 0800 043 6635.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex's Bid to Summarily Junk "Olds" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California granted defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's motion
for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related personal
injury action titled PAUL OLDS, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY (aka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. Defendants, CASE
NO. 2:12-CV-08539 R (MRWX) (C.D. Calif.), after determining that
the Plaintiff has not provided and cannot reasonably obtain
competent and admissible evidence establishing that Abex is liable
for Paul Olds' injuries under any theory of liability.  A full-
text copy of Judge Real's Decision dated Dec. 10, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/DUoLS2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Leave to Appeal NYCAL Suit Ruling Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York dismissed a motion for leave to
appeal a ruling made in IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C., Respondent, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, Appellant, MOTION NO. 2013-1066 (N.Y. App.),
upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not
finally determine the action within the meaning of the
Constitution.  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Dec. 12,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/xkBGGNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. High Court Reverses Ruling in "Smith" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELSIE SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
LARRY D. SMITH, DECEASED, AMY SMITH RHODES, OUIDA SMITH DAWKINS,
LARRY CLINT SMITH AND BONNIE SMITH WITTY v. UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, MONTELLO, INC. AND CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY,
LP, NO. 2010-CA-00455-SCT (Miss.), arises from a jury verdict
awarding Mrs. Elsie Smith and other wrongful death beneficiaries
monetary damages for the wrongful death of Elsie's husband, Larry
Smith. Larry, who spent most of his life working on oil rigs, died
of lung cancer, and the plaintiffs filed suit against several
manufacturers of various drilling additives.  She claimed that her
husband's proximity to working with these products led to his lung
cancer because the drilling additives contained asbestos.  After a
jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant
corporations filed a joint motion for a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict, which was granted by the trial judge.  The Plaintiffs
appeal the grant of JNOV.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in a Dec. 12, 2013, decision
available at http://is.gd/cajlSbfrom Leagle.com, held that the
trial court erred when it granted JNOV by applying the Plaintiffs'
proof to the frequency, regularity, and proximity test rather than
to the elements of the Plaintiffs' negligent design claim sounding
in products liability.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed
and remanded.

GREGORY NEILL JONES, Esq., WAYNE MILNER, Esq., S. ROBERT HAMMOND,
JR., Esq., EUGENE COURSEY TULLOS, Esq., and RANDY JAMES
BRUCHMILLER, Esq., Attorneys for Appellants.

LAURA DEVAUGHN GOODSON, Esq., MARCY BRYAN CROFT, Esq., ASHLEY
ELIZABETH CALHOUN, Esq., RICHARD D. MITCHELL, Esq., DAVID CARTAN
LOKER GIBBONS, JR., Esq., JEFFREY P. HUBBARD, Esq., JOHN JEFFREY
TROTTER, Esq., HOLMES S. ADAMS, Esq., BERNARD HESS BOOTH, IV,
Esq., ALEX EMILIO COSCULLUELA, Esq., and ALBERT CHRISTOPHER
DERDEN, Esq., Attorneys for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Deemed Act 152 Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, in an opinion
dated Dec. 16, 2013, delivered by Madame Justice Todd, concluded
that Act 152 of 2004 violates Article III, Section 3 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, since its various provisions do not all
relate to a single unifying subject.  The Supreme Court further
held that the proper remedy for the violation of the Pennsylvania
Constitution is to strike Act 152 in its entirety.

Act 152, significantly revised in 2004, among other things,
established a two-year limitation for asbestos actions; amended
the Crimes Code to create various criminal offenses for
individuals subject to sexual offender registration requirement
who fail to comply; and amended the provisions of the Sentencing
Code which govern "Registration of Sexual Offenders."

The Supreme Court held that Act 152 violates the single subject
rule of Article III, Section 3.

The case is COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. JAMES
HOWARD NEIMAN, JR., Appellant, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Intervenor, NO. 74 MAP 2011 (Pa.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/9Yafujfrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Experts in "Lipson" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James B. Turner, along with his wife Joanne K. Lipson,
brought suit against several defendants for Mr. Turner's alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or
distributed by the Defendants.  Mr. Turner alleged that he was
directly exposed to asbestos through Ferro hot tops and Ferroboard
liners, asbestos-containing products manufactured by ON Marine,
during Mr. Turner's employment with Bethlehem Steel from 1973 to
1976.

Defendants ON Marine Services Company, LLC, and Lone Star
Industries, Inc., separately filed motions in limine seeking to
exclude or limit the testimony of three of the Plaintiffs' expert
witnesses: (1) Dr. William Longo, Ph.D., Plaintiffs' material
science expert, (2) Dr. Carl Andrew Brodkin, M.D., Plaintiffs'
occupational health expert, and (3) Susan Raterman, Plaintiffs'
industrial hygiene expert.

Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants'
motions in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of the
Plaintiffs' experts Dr. William Longo, Dr. Carl Brodkin, and Ms.
Susan Raterman.  The Court found that Dr. Longo, Dr. Brodkin, and
Ms. Raterman are qualified to testify as expert witnesses, will
assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence, and will
provide relevant and reliable opinions.  Furthermore, having now
heard the testimony offered by all three witnesses at trial, the
Court remains satisfied that it was fully informed through the
briefs and materials filed by the parties and that a Daubert
hearing was not necessary in assessing the admissibility of the
expert testimony.

The case is JOANNE K. LIPSON, individually and as personal
representative of the Estate of James B. Turner, Plaintiffs, v. ON
MARINE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION,
Defendant, NO. C13-1747 TSZ (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Zilly's Order dated Dec. 13, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/PcWuZrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling in Fibro Removal Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries cited
APComPower Inc. for violations of the Washington Industrial Safety
and Health Act, chapter 49.17 RCW, related to asbestos removal
while performing work at the Centralia steam plant.  After an
industrial appeals judge found that APC had committed the
violations, and the Washington State Board of Industrial Insurance
Appeals affirmed that decision by order, APC appealed the Board's
order to the superior court.  The superior court vacated the order
after determining that APC's intent to avoid asbestos work and
reliance on statements that no asbestos was present in the work
area excused its lack of compliance.  The superior court also
determined that the Department failed to show that APC knew of the
presence of asbestos or that the work exposed APC's employees to
asbestos.

The Department appeals the superior court's decision.  Rejecting
APC's arguments that its subjective intent governed the
applicability of the regulations, that it could rely on the plant
owner's statements about the absence of asbestos to discharge its
duty to comply with the regulations, that it could not have known
of the regulatory violations through the exercise of the
reasonable diligence, and that the Department needed to show its
employees were exposed to asbestos, the Court of Appeals of
Washington, Division Two, reversed the superior court and
reinstated the Board's order affirming the citation.

The case is APCOMPOWER INC., Respondent, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Appellant, NO. 43104-1-II
(Wash. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Dec. 17,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/E8az0Ffrom Leagle.com.

Sarah Kortokrax, Attorney General's office, Po Box 40121, Olympia,
WA, 98504-0121, Counsel for Appellant.

Douglas B.M. Ehlke, Ehlke Law Offices, 28840 11th Ave S, Federal
Way, WA, 98003-3705, Counsel for Respondent.


                             *********

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  * * *