CAR_Public/140110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 7

                             Headlines


AARP INC: Accused of Defrauding Senior Citizens & Disabled Texans
AETNA LIFE: Coverage-Related Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
AIG GROUP: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in Missouri
AIG GROUP: Systematically Ducked Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cheats Workers of Wages & Expenses, Suit Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Flawed Door Locking Systems on Accords
APPLE INC: Misrepresents Warranty Program, "Adkins" Class Says
BL VACATION: Suit Seeks to Stop Massive Telemarketing Campaign
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued for Scheme to Delay Aggrenox Generic

CITICOACH INC: Shaved Off Hours From Drivers' Pay, Class Alleges
COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
CREDIT BUREAU: "Schwartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Morrow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Pushes "Coenzyme Q10" With Bogus Claims, Suit Says

DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Used Vehicles
EAST COAST FORENSIC: Sued Over Illegal Patient Strip Searches
ELITE SPECIALTY: Painters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Minors' Credit Purchases Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car Speed Control Issues

FORJAS TAURUS: Pistols Have Defective Safety Devices, Suit Says
FUSION-IO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
GOLDEN SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Unpaid Overtime
HULU LLC: Court Refused to Issue Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit
IMPACT FUNDING: Faces "Giedt" Suit Over Lending Act Violations

JOHNS HOPKINS: 2 More Patients Sue Over Secret Video
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Captive Reinsurance
L'OREAL USA: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Anti-Wrinkle Products
LACERTE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
LOUISVILLE GAS: Sued Over Cane Run Power Plant Coal Pollution

MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Plan Trustees Accused of Unjust Enrichment
MEMPHIS, TN: City Spoiled 15,000 Rape Evidence Kits, Class Says
MONSANTO CO: "Wishon" Suit Transferred to Kansas District Court
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Mental Health Class Action for $30 Million

NINE ZERO WINGS: Violates FLSA by Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says
OLIO RESTAURANTS: Ex-Waiters and Others Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
ONLINE EDUCATION ADVANTAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims
PINNFUND USA: "Navarro" Suit Alleges Lending Act Violations
RICK HENDRICK: Faces Class Action Over Car Dealership Scheme

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Dismissal of "D'Apuzzo" Class Suit Appealed
SOLTA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little to Valeant, Suit Claims
T.C.C.D. INT'L: Accused of Falsely Advertising Buckpower Product
TARGET CORP: Faces "Kirk" Suit Over Data Breach of 40-Mil. Cards
TARGET CORP: Faces "Fratelli" Suit Over Security Breach

TARGET CORP: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Security Breach
TARGET CORP: Judge Tosses Age-Discrimination Class Action
TECK METALS: Toxic Discharge Alleged to Have Caused Breast Cancer
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Edison" Securities Suit in New York
VICAL INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Allovectin Product

WAUKESHA MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Suit Says
WE-R-WIRELESS: Faces "Yorker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
WOODMAN LABS: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Hero3 Camera


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Exhaustion Defense Tanks In Porter Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Ct. Flips Ruling in "Montaney" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Granted Summary Judgment in "Botts" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Conviction of Tennessee Men
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Fails to Get Injunction From Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Obtain Summary Judgment in Montello Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Bid to Junk "Herlihy" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "German" Suit Consolidated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Grants Inmate's Reconsideration Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Third Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Anderson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs Won't Postpone Kingston Veterans' House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Bradford Schools Still Contain Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Disease Claims 396 in Devon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Gloucester Furniture Recycling Biz

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Laborer Files Lung Cancer Suit v. 113 Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesside Fibro Legacy Exposed as Payment Looms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Courts Can Allow Extra Time for Deposition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exclusion Precludes Insurance Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed 120 in Plymouth in Five Years
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Payout for Former Shoebury MOD Site Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Won't Reconsider Take-Home Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Declines to Modify Denial Order

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Fibro Fears Follow Cyclone Christine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Aluminum Declares Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradken Trains Breach Fibro Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has Until Jan. 27 to Seek Rehearing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Home Worker Angered at Fibro Risks

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High School Renovation to Remove Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says Fibro Case to Remain in Federal Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rescuers Decontaminate Man From Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. High Ct. Enforces Exclusion in Property Row
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaton Park Club to Close for Re-roofing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Impact Growing Among Firefighters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Seeks Colleagues in Exposure Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Reveals Presence of Fibro in Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glasgow Health Board Fined for Fibro Failings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPS Urged to Amend Mesothelioma Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former East Lancashire Teacher in Cancer Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Demolition Leads to Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Admin. Proceeding v. Ecology Unit is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,500 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Can Sue RPM Int'l.'s Bankrupt Unit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $463-Mil. Reserves at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Subsidiary Had $342-Mil. Total Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims


                             *********


AARP INC: Accused of Defrauding Senior Citizens & Disabled Texans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Cameron Langford reports that
AARP defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars by adding
illegal commissions to their health insurance bills, a federal
class action claims.

Lead plaintiff John Milton Peacock sued AARP, a nonprofit, and the
nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealthCare Insurance Co.

The American Association of Retired Person, AARP, claims to have
40 million members, half of them older than 65.  It had operating
revenues of more than $1.3 billion in 2012, according to the
complaint.

Peacock claims AARP made $704 million in 2012 on "royalties" from
its sale of AARP-branded Medicare supplement insurance.  He claims
that UnitedHealth and AARP "have orchestrated an elaborate scheme"
whereby AARP makes an illegal 4.95 percent commission from each
new Medigap policy it sells or gets renewed for UnitedHealth.
AARP also administers the AARP-branded policies it sells for
UnitedHealth, Peacock says.

"While defendants disclose the existence of a payment in general
that goes from UnitedHealth to AARP, which they call a 'royalty'
. . . defendants hide the fact that the payment to AARP is
actually a percentage of premium commission that is charged to
unsuspecting seniors and the disabled in addition to their
insurance premium paid to UnitedHealth for coverage," the
complaint states.

"Defendants' motive to term a commission payment a 'royalty' is
twofold: it allows AARP to avoid oversight by insurance
regulators, and it allows AARP to avoid paying taxes on the income
it generates through insurance sales."

The setup is illegal in Texas, Peacock says, because AARP is not
licensed as an insurance agent there, though it "regularly acts as
the de facto agent for UnitedHealth by helping market, solicit and
sell AARP Medigap policies."

Medigap plans supplement Medicare insurance and include coverage
for hospital stays and to reduce seniors' out-of-pocket medical
costs.

Medigap insurance has been lucrative for AARP, Peacock says.

"AARP Medigap is the dominant player in the Medigap market," the
complaint states.  "Nationwide, AARP has over three times as many
Medigap enrollees as its closest competitor, Mutual of Omaha.  As
of December 2012, 32 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in a Medigap insurance plan were enrolled in AARP
Medigap."

UnitedHealth customers have no choice but to buy Medigap insurance
through AARP, Peacock says.

"Any consumer who wants to purchase Medigap coverage from
UnitedHealth must purchase the AARP Medigap plan, and thereby
unknowingly fund the 4.95 percent illegal commission to AARP," he
claims.

Peacock says he bought an AARP Medigap policy in 2007, but allowed
it to lapse in 2012 when the premium increased.  He wants the
lawsuit certified as a class action and damages for deceptive
trade and Texas Insurance Code violations.

If the allegations are not resolved in 31 days, he wants AARP and
UnitedHealth ordered to disgorge "all sums taken from consumers by
means of deceptive trade practices."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          Michael Patrick Doyle, Esq.
          DOYLE RAIZNER LLP
          1221 McKinney, Suite 4100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 571-1146
          Facsimile: (713) 571-1148
          E-mail: jraizner@doyleraizner.com
                  mdoyle@doyleraizner.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Janecek, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Collins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: frankj@rgrdlaw.com
                  chrisc@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Christopher C. Martins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          SEAN K. COLLINS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 939-9731
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

The case is Peacock, et al. v. AARP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-00459, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Galveston).


AETNA LIFE: Coverage-Related Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Families who failed to show that Aetna Life Insurance denied
coverage for mentally ill teens have a month to amend their
claims, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

The class action filed in June said Aetna refused to cover
patients admitted into mental health care facilities that did not
provide a licensed health care professional on-site, 24/7.

The lead plaintiffs, whose names are abbreviated in the court
record, called this reasoning a bogus technicality in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

"Under the [Aetna] plan language, if the residential treatment
facility is licensed under the law of the state in which it is
located to provide inpatient treatment, it qualifies as a facility
that is eligible for coverage by Aetna regardless of whether a
licensed healthcare professional is on site 24/7," the complaint
stated.

Aetna sought dismissal based on its contention that the plan
clearly describes two distinct requirements that facilities must
fulfill for patients to be covered.

"The central issue is whether coverage under defendant's policies
requires a licensed 'Behavioral Health Provider/Practitioner'
[BHP] to be on-site 24/7 at the residential treatment facility, in
addition to the facility being licensed to provide on-site mental
health services," U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti explained
December 17, 2013.

Conti noted that there would be no reason to mention the 24/7
provision within the language of the plan if the only requirement
for coverage is that the facility itself be licensed by the state
where it operates.

"If the licensed residential treatment facility is itself the on-
site licensed organization per the definition of BHP, as
plaintiffs submit, then there would be no reason for the plan's
language to include the 24/7 exclusion because satisfaction of the
plan's licensing would always satisfy the 24/7 BHP requirements,"
Conti wrote.  "Plaintiff's reading would render the plan's
distinct requirement nugatory and incomprehensible, since it would
not account for defendant's having clearly set out two different
provisions and defined terms in the requirements."

The plan language is therefore "not ambiguous," Conti wrote,
finding the plaintiffs' arguments based on "far-fetched and
illogical readings of the plans in relation to the law."

Conti dismissed the action without prejudice, giving the
plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

The plaintiffs in the San Francisco case are Elizabeth and James
L., their daughter Olivia; and L.M. and N.M. as guardians of M.M.
Both Olivia and M.M. were about 16 at the treatment for which
Aetna denied coverage.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 392-2289
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          336 South 300 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
          E-mail: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Colin P. King, Esq.
          Jessica A. Andrew, Esq.
          DEWSNUP KING AND OLSEN
          36 S. State Street, Suite 2400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 533-0400
          Facsimile: (801) 363-4218
          E-mail: cking@dkolaw.com
                  jandrew@dkolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: GSigler@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Doren, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7409
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6409
          E-mail: HRichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  rdoren@gibsondunn.com

The case is L., et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No.
3:13-cv-02554-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


AIG GROUP: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Cycles, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc.; American
Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; American Fuji Fire
and Marine Insurance Company; Chartis Property Casualty Company;
Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance
Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; The Insurance
Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire
Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management Inc.; Maurice R. Greenberg;
and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 4:13-cv-02546-RWS (E.D.
Mo., December 20, 2013) alleges violations of the Racketeering
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Phillips, Esq.
          SIMMONS AND BROWDER, LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-6377
          Facsimile: (314) 259-2251
          E-mail: jphillips@simmonsfirm.com


AIG GROUP: Systematically Ducked Insurance Premiums, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hopson Seal-A-Lot, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. American International Group, Inc.; American
Home Assurance Company; AIU Insurance Company; Chartis Property
Casualty Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Granite
State Insurance Company; Illinois National Insurance Company;
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; New Hampshire
Insurance Company; AIG Risk Management, Inc.; Maurice R.
Greenberg; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-
07545-LS (E.D. Pa., December 20, 2013) is brought by Pennsylvania
employers seeking restitution and injunctive relief arising from
the Defendants' alleged long-term, unlawful and fraudulent
underreporting of workers' compensation insurance premium.

American International Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New York.  AIG is a publicly-traded holding
company which, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, engages in
a broad range of financial and insurance-related activities in the
United States of America and throughout the world.  AIG is the
largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance in the
U.S.  The other Defendants are subsidiaries and affiliates of AIG,
which directs and controls their activities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Walter DeBruin, Esq.
          THE DEBRUIN FIRM LLC
          405 North King Street, Suite 440
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 660-2582
          Facsimile: (302) 660-2529
          E-mail: ddebruin@thedebruinfirm.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          455 Market Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 536-3986
          Facsimile: (415) 537-4120
          E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          John R. Phillips, Esq.
          Deborah Rosenthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
                  jphillips@simmonsfirm.com
                  drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Drew E. Pomerance, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI
          5820 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992-9999
          Facsimile: (818) 992-9991
          E-mail: dep@rpnalaw.com
                  npr@rpnalaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com
                  abierstein@hanlyconroy.com
                  tsheridan@hanlyconroy.com


AMAZON.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David C. Saldana, Ladaisja Brewster, and Monica Carlin, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SMX, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company; Staff Management, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company and, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. BC531096 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 19,
2013) arises from the Defendants' alleged collective failure to
pay employees all compensable wages for time worked and subject to
employer control and the failure to pay the requisite amount of
straight-time, alternatively minimum wage, overtime and double-
time wages for all time worked.

Amazon.com, LLC, is a Delaware Liability Corporation headquartered
in Seattle, Washington.  Amazon operates one of the most well-
known online marketplaces in the country.  Amazon.Com owns and
operates over 50 warehouse distribution centers across the United
States, including the states of Arizona.  SMX, LLC, is an Illinois
Limited Liability Company.  Staff Management, LLC is an Illinois
Limited Liability Company.  Both do business in the state of
California.  Both are headquartered in the state of Illinois, and
hold active status in California.  The true names of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

               - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, LP
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 386-0444
          Facsimile: (818) 386-0050
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
          65 Pine Ave., Suite 725
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cheats Workers of Wages & Expenses, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the American Automobile
Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah misclassifies
roadside assistance workers as independent contractors to cheat
them of wages and expenses, a class action claims in Contra Costa
County Court, California.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Flawed Door Locking Systems on Accords
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Fisher, Individually, And On Behalf Of Others Similarly
Situated v. Honda North America, Inc.; American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.; and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Case No. 2:13-cv-09285-JAK-
PLA (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2013) is brought on behalf of all
current and former owners and lessees of model year 2003-2012
Honda Accord vehicles that contain alleged defective door locking
mechanisms.  All Class Vehicles come equipped with a power door
locking system.

The Plaintiff contends that the action arises from a uniform
defect in the door mechanisms of the Class Vehicles.  The Defect
causes the Locking Mechanism to prematurely fail, which in turn
causes the Locking System to malfunction.  As a result, the locks
will not lock or unlock using the driver or front-passenger door
switches, or using the key fob from the vehicle's exterior.

North America, American Honda, and Honda Motor Company are
automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and servicing
corporations doing business within the United States.  The
Defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market, service,
repair, sell and lease passenger vehicles, including the Class
Vehicles.

Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is an automobile design, manufacturing,
sale, leasing, distribution, and servicing corporation organized
under the laws of Japan, and has its principal place business in
Tokyo.  Honda Motor Company is the Japanese parent corporation of
United States subsidiaries, Honda North America and American
Honda.  Honda North America, Inc. and American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. are California corporations headquartered in Torrance,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market St., Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          30 N. LaSalle, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
          KHORRAMI BOUCHER SUMNER SANGUINETTI, LLP
          444 S. Flower St. - 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 596-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 596-6010
          E-mail: rboucher@kbsslaw.com
                  sbhujwala@kbsslaw.com


APPLE INC: Misrepresents Warranty Program, "Adkins" Class Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Sue Adkins, Jennifer Galindo and Fabrienne English v.
Apple Inc., Applecare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00402 (S.D. Tex., November 4, 2013) alleges that
Apple fraudulently misrepresented its AppleCare warranty program.

Ms. Adkins, et al., alleged Apple did not disclose that it used
reconditioned parts or devices to repair or replace malfunctioning
devices under the warranty.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Renee Kennedy, Esq.
          1620 S. Friendswood Dr., Suite Apple
          Friendswood, TX 77546
          Telephone: (832) 428-1552
          E-mail: apple.reneekennedy@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas Christopher Trent, Esq.
          Benjamin Witten Allen, Esq.
          JOHNSON, TRENT, WEST & TAYLOR, L.L.P.
          919 Milam Street, Ste 1700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-2323
          Facsimile: (713) 222-2226
          E-mail: ctrent@johnsontrent.com
                  ballen@johnsontrent.com

               - and -

          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Sai Jahann, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: ppreovolos@mofo.com
                  sjahann@mofo.com

               - and -

          Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5296
          E-mail: ppatel@mofo.com


BL VACATION: Suit Seeks to Stop Massive Telemarketing Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCabe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. B.L. Vacation Ownership, Inc., Caribbean Cruise Line,
Inc., Celebration Cruise Line, LLC, Celebration Cruise Line
Management, LLC, Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., Celebration
Cruises International, Ltd. Corp., National Travel Services, Inc.,
Nationwide Reservations, Inc., Plaza Resorts, Inc., Berkley Group,
Inc., and Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Case No. 1:13-
cv-06131-JG-RML (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) seeks to stop the
Defendants' alleged massive illegal telemarketing campaign.

The Defendants have been responsible for making millions of
unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellular telephones and
residential telephone lines, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendants are vacation cruise operators and marketers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
          119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued for Scheme to Delay Aggrenox Generic
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG; Ingelheim
International GmbH; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd.; Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Case No. 0:13-cv-03588-JRT-
TNL (D. Minn., December 20, 2013) is a civil antitrust and
consumer protection action seeking damages arising out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful exclusion of generic competition from
the market for capsules that combine 200 mg extended release
dipyridamole and 25 mg acetylsalicylic acid, a product sold by
Boehringer under the brand-name Aggrenox.

Aggrenox is prescribed to reduce the risk of stroke in patients,
who have had transient ischemia of the brain or completed ischemic
stroke due to thrombosis.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited
partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH is a German private limited liability
company headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., is an Israeli corporation headquartered in
Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva is a leading manufacturer of generic
drugs, and it is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in
the United States.  Teva purchased Barr in 2008, and Barr is now a
wholly owned subsidiary of Teva.  Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Prior to 2004, Barr was known as Barr Laboratories, Inc.  In 2008,
Barr became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Until 2008, Duramed
was a subsidiary of Barr.  In 2008, when Teva purchased Barr,
Duramed became a subsidiary of Teva.  Duramed is now known as Teva
Women's Health Inc.  Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Until 2008, DPSC was a subsidiary of Barr.  In 2008, when Teva
purchased Barr, DPSC became a subsidiary of Teva.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Woodward, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: anne.regan@zimmreed.com


CITICOACH INC: Shaved Off Hours From Drivers' Pay, Class Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandr Y. Nikoghosyan, Muzaffar Gulyamov, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Citicoach, Inc.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-06115-WFK-JO (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed as are drivers of the
Defendant's ambulettes, allege that the Defendant often shaved
hours from their pay, and did not pay them and the proposed class
for all the hours they worked.

Citicoach, Inc., is a New York state domestic business corporation
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  The Company operates an
ambulette company based in Brooklyn for the purpose of
transporting people to and from medical appointments.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111
          Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Justice and Brett Antoline, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Communications Unlimited
Contracting Services, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00964-LY (W.D. Tex.,
November 5, 2013) alleges that the Company does not pay the
Plaintiffs overtime pay for hours worked above 40 in a workweek at
the overtime rate required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Hoover, Alabama.  The Company
provides telephone and cable equipment installation services to
homes in Texas and the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin K. Markel, Esq.
          ROBERTS MARKEL WEINBERG PC
          5307 E. Mockingbird Lane - Suite 450
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 365-9290
          Facsimile: (713) 840-9404
          E-mail: jmarkel@robertsmarkel.com

               - and -

          Laura M. Alaniz, Esq.
          ROBERTS MARKEL WEINBERG PC
          2800 Post Oak Blvd., 57th Floor
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 840-1666
          Facsimile: (713) 840-9404
          E-mail: lalaniz@robertsmarkel.com


CREDIT BUREAU: "Schwartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., d/b/a
Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:13-cv-06117-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Morrow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Morrow, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Crystal Clear Pools of Florida, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and John Dower, individually, Case No. 5:13-cv-00543-ACC-
PRL (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Crystal Clear Pools of Florida, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability
Company headquartered in Lake County, Florida.  John Dower is a
resident of the state of Florida and is the operator of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq.
          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com
                  afrisch@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lillian Chaves Moon, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C. - ORLANDO
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8452
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: MoonL@jacksonlewis.com


CVS PHARMACY: Pushes "Coenzyme Q10" With Bogus Claims, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy pushes its
"Coenzyme Q10" with bogus claims that its version has "over 600%
better absorption" than others, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Vincent James DeSimone, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN AND
          HARRISON LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: amcglaze.sdshhh@gmail.com
                  mseplow@gmail.com
                  vjdesimone@gmail.com

               - and -

          Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
          Azadeh C. Dadgostar, Esq.
          Hirad D. Dadgostar, Esq.
          DADGOSTAR LAW LLP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Fourth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-1022
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1088
          E-mail: aalivandi@gmail.com
                  azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com
                  hirad@dadgostarlaw.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Henderson, Esq.
          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
          THOMAS W. FALVEY LAW OFFICE
          301 North Lake Avenue Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205
          Facsimile: (626) 795-3096
          E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Weil, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: mweil@orrick.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Long, Esq.
          Byron Robert Lau, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com
                  blau@orrick.com

The case is Timothy J. Connell v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-09410-GHK-FFM, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California (Los Angeles).


DAIMLER AG: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Used Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that Daimler AG and
Mercedes Benz Cars have been hit with a putative class action in
New Jersey state court alleging they misled consumers about the
safety and collision histories of their pre-owned vehicles.

Maryland resident James Dey contends in the Dec. 13 complaint in
Bergen County Superior Court that the companies have
misrepresented the true condition of vehicles in the Mercedes Benz
Certified Preowned program.  According to Mr. Dey, he unknowingly
bought a model year 1999 C-230 from a Manhattan dealership that
was involved in a serious rear-end collision, which compromised
the automobile's rear suspension.

Through marketing and advertising, Mercedes duped customers like
Mr. Dey into thinking that vehicles in the program were safe for
the road, but that's not the case, according to the suit.  Mr. Dey
claims the companies knew that the vehicles were dangerous.

"Plaintiff was caused to suffer inconvenience needlessly, and to
expend monies to repair his vehicle on several occasions, and was
put in mortal danger, and lost use of the vehicle on several
occasions, and took time off work, and . . . was caused to pay an
insurance deductible for collision repairs to his vehicle and to
pay for rental cars, all because of the Mercedes defendants'
unconscionable conduct," the complaint said.

The suit accuses Daimler and Mercedes Benz of violating the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, among other claims.

"The Mercedes defendants' deceptive, unconscionable or fraudulent
representations and material omissions to consumers and motorists,
including plaintiff, constituted unfair and deceptive acts and
trade practices in violation of the CFA," the complaint said.

Mr. Dey's headaches with his vehicle began when he was driving the
car home from New York in 2007, according to the complaint.  The
vehicle shook at highway speeds, and the problem worsened over
time to include a persistent rattle when the car was idling, the
complaint says.

He repeatedly had the vehicle repaired at Mercedes Benz
dealerships, including a trip back to Manhattan, but what
technicians described as alignment or wheel problems continued,
according to the suit.  During that time, Mr. Dey was allegedly
never told about the car's collision history.

However, an almost fatal car accident in 2009 prompted Mr. Dey to
dig into the history of the vehicle, which revealed the rear-end
collision in 2006, the complaint says.  Mr. Dey blames the
accident on rear suspension issues.

The companies have refused to settle the matter outside of court,
according to the complaint.

"Mercedes defendants have used the plaintiff's good faith and
reasonable entreaties to resolve this matter with various degrees
of ridicule, incredulity and insults, and also with feigned
ignorance," the suit said.

A Mercedes Benz representative and an attorney for Mr. Dey did not
immediately return requests for comment late on Dec. 20.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

Mr. Dey is represented by Andrew K. de Heer of Deheer Bureau
Advocato LLC.

The case is Dey v. Daimler AG, case number L-9735-13, in the
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen.


EAST COAST FORENSIC: Sued Over Illegal Patient Strip Searches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that up to 60
patients at the East Coast Forensic Hospital claim they were
forced to undergo invasive and illegal strip searches ordered by a
manager last year, a move that violated their rights and affected
their mental well-being.

The allegations, which place the Dartmouth facility in the eye of
a potential legal storm, were contained in a proposed class action
filed on Dec. 20 in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

The lawsuit targets the Capital district health authority,
alleging the hospital's rehabilitation manager Brenda Mate "abused
her position of power" by ordering every patient in the hospital
to be "subjected to an invasive strip search."

The health authority operates the forensic facility.

The patients allege a search for "contraband" on Oct. 16, 2012,
also breached their charter rights.

They contend in court documents that they had been subjected to
numerous such searches ordered by Ms. Mate.

"Patients of the East Coast Forensic Hospital are vulnerable
members of society, at the mercy of the defendant's employees'
exercise of power," states the lawsuit, filed by the Wagners law
firm in Halifax.

"An unreasonable, unlawful strip search amounts to tortious
battery," the suit says.

The lead plaintiff in the action, who is identified in the
documents only as R.A., claims the searches, which were allegedly
conducted on every patient in October 2012, included a "cavity
search."  The actions resulted after Mate ordered the facility
locked down for 61/2 hours, the plaintiff said in court papers.

"The plaintiff and every class member were ordered by the
defendant's employees to strip naked and submit to a body search
. . . which included a cavity check in every case," the action
states.

"As part of the cavity checks, the plaintiff and each male class
member had their testicles touched by the defendant's employees."

Capital Health spokesman John Gillis said on Dec. 20 that the
health authority could not comment on the legal action because it
is before the courts.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and a date for a
proposed class action hearing has yet to be set.

Mike Dull, the lawyer who filed the action, said basic human
rights are guaranteed, and the patients should not be treated any
differently.

"All Canadian citizens have a right of privacy," Mr. Dull said in
an interview on Dec. 20.

"This includes a right not to be strip-searched.  Every patient of
the forensic hospital shares this right.  They're not required to
give it up the moment they enter the facility."

Mr. Dull said he believes that 50 to 60 people were subjected to
searches on the day in question.

The plaintiff is representing every patient in the unit that day,
the lawsuit states.  He was not available for comment on Dec. 20.

No drugs were discovered during the searches, which also included
scouring patients' rooms and public areas, it's alleged.

R.A. alleges that he and the other patients suffered "injury, loss
and damage" as a result of the incident.

While strip searches may be done for "reasonable and probable
grounds" at the hospital, R.A. alleges that wasn't the case last
year.

"Brenda Mate's belief that 'drugs may be in Rehab' does not amount
to reasonable and probable grounds to order a class-wide search of
every patient," he alleges in the suit.

Mr. Dull said the practice is unacceptable.

"Stripping everyone naked and forcing them into an invasive cavity
check, simply because one person had a subjective and ultimately
unfounded belief that there were drugs somewhere in the hospital,
is a total invasion of privacy.  Where this happens on a regular
basis, it needs to stop."

Therefore, the plaintiffs allege the searches broke the law.

"They committed an unlawful and illegal strip search," the
documents state.

The plaintiffs also allege the defendants "disproportionately
interfered with the plaintiff and class members' freedom of their
person" and "inadequately appraised themselves of the effects
their application of force, (an) invasive search, would have on
the plaintiff and class members."

It's also alleged that no one took the patients' "mental
infirmities" into account before carrying out the searches.

The forensic hospital's website says it is operated by both the
provincial Health and Justice departments, containing a total of
84 beds.  Two rehabilitation units have 30 beds apiece, while
there is another 24-bed section that houses those who are there
under court-ordered assessments, the site said.

It isn't clear which unit the lead plaintiff was in on the day of
the alleged searches.  It also isn't clear if all the patients
represented in the legal action are still at the hospital.

"Sometimes the only way for powerless victims to get their point
across is through the courts, and that is what they seek to do
with this class action," said Mr. Dull.


ELITE SPECIALTY: Painters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Calle and Gonzalo Carvacho, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Elite Specialty Coatings Plus,
Inc., and John Vazquez, Case No. 1:13-cv-06126-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.,
November 5, 2013) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for the
Plaintiffs and his similarly situated co-workers -- painters and
similar hourly, non-exempt employees -- who have been employed by
the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate Elite Specialty Coatings Plus,
Inc., a painting contractor located in Long Island City, New York.
Elite is a New York domestic business corporation.  John Vazquez
is a resident of the state of New York.  He is the owner, Chief
Executive Officer, and President of Elite from January 2003 to
present.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: akimble@fslawfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Minors' Credit Purchases Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Facebook
Inc. will have to face a putative class action by a group of
minors who spent money via Facebook Credit purchases without their
parents' permission on the social networking site, but the
parents' bids in the suit have been grounded, a California federal
judge ruled on Dec. 20.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Facebook's motion to
eliminate the parents' claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, but kept the children in the suit, finding the
kids had standing to bring suit under the California Family Code,
according to the decision.

The parents were given the boot from the suit because they
couldn't allege they suffered economic harm that wouldn't already
be cured by the claims of their children, the judge found.

"While the minor plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Facebook
violated their statutory right to disaffirm their Facebook Credit
purchases, they have not alleged that they suffered economic harm
as a result," Judge Wilken wrote.  "The losses [the parents]
suffered derive, at bottom, from the unauthorized use of their
credit cards by the minor plaintiffs."

It was a partial win for Facebook in the class action, originally
lodged in California federal court in April 2012.

The social networking site was unsuccessful in its bid to ditch
the minors in the suit because it couldn't prove the kids weren't
able to disaffirm their agreements to pay for credits on the site,
Judge Wilken found.

The decision matched an earlier ruling on a similar matter in the
same suit, the judge noted.

"Facebook has not acknowledged, let alone refuted, the court's
prior ruling in this case.  Nor has it shown that the minor
plaintiffs' claim that it violated their statutory right of
disaffirmance is insufficient to plead a cognizable injury-in-
fact," Judge Wilken wrote in the Dec. 20 ruling.

In an earlier motion to dismiss, Facebook said that "the
children's sole attempt at stating any form of injury is the
statement that they experienced 'shame, punishment, allowance
reduction and other consequences' in connection with their
purchases of Credits."

But the court rejected this argument, finding that minors have the
right to negate their Facebook Credits purchases.

"Facebook's latest argument -- that the minor plaintiffs lack
standing -- fails for the same reasons its earlier arguments
failed.  As this court explained in its prior order, the minor
plaintiffs have 'present[ed] an actual controversy over the rights
of minors to disaffirm their purchases of Facebook Credits,'"
Judge Wilken wrote.

The minors and their parents argued that several sections of the
California Family Code protect them.  First, they argued, a
portion of that law voids any contract entered into by a minor
using personal property not in his or her possession, namely,
parents' debit cards.  And in the alternative, the families
argued, a separate portion of the same law allows minors to
disaffirm contracts in a certain period of time.

The Dec. 20 ruling knocks the parents out of the action, but
leaves in the minor children who spent money unintentionally (or
against their parents' will) on the social networking site.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Dec. 20.

The plaintiffs are represented by John R. Parker Jr.  and C.
Brooks Cutter of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP, by Daniel B.
Edelman -- edelman@bmklegal.com -- of Katz Marshall & Banks LLP
and by Benjamin Edelman.

Facebook is represented by Michael G. Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com
-- and Kristine Anne Van Hamersveld -- kvanhamersveld@cooley.com
-- of Cooley LLP.

The case is Bohannon v. Facebook Inc., case number 4:12-cv-01894,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Car Speed Control Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
WSB-TV reports that a federal audit shows Ford Motor Company has
had more complaints in the last decade about cars speeding up by
themselves than Toyota.

The report, obtained by Channel 2 Action News consumer
investigator Jim Strickland, is cited in a class action lawsuit
filed by a Georgia man who went to court after saying his Mercury
Montego allegedly without warning and crashed into a garage.

"I'm driving a big vehicle, and I can't stop it.  I don't know
what to do to stop it.  It has a mind of its own.  It takes over
and takes control," said car owner Samuel Hairston, of Roswell.

Mr. Hairston said the car has accelerated on its own eight
times -- four times, it occurred for several seconds.

"I don't think anybody would buy it if they knew what it did.
It's basically a big safety hazard," he said.

Hairston joins consumers in 30 states filing suit.  They are
seeking damages for diminished value and demand Ford fix the
problem.

Court documents said there are 35 different models of Ford and
Ford sister brands involved.  Model years vary from 2002 to 2010.
That's 11 million vehicles.

"We want Ford to get involved now and stop it from being a serious
body count," said attorney Adam Levitt.

A federal audit said from 2003 to 2009, 29 deaths and 345 injuries
are blamed on Ford speed control issues, including unintended
acceleration.  The figure represents the most deaths of any
manufacturer during that time.

"It's sad because it puts everybody on the road in jeopardy," said
Hairston.

With a lawsuit pending, Ford refused to comment.


FORJAS TAURUS: Pistols Have Defective Safety Devices, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris P. Carter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Forjas Taurus, S.A., Taurus International
Manufacturing Inc., and Taurus Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
24583-PAS (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2013) alleges that certain
Taurus pistols that have defective safety devices can fire when
dropped.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelo Marino, Jr., Esq.
          645 SE 5th Terrace
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3160
          Telephone: (954) 765-0537
          Facsimile: (954) 765-0545
          E-mail: amjrpamail@aol.com


FUSION-IO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Fusion-io, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-05474, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Fusion-IO between August 10, 2012
and October 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fusion-io securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 21, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software systems company that
designs and manufactures memory storage solutions using flash
memory technology.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Defendants misrepresented to investors that the Company was a
market leader in large-scale flash memory applications and was not
facing any competitive pressure or risk from the commoditization
of flash memory products.  Defendants also issued unrealistic
positive revenue guidance and misrepresented that the Company was
able to anticipate the demand from its strategic customers based
on its years of experience as their flash memory supplier.  As a
result of these misrepresentations, Fusion-io stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On October 23, 2013, Fusion-io announced financial results from
its first quarter of fiscal year 2014.  The Company, in a
statement, revoked its prior revenue guidance and announced that
its expected gross margin in 2014 would fall significantly.  The
Company also announced that Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")
Dennis Wolf and Chief Sales Officer James Dawson were leaving the
Company.  On this news, the share price of Fusion-io stock
declined from $12.98 per share to $9.82 per share, or 24%, on
October 23, 2013.

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


GOLDEN SECURITY: Sued by Security Guards Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Mestre Dorticos and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Golden Security Guards, Inc. and Pedro Mora,
Case No. 1:13-cv-24010-KMM (S.D. Fla., November 5, 2013) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his and
other similarly situated security guards' overtime wages as
required by the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether
their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSAct, the
Plaintiff contends.

Golden Security Guards, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Pedro Mora is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Joseph Perea, Esq.
          K. David Kelly, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                  perealaw@gmail.com
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com


HULU LLC: Court Refused to Issue Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Hulu must face
claims that it illegally disclosed viewer data to Facebook and a
business-analytics service, a federal judge ruled, finding users
can recover damages by merely showing that the disclosure
occurred.

Joseph Garvey is the lead plaintiff in putative class action that
says Hulu "repurposed" its browser cache to let marketing-analysis
services store the private data of users.

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

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

The media-streaming service also argued that the plaintiffs needed
to prove an additional injury besides violating the VPPA, and
moved for a judgment on that issue.

Judge Beeler unraveled Hulu's argument Friday, December 20, 2013,
finding that the act "requires only injury in the form of a
wrongful disclosure."

"Hulu's main argument -- that the word 'aggrieved' in the statute
requires an additional injury -- does not change the outcome,"
Beeler wrote.

Illegally disclosing personal information is an "actual injury" in
this case, and the plaintiffs could recover damages if the court
finds Hulu violated the VPPA, according to the 18-page order.

In depositions earlier this year, several plaintiffs said they
felt their privacy was violated by Hulu's disclosure of their
personal data.

"I'm paying for a service, and I thought that I understood what
was involved in that transaction," plaintiff Paul Torre said in
his deposition.

"But now I understand more, and it's disturbing."

A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for Feb. 6 in Beeler's
courtroom.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

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


IMPACT FUNDING: Faces "Giedt" Suit Over Lending Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Vega Giedt, Jr., and Vivan Castillo Giedt, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Impact Funding Corporation d/b/a Impac Lending Group, as the
Original Lender; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
for the Issuing Trust, Impac Secured Assets Trust 2006-5; Impac
Funding Corporation, d/b/a Impac Lending Group, as the Mortgage
Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable
right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described
in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on
Plaintiff' title thereto; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
1:13-cv-00594-KSC-NONE (D. Haw., November 4, 2013) alleges
violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JOHNS HOPKINS: 2 More Patients Sue Over Secret Video
----------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip reports that two more patients claim in court that a
Johns Hopkins gynecologist secretly videotaped their pelvic exams,
then killed himself when he was found out.

The women filed nearly identical complaints against The Johns
Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, in
Baltimore City Court.

The late Nikita Levy was an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns
Hopkins for almost 25 years.  The hospital fired him in February,
and told police he had secretly recorded or photographed patients
during exams. Three women sued Hopkins in March, in a class
action.

In the new lawsuits, "It is alleged that on or about Feb. 4, 2013,
the defendant, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, reported to Baltimore
City Police that Dr. Levy had been secretly videotaping and/or
photographing his patients and possibly others, and storing those
images electronically.  It is alleged that the defendant was also
guilty of boundary violations during his treatment of the
plaintiff.

"It is alleged that a subsequent investigation by the Baltimore
City Police Department and a search of Dr. Levy's home in Towson,
Maryland, revealed an 'extraordinary amount' of evidence,
including, but not limited to, multiple servers for storage of
electronic and digital data."

Levy is called a defendant in the body of the complaints, but not
in the headers.

Baltimore County Police found him dead in his home on Feb. 18.

The Baltimore Sun reported that Levy, 54, used a pen camera and
other devices to secretly record patients, citing a colleague who
reported him to Johns Hopkins.

The new plaintiffs claim the hospital knew or should have known
about Levy's misconduct, but failed to supervise, stop and report
him to authorities, and to ensure patients' safety and privacy.
They say they suffered severe emotional distress, pain and
anxiety.  They seek compensatory and punitive damages for
negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, invasion of privacy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, negligent
entrustment and lack of informed consent.

While Johns Hopkins said it could not comment directly on the
case, spokeswoman Kim Hoppe emphasized "that one individual does
not define Johns Hopkins."

"Johns Hopkins is defined by the tens of thousands of employees
who come to work determined to provide world-class care for our
patients and their families," Hoppe said in an email.  "We remain
stunned that a member of our ranks would violate doctor-patient
trust in this manner."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan L. Burke, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF RYAN L. BURKE
          1818 Eastern Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21231
          Telephone: (410) 235-6868


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Captive Reinsurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Blake and James Orkis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase
Bank USA, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Cross Country Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:13-cv-06433-PD (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2013) is
a proposed nationwide class action brought on behalf of similarly
situated persons, who obtained residential mortgage loans
originated, funded or originated through correspondent lending by
the Defendants, their successors or assigns, or any of their
subsidiaries and affiliates, between January 1, 2004, and the
present and who, in connection therewith, purchased private
mortgage insurance that was reinsured with JPMorgan's captive
reinsurance affiliate, Cross Country.

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' alleged
violations of the strict prohibition against kickbacks, referral
payments and unearned fee splits codified in the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.  In particular, the Plaintiffs
argue, JPMorgan and Cross Country, under an agreement or
understanding with several private mortgage insurance providers,
violated RESPA in two ways: (i) in exchange for JPMorgan's
referral of its mortgage borrowers' business, Cross Country (and,
therefore, JPMorgan) received illegal referral payments in the
form of purported reinsurance premiums from the Private Mortgage
Insurers; and (ii) Cross Country (and, therefore, JPMorgan)
received an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums
paid by the borrowers that JPMorgan referred to the Private
Mortgage Insurers.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
is a national banking association that conducts business in
Pennsylvania and other states throughout the United States.  Chase
Bank USA, N.A., also a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is a
national banking association that conducts business in
Pennsylvania and other states throughout the United States.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial holding company incorporated
in Delaware and headquartered in New York.  Cross Country
Insurance Company is a Vermont corporation.  Cross Country is a
subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and an affiliate of Chase Bank USA, N.A.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Matthew T. Stone, Esq.
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  eciolko@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com
                  mstone@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
          420 Frazier Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-5171
          Facsimile: (423) 265-5307

               - and -

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Blvd., Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0770
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Samantha L. Southall, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 S. 16th St., Suite 3200
          Two Liberty Place
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665-3884
          E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com


L'OREAL USA: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Anti-Wrinkle Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
L'Oreal and Lancome must face claims that they lied to consumers
about the age-defying properties of purportedly scientifically
proven anti-wrinkle products, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Twelve consumers sued L'Oreal USA and its luxury brands, Lancome
and Lancome Luxury Products, alleging that 30 of their anti-
wrinkle products "do not, and cannot, provide the results
promised."

L'Oreal cites on a decade of research to support its claims that
one collection "acts biologically on the 12 key targets of aging,"
and that products can stimulate genes and youth proteins.

The customers have meanwhile argued that L'Oreal's collections can
neither "fortify skin to make it visibly plumper," nor refill
wrinkles within an hour, as advertised.

One collection falsely proclaims a "'decisive breakthrough in stem
cells' such that within seven days skin recovers the visible signs
of younger skin," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs said L'Oreal advertised that the purportedly
patented, age-defying creams resulted from "vigorous scientific
research" using "in-vitro" testing.

But such results "are based on cells in a test tube or petri dish,
which means that the ingredients' ability to penetrate actual
human skin cannot be assessed," the complaint states.

Plus, L'Oreal's tests and studies allegedly relied on either
biased samples or too few participants to derive statistically
significant results.

And while the company Photoshops images to give a false impression
of the efficacy of its creams, it uses footnotes and asterisks to
"deceptively disclaim the promised results," according to the
lawsuit.

The 26-count complaint asserts claims for false advertising under
various state laws; unjust enrichment; and breach of express
warranty.

U.S. District Judge William Martini declined last week to dismiss
certain claims that he found had been pleaded with sufficient
particularity.

"The plaintiffs who purchased Genefique products (Schwartz, Bauer,
Murphy, Simmons, and Nino) did so based on L'Oreal's
representation that Genefique can 'boost the activity of genes and
stimulate the production of youth proteins,'" Martini wrote.  "The
plaintiffs who purchased Youth Code products (Goldrick, Gordon,
and Luu) did so based on L'Oreal's representation that Youth Code
can 'increase skin's power of regeneration so it regains the
qualities of young skin.'  The plaintiff who purchased Visionnaire
(Nino) did so based on a before and after photo of a woman's face
that 'purported to demonstrate the dramatic results that would be
achieved from using Lancome products.'  These allegations satisfy
the 'what' element for purposes of Rule 9(b)."  (Parentheses in
original.)

Though other plaintiffs were not so specific, and failed to
"pinpoint the statements they relied on," the judge refused to
dismiss the fraud claims, holding that discovery will reveal the
details.

Because "the basis of plaintiffs' claims is the same with respect
to all 30 products," the court deferred the standing inquiry until
the class-certification stage.

The court agreed with L'Oreal that the plaintiffs cannot recover
in unjust enrichment under New Jersey law because they made their
purchases from third parties.

The other unjust enrichment claims and breach of warranty claims
survived, however.

L'Oreal Group, the French parent of the defendants, reported more
than $30.6 billion in sales in 2012.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Judith S. Scolnick, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Michael Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN PA
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (888) 560-4480
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
          BLECHER AND COLLINS PC
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Martin S. Bakst, Esq.
          MARTIN S. BAKST LAW OFFICES
          15760 Ventura Blvd., 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 981-1400

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          223 25th Street
          Richmond, CA 94591
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          120 S. Lasalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  tsoule@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          City National Bank Building
          25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130-1780
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Jeremy William Alters, Esq.
          Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
          ALTERS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4141 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 571-8550
          Facsimile: (305) 571-8558
          E-mail: jeremy@alterslaw.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jamie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
          E-mail: Wjwhatley@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com

L'Oreal USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Jeffrey Samuel Jacobson, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: jsjacobson@debevoise.com

The case is In Re L'Oreal Wrinkle Cream Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2415, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark).


LACERTE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Roberson Lainez Salgado v. Lacerte Builders, Inc., Case No. 0:13-
cv-62413-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) alleges that the
Plaintiff earned but did not receive from the Defendant overtime
wages calculated at time and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for time spent working over 40 hours per week.

Lacerte Builders, Inc., is a Florida for-profit business
headquartered in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael James Gore, Esq.
          CASEY CIKLIN LUBITZ MARTENS O'CONNELL
          515 North Flagler Drive, 20th Floor
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 832-5900
          E-mail: mgore@caseyciklin.com


LOUISVILLE GAS: Sued Over Cane Run Power Plant Coal Pollution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a national environmental and personal
injury law firm, filed a class-action lawsuit on December 16,
2013, against Louisville Gas and Electric Company, a regulated
utility and wholly-owned subsidiary of PPL Corporation, alleging
it has illegally dumped waste from a coal-fired power plant onto
neighboring property and homes.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Gas and Electric
Company's Cane Run Power Plant (the "Cane Run Site" or "Cane Run")
is fueled by the burning of coal, which also produces coal
combustion byproducts -- primarily fly ash and bottom ash -- that
contain significant quantities of toxic materials, including
arsenic, chromium and lead.

The Cane Run Site is located just east of the Ohio River, near
several Kentucky neighborhoods that are home to thousands of
residents, attorneys claim.

The lawsuit further alleges that, despite receiving several
Notices of Violation from the Louisville Air Pollution Control
District, the Cane Run Site continues to spew coal dust, ash and
other pollutants onto neighboring residences.

According to HBSS, these byproducts include known carcinogens and
pose significant health hazards to area residents.

HBSS alleges that in failing to properly handle and dispose of
byproducts from the Cane Run Site, Louisville Gas and Electric
Company violated the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as well as the federal Clean Air Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of area homeowners, and seeks
monetary and statutory damages, as well as injunctive relief that
orders Louisville Gas and Electric Company to cease activities
that allow coal combustion byproducts to escape from the Cane Run
Site.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Charles L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
          4801 Redford Avenue, Suite A
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 447-0307
          Facsimile: (804) 447-0367

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Sanders, Esq.
          JEFFREY M. SANDERS PLLC
          1009 Russell Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 781-4556
          Facsimile: (859) 781-4558
          E-mail: jms@jsanderslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          Noah Axler, Esq.
          DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          Facsimile: (215) 732-8060

The case is Little, et al. v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company,
et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01214-JHM-JDM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville).

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, is a plaintiff-focused law firm
with offices in nine cities.  The firm has been named to the
National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List seven times.  More
about the law firm and its successes can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/. The firm's class-action law blog is
located at http://www.classactionlawtoday.com/


MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sutts, Strosberg LLP on Dec. 20 disclosed that a proposed class
action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Martinrea International Inc. and some of its officers and
directors.  The plaintiff has retained Sutts, Strosberg LLP, a law
firm that represents investors in securities class actions, to
prosecute the action.

The proposed class action concerns the circumstances surrounding
Martinrea International Inc.'s December 18, 2013 announcement that
the company had overstated its net income from 2005 to 2012.
Since the announcement, the company's share price has declined
significantly.

Shareholders who wish to discuss the matter should contact
Jay Strosberg, lead counsel for the proposed class, at
519-561-6296 or by e-mail at jay@strosbergco.com

Sutts, Strosberg LLP is one of Canada's leading class action law
firms and has recovered more than $1.5 billion for its clients.


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Plan Trustees Accused of Unjust Enrichment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Gordan, John Hine, Donna Flieger, Patricia Hurley, Ronald
Lindner, Janice Reynolds, and Sharon Jewell, individually and as
Representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the MassMutual Thrift Plan v. Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co, Roger Crandall, Stuart H. Reese; Robert O'Connell;
Investment Fiduciary Committee; Plan Administrative Committee;
Isadore Jermyn; Michael Fanning; MaryWilson Kibbe; Debra
Palermino; Michael Rollings; Elaine Sarsynski; Richard Goldstein;
Christine Fini; and John Does 1-20, Case No. 3:13-cv-30184-MAP (D.
Mass., November 5, 2013) is brought based upon alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.

Rather than fulfilling their fiduciary duties by offering the
Plaintiffs and the other participants in the MassMutual Thrift
Plan only prudent investment options and services at reasonable
cost, the Defendants selected for the Plan and repeatedly failed
to remove or replace proprietary separate accounts managed and
offered by MassMutual, the Plaintiffs allege.  These funds, the
Plaintiffs accuse, were not selected and retained as the result of
an impartial or prudent process, but were instead selected and
retained by the Defendants as investment options in the Plan
because the Defendants benefited financially from the inclusion of
these investment options.  By choosing and then retaining these
imprudent proprietary investment options, the Defendants enriched
themselves at the expense of the Plan, the Plaintiffs add.

MassMutual Thrift Plan is a unitary trust corpus in which each
Plaintiff, and each Plan participant or beneficiary, has an
interest.  Plan participants' and beneficiaries' retirement
savings are accounting entries until a withdrawal is made.  The
Plan has over 14,000 participants and over $1 billion in assets.
The Plan owns an undivided interest in the underlying assets of
MassMutual's general account and separate accounts.

The Defendants occupy the position of a common law trustee in
connection with the Plan, its assets, and its participants and
beneficiaries.

MassMutual markets and sells employee-benefits insurance products
and employee retirement investment products in all 50 states.
MassMutual is primarily run through its unincorporated operating
divisions, including its Retirement Services Division.

The Plan Administrative Committee is a named fiduciary to the
Plan.  The Plan Administrative Committee is comprised of
executives of MassMutual or its subsidiaries or affiliates.
Christine Fini and Richard Goldstein serve as members or delegates
of this committee.  There are several additional members and
delegates not yet known by the Plaintiffs and are referred to as
John Doe Defendants 1-10.

Investment Fiduciary Committee is also a named fiduciary to the
Plan.  The Investment Fiduciary is comprised of executives of
MassMutual or its subsidiaries or affiliates.  Isadore Jermyn,
Michael Fanning, Mary Wilson Kibbe, Debra Palermino, Michael
Rollings, and other individuals not yet known to the Plaintiffs
served as a member or a delegate of the Investment Fiduciary
Committee and are referred to as John Doe Defendants 11-20.

Elaine Sarsynski is a fiduciary to the Plan in that she has, among
other things, discretionary authority and responsibility over the
administration of the Plan as the head of the MassMutual
department responsible for the Plan's recordkeeping and
administrative services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Mark Boyko, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 S. Fourth St., Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  mboyko@uselaws.com

               - and -

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ai Tajima, Esq.
          Alison V. Douglass, Esq.
          James O. Fleckner, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1921
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: atajima@goodwinprocter.com
                  adouglass@goodwinprocter.com
                  jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com


MEMPHIS, TN: City Spoiled 15,000 Rape Evidence Kits, Class Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that Memphis
did not bother to submit 15,000 rape evidence kits for testing,
but merely threw them away or "caused the spoliation of the sexual
assault kits," Jane Doe claims in a federal class action.

Doe is an adult victim of rape and a resident of Memphis, she says
in the lawsuit against the city.

"Plaintiff and the putative class members are female individuals
who reported sexual assaults to third parties, had bodily fluid
samples removed from their bodies and placed within sexual assault
evidence kits, and whose sexual assault kits were subsequently
transported to the Memphis Police Department for testing,
evidentiary and custodial purposes," the complaint states.  "The
City of Memphis failed to submit over 15,000 such sexual assault
kits for further testing and caused the spoliation of the sexual
assault kits, all of which resulted in damages to the plaintiff
and the putative class, which constitutes a violation of the equal
protection clauses of the Tennessee and United States
Constitutions."

Doe says she was raped at around 2 a.m. on March 30, 2001, by an
intruder who kicked in a window of her home.  She reported the
rape to Memphis police that day, and was taken to a Rape Crisis
Center for treatment and collection of evidence.

"While at the Rape Crisis Center medical personnel took body fluid
samples from Jane Doe and placed them into a Memphis Police
Department Sexual Assault Evidence Kit," she says in the
complaint.

It continues: "An officer from the Memphis Police Department
transported the Sexual Assault Evidence Kit to the Memphis Police
Department ostensibly for testing and to be used as evidence
against the intruder.

"Over the next thirteen (13) years defendant City of Memphis never
submitted plaintiff Doe's Sexual Assault Evidence Kit for testing.

"Unknown to plaintiff Doe, the City of Memphis had a policy,
practice and/or custom of discarding sexual assault evidence kits.

"Unknown to Plaintiff Doe, the City of Memphis had a policy,
practice and/or custom of failing to submit sexual assault
evidence kits for testing:

"Over fifteen thousand (15,000) Sexual Assault Evidence Kits went
untested over a period of several decades."

It goes without saying, though Doe says it, that a
"disproportionate number" of the people whose rape tests were
spoiled or trashed were women.

She claims that the policy of discarding rape evidence kits "was
ratified by multiple policymakers within the City of Memphis
Police Department."

She claims Memphis police failed to "affect an arrest of" Doe's
home intruder and failed to "prevent future rapes by the
intruder."

She claims that the "defendant has a history of discriminating
against females" and that the "defendant's conduct was motivated
by gender."

She seeks an injunction "restraining and prohibiting defendants
from continuing its policy and/or custom of failing to test sexual
assault evidence kits," declaratory judgment that city policy on
handling of sexual assault evidence is unconstitutional, damages
for civil rights violations, plus costs and attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L.J. Spence, Jr., Esq.
          SPENCEWALK, PLLC
          One Commerce Square, Suite 2200
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 312-9160
          Facsimile: (901) 521-9550
          E-mail: rspence@spencewalk.com

The case is Doe v. City Of Memphis, Tennessee, Case No. 2:13-cv-
03002, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).


MONSANTO CO: "Wishon" Suit Transferred to Kansas District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Wishon, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
5:13-cv-00770, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas on November 5, 2013.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-02573-KHV-KMH to the proceeding.

The "Wishon" case is one of several lawsuits arising from the
discovery of genetically-modified wheat in an Oregon wheat field
in early 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq.
          Centennial Plaza
          2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100
          Edmond, OK 73013

               - and -

          James B. Buxton, II, Esq.
          BUXTON CARSON PLLC
          3535 NW 58th Street, Suite 950
          Oklahoma City, OK 73112
          Telephone: (405) 604-5577
          Facsimile: (405) 604-5578

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN
          PO Box 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

Monsanto Company is represented by:

          Christopher M. Staine, Esq.
          Gary W. Davis, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC
          20 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 234-3241
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5294
          E-mail: christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com
                  davisg@crowedunlevy.com

               - and -

          John R. Musgrave, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP - ST. LOUIS
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6086
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7086
          E-mail: jmusgrave@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Mental Health Class Action for $30 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Bookman and Brady Carlson, writing for New Hampshire Public
Radio, report that the state of New Hampshire has agreed to settle
a major class-action lawsuit over its treatment of residents with
serious mental illness.

Under the terms of the agreement announced Dec. 19 the state will
spend an additional $30 million on expanding services for the
strained mental health system over the next 4 years.

"The first priority in this case for the New Hampshire Department
of Justice has been to ensure that the State of New Hampshire is
able to develop its own plan for community mental health services
that best meets the needs of its residents," Attorney General
Foster wrote in a statement.  "This settlement agreement,
developed in conjunction with the New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services, enhances the State's mental health
services to address the concerns of the plaintiffs."

The state agrees to spend an additional $6 million in the current
budget, plus an additional $23.7 million in the next two-year
spending plan.  The resources will support more round-the-clock
care for people in crisis, as well as more community housing and
employment opportunities.

Governor Hassan says the settlement builds on the additional money
she pushed for in the current budget for mental health services.

"Reaching this settlement ensures that we can continue addressing
our mental health challenges in a fiscally responsible way that
protects the state's budget and that ensures that New Hampshire
citizens are driving improvements in our mental health system --
not federal judges," she wrote in a statement.  "Continuing the
lawsuit would undoubtedly have cost the state millions of dollars
in legal fees and untold millions more per year if the state had
not prevailed in its case."

Under the terms of the settlement, if the state legislature
doesn't agree to the funding levels, the plaintiffs in the case
retain the right to resume their legal battle.

The state also agrees to pay the $2.4 million in legal fees
accrued by the plaintiffs.

The Disabilities Rights Center brought the suit in February, 2012
citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  It was
joined by six residents with psychiatric disabilities who were
allegedly subjected to prolonged or needless stays in state
institutions due to a lack of community-based mental health
services.  The U.S. Department of Justice joined the case in
March, 2012, citing the same failures.

Ken Norton with the National Alliance on Mental Illness of
New Hampshire applauded the agreement.  He says it will reduce the
need for hospitalizations and provide critical services to
residents in need.

"This negotiated settlement is a major step forward for New
Hampshire," says Mr. Norton.  "It reflects the bipartisan
recognition that services to adults with severe mental illness and
children with serious emotional disorders must be improved
immediately."


NINE ZERO WINGS: Violates FLSA by Not Paying Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valente Ramiro Martinez Contreras and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Nine Zero Wings, LLC d/b/a Wing
Stop, Kindle-Ellis Investments, Inc. d/b/a Wing Stop, and Carol
Ellis, Case No. 3:13-cv-04430-N (N.D. Tex., November 4, 2013)
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his
overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the Defendants knew of
the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to
investigate whether their payroll practices were in accordance
with the FLSA, Mr. Contreras alleges.

Nine Zero Wings, LLC, d/b/a Wing Stop, Kindle-Ellis Investments,
Inc., d/b/a Wing Stop, are corporations that regularly transact
business within Dallas County.  Carol Ellis is a corporate officer
and owner of both companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jay M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Kelly E. Kleist, Esq.
          Michelle A. Mendez, Esq.
          Phillip J. Conley, Esq.
          CONLEY ROSENBERG & BRENNEISE
          5080 Spectrum Dr., Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 364-9700
          Facsimile: (972) 713-6480
          E-mail: jmr@crb-law.com
                  kek@crb-law.com
                  mmendez@crb-law.com
                  pjc@crb-law.com


OLIO RESTAURANTS: Ex-Waiters and Others Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Negron and Steven Lynch, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Olio Restaurants LLC d/b/a Olio
Pizza E Piu, Whynot My Way LLC d/b/a Whynot Coffee & Wine, Emil
Stefkov and Dragan Ristovski, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:13-cv-07844-GBD (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) is brought on
behalf of waiters, dishwashers and porters at the Defendants'
Italian restaurant and cafe, both located in the West Village
neighborhood of Manhattan, New York.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, minimum wages and
overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs and the class pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Olio Restaurants LLC, d/b/a Olio Pizza E Piu, and Whynot My Way
LLC, d/b/a Whynot Coffee & Wine, are New York corporations also
headquartered in New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
operators or general managers of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10000
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
                  graham@peltonlaw.com


ONLINE EDUCATION ADVANTAGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priscila Foletto, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Online Education Advantage, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Jason Argall, individually, Matthew Argall,
individually, Christopher Reinhold, individually, Matthew Little,
individually, and Susan Brown, individually, Case No. 8:13-cv-
02822-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) alleges that from
December 13, 2011, and continuing through June 18, 2013, the
Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the statutorily
required minimum wage, and failed to compensate the Plaintiff at a
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week.

Online Education Advantage, LLC is a Florida limited liability
company with a place of business in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Individual Defendants are Florida residents, who owned and
operated OEA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ana C. Francolin, Esq.
          CALANDRINO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          301 East Pine Street, Suite 950
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 601-4905
          Facsimile: (407) 601-4910
          E-mail: ana@floridabusinesslaw.com


PINNFUND USA: "Navarro" Suit Alleges Lending Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natividad Lucero Navarro, individuals, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. PinnFund USA, as the Original
Lender, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae),
PinnFund USA, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown,
claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to
Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto and,
Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:13-cv-00592-BMK-NONE (D.
Haw., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of the Truth in Lending
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICK HENDRICK: Faces Class Action Over Car Dealership Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
WCSC reports that two local car dealerships have been named in a
class action lawsuit by customers who claim they were scammed into
buying cars they couldn't afford.

The suit was filed on Dec. 20 in Charleston County.  It names Rick
Hendrick Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram on Savannah Highway in West
Ashley, the Hendrick Corporation and Northwoods Automotive on
Dorchester Road.

The suit claims Rick Hendrick worked out a scheme to boost its
sales.  According to the lawsuit, the dealership bought titles,
but no cars, from Northwoods Automotive.  Customers were allegedly
asked to sign the title, to make it look like they had a car to
trade in for a new one.

The dealership is also accused of falsifying paperwork to make it
look as though the buyers could afford cars they couldn't.  The
customers who are suing also claim their car payments were much
higher than promised, and in one case, double the amount they
expected.  The customers are suing for damages, and want a jury
trial.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Dismissal of "D'Apuzzo" Class Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard V. D'Apuzzo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit from an order dismissing the third amended
complaint of his purported class action lawsuit against SmithKline
Beecham Corporation, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline.

The original case is Richard V. D'Apuzzo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation
d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 2-07-cv-04963, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The "D'Apuzzo" case was subsequently consolidated with the
multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Avandia Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2-07-md-
01871, still in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. D'Apuzzo is a former user of the prescription diabetes drug
Avandia.  He did not allege that he has been physically injured as
a result of taking Avandia; instead he sought a refund of any
amount he paid for Avandia, including insurance co-pays.  He
sought to proceed on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, but no class has been certified.

In his third amended complaint, Mr. D'Apuzzo alleged that GSK
concealed the risks of Avandia use while promoting the drug's
safety, efficacy, and effectiveness through a fraudulent and
deceptive marketing program.  He contended that this resulted in
his and others purchasing Avandia instead of seeking alternative
treatments for diabetes.  He also asserted that he is a resident
of New Jersey and that his physician "would have prescribed
insulin or alternative treatments had he known about Avandia's
risks" and that he has now been prescribed insulin.  He further
argued that he paid a higher purchase price for Avandia, including
higher amounts in co-payments.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Aponte, Esq.
          Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esq.
          SHELLER, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790-7300
          E-mail: kaponte@sheller.com
                  bjmccormick@sheller.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Meyers, Esq.
          MEYERS AND GOLDTHWAITE
          35 West Main Street
          Denville, NJ 07834-0000
          Telephone: (973) 625-0838
          E-mail: gmm@gmeyerslaw.com

               - and -

          Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
          REZVANI VOLIN & ROTBERT
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 350-4270
          E-mail: trezvani@rvrlegal.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          Nina M. Gussack, Esq.
          Yvonne M. McKenzie, Esq.
          Anthony C. Vale, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON
          18th & Arch Streets
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4296
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com
                  gussackn@pepperlaw.com
                  mckenziy@pepperlaw.com
                  valea@pepperlaw.com

The appellate case is In Re: Avandia Marketing, Case No. 13-04323,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Being Sold for Too Little to Valeant, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Walker, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Solta Medical, Inc., Linda Graebner, David B. Holthe,
Cathy L. McCarthy, Mark M. Sieczkarek, Eric B. Stang, Harold L.
Covert, Sapphire Subsidiary Corp., Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.,
Case No. RG13707659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 20,
2013) arises from the announcement of Solta's entry into a merger
agreement with Valeant on December 17, 2013.  The approximate
value of the proposed transaction is $236 million.

The value to Salta stockholders contemplated in the Proposed
Transaction is fundamentally unfair to her and all other public
stockholders of the Company, Ms. Walker contends.

Solta Medical, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Alameda County, California.  Salta designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets energy-based medical device systems for
aesthetic applications.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Valeant.  Valeant is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Quebec, Canada.  Valeant International is a
multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and
markets prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  dsborz@faruqilaw.com


T.C.C.D. INT'L: Accused of Falsely Advertising Buckpower Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. T.C.C.D. International, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-08140-GW-FFM (C.D.
Cal., November 4, 2013) alleges violations of false advertising
laws.

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

T.C.C.D. International, Inc. is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida.  The Company
manufactures, markets, distributes andsells Buckpower, a deer
antler velvet dietary supplement.  The Plaintiff does not know the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TARGET CORP: Faces "Kirk" Suit Over Data Breach of 40-Mil. Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first class action was filed December 19, 2013, against
Target, hours after the company announced that security may have
been breached on as many as 40 million credit and debit cards
swiped from Nov. 27 until Dec. 15.

The stolen data includes names, credit card numbers, expiration
dates and the three-digit security codes on the backs of cards,
but did not affect online purchases, Target said.

The possible ID thefts affected all swiped cards, not just Target
cards.

Lead plaintiff Jennifer Kirk, represented by Robert Ahdoot with
Ahdoot & Wolfson, of Los Angeles, sued Target in San Francisco
Federal Court, in a complaint date-stamped at 1:37 p.m.

Kirk claims in the lawsuit that the data breach was announced by a
blogger, Brian Krebs, on December 18, 2013, "before Target made
any attempt whatsoever to notify affected customers."

The data breach is believed to have come from software installed
on the machines that customers use to swipe their credit and debit
cards.

Kirk seeks class certification, damages and punitive damages for
unfair competition, privacy invasion, negligence, conversion and
other charges.

Minneapolis-based Target told customers to check their bank
statements carefully.  Suspicious charges can be reported to
Target at (866) 852-8680.

Suspected identity theft should be reported to police or to the
Federal Trade Commission.

With nearly 1,800 stores in the United States, Target is the
nation's second-largest discount retailer, after Wal-Mart.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

The case is Kirk v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-05885-SC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco).


TARGET CORP: Faces "Fratelli" Suit Over Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Elena Ferrarin, writing for Daily Herald, reports that the owners
of a Batavia restaurant are suing the retail giant Target on
behalf of themselves and 40 million customers who recently were
affected by debit and credit card security breach.

Chicago attorney Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. said he filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status on Dec. 20 in Cook County on behalf of
Due Fratelli Inc., which owns Aliano's Ristorante in Batavia,
claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment and more.

Minnesota-based Target acknowledged on Dec. 19 that information
connected to about 40 million credit and debit card accounts was
stolen as part of a security breach between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.

Target said the breach affected customers who made in-store
purchases across the country.  The stolen data include customer
names along with card numbers, expiration dates and three-digit
security codes.

The restaurant's owner declined to comment, directing all
questions to his lawyer.

Mr. Zimmerman said his clients made several in-store purchases at
Target in early December, then noticed a suspicious $1,300 charge
for an Amazon purchase around Dec. 10.

A percentage of each purchase made at Target goes to fund the
company's technology and security departments, Mr. Zimmerman said.
He expects to find out during the lawsuit's discovery process
exactly what that percentage is, he added.

"If they didn't protect (customers' information), you're not
getting what you paid for, and that would constitute breach of
contract," he said.

Also, anyone among the 40 million customers whose identity was
used fraudulently can claim additional damages, he said.

The lawsuit also claims unjust enrichment, because Target profited
from charging customers to fund its security department but failed
to safeguard their information, Zimmerman said.

"Due Fratelli is seeking to recover the unjust enrichment damages
for the overpaying on behalf of everybody, as well as actual
damages that anyone may have sustained as a result of any actual
identity theft that has occurred," he said.

A judge will have to rule on Mr. Zimmerman's motion to certify the
lawsuit's class-action status.

No court date has been set yet, Mr. Zimmerman said.

Previous similar class-action lawsuit claims connected to retail
security breaches have been upheld by courts, resulting in
settlements across the country, Mr. Zimmerman said.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------
WSFA reports that a Montgomery law firm has filed a class action
lawsuit for Target customers whose credit and debit card
information was compromised in a security breach.

Beasley Allen filed the lawsuit on behalf of Kathryn V. Dickson
against the Target Corporation.  Customers whose accounts suffered
losses as a result of the breach are potential class members.

Target says the issue has been resolved and the company is putting
full resources behind investigating the breach and finding ways to
prevent similar breaches in the future.  The company is
encouraging customers to review their account statements and
monitor free credit reports.

The breach happened just before Black Friday and continued through
Dec. 15.

"A breach of this nature indicates Target did not abide by the
best practices and industry standards concerning the security of
its Information Technology systems," said Beasley Allen lawyer
Larry Golston -- larry.golston@beasleyallen.com  -- in a news
release.


TARGET CORP: Judge Tosses Age-Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report
that an Arizona federal judge on Dec. 20 threw out a putative
class action accusing Target Corp. of pushing out older workers in
violation of federal age-discrimination law, saying plaintiff
Katy Rodriguez hadn't provided evidence that the retailer had
forced her to retire.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps granted Target's motion for
summary judgment on Dec. 19, ruling Rodriguez couldn't pursue a
class action against the retailer because she had failed to show
that she herself had suffered an adverse employment action.

Judge Zipps found that while Ms. Rodriguez had made claims of a
pattern of age discrimination at the retailer, she failed to show
that her own retirement had been anything but voluntary.

"No reasonable juror could consider the facts presented by
Rodriguez and conclude that Rodriguez was 'forced out' of her
position because of her age," the ruling said.  "Instead, the
material facts . . . compel the conclusion that Rodriguez retired
because of her subjective dislike of changing expectations at
Target."

The Dec. 19 ruling marked a victory for Target, which dodged
Ms. Rodriguez's allegation that it forced older workers out of the
company throughout the 2000s in a concerted effort to project a
more youthful image to customers.

The case stems from Ms. Rodriguez's retirement from her position
as one of a Tucson, Ariz., Target's "team lead" supervisors in
June 2011, after 25 years with the company, according to the
ruling.

Ms. Rodriguez claimed that starting in 2011, she was subject to
unwarranted disciplinary actions, and that one of her supervisors
and a human resources employee had begun asking her when she was
planning to retire.  She filed a class action against Target in
November 2012, alleging she had been forced out of the company
because of her age, which was 58 when she retired.

Suing on behalf of herself and all Target employees over 40 who
had suffered an adverse employment action, Ms. Rodriguez alleged
that the retailer had committed age discrimination and retaliation
in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

In October, Target filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
Rodriguez could prove neither that she had suffered an adverse
employment action nor that she had engaged in protected activity,
a necessary requirement of her retaliation claim.

On Dec. 19, Judge Zipps agreed with Target, ruling Ms. Rodriguez
had failed to show her working conditions were "intolerable," a
necessary condition for a claim of forced resignation or
retirement.

"Rodriguez continued to work for Target for two weeks after her
resignation, she told co-workers she was considering returning for
part-time work after she retired and she attended a retirement
party in her honor at Target while she was exhausting her vacation
time," the ruling said.

The Dec. 19 ruling denied as moot Ms. Rodriguez's motion to
conditionally certify the prospective class.

Representatives for Ms. Rodriguez and Target did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on Dec. 20.

Ms. Rodriguez is represented by Jana B. Leonard and Shannon Haupt
of Leonard & Associates PLLC.

Target is represented by Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- Chris R. Pace --
chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Tibor Nagy Jr. --
tibor.nagy@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.

The case is Katy Rodriguez v. Target Corp., case number 4:12-cv-
00874, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.


TECK METALS: Toxic Discharge Alleged to Have Caused Breast Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that toxic
discharge from a British Columbian smelter becomes trapped in the
Columbia River Valley, creating a "public nuisance and an
abnormally dangerous activity" that gave a woman breast cancer and
bowel disease, she says in a federal class action.

The Teck Metals smelter is in Trail, B.C., just over the border
from where Barbara Anderson lives in Northport, Wash.  Anderson
sued Teck Resources and its subsidiary Teck Metals, for personal
injuries and public nuisance.

"The Trail Smelter is a metal and fertilizer production facility
on the Columbia River, which Teck and its predecessors have owned
and operated since 1896.  Northport, Washington, also on the
Columbia River, lies approximately 20 miles downstream from the
smelter.  The air pollution from Trail that travels south remains
trapped in the Columbia River Valley, where Northport is located,"
the complaint states.

Anderson says she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012 and
diverticulitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, in 2010.

"Plaintiff Anderson has lived in Northport since 1975.  She was
recently diagnosed with diverticulitis and with breast cancer.
Five of thirteen toxins released from the smelter in substantial
volume are toxins associated with her diseases, and it is more
probable than not that her exposure to these toxins caused her
injuries," she says in the lawsuit.

Residents of Northport and the Upper Columbia River have "borne
the brunt of the toxic discharges and emissions from the Trail
Smelter," the complaint states.

Residents have complained of inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid
disorders, sinus irritation, eye irritation, chronic nosebleeds,
respiratory problems and cancer, according to the complaint.

The 30-page lawsuit details a long history of environmental
problems at the smelter, including emissions of lead, arsenic and
sulfur dioxide, discharges of slag and mercury into the Columbia
River and groundwater contamination.

The proposed class includes current and former residents of the
Upper Columbia River, excluding Canadian citizens, who suffered
injuries as a result of Teck's environmental contamination.

"Teck negligently, carelessly and recklessly generated, handled,
stored, treated, disposed of, and failed to control and contain
the metals and other toxic substances at the Trail Smelter,
resulting in the release of toxic substances and exposure of
plaintiff and the proposed class," Anderson claims.

"Teck also negligently failed to warn plaintiff and class members
of the release of the metals and other toxic substances into the
environment and community surrounding the Trail Smelter and of the
reasonably foreseeable effects of such releases.

Greg Belland, general manager of Teck Trail Operations said in a
statement to the Rossland Telegraph newspaper: "We are supportive
of the efforts of residents of Northport, Washington, a community
south of Trail, to determine what is causing any unusual rates of
illness in their community. It is important to note that we have
not seen similar rates of illness in Trail.  Further, a 2004 human
health study relating to inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) by the
United States Department of Health found no link between the rate
of IBD in Northport and in other counties in northeast Washington
and Trail Operations.  And, a recent study by the BC Centre for
Disease Control found rates of IBD in Trail were far lower and not
comparable to those reported in Northport."

Anderson seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that
operation of the smelter is a public nuisance, and class damages
for negligence and personal injuries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The case is Anderson v. Teck Metals Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:13-
cv-00420-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington (Spokane).

                           *     *     *

Dene Moore, writing for The Canadian Press, reports Ms. Anderson
filed the claim on Dec. 19.  The allegations have not been proven.

The smelter has been in operation under various ownership since
1896.  In 2012, Vancouver-based Teck Metals admitted in another
lawsuit brought by the Colville Confederated Tribes that effluent
from the smelter polluted the Columbia River in Washington for
more than a century.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eventually joined that lawsuit and wants Teck to pay the estimated
$1-billion cost of cleaning up the contamination.

The latest lawsuit claims that between 1930 and 1995, the smelter
discharged into the Columbia River at least nine million tonnes of
slag containing zinc, lead, copper, arsenic cadmium, barium,
antimony, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, selenium and
titanium.

Teck has spent more than a billion dollars on improvements to the
Trail operation.  Today, the company says, metals from the smelter
are lower than levels that occur naturally in the river.  The
company has also spent millions of dollars remediating the area in
and around Trail following decades of industry, but the company
said the international border complicates the issues.

Teck has yet to be served with the lawsuit and file a response
with the court.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces "Edison" Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Edison, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Phillip Frost,
Eyal Desheh and Jeremy Levin, Case No. 1:13-cv-08963-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2013) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than the
Defendants, who purchased Teva securities between January 1, 2012,
and October 29, 2013, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of securities laws.

Teva, an Israeli corporation, is a leading global pharmaceutical
company that develops, produces and markets generic drugs as well
as specialty pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.  Headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel, Teva is the
world's leading generic drug maker, with a global product
portfolio of more than 1,000 molecules and a direct presence in
about 60 countries.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth David Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy John MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  tjm@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
          Ethan D. Wohl, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 758-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 758-4004
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
                  ewohl@wohlfruchter.com


VICAL INC: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Allovectin Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Thomson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Vical Incorporated, Vijay B. Samant, Jill M.
Broadfoot, and Anthony A. Ramos, Case No. 3:13-cv-02653-DMS-RBB
(S.D. Cal., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of a class of
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Vical
Incorporated between February 8, 2012, and August 9, 2013.

Mr. Thomson alleges claims against Vical and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, including materially false and misleading statements
made by the Defendants to investors and the public regarding
Vical's ability to obtain federal approval for one of its primary
products, Allovectin-7(R) ("Allovectin").

Vical is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Diego,
California.  Vical is a biopharmaceutical company that researches
and develops products based on patented DNA delivery technologies
for the prevention and treatment of serious and life-threatening
illnesses, including cancer.  All of Vical's potential products
are in the research and development phases, and no revenues have
yet been generated from the sale of any products.  Vical's
strongest candidate to receive approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for eventual sale and marketing to consumers was
Allovectin, an immunotherapy vaccine that targets cancer.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Vical.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


WAUKESHA MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelina Aguilera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-01245-LA (E.D. Wis., November 5, 2013) is a collective and
class action brought on behalf of proposed class members, who are
or were employed as housekeepers by Waukesha Memorial and were
denied minimum and overtime wages under its alleged illegal pay
policies and practices.

Under these policies and practices, Ms. Aguilera alleges, Waukesha
Memorial failed to compensate housekeepers for all hours worked by
denying housekeepers uninterrupted, unpaid meal breaks and
prohibiting housekeepers from leaving the premises for unpaid meal
breaks.

Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with a
principal place of business in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Larry Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
                  ljohnson@hq-law.com.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey G. Sorenson, Esq.
          Michael R. Lied, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PC
          211 Fulton St., Suite 600
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 672-1483
          Facsimile: (309) 672-1568
          E-mail: jgs@h2law.com
                  mlied@howardandhoward.com


WE-R-WIRELESS: Faces "Yorker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Yorker, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
We-R-Wireless; and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-06712-
JHR-AMD (D.N.J., November 4, 2013) is brought by the Plaintiff to
remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees.

Throughout his employment, he regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week, the Mr. Yorker says.  However, he contends, he did
not receive overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess
of 40 per week.  He adds that despite being classified as an
exempt manager, his primary duty was, in fact, that of a sales
associate.

Headquartered in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, We-R-Wireless is a
business entity engaged in the business of selling cellular
telephones and related equipment.  The Doe Defendants are
currently unidentified.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700
          Facsimile: (856) 727-9797
          E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory S. Hyman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP
          1777 Sentry Park West
          Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 461-1100
          Facsimile: (215) 461-1300
          E-mail: ghyman@kdvglaw.com


WOODMAN LABS: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Hero3 Camera
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Woodman Labs, Inc., doing business as: GoPro, Case No.
8:13-cv-03176-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla., December 18, 2013) is a consumer
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company's Hero3 video
camera is defective and that it randomly shuts off.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
          CAMPBELL LAW
          1861 N Crystal Lake Dr.
          Lakeland, FL 33801
          Telephone: (863) 292-9929
          Facsimile: (863) 292-9949
          E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2197
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  samoriarity@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Leventhal, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL PLLC
          527 Marquette Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 234-7349


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Exhaustion Defense Tanks In Porter Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Maryland federal judge ruled that defunct
insulation purveyor Porter Hayden Co. could tap excess policies
issued by a pair of American International Group Inc. insurers for
indemnification of underlying asbestos injury suits even if its
primary policies had not been completely exhausted.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake
rejected arguments from National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh Pa. and American Home Assurance Co. that three excess
policies they issued in the 1970s above their own primary policies
were off-limits to Porter Hayden.

The case is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA et al v. Porter Hayden Company, Case No. 1:03-cv-03408 (Md.).
The case is before Judge Catherine C. Blake.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Ct. Flips Ruling in "Montaney" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed a trial
court's order granting summary judgment dismissing Thomas and
Marjorie Montaney's claim against J-M Manufacturing arising from
Thomas's exposure to asbestos from pipe JMM sold.  The Court of
Appeals found that at the summary judgment hearing, evidence was
presented that (1) Thomas was repeatedly exposed to asbestos dust
while working with asbestos concrete pipe between 1972 and 1990;
(2) he purchased A/C pipe from a single distributor, Pacific Water
Works into the 1980s; and (3) Pacific carried NC pipe sold by JMM
in 1983 and 1984.  This evidence, according to the Court of
Appeals, is sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that
Montaney was exposed to A/C pipe sold by JMM.

The case is THOMAS G. MONTANEY and MARJORIE E. MONTANEY, husband
and wife, Appellants, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent,  CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corporation; H.D. FOWLER CO., INC.; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to Allied Signal, Inc.,
successor-in-interest to Bendix Corp., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WATER APPLICATIONS
DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC., formerly known as U.S. Filter
Distribution Group, Inc., as successor-by-merger to Pacific
Waterworks Supply Co., Inc.; and WUSCO.INC, doing business as
Western Utilities Supply Co., Defendants, NO. 69364-6-I (Wash.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' opinion dated
Dec. 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/cvBR9jfrom
Leagle.com.

Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. -- matt@bergmanlegal.com -- Glenn S.
Draper, Esq. -- glenn@bergmanlegal.com -- Chandler H. Udo, Esq. --
chandler@bergmanlegal.com -- and Kaitlin Tess Cherf, Esq., at
Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, Counsel
for Appellant(s).

David Albert Shaw, Esq. -- dshaw@williamskastner.com -- and Tami
Becker Gomez, Esq. -- tbeckergomez@williamskastner.com -- at
Williams Kastner, in Seattle, Washington, Counsel for
Respondent(s).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't. Granted Summary Judgment in "Botts" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States of America filed a motion for summary judgment
under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the
complaint filed by Plaintiffs Roget Botts and Carol Botts. The
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
relating to Mr. Botts' alleged exposure to asbestos products at
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

In an order dated Dec. 20, 2013, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
granted the Government's motion, finding that because the
Plaintiffs fail to raise specific facts demonstrating that Mr.
Botts' deliveries to the Shipyard were a substantial factor in
causing his mesothelioma, and because the inference necessary to
reach such a conclusion are so many and so great that they can
more appropriately be called speculation, summary judgment is
appropriate.

The case is ROGER BOTTS AND CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, CASE NO. C12-1943JLR (W.D. Wash.).
A full-text copy of Judge Robart's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/W9hCPSfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Conviction of Tennessee Men
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed a district court's order denying Donald Fillers'
motion to suppress and James Mathis's and Filler's motions for a
judgment of acquittal.  Messrs. Mathis and Fillers were convicted
of conspiracy and violations of the Clean Air Act, which, required
them to, among other things, adhere to standards required in the
removal of asbestos before any demolition that would dislodge the
toxic materials.

The appeals cases are UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JAMES MATHIS (12-6256) and DONALD FILLERS (12-6354),
Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 12-6256/6354 (6th Cir.).  A full-text
copy of the Sixth Circuit's decision dated Dec. 23, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/HBO9bDfrom Leagle.com.

Robin R. Flores, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, argues for
Appellant in 12-6256. Leslie A. Cory, Esq., in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, argued for Appellant in 12-6354. Matthew T. Morris,
Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, in Knoxville, Tennessee,
argued for Appellee.

Robin R. Flores, Esq., in Chattanooga, Tennessee, filed the brief
for Appellant in 12-6256. Leslie A. Cory, Esq., in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, filed the brief for Appellant in 12-6354. Matthew T.
Morris, Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, in Knoxville,
Tennessee, and Allen M. Brabender, Esq., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, in Washington, D.C., filed the brief for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Fails to Get Injunction From Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff The North River Insurance Co. asked the Court of
Chancery of Delaware to enter a permanent injunction preventing
Defendant Mine Safety Appliances Co. from prosecuting its later-
filed claims in West Virginia, as well as from settling with tort
plaintiffs by transferring rights to them under North River's
insurance policies; assisting any claimants, absent court order,
who are litigating against North River; or prosecuting any claims
for coverage other than those actions pending in Pennsylvania and
Delaware.

MSA, a Pennsylvania corporation, "manufactures a variety of safety
products." Many users of MSA safety products have brought bodily
injury claims against the company, claiming they are "suffering
various respiratory diseases such as asbestosis, silicoses and
coal worker's pneumoconiosis ("CWP" or "Black Lung Disease") due
to MSA's respiratory protection products."

North River avers that, absent injunctive relief, it faces the
irreparable harm of inconsistent judgments.  Because the Court of
Chancery lacks jurisdiction over the tort plaintiffs in the
pending West Virginia actions who may, under West Virginia law,
continue to litigate the trigger issue in their declaratory
judgment actions against North River, North River is seeking a
remedy that would be inevitably ineffective at protecting it from
the risk of inconsistent judgments, the Court of Chancery, through
Vice Chancellor Glasscock said in a Dec. 20, 2013 memorandum
opinion.

Because North River has asked the Court of Chancery for a remedy
that will not achieve its desired result, and because "[e]quity
will not do a useless thing," North River has failed to
demonstrate its entitlement to injunctive relief, the Court said.

In addition, it would be inequitable for the Court to grant an
injunction, which would result in North River continuing to
litigate issues that will define MSA's rights as an insured,
without MSA being able to vigorously defend itself, the Court
added.  Because the Court found that the relief requested would
not prevent the irreparable harm alleged, and because, in the
particular circumstances here, the relief would itself create
serious equitable concerns, MSA's Motion is granted, and that of
North River is denied, the Court concluded.

The case is THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 8456-VCG
(Del. Ch.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YKGA2Jfrom Leagle.com.

Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com -- Jason C. Jowers,
Esq. -- jjowers@morrisjames.com -- and David J. Soldo, Esq. --
dsoldo@morrisjames.com -- of MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Alan S. Miller, Esq. -- amiller@psmn.com --
and Bridget M. Gillespie, Esq. -- bgillespie@psmn.com -- of
PICADIO SNEATH MILLER & NORTON, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Brian C. Ralston, Esq. -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Jennifer
C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- and Michael B.
Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON &
CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Mark A. Packman,
Esq. -- packmanm@gotofirm.com -- Gabriel Le Chevallier, Esq. --
lechevallierg@gotofirm.com -- Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. --
hudsonj@gotofirm.com -- and Katrina F. Johnson, Esq. --
johnsonk@gotofirm.com -- of GILBERT LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys
for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Obtain Summary Judgment in Montello Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Montello, Inc., was a distributor of products used in the oil-
drilling industry, one of which was a drilling mud viscosifier
that contained asbestos.  In subsequent years, Montello has been
sued by many individuals who were allegedly exposed to asbestos
through products distributed by Montello.  The underlying
litigation has prompted Montello to seek liability insurance
coverage from the group of excess insurers, most of which provided
excess and/or umbrella insurance coverage over Montello's now-
insolvent primary insurer, The Home Insurance Company.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is
now "asked to declare a winner in a game of grammatical tug-of-
war" between excess insurers and an insured regarding whether
excess insurance policies 'drop down' in place of a policy issued
by a now-insolvent primary insurer."  The primary issue is whether
any of these excess insurers have a present duty to "drop down" in
place of the insolvent primary insurer and defend or indemnify
Montello in the underlying asbestos litigation.

The District Court, through Judge James H. Payne, found that the
majority of courts that have confronted the same issue hold that
when a primary insurer becomes insolvent, the excess insurer is
not required to "drop down" to assume the primary insurer's
coverage obligations.  Judge Payne further found that, if
confronted with the issue of an excess insurer's obligation when
the underlying primary insurer becomes insolvent, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court would not impose an obligation on the excess insurer
to drop down and provide insurance coverage in the absence of
language indicating the insurers intent to do so.  Indeed, the
Oklahoma Supreme Court has explained that excess insurers'
obligations are not triggered "until after the primary coverage
limits have been exhausted."  Judge Payne, however, stated that
the principles must be applied in light of principles of insurance
contract interpretation.  Indeed, courts considering the so-called
"drop-down" issue adopt a case-by-case approach, analyzing the
particular policy terms to determine the excess insurer's
liability under the policy.

In this case, Judge Payne granted the motion for summary judgment
filed by Canal Insurance Company, Houston General Insurance
Company, Scottsdale Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire
Insurance Company.

With respect to the insurance policies issued by Canal, Judge
Payne found that when read as a whole, the Canal Policies
unambiguously state that Canal is only responsible for the payment
of the ultimate net loss that results from an occurrence that
exceeds the underlying limit; all clearly defined terms that belie
any intention to drop down to cover the primary insurer's default
of its obligation to provide first-dollar defense and indemnity
coverage.  Moreover, the Court found that the Home Policies have
not been exhausted by payment of loss because Home has never paid
any claims in connection with the underlying asbestos litigation.
The Court noted that the Houston Policies and the Canal Policies
contain, in relevant part, similar provisions.

With respect to Scottsdale, the Court found that Scottsdale is not
required to "drop down" to assume any of the obligations of the
insolvent primary insurers.  With respect to Twin City, the Court
found that the "products endorsement" in its policy bars coverage
under that same policy.

The case is CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MONTELLO, INC.,
Defendant, THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.;
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; and TWIN
CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Third-Party Defendants, CASE NO. 10-
CV-411-JHP-TLW (N.D. Okla.).  A full-text copy of Judge Payne's
opinion and order dated Dec. 19, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/F1sMUcfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Bid to Junk "Herlihy" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the order entered by the Supreme Court, New
York County, which denied defendant Munaco Packing & Rubber Co.,
Inc., of South Carolina's motion to dismiss the complaint and all
cross-claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, and
granted Plaintiff Gail Herlihy's request for jurisdictional
discovery.

The Plaintiff's decedent allegedly was injured during his
employment in New York by his exposure to asbestos materials
produced by a New York corporation that was the predecessor in
interest to defendant Munaco, a South Carolina corporation.  The
Appellate Division ruled that the record contains sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Munaco SC may be subject to
successor jurisdiction.  Further, the Appellate Division found
that jurisdictional discovery is not necessary given its decision.

The case is GAIL HERLIHY, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.F.
SUPPLY CORP., ET AL., Defendants, MUNACO PACKING & RUBBER CO.,
INC., OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, 11198, 190149/11
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the decision dated Dec. 24,
2013, is available at http://is.gd/BTddzHfrom Leagle.com.

Steven L. Keats, Esq., for appellant, and Wilentz, Goldman &
Spitzer, P.A., for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "German" Suit Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an order consolidating the appeal and enlarging
the time to perfect the appeal to the May 2014 term in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE: NEW YORK
CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- GERMAN, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS
CO. -- LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-5946.

A full-text copy of the decision dated Dec. 24, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/vbwACPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Grants Inmate's Reconsideration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Evert Spells, an inmate incarcerated at San Quentin
State Prison, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action.  On
October 11, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the complaint with leave to
amend.  The Court advised the Plaintiff that if he failed to file
an amended complaint within 21 days from the date the order was
filed -- no later than November 1, 2013 -- his action would be
dismissed without prejudice.  On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff
had not filed an amended complaint and, therefore, the Court
dismissed the case without prejudice and issued a judgment.
However, also on November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint (FAC), which was not filed because the case had
been dismissed.  On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration.

In his FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that from May 9, 2012 through
June 6, 2012, Defendant Joe Dobie, CAL-PIA Factory Supervisor,
instructed the Plaintiff to remove lead-based paint without
providing the Plaintiff with personal protective equipment.  The
Plaintiffs further alleges that Dobie also assigned the Plaintiff
work in a dangerous environment where inmate employees were using
a high pressure washer to clean pipes encased with asbestos and
that Dobie failed to give the Plaintiff proper training or
protective clothing to work with asbestos.  The Plaintiff said he
suffers from acute and chronic eye problems, chest pains, coughing
and headaches as a result of working in an asbestos environment
without the proper protection or training.

In the interests of justice, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore
granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated its Order of
Dismissal and the judgment, and ordered the Clerk to reopen the
case and file the Plaintiff's FAC.

The case is EVERT SPELLS, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C 13-4102 KAW (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text
copy of the order dated Dec. 27, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/zXRtbNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona dismissed for failure to state a claim the
complaint filed by Plaintiff Jesus Garcia, who is confined in the
Maricopa County Towers Jail.  The Plaintiff, among other things,
alleges that he is currently being detained in condemned buildings
that are contaminated with cancer-causing, lead-based paint,
asbestos, and black mold.  Judge Campbell, however, gave the
Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

The case is Jesus Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV 13-2485-PHX-DGC (SPL)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's order dated Dec. 30, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/dJUzvDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Third Circuit Affirms Ruling in "Anderson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Anderson appeals from a district court order finding that
her proposed amended complaint did not relate back to her original
pleading.

On August 16, 2006, Anderson was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  She
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond,
alleging that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to "asbestos
dust and fibers from her father's asbestos-laden workclothes."
Anderson's father worked as a pipe cover insulator at Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard.

In an opinion dated Jan. 7, 2014 -- a full-text copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/ZiYErzfrom Leagle.com -- the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the
District Court that the original and amended pleadings did not
arise out of the same "conduct, transaction, or occurrence," as
required by Section 15(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Third Circuit rejected Anderson's contention that
her original complaint put the Appellees on notice of her amended
claim.  The original complaint made no mention of workplace
exposure during the 1960s and '70s, and in fact explicitly
disclaimed any cause of action related to her employment within
federal enclaves, the Third Circuit pointed out.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that
Anderson was required to provide fair notice in her original
pleading of asbestos exposure in the workplace, and that she
failed to do so.  Thus, the Third Circuit concluded that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson's
motion for leave to amend her pleadings.

The case is BARBARA ANNE ANDERSON, Appellant, v. BONDEX
INTERNATIONAL, INC. An Ohio Corporation; CBS CORPORATION, A
Delaware Corporation (Successor By Merger With CBS Corporation
F/K/A Westinghouse Electric Corporation)Formerly Known As Viacom
Inc.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, A Georgia Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Bestwall Gypsum
Company); IMO INDUSTRIES, A Delaware Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Delaval Stream
Turbine Co.); INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, A New Jersey Corporation
(Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest Terry Steam
Turbine Company); OWENS-ILLINOIS INC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Successor Owens-
Illinois Glass Company); PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually And As
Successor-In-Interest To And As Alter-Ego To Thompson-Hayward
Chemical Co.); PRM, INC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued Individually
And As Successor-In-Interest To Bondex International, Inc); T H
AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION, LLC, A Delaware Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Thompson-Hayward
Chemical Co.); TYCO INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., A Massachusetts
Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To
Yarway Corporation); TYCO VALVES & CONTROLS INC., A Texas
Corporation (Sued Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To
Yarway Corporation); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, A New York
Corporation; YARWAY CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation (Sued
Individually And As Successor-In-Interest To Yarnall Warning
Co.)*, NO. 10-2306 (3d. Cir.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs Won't Postpone Kingston Veterans' House
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nani, writing for Times Herald-Record, reported that mold
and asbestos found inside the building being converted to
transitional housing for homeless and disabled veterans in Ulster
County, New York, won't delay the project, county representatives
say.

Ulster County Executive Mike Hein's "Patriots Project" received an
exception this month from state Department of Labor rules
regarding asbestos removal.

The county is renovating the historic 1896 house located at 67
Wurts St. in a residential neighborhood in Kingston's Rondout
district.

The house, which has been vacant for several years, was inspected
before the county bought it from the state for $1, and the
renovations were anticipated, Deputy Executive Ken Crannell said.

The exceptions are mostly technical, allowing the county to remove
asbestos in spots that are absolutely necessary and follow a two-
phase plan that also deals with mold found in the basement.

The county was granted the exception to asbestos rules, because
adhering to them would have strained the budget and jeopardized
the renovation deadline, according to the Labor Department's
decision and the county's application to the state.

Two types of mold were found throughout the basement. Those have
been approved to be removed, as well.

When the project was announced back in July, it was expected to
cost $330,000, with $150,000 coming from the sale of the SUNY
Ulster president's home and other expenses covered by gifts and
donations.

The county Legislature budgeted costs a bit higher, at $400,000,
though. That's meant to be fully covered with $154,000 coming from
the sale of the president's home and $246,000 coming from gifts
and donations.

Hein originally included the project in his 2013-2018 Capital
Improvement plan at $60,000.

The federal Veterans Administration estimates there are 20-40
homeless veterans in Ulster County, and that at least two a month
seek help from the county Veteran Services, according to the
county.

Scheduled to be complete in June 2014, the transitional home will
have eight bedrooms for single adult men. Two of the rooms will be
wheelchair accessible. The third floor isn't being renovated.

Money from the federal VA Homeless Veteran fund will cover program
expenses in the future, while the county will pay for upkeep of
the home, estimated at $20,000 to $25,000 a year.

Volunteers have been coming forward to make the project a reality.

Members of Ironworkers Local 417 and community veterans braved
snow and frigid temperatures to help install the foundation for a
wheelchair ramp.

Work on the roof has been donated by volunteers.

A local bus driver even stopped by to donate a few extra dollars
he had for the project, Crannell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Half of Bradford Schools Still Contain Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Young, writing for Bradford Telegraph & Argus, reported that
almost half of Bradford Council schools still contain potentially-
deadly asbestos, new figures reveal.  And a teaching union fears
that with more schools moving out of local authority control to
become academies, efforts to prevent staff and pupils from
possible harm could be diluted.

The Council has stressed that it keeps a close watch on the
management of asbestos in its school buildings but the National
Union of Teachers has warned that when schools become academies,
there is a risk of losing track of that vital information.

The UK Asbestos Training Association has also stressed that it is
essential that both school staff and any builders carrying out
work on them make sure they know where asbestos is located.

The association claims that 75 per cent of schools in the country
still contain asbestos, although in Bradford that figure is lower,
with 96 out of 205 Council schools still containing the material.

Asbestos is commonly found in ceiling tiles, heating systems and
wall coverings and can become dangerous when it is damaged as
potentially deadly fibres are then exposed.

A spokesman for UKATA said: "More than 140 teachers have died from
mesothelioma (a cancer caused by asbestos exposure) in the last
ten years, plus an unknown number of cleaners, dinner ladies and
in some cases workers who have unwittingly taken on the job of
removal without adequate training.

"Teachers need to think twice before fixing work to walls in such
a way that would disturb asbestos and builders need to ensure they
have the training and skills necessary to remove and dispose of
the material safely."

Ian Murch, Bradford national executive member for the National
Union of Teachers, said: "Teachers in Bradford have died of
mesothelioma, and families have been compensated on the basis that
the exposure happened in the schools they worked in.

"It is not just an issue for teachers, it is an issue for pupils,
because they are far more vulnerable when they are young.

"As with anything these days, there is the issue of having the
money to remove it, but it needs to be managed. It can just mean
keeping good records of where it is and making sure you don't
disturb it.

"With the number of academies that are no longer under council
control, it is going to be harder to keep track of where asbestos
is.

"Teachers, staff and pupils need to know where asbestos is -- it
is absolutely vital a record is kept."

Councillor Ralph Berry, the executive member for education on
Bradford Council, said that many schools containing asbestos had
been closed or replaced, and that others were being closely
monitored.

He said: "It can be kept safe if it is properly dealt with if we
keep a close watch on it. It is a responsibility we as a Council
take very carefully."

On the NUT's fear that academy schools are out of Council control,
he added: "That is a very good point. That is one of the problems
when you fragment the system, it makes it harder to maintain
levels of security. I can understand the point the union is making
and I agree with it."

In recent years two former teachers in Bradford have died due to
their exposure to asbestos while teaching.

Graham Butterfield, who taught at the former Hutton Middle and
Tong schools between 1967 and 1996, died aged 64 in early 2011,
and an inquest into his death found that exposure to the fibres
had led to him developing mesothelioma.

Following the inquest his widow, Marilyn, of Idle, Bradford, said:
"I cannot believe that he was exposed to this dust in a teaching
environment which should be a safe place for our children to
learn."

Graham Webber, of Heaton, Bradford, a former teacher at Daisy Hill
Middle School, died aged 57 in 2010 and a subsequent inquest also
ruled that his death was by industrial disease caused by asbestos.

l Tong School in Westgate Hill has since been demolished and
rebuilt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Disease Claims 396 in Devon
----------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth Herald reported that almost 400 people in the
Westcountry, in the United Kingdom, have died in the last five
years from asbestos exposure, figures have revealed.

Legislation is currently going through Parliament to provide a
compensation package for sufferers of the fatal lung disease
mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos.

The number of sufferers is particularly high in cities such as
Plymouth because of asbestos-related activities in the past at
Devonport Dockyard.

An exposure of as little as one or two months can result in the
onset of mesothelioma between 15 and 60 years later.

Figures placed in the House of Commons library show mesothelioma
was the underlying cause of 2,139 deaths last year.

Some 396 deaths were recorded in Devon and Cornwall, with around
120 in the four constituencies covering Plymouth, between 2008 and
2012.

There were 34 mesothelioma-related deaths in Plymouth Sutton and
Devonport, 31 in South West Devon, 28 in Plymouth Moor View and 27
in South East Cornwall.

The Tiverton and Honiton and Torridge and West Devon
constituencies both recorded 27 deaths.

Other parts of the country with large dockyards witnessed a high
number of deaths, including Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where 60
deaths were recorded over the period.

The legislation is designed to compensate victims of mesothelioma
who have been unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the
deadly asbestos dust.

Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, has welcomed the
news GBP350 million deal, but warned the level of compensation is
set far lower than that attainable when a claimant can trace their
insurer. She also has concerns that the decision to set a cut-off
date two years from the launch of Labour's consultation in 2010
has denied compensatory justice to the more than 700 people who
have died in this time.

She said: "It is a ghastly disease and there are many families in
Plymouth we are trying to help.

"It has been decades trying to get some justice for those affected
who have not been able to trace the insurers of the companies they
worked for.

"There is progress, but there is more to do to secure justice for
sufferers and their families."

Asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive
industry. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and heating engineers are
at particular risk. Asbestos was in widespread use before being
banned completely in 1999.

Victims and their families have, up to now, been able to claim
damages under two pieces of legislation but the sums paid have not
generally exceeded GBP20,000.

Under the proposed new fund, which must receive parliamentary
approval, claimants will be entitled to 75% of the average
settlement paid out in civil actions relating to mesothelioma,
expected to be about GBP115,000.

Claimants will have to demonstrate that they were negligently
exposed to asbestos at work and are unable to claim compensation
because they cannot track down a liable employer or insurer.

It will be paid for by a levy on insurance companies which provide
employers' liability and is expected to cost the insurance
industry GBP300m over the next ten years while helping more than
300 sufferers a year.

But campaigners say the scheme does not go far enough in
compensating victims, and thousands who suffer from other asbestos
related diseases, such as asbestosis and pleural thickening, will
not receive anything.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Closes Gloucester Furniture Recycling Biz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gibbon, writing for The Gloucester Citizen, reported that not
letting people down is the primary concern for workers at
Furniture Recycling Project shop in Gloucester, England, which has
been forced to close for at least a week.

It initially shut on December 22 when high winds caused problems
with tiles on the underside of the walkway beneath which its
entrance sits. Now the shop, at Gloucester Bus Station, has to
undergo an enforced, prolonged closure after asbestos was
discovered in the walkway.  It needs specialist contractors to
assess it before it can be declared safe, a process likely to see
the shop closed into the new year.

Three years ago, it wouldn't have been a problem because the
charitable outlet never used to open over Christmas.  However,
chief executive Ian Ellis noticed an increasing need for the
service and decided he would start trading over the festive break
from 2010.

He said: "We tried to open using the loading bay as the entrance
but it just wasn't practical. It's our only fire exit and it just
didn't make sense.

"They've got asbestos contractors coming out to do some work on
it. The licence for them normally takes 14 days, but because it's
a public building they think they can get it in four.

"It will mean we're shut for at least seven days though. We are
trying to find some new premises on a short-term basis but, it
being Christmas, it isn't easy.

"The worry is that people will need us at this time of year.
Sometimes, it's people who don't usually cater for lots of others
and they need a table and chairs, or sometimes it's a washing
machine that's broken down.

"You also get people who have had a bit of money for a piece of
furniture they couldn't otherwise afford, and they come to us too.

"It's a shame, but it's one of those things."

Ian said the Cheltenham shop is still open, and people should be
calling or visiting that branch if they need the project's
services. It can be reached on 01242 220296.

The walkway is operated by King's Walk shopping centre, which
could not comment. It is owned by Aviva, which did not respond to
enquiries from the Citizen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Linked to Pensioner's Death
--------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire man died due to a
combination of heart disease and asbestos exposure, an inquest
heard.

Bert Wells, 81, was exposed to the substance during a four-year
stint at Marchwood Power Station, starting in 1957.

A post-mortem found Mr Wells, of Haltons Close, Totton, had
asbestos fibres in his lungs but also suffered from heart disease.

Dr Adrian Bateman, pathologist at University Hospital Southampton,
said the asbestos was not the primary cause of death but would
have increased the strain on his heart.

Mr Wells died at Southampton General Hospital in October.

Coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death due to natural
causes contributed to by asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Laborer Files Lung Cancer Suit v. 113 Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that another asbestos lawsuit has been added to St. Clair County's
asbestos docket.

James L. Hays and Carol Hays filed an asbestos lawsuit Dec. 5 in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against 113 defendant corporations.
The Hayses do not specify where they reside.  They are represented
by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates
in Edwardsville.

In their complaint, the Hayses allege the defendant companies
caused James L. Hays to develop lung cancer after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

James L. Hays worked as a laborer at a pipeline company in Texas,
as an apprentice at Ross School and Tool Company from 1961 until
1966 and as a tool inspector at Abco Corp. from 1966 until 1968,
the suit states.  The defendants should have known of the harmful
effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and
caution for the plaintiff's safety, the suit states.

As a result of his asbestos-related diseases, James L. Hays became
disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great
physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition,
he was prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment
and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued
to him, the plaintiff claims.

In their complaint, the Hays are seeking a judgment of more than
$100,000, economic damages of more than $150,000, compensatory
damages of more than $100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of
more than $150,000 and other relief the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-606.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teesside Fibro Legacy Exposed as Payment Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Selby, writing for Evening Gazette, reported that the ongoing
asbestos legacy of Teesside, United Kingdom, has been exposed
after it emerged councils have set aside millions to compensate
workers.

The extent of the impact being felt years after council workers
were exposed to asbestos was revealed after the local authorities
were forced to put aside funds worth nearly GBP3m for claims this
year.

A solicitor who helps asbestosis sufferers said the number of
people coming forward is expected to keep rising over the next few
years.

Roger Maddox, of Irwin Mitchell solicitors, added: "It starkly
illustrates the continuing legacy of asbestos liabilities, which
are a direct consequence of employers who negligently exposed
employees to asbestos dust."

Redcar and Cleveland Council has earmarked GBP2.5m to deal with
industrial claims this year, while Middlesbrough Council's fund
totals GBP252,600.

Stockton Council has similar arrangements in place, but could not
provide an accurate total for asbestos-related funds.

The councils were told they must make cash available after the
High Court confirmed employers who exposed workers to asbestos
were liable for damages, not whoever was employing them when their
cancer later developed, as insurance companies had argued should
be the case.

But because the Municipal Mutual Insurance company (MMI), which
covered industrial claims against councils, had gone into
administration, local authorities must now pay for legal action
out of their own reserves.

Some 17 former employees are currently pursuing Redcar and
Cleveland Council after contracting mesothelioma, the cancer that
can develop up to 60 years after contact with asbestos dust.

Norman Pickthall, cabinet member for corporate resources at Redcar
and Cleveland Council, said: "Because of the complex nature of
asbestos-related illnesses and the significant sums involved, the
council has allocated GBP2.5m to deal with any future compensation
claims, although we expect the final cost to the council to be
lower. The council's situation is not unique and like many other
local authorities we have been planning for this issue for a
number of years."

The funds only relate to council employees, with the full extent
of compensation in the private sector unknown, but one support
group has secured more than GBP1.5m worth of funding for
compensation in the past year alone.

Since September 2012 the Northern TUC Asbestos Support and
Campaign Group has assisted at least 128 people suffering with
asbestos-related cancers, providing support to them and their
families.  They say 2,500 new cases develop in the UK every year,
and this could become nearly 3,000 each year by 2015 -- at the
moment about 300 people in the North become ill.

Northern TUC regional secretary Beth Farhat said they were working
with Macmillan Cancer Support to offer free and impartial advice
and support to anybody in the North-east who had been affected by
an asbestos-related disease.

She said: "Unfortunately, the need for groups like ours and
support for asbestos victims will only continue to grow over the
next 10-15 years at least, as the full-scale of asbestos exposure
comes to light.

"However, we aim to provide at least a little comfort -- and a lot
of practical support to those who find themselves affected by such
debilitating illnesses.

"While money won't buy back sufferers' health, it is only right
that they are provided with the means to have some quality of
life, without having to worry about who will care for them or if
they can afford to pay vital bills."

To speak to the support group, contact Maggie Bailey on 07983
883274 or email Maggie.Bailey@tadea-uk.com

It's workers like Alan who pay the ultimate price

Alan Dean was exposed over years of loading the material on to
ships. He died aged 81.

A devastated widow has paid tribute to her husband who died from
asbestos-related cancer while his compensation battle was ongoing.

Sheila Dean's husband Alan succumbed to mesothelioma in April --
23 years after he retired from a career as a labourer on
Middlesbrough's docks that exposed him to the hazardous material.

At 15 he left school in Whinney Banks, Middlesbrough, to start
work that would see him travel across Teesside's docks as a
stevedore responsible for loading and unloading cargo.

His work on Tees Dock saw him carry sacks of asbestos from a
Middlesbrough factory on to ships that exported the hazardous
material around the world.

And Alan's death -- five days before his 81st birthday -- came as
legal action against the National Dock Labour Board that was
responsible for exposing him to asbestos dust dragged on.

Despite clear health risks linked to asbestos having been
discovered as early as 1898, Alan was not given any protective
equipment against the plumes of dust that surrounded him while he
worked.

And today his family is still fighting for financial security
after the huge impact Alan's disease had upon them.

Sheila, 69, said it had been extremely hard to watch him suffer
from the incurable condition. She said: "Mesothelioma is a cruel
disease, lying dormant in the body with no telling symptoms,
striking as if from nowhere years later.

"Alan's unexpected death has impacted enormously on us as a
family. Alan was a fit and healthy man with no medical conditions
and taking no medication."

And Sheila added that it was years before any sign of the disease
became apparent in Alan.

She said: "We are grateful that Alan got to enjoy 23 happy and
healthy years of retirement with his family, spending our winters
in sunny Spain and our summers enjoying the garden and playing
bowls, which he enjoyed so much."

Ian Toft, an asbestos claim expert at Irwin Mitchell solicitors,
said Alan's condition showed how employers who had negligently
exposed workers to asbestos were ruining lives decades later.

He said: "I have been working with victims of asbestos exposure
now for over 10 years, yet I am still stunned by the conditions so
many of my clients were working in at a time when their employers
should have known of the risks presented by asbestos and taken the
necessary steps to protect their workers.

"Now we have the tragic scenario of honest working men like Alan
suffering the consequences of their employers' inaction."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Wisconsin appellate court
has reversed an award of summary judgment to asbestos defendant
Wisconsin Electric, finding that the plaintiffs had properly
alleged a claim under the state Safe Place statute.

In the Dec. 27 decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District
I, pointed to other decisions from courts in the state that have
held that the release of asbestos dust created an unsafe condition
associated with the structure.  Ultimately, the appellate court
found that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence that
Wisconsin Electric knew or should have known that individuals
working in its buildings were exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Courts Can Allow Extra Time for Deposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a trial court is not only
authorized to allow defense counsel additional time to depose an
asbestos plaintiff, but is required to do so in certain
circumstances, a California appellate court recently opined.

In a Dec. 27 order, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal
said that it was considering the issuance of a peremptory writ of
mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying
defense requests for additional deposition time. In its order, the
trial court had expressed concern over ambiguity in statutes
governing time limits on depositions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exclusion Precludes Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Forward, writing for State Bar of Wisconsin, reported that the
buyer in a real estate deal claims the seller unlawfully failed to
disclose the presence of asbestos in the building, causing
damages. Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the seller is
not covered under an insurance policy.

Specifically, in Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 WI 105 (Dec. 27,
2013), the court ruled (6-0) that an asbestos exclusion clause
precludes liability coverage for the buyer's claims.

Michael Phillips and Perry Petta, affiliated with Walker's Point
Marble Arcade Inc., alleged that Daniel Parmelee, owner of Aquila
Group LLC, knew the building contained asbestos but did not
disclose that information in a real estate condition report.

Walker's Point bought the building, and their rehab contractor,
not knowing asbestos was there, dispersed it throughout the
building. Eventually, the plaintiff-buyers were ordered to vacate
the building, could not do business there, and lost it in
foreclosure.

Phillips and Petta sued claiming breach of contract and warranty
as well as negligence in failing to disclose the presence of
asbestos. The claims triggered interpretation of Parmelee's
business owner's insurance policy with American Family.

The circuit and appeals courts ruled the policy precluded
coverage. The supreme court affirmed, concluding that "a
reasonable insured would interpret the asbestos exclusion in
American Family's policy to preclude the loss alleged by the
plaintiff-buyers."

The policy did not cover property damage with respect to any loss
"arising out of, resulting from, caused by, or contributed in
whole or in part from asbestos."

Phillips and Petta, who wanted the option of recovering from
Parmelee's insurer, argued that the exclusion clause was ambiguous
and thus did not bar coverage. It said asbestos takes many forms
and the policy does not define the word "asbestos."

The plaintiffs also said the exclusion clause should be limited to
losses caused by exposure to or use of asbestos, not losses
sustained by accidental dispersal.

In addition, they said the policy does not exclude losses
sustained from Parmelee's failure to disclose the presence of
asbestos. But the supreme court was not persuaded.

"[T]he scope of the asbestos exclusion does not depend on the type
of tort from which the loss arose," Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote
for the unanimous court. "Our analysis focuses on whether the loss
suffered by the plaintiff-buyers is within the text of the
asbestos exclusion and thus reasonably contemplated by the
parties."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed 120 in Plymouth in Five Years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Demianyk, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that more
than 100 people from the Plymouth, United Kingdom, area have died
in the last five years from asbestos exposure, figures have
revealed.

Legislation is currently going through Parliament to provide a
compensation package for sufferers of the fatal lung disease
mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos.

The number of sufferers is particularly high in cities such as
Plymouth because of asbestos-related activities in the past at
Devonport Dockyard.

An exposure of as little as one or two months can result in the
onset of mesothelioma between 15 and 60 years later.

Figures placed in the House of Commons library show mesothelioma
was the underlying cause of 2,139 deaths last year.

Some 396 deaths were recorded in Devon and Cornwall, with around
120 in the four constituencies covering Plymouth, between 2008 and
2012.

There were 34 mesothelioma-related deaths in Plymouth Sutton and
Devonport, 31 in South West Devon, 28 in Plymouth Moor View and 27
in South East Cornwall.

The Tiverton and Honiton and Torridge and West Devon
constituencies both recorded 27 deaths.

Other parts of the country with large dockyards witnessed a high
number of deaths, including Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where 60
deaths were recorded over the period.

The legislation is designed to compensate victims of mesothelioma
who have been unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the
deadly asbestos dust.

Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, has welcomed
news of the GBP350million deal, but warned the level of
compensation is set far lower than that attainable when a claimant
can trace their insurer. She also has concerns that the decision
to set a cut-off date two years from the launch of Labour's
consultation in 2010 has denied compensatory justice to the more
than 700 people who have died in this time.

She said: "It is a ghastly disease and there are many families in
Plymouth we are trying to help.

"It has been decades trying to get some justice for those affected
who have not been able to trace the insurers of the companies they
worked for."

"There is progress, but there is more to do to secure justice for
sufferers and their families."

Asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive
industry. Carpenters, joiners, plumbers and heating engineers are
at particular risk. Asbestos was in widespread use before being
banned completely in 1999.

Victims and their families have, up to now, been able to claim
damages under two pieces of legislation but the sums paid have not
generally exceeded GBP20,000.

Under the proposed new fund, which must receive parliamentary
approval, claimants will be entitled to 75 per cent of the average
settlement paid out in civil actions relating to mesothelioma,
expected to be about GBP115,000. Claimants will have to
demonstrate that they were negligently exposed to asbestos at work
and are unable to claim compensation because they cannot track
down a liable employer or insurer.

It will be paid for by a levy on insurance companies which provide
employers' liability and is expected to cost the insurance
industry GBP300million over the next ten years while helping more
than 300 sufferers a year.

But campaigners say the scheme does not go far enough in
compensating victims, and thousands who suffer from other asbestos
related diseases, such as asbestosis and pleural thickening, will
not receive anything.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Payout for Former Shoebury MOD Site Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Archard, writing for Echo, reported that an electrician
suffering from terminal cancer has won a six-figure payout after
being exposed to deadly asbestos during his work at the military
base in Shoebury, in Essex, England.

The 64-year old from Hockley, who does not want to be named, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2012 after suffering from
pain in his ribs, a persistent cough and breathlessness.  He
underwent treatment at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, but
has since been given the devastating news the cancer has spread to
his brain.

The father-of-two was exposed to asbestos while working at the
Ministry of Defence's Shoebury munitions testing site, for his
employer the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, now the
Department for Communities and Local Government, between 1965 and
1970.

Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell in London negotiated an undisclosed six-
figure sum for him which will help cover the cost of care when his
condition deteriorates and further limits his independence.

He says it feels "like some justice has been done".

His job involved drilling holes in walls and ceilings which were
clad with asbestos in workshops and research units.

He said: "After drilling holes in walls and ceilings, I had to
sweep up the dust and debris the work had created. I was an
apprentice.

"We didn't really think anything of breathing in the dust as we
worked because we were never told of the dangers or given any
safety gear to wear.

"During my apprenticeship, I worked in various buildings on the
Shoebury site. I did electrical work as part of the refurbishment
of buildings. When we were doing refurbishments all of the trades
were working together and I believe I was exposed to asbestos dust
from colleagues lagging pipes near me."

The man began feeling unwell in February 2012 and was diagnosed
with mesothelioma two months later following tests and scans.

He added: "It was devastating to find out that asbestos exposure
had given me cancer and that my symptoms will get worse.

"My illness is terminal so it's heartbreaking for my family, and
now it has spread to my brain.

"We are all anxious about what the future holds, but I amgrateful
to have the support around me from my loved ones.

"The settlement will be a big help financially when it comes to my
care and will help support my family to look after me and help me
to battle on against this incurable disease.

"It feels like justice has been done as my former employer should
have done something to protect me and my colleagues."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Won't Reconsider Take-Home Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Washington federal court
has maintained its position that asbestos plaintiffs will be
permitted to bring take-home asbestos exposure claims to trial,
opining that the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to
support a finding that the dangers of take-home exposure were
known, or should have been known, to the defendants as early as
the 1950s.

In its Dec. 30 order denying Owens-Illinois and Crown Cork & Seal
Co. Inc.'s motion for reconsideration, the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington said that the case was
distinguishable from a recent decision that reached the opposite
conclusion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Declines to Modify Denial Order
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a trial court that was
recently directed by an appellate court to authorize additional
deposition time for defendants in an asbestos case has declined to
do so, opining that a "published opinion will provide helpful
guidance to the legal community."

In a Dec. 30 order, Judge Emilie H. Elias of the California
Superior Court for Los Angeles County said that he respectfully
declined to modify his original order in which he had expressed
concern over ambiguity in statutes governing time limits on
depositions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pilbara Fibro Fears Follow Cyclone Christine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Nicholson, writing for WAToday, reported that the cyclonic
winds and pelting rain may have passed by Western Australia's
Pilbara and Kimberley regions, however, ex-tropical cyclone
Christine has exposed a fresh yet familiar danger for residents to
contend with.

Asbestos in buildings, fencing and other building products
dislodged or damaged during the wild weather now pose an
additional health risk to Pilbara residents if they are exposed to
the cancer-causing material.

Slater and Gordon asbestos lawyer Laine McDonald issued the
warning to residents of the risks of asbestos exposure during the
cleaning up of properties, homes and businesses battered by
Christine.

"Once asbestos is disturbed, it can pose a real danger to health,"
Ms McDonald said.

"Residents who are returning to their homes and businesses could
be at risk of exposure, especially if they start cleaning up
without the right protection.

"While it's difficult to tell if a structure contains asbestos, if
it was built in the mid-1980s -- the time when this common
building product was phased out -- you assume there's a risk."

It's believe about 600 Australian are diagnosed with mesothelioma
each year.

Asbestos was commonly used as a construction material throughout
the Pilbara.  It was mined in Wittenoom, 1100 kilometres north-
east of Perth in the Pilbara, before the town was evacuated and
essentially wiped off the map by authorities.

"Asbestos products damaged by severe storms like cyclone Christine
can release a very dangerous dust which, once breathed in, can
cause mesothelioma, lung cancer and other serious illnesses," Ms
McDonald said.

"Each year around 250 Western Australians die from asbestos-
related diseases, with a lag of about 30-40 years between exposure
and diagnosis of an illness.

"Asbestos products are still in our homes, businesses and
communities more than 40 years after the Wittenoom mine closed, so
it's a hazard that continues to confront us all."

Despite the category three cyclone coming within about 100
kilometres of the Town of Port Hedland, mayor Kelly Howlett said
the district had escaped with minor damage, mostly to the area's
natural landscape.

"We've got a lot of cleaning up to do but we were very fortunate,"
Cr Howlett said.

"We've not seen any bad structural damage, just a few trees down,
a lot of sand swept up from the beach and a bit of flooding."

Cr Howlett said new and updated property development in the region
had reduced the number of buildings containing asbestos.

"It's generally been replaced in the past decade ... but there's
still quite a bit."

She said the town's asbestos handling and removal safety
procedures were "well known" to residents.

"Residents need to get relevant council approval [to remove
asbestos material], but they're quite well versed in that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Aluminum Declares Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that
a New Jersey-based aluminum company has declared Chapter 11
bankruptcy, which has led to it removing an asbestos lawsuit filed
against it in Kanawha County Circuit Court to federal court.

Consolidated Aluminum Corp., which ceased operations in 1994,
declared bankruptcy on Dec. 15. The company still exists to manage
litigation against it.

According to its bankruptcy petition, the company has between 100-
199 creditors but only between $500,001 and $1 million in assets.
Its largest creditor is Lonza America, to which it owes more than
$72 million for an inter-company loan.

Consolidated Aluminum, which did business as Conalco, was named as
one of 53 defendants in John and Gloria Davis' lawsuit, filed May
14, 2010, in Kanawha Circuit Court.

The couple are represented by James A. McKowen of James F.
Humphreys & Associates and Victoria Antion of Motley Rice's
Morgantown office.

The complaint says John Davis, of Parkersburg, suffers from lung
cancer. He worked for Consolidated Aluminum in Hannibal, Ohio,
from 1958-79.

Conalco's removal notice says the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia has jurisdiction over the case
because of the federal bankruptcy proceeding.

"Under the 'conceivable effect' test, 'the proceeding need not
necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor's
property.' An action is 'related to' bankruptcy if the outcome
could alter the debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom
of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way
impacts upon the handling of the bankrupt estate," the removal
notice says.

"'Related to' jurisdiction exists here because the claims asserted
in the State Court Action seek monetary damages from the Debtor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradken Trains Breach Fibro Ban
------------------------------------------------
Donna Page, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that Newcastle,
Australia-based engineering giant Bradken is under fire for
importing heavy-rail locomotives containing deadly asbestos from
China.

The locos are quarantined at Rutherford, as Australian Customs and
Border Protection officials investigate the breach of a 10-year
ban on the import of products containing asbestos.

It is the first time Bradken has purchased locomotives from China
and a company spokesman said the breach would not deter it from
dealing with Chinese manufacturers in future.

Unions described the Chinese imports as a "disgrace" and said
Bradken should be held accountable for not ensuring the safety of
its supply chain.

The two locos were certified in China as asbestos-free and arrived
in Australia in November 2012.

Bradken learnt about the asbestos in October.

ACTU assistant secretary Michael Borowick said asbestos-free
certificates issued by Chinese manufacturers were "not worth the
paper they were printed on".

"The ban was put in place almost 10 years ago for good public
policy reasons because one fibre can kill," he said.

"There have only been two prosecutions since the ban was
implemented and the message that sends is you can import with
impunity."

A Customs and Border Protection spokesman said Bradken could face
a fine of up to $850,000 or three times the value of the locos,
whichever is greatest.

"Importers are responsible for ensuring goods they import are free
from asbestos and must declare this on import documentation," he
said, declining to comment further.

Bradken's spokesman would not reveal the cost of the locos and
said independent testing revealed the white asbestos was
contained.

He said there was no risk ''of any exposure to personnel''.

''Our specifications to the supplier was they be asbestos free,''
he said. ''The reality is they have not spent very much time on
track at all.''

The diesel locos were made by China Southern Rail and were
undergoing registration and commissioning work in the Hunter.

Freight carrier SCT Logistics imported 10 of the same locos and
asbestos was detected in October following complaints by Adelaide
maintenance workers about white dust around the engines.

Tests revealed there were carcinogenic fibres in the cooling pipe,
exhaust and brake insulation.

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief executive Peter Tighe
said the situation highlighted "serious problems" with Australian
compliance.

"As far as the Chinese are concerned there is no problem with
asbestos," Mr Tighe said.

"It is far too easy for these things to slip through the cracks
when all you need to import something is a certificate from the
manufacturer to say it's asbestos free."

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union NSW secretary Tim Ayres
said if a local manufacturer used asbestos  it  would be shut
down.

''These companies are getting a cheap deal, by setting up a supply
chain they can't guarantee,'' he said.

''It's pretty simple, trains made in Australia don't contain
asbestos and they keep workers in jobs."

Bradken's spokesman said the company acted immediately to
quarantine the locos and was co-operating with investigators.

He said the asbestos would be removed and the locos put into
service with an Australian operator.

A spokesman for Qube Logistics confirmed it ordered six of the
same locos, but said it would not accept them with asbestos.

''We have our inspectors working with the manufacturers on site to
ensure that no asbestos is used,'' he said.

This is not the first time China has broken the Australian ban on
asbestos.

In 2012 more than 25,000 Chinese-made Great Wall, Chery and Geely
cars were recalled after asbestos was discovered in engine gaskets
and brakes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has Until Jan. 27 to Seek Rehearing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Elliott Jr., writing for Insurance Journal, reported that
Union Carbide Corporation has until Jan. 27 to file a motion
asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to review an unfavorable
ruling in an asbestos case.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 12 overruled a Smith County judge who
threw out a $3.85 million judgment for the family of Larry Smith.
Smith died of lung cancer in 2002. His wife argued in a lawsuit
that her husband was exposed to drilling additives made by Union
Carbide that contained asbestos.

The Smith County judge said the plaintiffs failed to show Larry
Smith had been exposed to a specific product on a regular basis in
proximity to his work.

The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, said the trial judge's ruling
was flawed and sent the case back to Smith County.

Union Carbide said it wants to file briefs replying to the Supreme
Court's decision.

Smith worked on petroleum drilling rigs from the 1960s until the
early 1990s. At the time, it commonplace in the industry to use
chemical drilling additives containing asbestos.

He was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2002 and died three
months later. Court records also show that Smith was a heavy
smoker.

The family filed suit in March 2006.

In May 2009 after a 3-week trial, a jury in Smith County returned
a verdict in favor of the Smith family and assessed damages of
$3.85 million.

But in January 2010, the trial judge threw out the verdict.

The Supreme Court said the "frequency, regularity, and proximity
of exposure" test used by the trial judge in overturning the
verdict is limited to motions for summary judgment -- directed
verdicts -- before a case goes to a jury.

"At the jury-consideration stage, the `frequency, regularity, and
proximity' test falls away, and a plaintiff must demonstrate the
elements of a design defect product liability claim," Justice
Josiah Coleman said in the ruling.

"Instead, the trial court should have matched the plaintiffs'
proof against the statutory elements of a design defect products
liability claim, just as would be required in any non-asbestos
negligent design litigation," Coleman said.

Union Carbide attorneys said in the motion to the Supreme Court
that the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" standard was not
presented in the appeal.

"The parties have not had the opportunity to fully brief this
issue before the court," the company wrote in a filing.

"Due to the latent nature of asbestos-related disease, the
`frequency, regularity, and proximity' test is used by courts
across the country for establishing proximate causation in
products liability actions involving asbestos-related injuries.

The company said the Supreme Court's December opinion will affect
other asbestos cases pending in Mississippi and possible future
filings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Care Home Worker Angered at Fibro Risks
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambrian News Online reported that a mother from Llithfaen, in
Gwynedd, Wales, has hit out after safety experts ruled she may
have been exposed to dangerous asbestos.

Nia Hughes, 37, was a care assistant at the Plas-y-Don care home
in Pwllheli for 12 years. According to the mother-of-two, on 28
February, 2011 work to replace floor tiles in a corridor exposed
staff and care home residents to "unacceptable" health risks.
A risk assessment carried out by Gwynedd Council said that she may
have possible exposure to a level of asbestos which may develop
into disease over time.

Following the incident, Nia approached the Health and Safety
Executive, which investigated and found failings. However, Nia
says despite the findings by HSE, she still wants further action
to be taken against Gwynedd Council.

She said: "When I went into work that day, I just remember there
being dust everywhere. When I got home that evening I remember
feeling my throat burning and developed a bad cough. "I didn't
think much of it at that point, but it wasn't until a co-worker
had a look at the plans and we found that the old tiles contained
asbestos material.

"I was horrified. I had gone home that night covered in dust and I
was in very close contact to my husband and children."Gwynedd
Council have since implemented several procedures to minimise
future risks following the incident.

The HSE report states: "When the contract was awarded to Ross
Hughes Flooring in early February 2011, a meeting was held with
Arthur Williams, the care home manager, and Nick Millington, a
director of Ross Hughes Flooring.

"Nick Millington was made aware that there was asbestos in the
floor tiles that were to be removed. "The subsequent investigation
by Gwynedd Council found that the work had not been carried out in
the way that had been discussed during the meetings between Arthur
Williams and Nick Millington."

In the report, the HSE states that there were also broken tiles
left in a laundry trolley, later transported through the home, and
the tiles were not dampened down before hand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High School Renovation to Remove Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Pittsburgh reported that school officials say the construction
being done on Mt. Lebanon High School, in Pennsylvania, will
require asbestos removal.

Parents of one of the largest high schools in Allegheny County
received the information in a letter from the principal.

Officials say construction and on-going renovation of the high
school now requires some asbestos removal from the floor tile and
wallboards in the auditorium.

The work has not yet started, but will take approximately four-
weeks to complete.

Principal Brian McFeeley sent a letter to parents describing the
process, saying in part:

"The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) will be the local
governing agency having jurisdiction over asbestos abatement. The
ACHD is responsible for permitting the abatement process and, when
completed, giving the final approval to occupy the area if the air
quality levels meet all applicable federal, state, and county
requirements. The abatement process for the areas listed above is
scheduled to occur during second shift, beginning at 4:00pm. All
entrances to this area will be fully sealed so that no students or
staff will have access to this area."

"The high school needs renovated. It comes with the territory,
with the age of that school," parent Stacey Franklin said.
School officials say they had abated other asbestos in the
elementary school over the summer, and had no problems.

There are more than 18-hundred students at Mt. Lebanon High
School, and school officials say only two parents registered
concern over the process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says Fibro Case to Remain in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a magistrate judge in
Delaware has recommended that an asbestos case remain in federal
court, concluding that Crane Co. had established a federal
defense.

In the Dec. 13 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Christopher J. Burke suggested that the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware deny the plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case since the defendant had established federal officer removal
jurisdiction.

Marguerite MacQueen filed the underlying lawsuit on behalf of
David MacQueen, who was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing
products while serving in the U.S. Navy as a welder/machinist and,
later, as a salesman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rescuers Decontaminate Man From Fibro
------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a man in his 60s has been taken to hospital
after falling through scaffolding at a home in Cottesloe, in
Perth, Australia.  He was removing asbestos from the ceiling of
the house in Andrews Place about 8:30am when the accident
happened.

Fire rescue crews had to decontaminate the man as well as
ambulance crews who came into contact with the asbestos.

The man is in Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital with head and arm
injuries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. High Ct. Enforces Exclusion in Property Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Wisconsin's Supreme Court recently freed
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. from covering a lawsuit
claiming the sellers of an apartment building hid the presence of
asbestos on the property, giving force to a broadly worded
asbestos exclusion.

The high court upheld a lower court's decision, and an appeals
court's affirmation, in favor of American Family in a coverage
battle over claims that the apartment building's sellers did not
disclose to property buyers that the apartment building likely had
asbestos-wrapped ducts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaton Park Club to Close for Re-roofing
---------------------------------------------------------
Illawarra Mercury reported that the ageing asbestos roof on the
Beaton Park Tennis Club, in Gwynneville, New South Wales, is
reaching the end of its life and will be replaced, with work
starting next week.

Wollongong City Council said contractors had performed a survey on
the roof and decided it needed to be replaced.

The building is about 50 years old, and its interior was
refurbished eight years ago.

The Wollongong Tennis Club will be closed while the work takes
place and is expected to reopen by January 30.

The council's director of infrastructure and works, Mike Hyde,
said the replacement work was essential to maintain an ageing
building and help extend the life of the tennis facilities.

"Council has more than 155 sports buildings throughout the city,"
he said.

"Many of these are ageing and require essential and expensive
maintenance."

The project is expected to cost about $150,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Impact Growing Among Firefighters
--------------------------------------------------------
Perry J. Browder, writing for Lawyers.com, reported that
firefighters put their lives at risk every day. They are
constantly saving other people in dangerous situations. This is
certainly the case when they enter flaming, crumbling buildings.
And while the fires and deteriorating structures are hazardous,
other dangers can be found in the harmful toxins that fill the air
-- asbestos.

Not only do firefighters work in situations where building fires
occur, they can also be a major part of cleanup crews during
natural disasters or unfortunate events. For instance, many
firefighters assisted with the cleanup efforts after the 9/11
attacks.

When the World Trade Center was built, asbestos products were used
in its construction. As the twin towers collapsed, they sent a
massive cloud of asbestos-filled dust, smoke and debris through
the city streets. Firefighters, police officers, emergency
personnel and other volunteers worked for hours sorting through
the toxic, asbestos-filled rubble.

In addition, fire and asbestos fibers are a dangerous mix. High
temperatures increase the exposure risk by breaking down asbestos
fibers into even smaller fibers and shooting them into the air
faster, which increases the chances of inhalation. The combination
of a crumbling, high temperature building and tiny asbestos fibers
floating through the air puts firefighters in life-threatening
situations often.

A new study conducted by NIOSH in collaboration with the National
Cancer Institute and the Department of Public Health Sciences in
the University of California at Davis focused on the effects of
asbestos exposure and firefighters. This study, funded in part by
the United States Fire Administration, identified an higher risk
of mesothelioma in U.S. firefighters.

Specifically, researchers analyzed 30,000 firefighters living in
the Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco areas through 2009.
All of the study participants had been firefighting since 1950.

Results showed that cancers of the respiratory, digestive and
urinary systems, including mesothelioma, accounted for higher
cancer rates among firefighter study participants. Firefighters in
these three major cities had a rate two times greater than the
general population for these types of cancers.

The study did not take into account certain factors that can
increase cancer risk such as alcohol consumption or diet.

Learn more about asbestos exposure and mesothelioma from the
Simmons Firm today.

Perry J. Browder may be reached at:

         Perry J. Browder, Esq.
         SIMMONS FIRM
         One Court Street
         Alton, Illinois 62002
         Tel: 618-259-2222
         Fax: 618-259-2251
         Email: info@simmonsfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Seeks Colleagues in Exposure Battle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burnley Express reported that lawyers acting for a former teacher
at schools in Burnley and Pendle, in the United Kingdom, who has
been diagnosed with mesothelioma are launching an urgent appeal to
trace her former co-workers.

Janet Gent, who worked for Lancashire County Council at Walton
High School, Nelson, from 1973 until 1981 as a home economics
teacher, has been diagnosed with the fatal asbestos-related
cancer.

She believes she was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres while
working at the school but Thompsons Solicitors, who are acting on
her behalf, understand neither she nor her colleagues were made
aware by Lancashire County Council of the dangers they faced in
their working environment.

Between 1983 and 1995, Janet was also employed by Lancashire
County Council as a supply teacher at various schools in the two
boroughs, including Gawthorpe, Barden, Walshaw, Ivy Bank,
Habergham and St Theodore's High Schools in Burnley and Primet
High and Park High, Colne, Mansfield High, Brierfield, Gibfield
Special School, Colne and Hendon Brook and Townhouse Schools in
Nelson.

Janet is calling on her former colleagues to get in contact with
Thompsons to provide vital evidence about her working environment.

Joanne Candlish, Head of the Liverpool Asbestos Team from
Thompsons Solicitors, which specialises in asbestos related
diseases said: "Asbestos-related diseases will cause 3,000 deaths
a year and will be the biggest industrial killer of all time.

"We are seeing more and more schoolteachers, support staff and
even former pupils diagnosed with devastating asbestos-related
conditions caused by being exposed in our schools.

"It is vital that we trace Janet Gent's co-workers to enable a
full investigation to be carried out into her history of asbestos
exposure.

"Mrs Gent needs and deserves to see justice done and we are
committed to helping her achieve this."

If anybody can provide assistance regarding working conditions at
either Walton High School or any of the schools where Mrs Gent
worked, they are asked to contact Joanne Candlish as a matter of
urgency on 0151 224 1644.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Reveals Presence of Fibro in Schools
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Dryden, writing for Leicester Mercury, reported that a woman
whose husband died of a cancer linked to asbestos exposure has
called for companies and public bodies to remove the material from
all buildings.

Christine Glover believes her husband, David, was exposed to
asbestos while working as a painter and decorator in schools,
businesses, and homes across Leicestershire, in England.

She spoke out as the city council revealed asbestos is present at
77 school sites in Leicester.  It is not dangerous unless the
material is damaged, when it could release asbestos fibres and
become a health hazard.

Christine, of Blaby, said: "David's death was so painful. Not even
morphine could ease it. I wouldn't want anyone else to go through
what David went through.

"We'll never know exactly when he was exposed to asbestos.

"It could have been in a school or any of the homes and businesses
he worked in.

"I have grandchildren at school in Leicester and I want to make
sure they're safe.

"If I can stop one person from dying from this terrible disease,
it will be worth it."

David died in April, aged 77, six weeks after he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma, a form of cancer that affects the lungs.

Since his death, Christine has learned that five more of his
former colleagues have also died from the disease.  She is now
taking legal action against his former employer, who she did not
wish to name.

A Freedom of Information request to the city council has revealed
there are 77 school sites containing asbestos in Leicester.  A
council spokesman said: "Our policy follows Health and Safety
Executive guidance.

"Where asbestos-containing materials are assessed as being in good
condition and not in a position where they're likely to be
damaged, they should be left in place and monitored.

"Were asbestos is in poor condition or is likely to be damaged
during the normal use of the building, it should be sealed,
enclosed or removed."

However, Andrew Haynes, health and safety adviser for Leicester's
branch of the National Union of Teachers, is concerned about the
council's asbestos management policy.

He said there were worries including how easily asbestos could be
damaged, the impossibility of monitoring its condition at all
times and the danger of asbestos being released because of
deteriorating structures.

He said: "All asbestos should be removed from schools, whenever it
is found and whatever its form, unless this is completely
impractical.

"Much of the asbestos in Leicester schools could be removed
without major disruption. This might be an expensive exercise but
we believe people's lives are more important than money."

Leicestershire County Council has yet to respond to a request for
information about asbestos in schools.

Christine and her family are organising a 1960s disco in memory of
David at Leicester's Hilton Hotel, Braunstone, on February 21, in
aid of the Mesothelioma UK Charitable Trust.

Tickets are GBP15 and are available by e-mailing:

emma58@btinternet.com

Donations can be made at:

www.justgiving.com/Fighting ForDavidGlover

School sites where asbestos exists in Leicester:

* Abbey Primary, Belgrave
* Alderman Richard Hallam Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Ash Field, Evington
* Avenue Primary, Clarendon Park
* Babington Community College, Beaumont Leys
* Barleycroft Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Braunstone Frith Infants
* Braunstone Frith Juniors
* Bridge Junior School, Spinney Hills
* Buswells Lodge Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Caldecote Community Primary, Braunstone
* Carisbrooke Specialist Learning Centre, Knighton
* Catherine Infants, Belgrave
* Catherine Juniors, Belgrave
* Coleman Primary, Spinney Hill
* Dovelands Primary, West End
* Ellesmere College, Braunstone
* Folville Junior, Braunstone
* Forest Lodge Primary, New Parks
* Fosse Primary, Woodgate
* Glebelands Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Granby Primary, Aylestone
* Greenlane Infants, Spinney Hill
* Hamilton Community College
* Hazel Primary, off Aylestone Road
* Heatherbrook Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Herrick Primary, Rushey Mead
* Humberstone Infants, Humberstone
* Humberstone Juniors, Humberstone
* Imperial Avenue Infants, Braunstone
* Inglehurst Juniors, Newfoundpool
* Inglehurst Infants, Newfoundpool
* Keyham Lodge School, Hamilton
* King Richard III Infants, West End
* Knighton Fields Primary, Knighton
* Linden Primary, Evington
* Marriott Primary, Aylestone
* Mayflower Primary, Evington
* Medway Community Primary, Stoneygate
* Merrydale Infants, Humberstone
* Merrydale Juniors, Humberstone
* Millgate School, Knighton Fields
* Moat Community College, Highfields
* Mowmacre Hill Primary, Tedworth Green
* Netherhall Special School, Netherhall
* New College Leicester, New Parks
* Newry Juniors, Saffron Lane
* Northfield House Primary, Northfield
* Overdale Infants, Knighton
* Overdale Juniors, Knighton
* Parks Primary School, New Parks
* Rolleston Primary, Glen Parva
* Rowlatts Hill Primary, Balderstone Close
* Rushey Mead Primary
* Sandfield Close Primary, Rushey Mead
* Scraptoft Valley Primary, Netherhall
* Shaftesbury Junior School, Westcotes
* Shenton Primary, Spinney Hills
* Sir Jonathan North Community College, Knighton
* Slater Primary, Frog Island
* Sparkenhoe Primary annexe, Highfields
* Sparkenhoe Primary, Highfields
* Spinney Hill Primary school
* St Barnabas C of E Primary, Spinney Hill
* St Mary's Fields Infants, off Narborough Road
* Stokes Wood Primary, New Parks
* The Lancaster School, Knighton
* Thurnby Lodge Primary
* Uplands Infants, Highfields
* Western Park Special School, off Hinckley Road
* Westgate Lower School, New Parks
* Westgate Upper School, New Parks
* Whitehall Primary, Evington
* Willowbrook Primary, Thurnby Lodge
* Wolsey House Primary, Beaumont Leys
* Woodstock Primary, Beaumont Leys


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Glasgow Health Board Fined for Fibro Failings
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&V News reported that a Scottish health board has been fined for
a safety failing that led to several workers being exposed to
potentially deadly asbestos fibres during a seven-year period.

Glasgow Sheriff Court heard that Greater Glasgow Health Board,
known as NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, had failed to properly
manage the risks of asbestos in a ground floor neurology plant and
switch room of Southern General Hospital.

The court heard that three surveys, used to identify and manage
asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in premises, had been carried
out in the room.

In all three the same ACM in the ceiling of the room was
identified as "high risk" and the recommended action was "removal
and environmental cleaning". The health board was advised of this
on each occasion, but no action was taken.

In March 2011, following plans to run electrical installations
into the plant room, a specialist company carried out a further
survey which found several highly damaged ACMs, debris from the
original ACM in the ceiling, that posed a "high risk".

The room was sealed and background monitoring tests showed a high
level of air contamination and the matter was reported to the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The HSE investigation found the health board had taken no action
in relation to the ACM in the ceiling since the original 2004
survey, nor had it acted following the later surveys.

The area had then become extensively contaminated with unsealed
asbestos debris as a result of the health board's failure to
remove the ACMs and environmentally clean the area.

The monitoring of the ACM in the room was insufficient. Had
monitoring been carried out more regularly, it would have been
clear that the ACM was still present and still posing a high risk
to anyone entering.

As a result, 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 court was told the ACMs had since been removed and the area
environmentally cleaned. The health board has also carried out a
review of its asbestos management policy, including new training
for staff and a new post had been created to deal solely with
asbestos management across all hospitals in the health board's
area.

Greater Glasgow Health Board, of JB Russell House, Gartnavel Royal
Hospital, Great Western Road, Glasgow, was fined GBP10,000 after
pleading guilty to a breach of Regulation 4(10)(b) of the Control
of Asbestos Regulations 2006.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPS Urged to Amend Mesothelioma Bill
-----------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online reported that specialist lawyers from Irwin
Mitchell are urging MPs to amend the Mesothelioma Bill currently
going through the U.K. Parliament to ensure sufferers of the
terminal asbestos-related cancer receive 'fairer' settlements.

The Mesothelioma Bill, is undergoing a final revision process and
is set to be debated once again in the House of Commons on January
7, 2014.

However, current proposals set out in the Bill would provide those
sufferers from the asbestos-related disease who cannot trace a
relevant employers' liability insurance policy with just 75 per
cent of an average civil compensation payout -- something lawyers
and victims believe is unfair.

Now campaigners, including the Forum of Asbestos Victims Support
Groups-UK, law firm Irwin Mitchell and MPs across all parties are
urging the Government to agree a last minute amendment raising
this payment to 80 per cent. Irwin Mitchell's research shows that
if payouts are capped at 75 per cent of average compensation,
mesothelioma victims may miss out on around GBP43,000 based on a
typical settlement.

Expert lawyers at the firm, who have written to MPs of all parties
about the Bill, say victims are very disappointed that
settlements, which would be paid out under the new scheme, are to
be limited to victims of mesothelioma only, and are intended to be
25 per cent lower than the current average compensation for people
suffering from the asbestos-related cancer.

These funds provide some financial security for loved ones as well
as paying for care, aids and equipment during the final stages of
the illness.

Geraldine Coombs, a specialist asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell
in Manchester who has represented many victims, said: "It takes
decades from the initial exposure to asbestos for symptoms of a
related illness to appear, but once they do the consequences are
devastating for those families affected.

"In some situations it is impossible to find evidence of victims'
employers' insurance records where firms have ceased to exist many
years ago. While the Government has tried to address this issue
with the promise of a scheme to help those who cannot trace a
relevant employers' liability insurance policy, many asbestos
victims will be left high and dry by the technicalities in the
proposals."

It is understood that the 75 per cent figure is to prevent the
insurers passing on the costs to businesses in the form of higher
premiums for employers' liability insurance, but over the long
term, a payment of 80 per cent of average compensation would keep
the payments below a threshold identified by the insurance
industry and should prevent them passing on costs to businesses.

Coombs added: "Obviously, receiving 75 per cent of the average
compensation is better than nothing but by only providing victims
and their families with a fraction of the typical amount means
mesothelioma victims will miss out on tens of thousands of pounds.

"This also doesn't take into account that no two cases are alike
and the individual circumstances of each person and their family
are completely different. It is particularly hard to understand
when the Financial Services Compensation Scheme provides 90 per
cent compensation.

"Mesothelioma cases by their very nature are complex, often going
back 40-50 years and involving very detailed investigations.
Mesothelioma victims have faced many legal challenges in recent
years. This is yet another one. What they really deserve is full
and fair financial security for their families."

It is estimated that more than 300 mesothelioma sufferers a year
miss out on compensation solely because their former employer's
insurers cannot be traced as a result of serial failures by the
insurance industry to keep proper records. From January 1972 it
was compulsory for employers to have Employers' Liability
insurance cover and the evidence is that the overwhelming majority
of businesses had it before then.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former East Lancashire Teacher in Cancer Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Marshall, writing for Lancashire Telegraph, reported that a
former teacher believes the life-threatening cancer she is
suffering from may have been caused by exposure to asbestos during
a 22-year career at schools in East Lancashire.

According to the report, Janet Gent, a victim of the lung
condition mesothelioma, is now appealing to her former colleagues
to come forward as her lawyers prepare a claim for compensation.

Mrs Gent worked for eight years until as a home economics teacher
at Walton High in Nelson and is convinced she was exposed to
asbestos fibres or dust at the former Oxford Road school.

Her legal representatives, Thompsons Solicitors, understand that
neither her, nor her colleagues, were made aware of the potential
dangers in their working environment.

Four years ago the Lancashire Telegraph reported that 213 schools
in Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Rossendale and Ribble Valley were
found to have asbestos in their structures.

But education officials then insisted that the material, which
comes in a variety of forms, was not dangerous unless it was
disturbed.

Refurbishment programmes at a number of local schools have
included work to remove asbestos from walls or other partitions.

Mrs Gent, who still lives in the Nelson area, also worked as a
supply teacher at 15 high schools or special schools in East
Lancashire, and one in South Yorkshire, from 1983 to 1995.

These include the former Barden, Ivy Bank, Habergham, Gawthorpe
and St Theodore's high schools and a special school in Burnley,
Walshaw and Mansfield high schools, and Town House and Hendon
Brook special schools in Nelson, Park and Primet High, along with
Gibfield special school, all in Colne, Tullyann School in Darwen,
and Valley special school in Rossendale.

Joanne Candlish, Thompsons' asbestos team head, said: "It is vital
that we trace Janet Gent's co-workers to enable a full
investigation to be carried out into her history of asbestos
exposure "Mrs Gent needs and deserves to see justice done and we
are committed to helping her achieve this."

Potential witnesses are being asked to call Mrs Candlish on 0151
224 1644.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Demolition Leads to Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Sparks, writing for Times Herald-Record, reported that the
wreckage from Mayor Gordon Jenkins' ill-fated decision to demolish
the old village court in Monticello, New York, continues to grow.

First, the state Department of Environmental Conservation arrested
six people for illegal dumping, and then the state Department of
Labor halted removal of the debris because of asbestos.

Now the demolition contractor company's owner, who was arrested
along with five other people for dumping debris on Fairground
Road, is suing the village because his company, Sams Property
Management, has not received its $5,000 fee.

In a handwritten complaint filed in village court, Sam Kearney
claims Jenkins told him the court building was free of asbestos
prior to the demolition.

Kearney also says the village failed to pay bills he submitted for
heavy equipment he rented. Daily charges for the equipment,
including an excavator, accumulated while the DOL prohibited
anything from leaving the site.

Kearney is seeking $196,333 plus interest, although the case will
likely have to be moved to Supreme Court because of the amounts
involved.

"The board never approved this contract," village trustee Carmen
Rue said.

Department of Environmental Conservation police arrested Kearney
and five other workers on Oct. 3 as they were hauling debris from
the demolished village court on Pleasant Street.

Each was charged with unlawful disposal of solid waste in excess
of 70 yards, while Kearney and another defendant, Mike Soto, were
separately charged with two counts of operating a solid waste
management facility without a permit.

State DOL officials ordered work halted at the demolition site
because the court building contained asbestos.

Kearney said he agreed to demolish the building on the condition
that it was asbestos-free, but Rue said Monticello officials have
long known the building contained asbestos.

"All along, the engineers have been saying there was asbestos, and
we discussed this for years -- how we were going to take it out,"
Rue said.

Jenkins did not respond to a message left at his office. He and
the village face mounting costs and legal troubles related to the
demolition.

Two companies responded to a second round of bidding to remove the
remaining pile, which must be done by a company with an asbestos
license.

One offered to do the job for $186,000 and the other for $96,000.

And Pine Bush Equipment Co., which owns the heavy machines, is
seeking to recover the rental costs from the village. The company
has sent the village more than $12,000 in invoices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Admin. Proceeding v. Ecology Unit is Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An administrative proceeding against Ecology and Environment,
Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according to to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (the "Department") issued a proposed Compliance
Order on Consent (the "Proposed Consent Order") to the City and
County of Denver ("Denver") and to Walsh Environmental Scientists
and Engineers, LLC ("Walsh"). Walsh is a majority-owned subsidiary
of Ecology and Environment, Inc. The Proposed Consent Order
concerns construction improvement activities of certain property
owned by Denver which was the subject of asbestos remediation.
Denver had entered into a contract with Walsh for Walsh to provide
certain environmental consulting services (asbestos monitoring
services) in connection with the asbestos containment and/or
removal performed by other contractors at Denver's real property.
Without admitting liability or the Department's version of the
underlying facts, Walsh on February 13, 2013 entered into a
Compliance Order on Consent with the Department and paid a penalty
of less than $0.1 million and paid for a Supplemental
Environmental Project to benefit the public at large in an amount
less than $0.1 million. Denver was served with a final Compliance
Order and Assessment of Administrative Penalty against Denver
alone for approximately $0.2 million. Under Walsh's environmental
consulting contract with Denver, Walsh has agreed to indemnify
Denver for certain liabilities where Walsh could potentially be
held responsible for a portion of the penalty imposed upon Denver.
Walsh has put its professional liability and general liability
carriers on notice of this indemnification claim by Denver. The
Company believes that this administrative proceeding involving
Walsh will not have an adverse material effect upon the operations
of the Company.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) is an environmental consulting
firm. E&E has completed more than 50,000 projects for a range of
clients in 113 countries, providing environmental solutions. The
Company has rendered consulting services to commercial and
government clients in a range of service sectors, such as energy,
natural resource management/restoration, green programs, planning,
emergency planning and management, hazardous material services,
international and health sciences. Its revenues originate from
federal, state and local governments, domestic private clients,
and private and governmental international clients. On March 18,
2011 the Company acquired another 5.5% of its majority owned
subsidiary Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Has 11,500 Pending Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending
against Mallinckrodt public limited company, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2013.

The Company states: "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
we are also named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based
on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority
of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on
allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on our
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to us. The complaints generally seek monetary damages
for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged
exposure to products containing asbestos. Our involvement in
asbestos cases has been limited because we did not mine or produce
asbestos. Furthermore, in our experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. We have not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intend to continue
to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, we settle claims;
however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims
have been immaterial. As of September 27, 2013, there were
approximately 11,500 asbestos-related cases pending against us. We
estimate pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but
not reported and related insurance recoveries.

We estimate our liability for pending and future claims based on
claims experience over the past five years and covers claims
either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven
years. We believe that we have adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, we believe that the final outcome of all
known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows."

Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt) is a global
specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and generic
specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)
and diagnostic imaging agents. The Company uses its API products
in the manufacture of its generic pharmaceuticals and also sells
them to other pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates
through two segments. The Specialty Pharmaceuticals segment
develops, manufactures and sells, through its Brands business,
drugs, including EXALGO (hydromorphone HCl) Extended-Release
Tablets and GABLOFEN (baclofen injection). The Global Medical
Imaging segment develops, manufactures and markets contrast media
and delivery systems (CMDS). On June 28, 2013, Covidien plc
completed the separation of its Pharmaceuticals business and
transferred the Pharmaceuticals business to Mallinckrodt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Creditors Can Sue RPM Int'l.'s Bankrupt Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A bankruptcy court gave an official committee of creditors
appointed in the Chapter 11 case of Special Products Holdings
Corp. standing to pursue claims against RPM International Inc.,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated November 1, 2013, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 26,
2013.

As previously disclosed by RPM International Inc., on May 31,
2010, two subsidiaries of the Company -- Bondex International,
Inc. and its parent, Specialty Products Holding Corp. -- filed
voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. SPHC and Bondex took this action in an effort to
permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC.
As a result of the filing, all litigation related to Bondex and
SPHC asbestos personal injury claims has been stayed. The
objective of the bankruptcy proceedings is to enable the filing
entities to establish a section 524(g) trust accompanied by a
court order that will direct all existing and future SPHC-related
and Bondex-related claims to such trust, which will then
compensate asbestos claimants based upon factors set forth in an
approved plan of reorganization. Since the date of the filing, and
in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the
financial results of SPHC and Bondex have been deconsolidated from
those of the Company.

At a hearing held on November 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
granted the motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative for
standing to pursue SPHC estate claims against the Company, certain
of its current and former directors and executive officers, and
third party advisors. The Company anticipated that the ACC/FCR
might be permitted to pursue claims on behalf of the SPHC and
Bondex estates against the Company. The Company believes that the
alleged SPHC estate claims are without merit and, if such claims
are made, intends to contest them vigorously.

As a further update to the bankruptcy proceedings, both the
Debtors and the ACC/FCR have filed proposed plans of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court.

The Debtors' proposed plan, which is supported by the Company,
would establish an asbestos trust to compensate legitimate
asbestos claimants of the Debtors. The asbestos trust would be
funded by two notes (one issued by SPHC and the Company as co-
obligors, the other issued by Bondex and the Company as co-
obligors). The notes would provide for an initial payment of $125
million to the trust. Additional payments under the notes would be
determined by the final outcome (whether by court order or
settlement) of the pending litigation of the estimated value of
the Debtors' asbestos claims and the anticipated litigation of the
SPHC estate claims against the Company and other parties and
possibly Bondex estate claims against the Company and other
parties. The note payments would be made in cash or shares of the
Company's common stock. Upon consummation of the plan, SPHC and
Bondex would continue to be wholly owned direct and indirect
subsidiaries, respectively, of the Company and have no further
liability with respect to asbestos claims. The Company and its
affiliates would likewise have no liability for such claims under
the proposed plan, except as may be determined in the litigation
of the SPHC and Bondex estate claims described above.

The proposed ACC/FCR plan, which is opposed by the Debtors and the
Company, is an SPHC-only plan. It likewise provides for the
creation of an asbestos trust, but only for SPHC asbestos claims.
Pursuant to the ACC/FCR plan, the Company's equity interest in
SPHC would be cancelled, and 100% of the new stock in SPHC would
be issued to the asbestos trust. Although the ACC/FCR plan would
permanently protect SPHC against current and future asbestos
claims, it would provide no protection to the Company and its
affiliates and would contemplate that the Company would again be
subject to suit in the tort system by current and future asbestos
claimants of SPHC and Bondex. In addition, the plan would provide
that the asbestos trust could sue the Company and its affiliates
with respect to any claims that SPHC holds against them.

The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing with respect to the two
plans for December 17, 2013. At or subsequent to that hearing, the
Bankruptcy Court may take a variety of actions, including ordering
one or both of the plans to be submitted to creditors for a vote,
or determining not to authorize the submission of either of the
plans to a vote. A vote of the creditors is an interim step toward
the ultimate confirmation of a plan, which would remain subject to
further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court and the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District
Court"), and potential appeals of actions taken by those courts.
The Debtors contend that the ACC/FCR plan is not confirmable, and
the ACC/FCR have made similar contentions with respect to the
Debtors' plan.

The Company has no basis to make a determination as to whether
either of the proposed plans of reorganization will be confirmed
or otherwise move forward, or as to when, or whether, a consensual
resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings will be reached, or as to
the terms and conditions that may be set forth in any plan of
reorganization that may ultimately be confirmed by the Bankruptcy
Court and the District Court, whether by agreement or otherwise.

As previously disclosed, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in
May 2013 estimating the current and future asbestos claims
associated with Bondex and SPHC at approximately $1.17 billion,
which represented one step in the legal process in helping to
determine the amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos
trust. The Debtors firmly believe that the opinion substantially
overstates the amount of their liability and is not supported by
the facts or the law, and the Debtors and the Company have
appealed the ruling. Since the Company's most recent disclosures,
those appeals have since been consolidated by the District Court
and are pending in that court. The ACC/FCR have filed a motion to
dismiss the appeals and the Debtors and the Company have filed a
motion seeking certification of the estimation order for direct
review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Both motions are opposed and both remain pending.
Briefing of the appeal has been stayed pending the disposition of
the motions. Unless the motions to dismiss and for certification
pending in the District Court are ruled on in the near term, the
Company currently expects that the appeal process could take an
additional two to three years.

RPM International Inc. (RPM), through its subsidiaries
manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product
lines, including specialty paints, protective coatings, roofing
systems, sealants and adhesives. The Company's family of products
includes those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP,
EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, Flowcrete, Hummervoll, Universal
Sealants, illbruck, Rust-Oleum, Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and
Zinsser. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments:
the industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the
consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial
segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group
and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total
net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for
roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and
other specialty applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $463-Mil. Reserves at September 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had $463 million total reserves for asbestos claims,
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.

Ashland and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hercules, have
liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos.  To assist in developing and annually
updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims
and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  The methodology used by
HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent
experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease
mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The
claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared
to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological
studies estimating the number of people likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities
and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.

During the most recent update, completed during 2013, it was
determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos claims should
be decreased by $28 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims
were $463 million at September 30, 2013 compared to $522 million
at September 30, 2012.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, all of which have a credit rating of B+ or
higher by A. M. Best, as of September 30, 2013. The remainder of
the insurance receivable is due from London insurance companies,
which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and from
Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations have
been transferred to a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Ashland
discounts this portion of the receivable based upon the projected
timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely
settlement amounts can be determined.

During 2012, Ashland received $7 million in cash after reaching a
settlement with certain insolvent London market insurance
companies. The cash received from this settlement during the
current period was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6 million
within discontinued operations of the Statement of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income since Ashland's policy is to not record
asbestos receivables for any carriers that are insolvent until
cash is received.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies
seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to
provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has
initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain
Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and
Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities
have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At September 30, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $408 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims), of which $88 million relates to costs previously
paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $423 million at
September 30, 2012. During 2013, the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was updated. This
model update resulted in a $3 million decrease in the receivable
for probable insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Subsidiary Had $342-Mil. Total Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, reported reserves for
asbestos-related claims totaling $342 million at September 30,
2013, 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.

Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, acquired during
2009, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused
by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank
products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries
to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of
settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly
from period to period.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. During the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during 2013, it was determined that the liability for
Hercules asbestos-related claims should be increased by $46
million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $342 million at
September 30, 2013 compared to $320 million at September 30, 2012.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain coverage-
in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result,
any increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset
by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value
of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos
reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates
surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage,
including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain
solvent. As of September 30, 2013, this estimated receivable
consists exclusively of domestic insurers, all of which have a
credit rating of B+ or higher by A. M. Best.

As of September 30, 2013 and 2012, the receivables from insurers
amounted to $75 million and $56 million, respectively. During
2013, the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve
and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was
updated. This model update caused a $19 million increase in the
receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned
previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models
ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos-
related litigation and approximately $640 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to increase further the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could potentially be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to defend itself against personal
injury claims, including asbestosis, arising from its respiratory
products, 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 have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are claimed to have been negligently designed or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation
("Aearo") in July 1995. Cabot agreed to have the subsidiary retain
certain liabilities associated with exposure to asbestos and
silica while using respirators prior to the 1995 transaction so
long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee of
$400,000. Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any time, in
which case it will assume the responsibility for and indemnify
Cabot against those liabilities which Cabot's subsidiary had
agreed to retain. We anticipate that we will continue to receive
payment of the $400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain these
liabilities for the foreseeable future. We have no liability in
connection with any products manufactured by Aearo after 1995.

In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other parties are responsible
for significant portions of the costs of respirator liabilities,
leaving Cabot's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only
some of the pending cases. These parties include Aearo, AO, AO's
insurers, and another former owner and its insurers (collectively,
with Cabot's subsidiary, the "Payor Group").

As of both September 30, 2013 and 2012, there were approximately
42,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in
connection with respiratory products. Cabot has contributed to the
Payor Group's defense and settlement costs with respect to a
percentage of pending claims depending on several factors,
including the period of alleged product use. In order to quantify
our estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator
liability claims, we have engaged, through counsel, the assistance
of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading
consulting firm in the field of tort liability valuation. The
methodology used by HR&A addresses the complexities surrounding
our potential liability by making assumptions about future
claimants with respect to periods of asbestos, silica and coal
mine dust exposure and respirator use. Using those and other
assumptions, HR&A estimates the number of future asbestos, silica
and coal mine dust claims that will be filed and the related costs
that would be incurred in resolving both currently pending and
future claims. On this basis, HR&A then estimates the net present
value of the share of these liabilities that reflect our period of
direct manufacture and our contractual obligations. Based on the
HR&A estimates, we have recorded on a discounted basis an $11
million reserve ($15 million on an undiscounted basis) to cover
our estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator
claims. We made payments related to our respirator liability of $2
million in fiscal 2013, $2 million in fiscal 2012 and $5 million
in fiscal 2011.

Our current estimate of the cost of our share of existing and
future respirator liability claims is based on facts and
circumstances existing at this time. Developments that could
affect our estimate include, but are not limited to, (i)
significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) changes
in the rate of dismissals without payment of pending silica and
non-malignant asbestos claims, (iii) significant changes in the
average cost of resolving claims, (iv) significant changes in the
legal costs of defending these claims, (v) changes in the nature
of claims received, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, (vii) the financial viability of
members of the Payor Group, (viii) a change in the availability of
AO's insurance coverage or the indemnity provided by AO's former
owner, (ix) changes in the allocation of costs among the Payor
Group, and (x) a determination that the assumptions that were used
to estimate our share of liability are no longer reasonable. We
cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on our
current estimate of our share of liability for these existing and
future claims. Accordingly, the actual amount of these liabilities
for existing and future claims could be different than the
reserved amount. Further, if the timing of our actual payments
made for respirator claims differs significantly from our
estimated payment schedule, and we determine that we can no longer
reasonably predict the timing of such payments, we could then be
required to record the reserve amount on an undiscounted basis on
our Consolidated Balance Sheets, causing an immediate impact to
earnings."

Cabot Corporation is a global specialty chemicals and performance
materials company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Our
principal products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks,
fumed metal oxides, inkjet colorants, aerogel, cesium formate
drilling fluids and activated carbon. Cabot and its affiliates
have manufacturing facilities and operations in the United States
and over 20 other countries. Cabot's business was founded in 1882
and incorporated in the State of Delaware in 1960.


                             *********

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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *