CAR_Public/140207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 27

                             Headlines


AGILYSYS INC: Gets Initial Approval of "Jones" Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Pereira" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Charging Separate Attorney's Fees
BERNDT & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Systemic Violations of FDCPA
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of CES From Antitrust Suit

CHILD DEVELOPMENT: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' Suit
CONVERGYS CUSTOMER: Hyundai Seeks Indemnity From "Wheelock" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Appealed
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Face "Erickson" Suit in Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Award in Suit by HVAC Students Confirmed

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit in Individual Arbitrations
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Face Suits by Former Students
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Cal. Suit by Former Employees
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Suit by Former Instructors in Calif.
CYNTHIA DENUNZIO: "Hill" Suit Removed to Middle District of Fla.

DEEPWATER HORIZON: 5th Cir. Affirms Property Damage Suit Deal
EQC: More People Need to Join Class Action Over Repair Standard
GALLUP INC: "Marr" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: N.J. Court Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
GULF RESOURCES: Obtains Final Court Okay of "Lewy" Suit Settlement

HALLIBURTON CO: U.S. Chamber Comments on Class Action Challenge
HK JIN INC: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Claims
HSBC BANK: "Wilkins" Suit in Illinois Alleges TCPA Violations
IMMERSION CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Class Action Under Way in Quebec Court

JAK AND ASSOCIATES: Improperly Paid Leads/Specialists, Suit Says
LOUISIANA: Amends Children's Choice Waiver for Chisolm Class
MF GLOBAL: Settles Class Action Over Accruance for $14.5 Million
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
MONEY MART: Loses Bid to Derail Class Action Over Payday Loans

NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Removed "Cortina" Suit to S.D. California
POOL COVER: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Graham" Suit Claims
QUALITY FINISHING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wage, Suit Says
SABRE INC: Judge Tosses Text-Spamming Class Action in California
SASKTEL: Alberta Suit Over Cell Service Access Fees Can Proceed

SHAPIRO FISHMAN: Suit Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
SHELTER MUTUAL: Removed "Cherry" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
SHELTER MUTUAL: Removed "Goodner" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
SOUTH DAKOTA: Tribes' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Damage Now Closed

TARGET CORP: Commercial Bancshares Sues Over Security Breach
TARGET CORP: Shapiro Talks About Data Breach Cases
TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRAVELERS HOME: "Tommey" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Uncertain on Effect of Antitrust Suit Settlement

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Claims Remain in Overdraft Fees Litigation
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Suit Over Merger Remains Pending in Wash. Court
UNIDINE CORP: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Speier-Roche" Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
WHITNEY BANK: Cy Pres Distribution of Funds Has Court Approval

WORDEN LAW: "Seyerle" Suit Accuses FDCPA Violations

* Overtime Class Actions Move Forward in Canada in 2013


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ramsey Excavating Faces Fine Over Fibro Materials
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Cases Rise in Fibro Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,112 PI Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $9.2-Mil Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settled PI Suits for $6-Mil.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Recognized $3.2MM Fibro-related ARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Set to Begin at Former Citadel Plaza Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Rebuilding of S. Coffman St Complex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Left Behind After Telstra Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Amount of Fibro Found After Fire in Petone

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upholsterers Exposed to Deadly Dust For 5 Years
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scientists Nearing Magic Bullet v. Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in Fibro Case Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Help Hospices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA High Court Set Feb. 13 Hearing in Boeing Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaumont Fibro Law Firms Donate $45K to Judge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Unprepared for 'Third Wave' of Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered in Charleston Airport Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Professor Explains Fibro Cases by Smokers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunderland Electrician Launches Action Over Meso

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Fibro Problems in Jacksonville, Fla.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Closes Rooms at Halesowen School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at City Hall Nearly Completed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Jury Awards $27MM Verdict to Cancer Victim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selah Grocery Closes Due to Fibro Concerns

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Find Sparks OHS Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enhanced Regulations for Fibro Work Introduced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. Court Remands "Davis" Suit to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Porta" Suit Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "D'Andrade" Suit Moved

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Requests in Mich. Criminal Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Finds Company's Insurance Claim Time-Barred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies SLM's Bid to Dismiss "Engle" Suit


                             *********


AGILYSYS INC: Gets Initial Approval of "Jones" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in TERRELL JONES, a
California resident; MICHAEL JOHNSON, a Florida resident; DERRICK
PAIGE, a Texas resident; WILFREDO BETANCOURT, a Nevada Resident;
YOLANDA McBRAYER, a former Colorado resident; and MICHAEL PIERSON,
a North Carolina resident, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AGILYSYS, INC., an Ohio
corporation; AGILYSYS NV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO: C
12-03516 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court appointed six named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
Bisnar Chase as Class Counsel; and Rust Consulting as the claims
administrator.

The parties' proposed settlement includes a single, nationwide
class holding claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The terms
of the settlement call for Defendants to pay a Gross Settlement
Amount (GSA) of $1,478,819, which sum includes: (a) attorneys'
fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the GSA; (b) litigation
costs estimated at $25,000; (c) Class Representative Payments of
up to $5,000 for each of the six named Plaintiffs; and (d) claims
administration expenses to Rust Consulting, Inc., estimated at
$16,500.

The Plaintiffs estimate that each member should receive $79.98
(before taxes) for each week worked during the Class Period. An
employee who worked during the entire Class Period is thus
anticipated to receive a gross amount of approximately $15,287.61.

The Final Approval hearing will be held on May 20, 2014, at 1:00
p.m.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/wBLfUgfrom Leagle.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Removed "Pereira" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Pereira v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al., Case No. 13-35525-CA-01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20112-JEM to the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Truth-In-Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos Alberto Mesa, Esq.
          MESA & PEREIRA PA
          11780 SW 89th Street, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 569-3005
          Facsimile: (305) 403-2998
          E-mail: carlos@siudefense.com

               - and -

          Jose Alfredo De Armas, Esq.
          ALVAREZ ARMAS & BORRON
          901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite #304
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          Facsimile: (305) 461-8642
          E-mail: alfred@aablawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brendan I. Herbert, Esq.
          Christopher Stephen Carver, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT
          Suntrust International Center
          One Southeast Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: brendan.herbert@akerman.com
                  christopher.carver@akerman.com

               - and -

          Erika Roxanne Shuminer, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT
          11071 Redhawk Street
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 629-4630
          E-mail: erika.shuminer@akerman.com

               - and -

          David B. Esau, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS PA
          CityPlace Tower, Suite 1200
          525 Okeechobee Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-7070
          Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
          E-mail: desau@CFJBLaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Charging Separate Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Markeela Daniels v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of
America, N.A., Case No. 5:14-cv-00014-WLS (M.D. Ga., January 10,
2014) is a civil action seeking class certification, monetary
damages, and declaratory relief from the Defendants arising from
their alleged breach of contract with their customers, where the
Bank charges separate attorney's fees in addition to a Legal
Process Fee to account holders, who have been subjects of
garnishment actions.

Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation headquartered
in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a multinational banking and
financial services company, operating in more than 150 countries.
Bank of America Corporation provides commercial, consumer, and
mortgage banking services, as well as trust and financial planning
services to its customers via its 5,600 branches and 16,200 ATM
locations worldwide.  Bank of America N.A. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation, and is a nationally
chartered banking association also headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
          CHILDERS SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
          1932 North Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 419-9500
          Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
          E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. "Hank" Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  dslade@cbplaw.com


BERNDT & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Systemic Violations of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Campbell, for herself and class members v. Berndt &
Associates, P.C., Karol A. Berndt, Robert E. Zielinski and LVNV
Funding LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00034-GJQ (W.D. Mich., January 12,
2014) is brought against the Debt Collector Defendants seeking
damages and equitable relief and to redress their systemic
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Michigan Collection Practices Act.

Berndt & Associates, P.C. is a Michigan professional corporation,
doing business in Warren, Michigan.  Berndt is a law firm whose
primary business is debt collection.  The Individual Defendants
are residents of Michigan and are employees of Berndt &
Associates.  They are licensed to practice law in Michigan.  They
helped create, approved, and ratified the practices of Berndt that
are described in the complaint.  The Defendants regularly collect
or attempt to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another.

LVNV Funding LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.  LVNV is
engaged in the business of purchasing and collecting defaulted and
charged off consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip C. Rogers, Esq.
          40 Pearl Street, N.W., Suite 336
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3026
          Telephone: (616) 776-1176
          E-mail: ConsumerLawyer@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael O. Nelson, Esq.
          MICHAEL NELSON LAW
          1104 Fuller N.E.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 559-2665
          Facsimile: (616) 776-0037
          E-mail: mike@mnelsonlaw.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of CES From Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc. is continuing to pursue to have
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES) dismissed from a suit in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002, according to the parent company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, Reliant Resources,
Inc., was a participant in gas trading in the California and
Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class
actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees.

CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but one such case. CenterPoint
Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is a
defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims against other defendants in the case, each of
whom had demonstrated FERC jurisdictional sales for resale during
the relevant period, based on federal preemption.

The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2013, the other
defendants filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme
Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that CES is not a proper
defendant in this case and will continue to pursue a dismissal.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material impact on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


CHILD DEVELOPMENT: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kristine G. Baker granted a motion for conditional
collective action certification and a motion for class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in the case captioned
SADIE PASCHAL, PENNY CLARK, BECCA COLEMAN DEBRA FRAZIER, EVANGELA
JACKSON, HENRIETTA JAMES, AMANDA KENNEY, VALERIE LEWIS, ANSHEKA
NELSON, ALICIA PETERSON, ASHLEY REED, JUANITA RELEFORD, ANNA
RENFRO, PATRICIA SHAVERS, TRACIE SMITH, ANDREA TONEY, and VIRGINIA
ZERMENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:12-
CV-0184 KGB, (E.D. Ark.)

The Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant Child
Development, Inc. Child Development, as a grantee, operated Head
Start programs in twelve counties in Arkansas prior to
relinquishing its grant due to an inability to meet its financial
obligations. The Plaintiffs contend that Child Development did not
pay any employees between January 9, 2012, and February 10, 2012;
that, between November 15, 2011, and January 9, 2012, Child
Development withheld for its own use money from plaintiffs'
compensation that Child Development claimed to be for plaintiffs'
403(b) retirement accounts and insurance premiums; and that Child
Development deprived plaintiffs and all other employees of Child
Development of earned leave time upon discharging plaintiffs and
all other similarly situated employees on February 3, 2012.

The Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective
action "on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for
defendants at their facilities in Arkansas within three (3) years
preceding March 26, 2012," the date plaintiffs filed their first
complaint in this case. As to all other claims, plaintiffs sought
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of a class consisting of
"[a]ll persons who were employees of Child Development at any time
between November 1, 2011 and February 10, 2012 who were not
properly paid and/or had money withheld from their paychecks for
employee benefits that was converted to Child Development's use."

According to Judge Baker, no party responded to either of the
motion and the time for responding has passed. The Court found
that plaintiffs have carried their lenient burden of establishing
that they are similar situated to other employees who worked at
Child Development's facilities. They have submitted some evidence
of a common decision, policy, or plan designed to deny employees
pay for all hours worked.  "The Court is further satisfied that
Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is met in so far as each of plaintiffs' other
claims is based on the same alleged misconduct by Child
Development," she said.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
action certification and Court-authorized notice pursuant to the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), is granted. The Court approved
notice for all employees who worked for Child Development between
March 26, 2009, and March 26, 2012, and who timely file or have
already filed a written consent to be a party to this action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 is also granted. As to plaintiffs' non-FLSA claims, the
Court certifies under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) a class consisting
off all persons who were employees of Child Development at any
time between November 1, 2011, and February 10, 2012, who were not
properly paid and/or had money withheld from their paychecks for
employee benefits that was converted to Child Development's use.
Plaintiffs' counsel, Holleman & Associates, P.A. and Bryce Brewer,
LLC, are appointed as class counsel for this action.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/f9tnmyfrom Leagle.com.


CONVERGYS CUSTOMER: Hyundai Seeks Indemnity From "Wheelock" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. continues to face a
contractual indemnity claim from Hyundai Motor America
("Hyundai"), a call center client, according to Convergys' Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual
indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action
captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class
and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor
America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-
2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated
California's telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls
with customer service representatives without providing a
disclosure that the calls might be recorded. Plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, an order certifying the suit as a California
class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.

Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai
to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but overruled the
demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action. On March 15,
2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Hyundai answered the
amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by generally denying the
allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On May 7,
2012, Hyundai filed a motion for summary judgment based on
Hyundai's claim that an exemption under the California recording
laws was intended to exempt the type of recording done by
Hyundai's call centers.

On February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion. On July 2, 2013,
the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, denied
Hyundai's appeal of the court's ruling, and on September 18, 2013
the Supreme Court of the State of California denied Hyundai's
petition to grant review. Discovery had been stayed while the
court's ruling was under appellate review. At a status hearing on
October 22, 2013 the court lifted the stay on discovery.

Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as
to whether Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. will be
required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc. has meritorious defenses to
Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are
meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. The
likelihood of losses that may become payable under such claims,
the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with such
claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be
determined or estimated at this time. For these reasons, the
Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Dismissal of Securities Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities suit filed against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. have appealed the dismissal of the suit to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the college's Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices at the time when plaintiffs purchased their stock.
The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Massimino, Waller,
Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement
System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead
plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for
lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.

Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint. On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend. On February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Company will continue to defend
itself and its current and former officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Face "Erickson" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to face a suit originally
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York but transferred to the Central District of California,
according to the college's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 20, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Frank Erickson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from August 23, 2011
through June 10, 2013, against the Company and Jack Massimino,
Robert Owen and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are officers of the
Company.

The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during
the putative class period, causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices at the time when plaintiff
purchased his stock. The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons.

In October 2013, the court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Central
District of California.  The Company believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and its
officers and directors against these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Award in Suit by HVAC Students Confirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal vacated a trial court's order in a
suit filed by current or former HVAC students against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. and remanded the matter to the trial court with
orders to enter judgment confirming the arbitration award,
according to the college's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011,
a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator's
clause construction decision and remanded the matter to the
arbitrator for further consideration.

The Company appealed the state court order, and, in October 2013,
the California Court of Appeal vacated the trial court's order and
remanded the matter to the trial court with orders to enter
judgment confirming the arbitration award. The Company believes
the matter is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit in Individual Arbitrations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding
the medical assisting program at the Merrionette Park campus of
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is now scheduled for individual
arbitrations, according to the college's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Corinthian Schools,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiffs were
thirty-three individuals who purport to be current and/or former
students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the Everest
College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.

The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
unjust enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper. The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.

Thirty-two plaintiffs filed individual demands in arbitration, and
individual arbitration hearings commenced during the quarter ended
June 30, 2012. The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to hold the
hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions, which
were unsuccessful. These matters are now again being scheduled for
individual arbitrations, although the Company and plaintiffs are
still discussing potential settlement agreements in amounts that
would not be material to the Company's results of operations and
financial condition. The Company continues to believe these
matters are without merit and, if reasonable settlements cannot be
reached, will continue to defend itself vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Face Suits by Former Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. provides updates on two remaining
purported class actions filed by former students, according to the
college's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students. In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint. The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity and aggressive lawyer recruitment of
potential clients surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period. Most of the
cases filed during that time have since been dismissed.

In virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ. The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved to compel these cases to arbitration.

The following is a brief summary of such matters:

(A) Named Plaintiff(s) and Campus: Kevin Ferguson; Everest
    Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz; Heald
    College campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville, California
    (initially filed as separate actions, but now consolidated)

Dated Filed: January 24, 2011 and February 17, 2011

Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought:
Alleged misrepresentations by specific admissions representative
at a specific campus regarding accreditation, transferability of
credits, cost of attendance, eligibility for certifications, and
career placement opportunities; Causes of action alleging breach
of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of California's Business and Professions
Code, violation of California's Consumer Legal

Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any
Everest institution in the United States or Canada from January
2005 to the present; all persons who attended any Heald
institution from January 2009 to the present

Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive claims
to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims to remain
before the court; the Company appealed the order as it relates to
the injunctive claims, and the court of appeal stayed the district
court action pending the appeal. In October 2013, the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case to the U.S.
District Court with instructions to direct all of the plaintiffs'
claims to arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.

(B) Named Plaintiff(s) and Campus: Noravel Arevalo and
    fourteen former students at the Company's Everest College
    location in Alhambra, California

Date Filed: March 11, 2011

Venue: American Arbitration Association

Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives at a
specific campus and unlawful business practices in the licensed
vocational nursing program in Alhambra, CA; Causes of action
alleging violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
fraud, breach of contract, violation of California's former
Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act,
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act,

Description of Putative Class: All persons who enrolled in the
Everest College, Alhambra, CA Vocational Nursing classes of 2007-
08 and 2008-09; putative class action has since been dismissed and
refiled on behalf of fifteen individuals

Status Update: Individual arbitration demands have been filed, and
arbitration hearings began during the quarter ended March 31,
2013. The Company obtained complete defense verdicts in the first
two hearings and resolved seven others for a non-material amount.
The other hearings are proceeding as currently scheduled.

The Company intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Cal. Suit by Former Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. continues to face a remaining Orange
County action that seeks to seek certification of a class of
current and former admissions representatives over the last four
years at the Company's California campuses, according to the
college's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court. A virtually identical action with the same
caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on September
15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.

The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the
Company's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege
violations of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for
all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged
failure to pay wages upon termination. The Alameda complaint has
since been voluntarily dismissed. While the scope of the putative
class is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears to
seek certification of a class of current and former admissions
representatives over the last four years at the Company's
California campuses. The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Suit by Former Instructors in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces a suit that seek certification of a
class of current and former instructors who have worked at the
Company's California campuses, according to the college's Nov. 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2013, an action captioned David Ratto, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Schools,
Inc., et al., was filed in California's Alameda Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's Fremont
campus.  The action alleges violations of California's Business
and Professions Code Section, Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders for alleged failure to pay straight time,
minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and permit all paid
rest periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, violation of  Labor Code Section 203, incurrence of
penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section Section 2698, et seq.,
and unfair business practices.  While the scope of the putative
class is not clear, the matter appears to seek certification of a
class of current and former instructors who have worked at the
Company's California campuses over the relevant statute of
limitations period. The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.


CYNTHIA DENUNZIO: "Hill" Suit Removed to Middle District of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Hill, et al. v.
Denunzio, et al., Case No. 13-011393-CI, was removed from the 6th
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00063-VMC-AEP to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts employment discrimination claims.

The Plaintiffs are Cedric Hill and Mary Hill.  The Defendants are
Cynthia L. Denunzio and Peter V. Denunzio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, PA
          777 Alderman Rd.
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: greg@florinroebig.com
                  fgo@florinroebig.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory Alan Hearing, Esq.
          Jeffery L. Patenaude, Esq.
          THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA
          201 N Franklin St., Suite 1600
          PO Box 639
          Tampa, FL 33601-0639
          Telephone: (813) 273-0050
          Facsimile: (813) 273-0072
          E-mail: ghearing@tsghlaw.com
                  jpatenaude@tsghlaw.com


DEEPWATER HORIZON: 5th Cir. Affirms Property Damage Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed
a district court ruling in IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON -- APPEALS OF
THE ECONOMIC AND PROPERTY DAMAGE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, NO. 13-
30095.

The appeal is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's
order certifying a class action and approving a settlement under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The ongoing
litigation before the district court encompasses claims against
British Petroleum Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP) and numerous
other entities. All these claims are related to the 2010 explosion
aboard the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling rig, and the
consequent discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Several of the original appellants in this case have moved to
dismiss their appeals voluntarily, and the Circuit Court has
granted those motions. Accordingly, the arguments unique to those
appellants were not considered. The three groups of appellants
that were remaining before the Circuit Court -- the "Allpar
Objectors," the "Cobb Objectors," and the "BCA Objectors" -- all
filed objections with the district court opposing class
certification and settlement approval based on various provisions
of Rule 23. The Objectors' arguments were each addressed and
rejected by the district court in its order of December 21, 2012.
The Objectors appealed the district court's order and asked the
Circuit Court to remand with instructions to decertify the class
and withdraw approval from the Settlement Agreement.

BP also asked the Circuit Court to vacate the district court's
order, although BP is not formally an appellant and, in fact, BP
originally supported both class certification and settlement
approval before the district court. In addition to its own set of
new arguments under Rule 23, BP also raised additional arguments
regarding the Article III of the U.S. Constitution standing of
certain class members to make claims under the Settlement
Agreement. Unlike the Objectors, however, BP argued that the
Settlement Agreement can be salvaged if "properly construed and
implemented." In BP's view, all of the problems that invalidate
the class settlement under Article III and Rule 23 result from two
Policy Announcements issued by the Claims Administrator, Patrick
Juneau, who was appointed under the Settlement Agreement by the
district court.

"[W]e cannot agree with the arguments raised by the Objectors or
BP," ruled Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis. "The district court was
correct to conclude that the applicable requirements of Rule 23
are satisfied in this case. Additionally, whether or not BP's
arguments regarding Exhibits 4B and 4C are correct as a matter of
contract interpretation, neither class certification nor
settlement approval are contrary to Article III in this case," he
added.

A copy of the Circuit Court's January 10, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/RerW3jfrom Leagle.com.


EQC: More People Need to Join Class Action Over Repair Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newstalk ZB reports that it's unlikely a class action against EQC
will attract the 120 people needed to fund the project and
organizers are reviewing their options.

Around 80 people have signed up to Christchurch Law firm Anthony
Harper's group lawsuit that aims to change the standard of repair
offered by EQC.  Solicitor Simon Munro says the group is deciding
between waiting for others to join up or paying more themselves.

"Extend the time that we're giving people to join up another month
or so or rather than the maximum contributions of $2000 we can
possibly increase that to two and a half or three."

Mr. Munro was expected to have a decision by Feb. 3.


GALLUP INC: "Marr" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Marr v. Gallup, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-02465, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District Court of California to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Florida District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20116-RSR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108-3507
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

               - and -

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 531-8700
          Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
          E-mail: eadler@theadlerfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felicia Yu, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          55 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: N.J. Court Dismisses Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Tait and Ryann Atkins at McCarthy Tetrault LLP report that
on January 24, 2014, the District Court released its
reconsideration opinion again dismissing a previously-dismissed
proposed antitrust class action against GSK and Teva under the
"rule of reason" test set down in the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court's
Actavis decision.

In doing so, the Court made some important statements about
Actavis:

It does not allow scrutiny of all patent settlements with
anticompetitive potential.

It requires scrutiny only of patent settlements that contain
"reverse payments".

A "reverse payment" must include the exchange of money.
GSK and Teva had settled patent litigation over LAMICTAL
(lamotrigine) tablets, which are used to treat epilepsy and
bipolar disorder.  The patent in issue expired in 2008.  According
to the patent settlement, Teva was permitted to sell generic
tablets prior to patent expiry.  GSK also agreed not to launch its
own authorized generic version of LAMICTAL during a certain period
of exclusivity.  The plaintiff alleged the settlement violates
antitrust law.  There was, however, no transfer of money under the
settlement.

The Court previously dismissed the proposed class action under the
plaintiff-friendly K-Dur analysis because there was no transfer of
money.  In reconsidering, the Court found that Actavis did not
change the outcome.  The Court thereby gave a narrow
interpretation of "reverse payment" as requiring the exchange of
money, despite two other decisions supposedly reading Actavis as
applying to non-monetary patent settlements (In re Lipitor and In
re Nexium).


GULF RESOURCES: Obtains Final Court Okay of "Lewy" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, granted final approval of a
settlement resolving the case captioned ZACHARY LEWY, SAMPSON
DARUVALLA, WILLIAM SPEIGELBERG, and IOANNIS ZOUMAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GULF RESOURCES, INC., XIAOBIN LIU, MIN LI, and MING YANG,
Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-3722 ODW (MRWX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies this action as a class action for settlement
purposes only, and certifies as the Settlement Class all persons
or entities who purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Gulf
from March 16, 2009 through April 26, 2011, and who were damaged
thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

a. Defendants, and the members of their immediate families and
   Defendants' heirs, successors and assigns, any entity in which
   any Defendant has or had a controlling interest, and Gulf's
   predecessors;

b. Present officers and/or directors of Gulf;

c. Those persons who excluded themselves by filing timely and
   valid requests for exclusion in accordance with the Preliminary
   Approval Order (to date, no such requests have been filed).

The Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Lead Plaintiffs and
Gulf are directed to consummate the Settlement in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the parties' stipulation.

The Litigation and the Amended Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice and without costs.

A copy of the District Court's January 8, 2014 Order and Final
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/wgyYHkfrom Leagle.com.


HALLIBURTON CO: U.S. Chamber Comments on Class Action Challenge
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a statement by Lisa A. Rickard, president of the
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), on the Halliburton
v. Erica P. John Fund U.S. Supreme Court case in response to the
Jan. 29 filing of the respondent's brief:

"The value of securities class action lawsuits is often
questionable since the costs they impose on investors are much
greater than any benefit they provide.  Instead, that burden falls
on the companies' current shareholders and insurance paid for by
those shareholders.  Studies also show that such lawsuits do not
deter fraud.

"The securities class action system is broken and the
beneficiaries are lawyers -- those who file the lawsuits and those
who are paid to defend them."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


HK JIN INC: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Lila Bakhshi-Dezfouli and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. H.K. Jin, Inc. d/b/a Dry Clean Super Center on
Main d/b/a Ritz Cleaners and Gina Ky Pang, Case No. 3:14-cv-00076-
B (N.D. Tex., January 10, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

H.K. Jin, Inc., doing business as Dry Clean Super Center on Main,
doing business as Ritz Cleaners, is a company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County, Texas.  Gina Ky Pang is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HSBC BANK: "Wilkins" Suit in Illinois Alleges TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wilkins, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00190 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2014) is brought
for damages, and other legal and equitable remedies, resulting
from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently,
knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff and Class members
on their cellular telephones without their prior express consent
within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., is a national bank and a wholly owned
subsidiary of HSBC Finance Corporation.  HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
is a Nevada company with principal places of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada and New York City, New York.  HSBC Card Services,
Inc. is the U.S. consumer credit card segment of HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A.  HSBC Card Services, Inc., is a Maryland company with a
principal place of business in Illinois.  HSBC markets itself as
one of the industry's most valuable brands, and one of the world's
largest banking and financial services organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

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


IMMERSION CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation continues in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. Over the following five
weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of
these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action
on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted with leave to amend
on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 1, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was
granted with prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was
entered in favor of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief.
On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its response brief. On
September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Class Action Under Way in Quebec Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Satel, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
biggest class action suit in Canadian legal history is under way
at the Quebec Superior Court in Montreal.  At stake are billions
in damages and penalties sought from three tobacco companies --
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges; and JTI-
Macdonald.  Justice Brian Riordan is hearing cases representing
almost two million victims of lung, larynx and throat cancer, and
emphysema caused by smoking cigarettes.

In an unusual act, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association has filed a
complaint with the College des medecins du Quebec against a key
expert who recently testified in court.  The complaint accuses
Dominique Bourget, a forensic psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa
Mental Health Centre, of breaching the college's ethics code by
"minimizing the gravity of, if not denying the existence of,
tobacco dependence."

What did Dr. Bourget say to provoke such a charge? According to
Fran‡ois Damphousse, the Quebec director of the Non-Smokers'
Rights Association, Dr. Bourget just "brushe[d] aside all the
science on nicotine addiction and the neurophysiological effects
of nicotine on the brain."  In the same interview with the
Montreal Gazette last week, he said that Dr. Bourget played down
tobacco's addictive potential: She "reject[ed] current scientific
knowledge about addiction and she is not allowed to do that as a
member of the College."


JAK AND ASSOCIATES: Improperly Paid Leads/Specialists, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Viramontes, Ricardo Viramontes, and Christian Antillon, on
behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown, v. JAK and Associates, LLC, d/b/a NTP Wireless,
BGG and Associates, LLC, and Jonathan D. Haley, Individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00192 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2014) is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs are the Defendants' present employees, who have
performed upgrade and installation labor in positions deemed by
the Defendants as "solution leads" and "solution specialists."
The Plaintiffs contend that they were improperly paid for a
40-hour workweek on a salary basis from the beginning of their
employment until December 16, 2013, regardless of the number of
hours actually worked in a given week.

JAK and Associates, LLC, doing business as NTP Wireless, provides
wireless networking services and system upgrades to wireless
customers.  NTP Wireless is the business entity under which the
company advertises its services.

BGG and Associates, LLC, is the business entity from which the
Plaintiffs received their paychecks.  Jonathan D. Haley is the
president of BGG.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
                  mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com


LOUISIANA: Amends Children's Choice Waiver for Chisolm Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Health and Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services
Financing adopts LAC 50:XV.Chapters 1-7 in the Medical Assistance
Program as authorized by R.S. 36:254 and pursuant to Title XIX of
the Social Security Act.  This Emergency Rule is promulgated in
accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act, R.S. 49:953(B)(1) et seq., and shall be in effect for the
maximum period allowed under the Act or until adoption of the
final Rule, whichever occurs first.

The Department of Health and Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services
Financing and the Office for Citizens with Developmental
Disabilities promulgated an Emergency Rule which amended the
provisions of the Children's Choice Waiver in order to provide for
the allocation of waiver opportunities to Medicaid eligible
children identified in the Melanie Chisholm, et al vs. Kathy
Kliebert class action litigation (hereafter referred to as
Chisholm class members) who have a diagnosis of Pervasive
Developmental Disorder or Autism Spectrum Disorder, and are in
need of applied behavioral analysis-based (ABA) therapy services.
(Louisiana Register, Volume 39, Number 10).  This action was taken
as a temporary measure to ensure Chisholm class members would have
access to ABA therapy services as soon as possible.

To ensure continued, long-lasting access to ABA-based therapy
services for Chisholm class members and other children under the
age of 21, the department has now determined that it is necessary
to adopt provisions to establish coverage and reimbursement for
ABA-based therapy services under the Medicaid State Plan.  This
action is being taken to avoid imminent peril to the public health
and welfare of children who are in immediate need of ABA-based
therapy services, and to comply with the judge's order that these
services be provided to Chisholm class members.  It is estimated
that implementation of this Emergency Rule will increase
expenditures in the Medicaid Program by approximately $9,523,396
for state fiscal year 2013-2014.  Effective February 1, 2014, the
Department of Health and Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services
Financing adopts provisions to establish coverage and
reimbursement for applied behavioral analysis-based therapy
services under the Medicaid State Plan.

Title 50 PUBLIC HEALTH-MEDICAL ASSISTANCE Part XV. Services for
Special Populations Subpart 1. Applied Behavioral Analysis-Based
Therapy Services Chapter 1. General Provisions Sec. 101. Program
Description and Purpose A. Applied Behavior Analysis-based (ABA)
therapy is the design, implementation, and evaluation of
environmental modification using behavioral stimuli and
consequences to produce socially significant improvement in human
behavior, including the direct observation, measurement, and
functional analysis of the relations between environment and
behavior.  ABA-based therapies teach skills through the use of
behavioral observation and reinforcement or prompting to teach
each step of targeted behavior.  ABA-based therapies are based on
reliable evidence and are not experimental.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Sec, 103.

Recipient Criteria A. In order to qualify for ABA-based therapy
services, a Medicaid recipient must meet the following criteria.
The recipient must:

1. be from birth up to 21 years of age;

2. exhibit the presence of excesses and/or deficits of behaviors
that significantly interfere with home or community activities
(examples include, but are not limited to aggression, self-injury,
elopement, etc.);

3. be medically stable and does not require 24-hour medical/
nursing monitoring or procedures provided in a hospital or
intermediate care facility for persons with intellectual
disabilities (ICF/ID);

4. be diagnosed by a qualified health care professional with a
condition for which ABA-based therapy services are recognized as
therapeutically appropriate, including autism spectrum disorder;

5. have a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation by a qualified
health care professional; and

6. have a prescription for ABA-based therapy services ordered by a
qualified health care professional.

B. All of the criteria in Sec. 103.A must be met to receive
services. AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S.
36:254 and Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Chapter 3.
Services Sec. 301.

Covered Services and Limitations

A. Medicaid covered ABA-based therapy services must be: 1.
medically necessary; 2. prior authorized by the Medicaid Program
or its designee; and 3. delivered in accordance with the
recipient's treatment plan.

B. Services must be provided directly or billed by behavior
analysts licensed by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board.

C. Medical necessity for ABA-based therapy services shall be
determined according to the provisions of the Louisiana
Administrative Code (LAC), Title 50, Part I, Chapter 11 (Louisiana
Register, Volume 37, Number 1).

D. ABA-based therapy services may be prior authorized for a time
period not to exceed 180 days.  Services provided without prior
authorization shall not be considered for reimbursement, except in
the case of retroactive Medicaid eligibility.

E. Service Limitations 1. Services shall be based upon the
individual needs of the child, and must give consideration to the
child's age, school attendance requirements, and other daily
activities as documented in the treatment plan. 2. Services must
be delivered in a natural setting (e.g., home and community-based
settings, including clinics). 3. Any services delivered by direct
line staff must be under the supervision of a lead behavior
therapist who is a Louisiana licensed behavior analyst.

F. Not Medically Necessary/Non-Covered Services. The following
services do not meet medical necessity criteria, nor qualify as
Medicaid covered ABA-based therapy services: 1. therapy services
rendered when measureable functional improvement is not expected
or progress has plateaued; 2. services that are primarily
educational in nature; 3. services that are duplicative services
under an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) or an
Individualized Educational Program (IEP), as required under the
Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 4.
treatment whose purpose is vocationally-or recreationally-based;
5. custodial care; a. for purposes of these provisions, custodial
care: i. shall be defined as care that is provided primarily to
assist in the activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing,
dressing, eating, and maintaining personal hygiene and safety; ii.
is provided primarily for maintaining the recipient's or anyone
else's safety; and iii. could be provided by persons without
professional skills or training; and 6. services, supplies, or
procedures performed in a non-conventional setting including, but
not limited: a. resorts; b. spas; c. therapeutic programs; and d.
camps.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Sec. 303.

Treatment Plan

A. ABA-based therapy services shall be rendered in accordance with
the individual's treatment plan. The treatment plan shall: 1. be
person-centered and based upon individualized goals; 2. be
developed by a licensed behavior analyst; 3. delineate both the
frequency of baseline behaviors and the treatment development plan
to address the behaviors; 4. identify long, intermediate, and
short-term goals and objectives that are behaviorally defined; 5.
identify the criteria that will be used to measure achievement of
behavior objectives; 6. clearly identify the schedule of services
planned and the individual providers responsible for delivering
the services; 7. include care coordination involving the parents
or caregiver(s), school, state disability programs, and others as
applicable; 8. include parent/ caregiver training, support, and
participation; 9. have objectives that are specific, measureable,
based upon clinical observations, include outcome measurement
assessment, and tailored to the individual; and 10. ensure that
interventions are consistent with ABA techniques.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Chapter 5.
Provider Participation Sec. 501.

General Provisions

A. Licensed behavior analysts that render ABA-based therapy
services shall meet the following provider qualifications: 1. be
licensed by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board; 2. be covered by
professional liability insurance to limits of $1,000,000 per
occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate; 3. have no sanctions or
disciplinary actions on their Board Certified Behavior Analyst
(BCBA(R)) or Board Certified Behavior Analyst-Doctoral (BCBA-D)
certification and/or state licensure; 4. not have Medicare/
Medicaid sanctions, or be excluded from participation in federally
funded programs (i.e., Office of Inspector General's List of
Excluded Individuals/ Entities (OIG-LEIE), System for Award
Management (SAM) listing and state Medicaid sanctions listings);
and 5. have a completed criminal background check to include
federal criminal, state criminal, parish criminal and sex offender
reports for the state and parish in which the behavior analyst is
currently working and residing. a. Criminal background checks must
be performed at the time of hire and at least five years
thereafter. b. Background checks must be current, within a year
prior to the initial Medicaid enrollment application. Background
checks must be performed at least every five years thereafter.

B. Certified assistant behavior analyst that render ABA-based
therapy services shall meet the following provider qualifications:
1. must be certified by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board; 2.
must work under the supervision of a licensed behavior analyst; a.
the supervisory relationship must be documented in writing; 3.
must have no sanctions or disciplinary actions, if state-certified
or board-certified by the BACB(R); 4. may not have Medicaid or
Medicare sanctions or be excluded from participation in federally
funded programs (OIG-LEIE listing, SAM listing and state Medicaid
sanctions listings); and 5. have a completed criminal background
check to include federal criminal, state criminal, parish criminal
and sex offender reports for the state and parish in which the
certified assistant behavior analyst is currently working and
residing. a. Evidence of this background check must be provided by
the employer. b. Criminal background checks must be performed at
the time of hire and an update performed at least every five years
thereafter. C. Registered line technicians that render ABA-based
therapy services shall meet the following provider qualifications:
1. must be registered by the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board; 2.
must work under the supervision of a licensed behavior analyst; a.
the supervisory relationship must be documented in writing; 3. may
not have Medicaid or Medicare sanctions or be excluded from
participation in federally funded programs (OIG-LEIE listing, SAM
listing and state Medicaid sanctions listings); and 4. have a
completed criminal background check to include federal criminal,
state criminal, parish criminal and sex offender reports for the
state and parish in which the certified assistant behavior analyst
is currently working and residing. a. Evidence of this background
check must be provided by the employer. b. Criminal background
checks must be performed at the time of hire and an update
performed at least every five years thereafter.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Chapter 7.
Reimbursements Sec. 701.

General Provisions

A. The Medicaid Program shall provide reimbursement for ABA-based
therapy services to enrolled behavior analysts who are currently
licensed and in good standing with the Louisiana Behavior Analyst
Board.

B. Reimbursement for ABA services shall not be made to, or on
behalf of services rendered by, a parent, a legal guardian or
legally responsible person.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40: Sec. 703.

Reimbursement Methodology

A. Reimbursement for ABA-based therapy services shall be based
upon a percentage of the commercial rates for ABA-based therapy
services in the state of Louisiana. The rates are based upon 15
minute units of service, with the exception of mental health
services plan which shall be reimbursed at an hourly fee rate.

B. Reimbursement shall only be made for services authorized by the
Medicaid Program or its designee.

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 36:254 and
Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, Bureau of Health Services Financing, LR 40:
Implementation of the provisions of this Rule may be contingent
upon the approval of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), if it
is determined that submission to CMS for review and approval is
required.

Interested persons may submit written comments to J. Ruth Kennedy,
Bureau of Health Services Financing, P.O. Box 91030, Baton Rouge,
LA 70821-9030.  She is responsible for responding to inquiries
regarding this Emergency Rule.  A copy of this Emergency Rule is
available for review by interested parties at parish Medicaid
offices.

Kathy H. Kliebert Secretary


MF GLOBAL: Settles Class Action Over Accruance for $14.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ivers and Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, report
that a former self-regulatory agency for MF Global Inc. has agreed
to a $14.5 million settlement that will allow it to exit a
proposed class action alleging it played a role in the brokerage's
descent into bankruptcy and accruance of a $1.6 billion shortfall
in customer funds.

Chicago-based futures and options exchange CME Group Inc. will
seek an order to establish superpriority on a previously approved
$29 million claim in MF Global's ongoing Chapter 11 case, with the
condition that half of any proceeds recovered will go to the
plaintiffs, according to a memorandum filed Wednesday in New York
federal court.

The two parties had been engaged in arm's-length negotiations for
nearly a year, according to the memorandum.

The settlement will allow CME to exit the suit against MF Global,
its CEO and former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, as well as other
company officials, affiliated companies and financial
institutions.

The putative class, comprised of former MF Global commodity
customers, will still be allowed to pursue its claims against all
remaining defendants should the agreement be approved.

CME, which had served as MF Global's self-regulatory agency prior
to its bankruptcy filing, was drawn into the case when it was
named as a defendant in a number of class actions filed by MF
Global investors, alleging that it failed to provide proper
oversight that might have prevented the company's downfall.

The plaintiffs in the ongoing class action allege that MF Global
issued a financial statement in May 2011 saying the firm had
established a "global, robust risk-management environment" to
manage all aspects of its risks. In reality, however, MF Global
was suffering from serious liquidity pressures based on its
exposure to the European debt crisis.

After initially denying that any money was missing, the firm on
Oct. 31, 2011, informed regulators of a $1.6 billion shortfall in
its customer funds.  On the same day, it filed Chapter 11
protection in New York bankruptcy court, prompting the New York
Stock Exchange to suspend trading in MF Global shares.

The first class action against the company was filed by investor
Joseph DeAngelis in November 2011, and was followed by a total of
11 others.  Those suits have since been consolidated into
multidistrict litigation, which is still in pretrial in New York
federal court.

Andrew J. Entwistle and Joshua K. Porter of Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP and Merrill G. Davidoff -- davidoff@bm.net -- and Michael
Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- of Bergen & Montague PC are
serving as co-lead counsel in the case.

CME is represented by Gregory M. Boyle -- gboyle@jenner.com --
Jeffrey S. Eberhard -- jeberhard@jenner.com -- Brian Jason Fischer
-- bfischer@jenner.com -- and Charles B. Sklarsky --
csklarsky@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP.

An executive committee for the litigation is composed of William
C. Carmody, Charles Eskridge, Marc Seltzer and Jacob W. Buchdahl
of Susman Godfrey LLP, Michael H. Moirano -- mmoirano@nisen.com --
Claire E. Gorman -- cgormankenny@nisen.com -- and Brittany E. Kirk
of Nisen & Elliot LLC, Jay W. Eisenhofer, Linda P. Nussbaum,
Matthew P. Morris and Shelly L. Friedland of Grant & Eisenhofer PA
and Keith M. Fleischman and Francis Karam of Fleischman Law Firm
PLLC.

The case is DeAngelis v. Corzine et al., case number 1:11-cv-
07866, and MF Global Holdings Ltd. Investment Litigation, case
number 1:12-md-02338, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
NBC Chicago reports that an Illinois couple on Jan. 29 filed a
class action lawsuit against the Michaels craft store chain,
alleging the retailer should have stepped up security measures
following a security breach nearly three years ago.

Michael C. Gouwens and his wife, Jessica E. Gouwens, say a
security breach earlier this month may have compromised the credit
and debit card information of the company's customers, and that
breach is a violation of an implied contract with customers to
safeguard their credit information.

Further, the suit claims the chain violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act by failing to implement proper security measures, warn
shoppers that their data was at risk or notify affected customers
of the nature and extent of the breach.

Michaels issued a statement Jan. 25 stating that the company had
learned about a possible data security attack and warning
customers to look out for fraudulent purchases.  The suit notes
that Michaels experienced a similar breach in 2011 which should
have alerted the company of the need for additional security
measures.  The two-count lawsuit is seeking an undisclosed amount
in compensatory and punitive damages.


MONEY MART: Loses Bid to Derail Class Action Over Payday Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Supreme Court of Canada won't
hear an appeal in a case where Money Mart sought to derail a
class-action suit over payday loans.

Two Calgary men, Gareth Young and H. Craig Day, are representative
plaintiffs in the class action, which argues that the lender's
fees for short-term loans are unlawful.

The lender argued that the two men had signed an agreement that
they would use arbitration in the event of a dispute and that they
would not take part in a class action.

The Alberta courts ruled that provincial law allows the men to
sue.

The lower courts said the arbitration clauses are only effective
if they are formally approved by the provincial government.
Money Mart applied for that approval twice, but was turned down.


NOVARTIS CONSUMER: Removed "Cortina" Suit to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Cortina v. Novartis
Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 37-02013-00078571-CU-BT-CTL, was
removed from the California Superior Court for the County of San
Diego, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00069-MMA-KSC to the proceeding.

The case is an alleged consumer class action lawsuit purporting to
assert claims for violations of the California Business &
Professions Code, as well as the California Civil Code.  The
lawsuit arises out of the sale of NCH's over-the-counter
pharmaceutical product Excedrin(R) Migraine.

Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., sells Excedrin(R) Migraine
principally to distributors or wholesalers, who distribute the
products to retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: apersinger@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aton Arbisser, Esq.
          Daniel Paluch, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6048
          Telephone: (310) 788-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 788-1207
          E-mail: aarbisser@kayescholer.com
                  daniel.paluch@kayescholer.com


POOL COVER: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Graham" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Graham v. Pool Cover Solutions of the Southeast, LLC,
Jonathon Windmueller, and Kris Windmueller, individually, Case No.
2:14-cv-00085-DCN (D.S.C., January 10, 2014) is brought against
the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff says that he regularly worked over 40 hours a week
for the Defendants and was a non-exempt employee.  Hence, he
asserts, he was entitled to overtime pay when he worked more than
40 hours a week.

Pool Cover Solutions of the Southeast, LLC, is a South Carolina
for-profit corporation.  Jonathon Windmueller and Kris Windmueller
are coowners and operators of Pool Cover.  The Defendants sell,
install, repair and service safety products for residential and
commercial pools throughout the southeast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW, LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385-8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


QUALITY FINISHING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wage, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vidal Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Quality Finishing Service,
Inc. and Jose Rincon, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00188 (N.D.
Ill., January 10, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages due to
the Plaintiff during his employment.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
argues, the Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay
him and other similarly situated persons at a rate equal to one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek.

QFS is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Elk Grove Village,
Illinois.  The Company is engaged in the business of furniture
refinishing and cabinetry.  Jose Rincon is the owner of QFS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD.
          Two Prudential Plaza
          180 North Stetson, Suite 3150
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 540-1230
          Facsimile: (312) 540-1231
          E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com
                  mengel@cslaw.com


SABRE INC: Judge Tosses Text-Spamming Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Jan. 28 axed a text-spamming class action against
travel technology contractor Sabre Inc., ruling that by providing
an airline with her cellphone number when booking a flight, the
plaintiff gave permission to be contacted.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson determined that under
Federal Communications Commission rulemakings implementing the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, plaintiff Shaya Baird gave
express consent to be contacted about her flight when she entered
her cellphone number as part of Hawaii Airlines' online
reservation process.

Ms. Baird mounted her complaint based on a single unsolicited text
message she later received from Sabre, which was under contract
with the airline, offering flight notification services.  The suit
brought TCPA claims on amendment and argued that she did not
consent to any messaging, having been compelled to provide a
number to book her flight.

Judge Wilson, though, cited a 1992 FCC order that held that a
consumer who knowingly releases a phone number has "in effect"
given invitation or permission to be contacted via an automated
system in connection with related business transactions.

The judge acknowledged that applying the rulemaking appeared to
dilute the TCPA's requirement that message senders have a
recipient's "express" consent, but nonetheless found its
definition of consent dispositive of Baird's claims. Consent in
her case can be inferred from the act of providing the number,
according to the opinion.

Having tossed the TCPA claims, the judge also dismissed Baird's
derivative claims under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Judge Wilson was unmoved by Ms. Baird's claim that she did not
consent because she was required to provide at least one phone
number to book her flight, saying that the act of providing the
number was voluntary because no one forced her to choose Hawaiian
Airlines.

The judge also noted that Ms. Sabre's text did not originate from
a third party unaffiliated with the entity to whom the number was
provided, saying that no reasonable consumer could believe that
all communications about a scheduled flight must only come from
the airline itself.

Ms. Baird had previously failed on claims under both the UCL and
the Telecommunications Privacy Act, with Judge Wilson ruling in
July that she had failed to show she suffered an economic injury
as a result of the text.

In so doing, the judge said that Ms. Baird lacked standing since
she never alleged that the bill for her cellphone service plan was
affected in any way.

The text in question came from a number listed only as "72273"
that read "Reply yes for flight notification services. Standard
rates may apply."  The message also included the address for a
website that Sabre owns and operates to promote its products.

In siding with Sabre on the consent issue on Jan. 28, Judge Wilson
sidestepped the company's assertion that the technology used to
send the messages did not qualify as an automated dialing system
covered by the TCPA, an argument that has recently gained traction
in increasingly frequent class actions over unwanted calls and
texts.

Counsel for Ms. Baird said they were reviewing the opinion and
considering their options.  Counsel for Sabre did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Baird is represented by Ronald A. Hartmann, Kurt E. Kananen
and Kenneth King of Hartmann & Kananen.

Sabre is represented by Joshua Briones --
joshua.briones@dlapiper.com -- Ana Tagvoryan --
ana.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com -- and Esteban Morales --
esteban.morales@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper LLP (US).

The case is Shaya Baird v. Sabre Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-
00999, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


SASKTEL: Alberta Suit Over Cell Service Access Fees Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that an Alberta judge has ruled that people in
that province can sue SaskTel over cellphone service access fees.

These are the fees -- between $6 and $7 a month -- that cellphone
companies started tacking on to customers bills in the late 1980s.
A number of companies have dropped or changed the fees in recent
years, but several class action lawsuits that call the fees
"unlawful" have been launched across Canada.

One class action in Alberta names SaskTel as a defendant (along
with a number of other Canadian phone companies) and a Calgary
woman as plaintiff.  It claims more than 4,000 SaskTel customers
who have billing addresses in Alberta were paying the fees
starting in 1987.

Lawyers with the Regina-based telecommunications company say it
doesn't do business in Alberta, doesn't have offices there and
only 1.47 per cent of its customers have Alberta billing
addresses.  Furthermore, if people in Alberta want to get involved
in the action, they can always join a related class action that
was launched in Saskatchewan, the company said.

However, an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge ruled Jan. 24
that Alberta courts do indeed have jurisdiction.

"I conclude that a real and substantial connection between the
claim against SaskTel and Alberta [does] exist," Justice Donald
Lee wrote in his 28-page decision.

"I accept that potentially 4,035 Albertans may have been
unlawfully charged system access fees by SaskTel, as alleged in
the plaintiff's statement of claim."

The Alberta suit, as well as the one in Saskatchewan, was
initiated by the Merchant Law Group, a Regina law firm that has
been involved in numerous class actions concerning everything from
rail accidents to the cost of chocolate bars.


SHAPIRO FISHMAN: Suit Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Susan Karp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, a Florida
General Partnership, Case No. 6:14-cv-00046-JA-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. James Turner, Esq.
          N. JAMES TURNER, LLC
          37 N Orange Ave., Suite 500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (888) 877-5103
          E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


SHELTER MUTUAL: Removed "Cherry" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cherry, et al. v. Shelter
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 46CV-13-00296-2, was removed
from the Miller County Circuit Court to the U. S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04014-SOH to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims related to insurance contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          P.O. Box 618
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
          THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM
          13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
          E-mail: roselius@roseliuslaw.com

               - and -

          Stevan Earl Vowell, Esq.
          Timothy J. Myers, Esq.
          W.H. Taylor, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW FIRM
          303 East Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          Facsimile: (479) 443-7842
          E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
                  tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com
                  whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          William B. Putman, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 E. Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          E-mail: wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Esq.
          Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          P. O. Box 2595
          1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
          Batesville, AR 72503
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 South Commerce, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 375-6453
          E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John E. Moore, Esq.
          Beverly A. Rowlett, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cullen, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374-5906
          E-mail: john.moore@mrmblaw.com
                  beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com
                  sarah.cullen@mrmblaw.com


SHELTER MUTUAL: Removed "Goodner" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company removed the purported class
action lawsuit titled Goodner, et al. v. Shelter Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 46CV13-278-1, from the Circuit Court of Miller
County, Arkansas, to the U. S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-04013-SOH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges contract dispute relating to insurance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          P.O. Box 618
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq.
          THE ROSELIUS LAW FIRM
          13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
          E-mail: roselius@roseliuslaw.com

               - and -

          Stevan Earl Vowell, Esq.
          Timothy J. Myers, Esq.
          W.H. Taylor, Esq.
          William B. Putman, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW FIRM
          303 East Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          Facsimile: (479) 443-7842
          E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
                  tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com
                  whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com
                  wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Esq.
          Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          P. O. Box 2595
          1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
          Batesville, AR 72503
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 South Commerce, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 375-6453
          E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John E. Moore, Esq.
          Beverly A. Rowlett, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cullen, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374-5906
          E-mail: john.moore@mrmblaw.com
                  beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com
                  sarah.cullen@mrmblaw.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Tribes' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a lawsuit
from two Native American tribes accusing state officials of
violating federal law can proceed as a class action lawsuit.

LuAnn Van Hunnik, the person in charge of Child Protective
Services in South Dakota; Mark Vargo, the State's Attorney for
Pennington County, S.D.; the Hon. Jeff Davis, the presiding judge
of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of South Dakota; and Kim
Malsam-Rysdon, the secretary of the South Dakota Department of
Social Services were all named as defendants in the suit.

District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken refused to dismiss the lawsuit on
Jan. 28, and ruled that parts of it can proceed at an expedited
pace as a class-action case, according to court documents.

Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 because of
the once high number of Indian children being removed from their
homes by public and private agencies.

Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rochelle Walking Eagle,
Madonna Pappan and Lisa Young all claimed the defendants violated
the Indian Child Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after
children were removed from homes, according to a complaint filed
March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Dakota-Western Division.

The plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief.  They are being represented by Rachel E. Goodman and
Stephen L. Pevar of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Dana
Hanna of Hanna Law Office PC.

Ms. Van Hunnik and Ms. Malsam-Rysdon are being represented by
Robert L. Morris of Day Morris Law Firm LLP.

Mr. Vargo is being represented by Sara Frankenstein --
sfrankenstein@gpnalaw.com -- and J. Crisman Palmer --
cpalmer@gpnalaw.com -- of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore LLP.

Mr. Davis is being represented by Roxanne Giedd and Ann F. Mines
of the South Dakota Attorney General's Office; and Nathan R.
Oviatt -- nate@goodsellquinn.com -- of Goodsell Quinn LLP.

U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota-Western
Division case number: 5:13-cv-05020


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Damage Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case against The Southern Company on behalf of Mississippi
residents seeking recovery for property damage and personal
injuries caused by Hurricane Katrina is now concluded, according
to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case. On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants. In 2011, the plaintiffs filed an
amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that the
earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under Mississippi
law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file. The amended complaint
was also filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utility
companies, including Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and
Southern Power. On May 14, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi's March 2012 dismissal of the case. The
case is now concluded.


TARGET CORP: Commercial Bancshares Sues Over Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Bancshares, Inc., Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-
04012-SOH (W.D. Ark., January 10, 2014) is a class action on
behalf of all banks, credit unions, and other financial
institutions that were forced to communicate with customers, close
out and open new customer accounts, reissue credit and debit
cards, and absorb unauthorized charges to customers' accounts in
the wake of the security breach compromising Target store
customers' names, card numbers, card expiration dates, personal
identification numbers, and card verification values during a
period between approximately November 27, 2013, and December 15,
2013.

Incorporated in Minnesota and headquartered in Minneapolis, Target
Corporation operates a chain of retail stores that sell
merchandise including home goods, electronics, and clothing.  The
Company owns approximately 1,797 stores and 37 distribution
centers in 49 states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com
                  mkeil@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  shandler@ktmc.com
                  namjed@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          Christopher R. Johnson, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: cjohnson@npraustin.com


TARGET CORP: Shapiro Talks About Data Breach Cases
--------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig at LawyersandSettlements.com reports that data
thieves are constantly on the prowl -- slipping in through
unlocked doors and then helping themselves to untold bytes of
valuable information that they can profit from. Over the last 10
years, the numbers of cyber theft reports have skyrocketed, and
barely a day goes by now without hackers busting though a data
security system.

Organizations and companies are often embarrassed to have to admit
that their security system was inadequate or unable to protect
private information from computer robbers. Typically, it is months
before they even know the data has been burgled.

According to a 2012 report by Verizon, a data breach costs
companies an average of $7 million. What the cost is to consumers
or the people whose data was carted off to unknown spaces and
places is not very well understood.

"We have some information, but not a lot," says Fred Cate,
professor of law at the University of Indiana's Mauer School of
Law, and also Research Director for the Center for Applied
Cybersecurity. "Here's what I think we know. The vast majority of
people suffer no loss at all. A significant number suffer
inconvenience and a few people suffer an intensive loss.

"It's not that those people who suffer intensively lose money,
it's that they have to keep trying to get things fixed," says
Cate. "Their credit report is linked to a wrongdoer's credit
report and they have to keep filing police reports, or calling the
credit agency and so on. These people describe months and months
of never knowing when it will pop up again. It's very unpleasant
and I would not want it to happen to me."

Thirty years ago, Congress passed a law limiting credit card
liability to $50. Most companies, in the wake of a data breach,
wave that and quickly deactivate cards to mitigate losses.

One of the largest and most recent data breaches involves Target
and the theft of 40 million credit and debit card records, plus
names and addresses of 70 million customers. The latest numbers
now put that count at nearly 100 million. Information like this is
often sold in large lots on black market Internet sites.

Attorney Thomas Shapiro, from the Boston firm of Shapiro, Haber
and Urmy, which specializes in complex litigation, is among the
legal firms currently involved in a class-action suit against the
retailer. "When it comes to a large data breach like the Target
case, even a smaller percentage of people being harmed
significantly means thousands of people," says Shapiro

"I think the law is still a little unsettled and it is true that
the courts in some states have been very restrictive in terms of
the damages they recognize," says Shapiro.

While it's correct to say that consumer liability is limited when
it comes to the fraudulent use of credit cards, Shapiro argues
that there are other significant costs for individuals caught up
in a data breach. "Target is offering to pay for one year of
credit monitoring, but we've had other cases where retailers have
paid for up to three years of credit monitoring. This is an
expensive service."

There are other costs related to re-issuing driver's licenses,
other government identification, and there is, of course, the time
lost. "A big element of the damages involved is related to the
inconvenience and effort it takes to replace credit cards and
figure out what automatic payments are charged to them every
month. Some people have more than one credit card," argues
Shapiro.

There is also a certain fear and trepidation about these kinds of
data breaches says Shapiro. Although the courts have so far been
slow to see this, he believes that not all states have had an
opportunity to deal with these kinds of cases and the law is
evolving.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Rosa, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited and The Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00196-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
January 10, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, and
related relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tata Consultancy Services Limited is an Indian corporation
authorized to do business in New York.  Tata's business consists
of information technology consulting, services and business
solutions.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is a New York
corporation.  DTCC's business consists of providing financial and
related services to institutional clients.  Services provided by
DTCC include the clearing and settlement of securities
transactions, the processing of mutual fund transactions, and
related information services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Bright, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, LICHTEN & BRIGHT, P.C.,
          475 Park Avenue South, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 358-1500
          Facsimile: (212) 358-0207
          E-mail: dbright@lichtenandbright.com


TRAVELERS HOME: "Tommey" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Tommey, et al. v.
Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
46CV13-279-1, was removed from the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas, to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-04015-SOH to the proceeding.

The case asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          406 Walnut Street
          P.O. Box 618
          Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: mweber@crowleynorman.com
                  rnorman@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          Stevan Earl Vowell, Esq.
          Timothy J. Myers, Esq.
          W.H. Taylor, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW FIRM
          303 East Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          Facsimile: (479) 443-7842
          E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
                  tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com
                  whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          William B. Putman, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 E. Millsap Road
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          E-mail: wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Esq.
          Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          P. O. Box 2595
          1141 East Main Street, Suite 300
          Batesville, AR 72503
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          200 South Commerce, Suite 600
          P.O. Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203
          Telephone: (501) 375-6453
          E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD
          425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3525
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          Facsimile: (501) 688-8807
          E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Uncertain on Effect of Antitrust Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of a proposed settlement to resolve In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation on the
value of Umpqua Bank's Class B common stock is unknown at this
time, according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 13, 2012, Visa Inc. announced that it had entered into a
memorandum of understanding obligating it to enter into a
settlement agreement to resolve the multi-district interchange
litigation brought by the class plaintiffs in the matter styled In
re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720 (JG) (JO) pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The claims
originally were brought by a class of U.S. retailers in 2005. The
proposed settlement is subject to court approval and Visa's share
of the settlement to be paid is estimated to be approximately $4.4
billion.  However, certain trade associations and merchants are
actively opposing the proposed settlement and it is unknown when
or if the proposed settlement will be approved.

A fairness hearing was held on September 12, 2013 to determine if
the settlement will be finally approved. It is not known when the
Court will issue an order related to the motion for final approval
of the settlement. The effect of this proposed settlement on the
value of the Bank's Class B common stock is unknown at this time.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Claims Remain in Overdraft Fees Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Bank faces remaining claims in the action relating to
overdraft fees and the posting order of point of sale and ACH
items, according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In the company's Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2011, the company initially reported on a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to
overdraft fees and the posting order of point of sale and ACH
items.  On October 25, 2013, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar
issued an order dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's claims
for "unfair" prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (the
UCL), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.  Accordingly,
the only claims remaining in the action are for alleged violation
of the "unlawful" and "fraudulent" prongs of the UCL and for
conversion.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Suit Over Merger Remains Pending in Wash. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation continues to face a consolidated suit
filed in Spokane County, Washington, Superior Court arising from
the proposed Sterling Financial Corporation merger, according to
Umpqua Holdings Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in two separate
class action lawsuits filed in Spokane County, Washington,
Superior Court arising from the proposed Sterling merger (Case
Nos. 13-2-03848-4 and 13-2-03904-9). Specifically, the plaintiffs
in the actions allege that Sterling and its directors breached
their fiduciary shareholder duties by agreeing to the merger terms
and that the Company aided and abetted such breach. The actions
further seek to enjoin the proposed Sterling merger. The court has
consolidated the cases before a single judge for further
administration. No other material developments have occurred since
entry of the court's consolidation order.


UNIDINE CORP: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Arias, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Unidine Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00158-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards, the Plaintiff is entitled to: (a) unpaid wages
from the Defendants, jointly and severally, for work performed for
which they received no compensation at all; (b) unpaid wages from
the Defendant, for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law, and (c) liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Unidine is foreign business corporation authorized to conduct
business in New York with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts.  Unidine is a food and dining management
company servicing seniors, hospitals and certain businesses.
Until approximately April 2012, Amsterdam Nursing Home operated
its own food service operation.  Thereafter, in April 2012,
Amsterdam outsourced its food service to Unidine, which retained
nearly all of Amsterdam's employees, including the Plaintiff.
Unidine is successor in interest to Amsterdam.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
          GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
          48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 524-6001
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5500
          E-mail: ag@g-s-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Speier-Roche" Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Speier-Roche v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-05821, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20107-
FAM to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the braking system installed in the
2007 to present Audi Q7 vehicles ("Class Vehicles") suffer from a
defect that causes, among other things, the Class Vehicles' brake
pads to wear out prematurely, and require replacement
approximately every 7,500 to 15,000 miles, far more frequently
than in a properly functioning braking system ("Brake Defect").
The Plaintiff alleges that although defects in material,
manufacturing and workmanship are covered by Audi's New Vehicle
Limited Warranty, Audi has failed to repair the Brake Defect under
warranty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATX & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net

               - and -

          Michael Scott Olin, Esq.
          MICHAEL S. OLIN, P.A.
          169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1224
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 677-5088
          Facsimile: (305) 677-5089
          E-mail: igarcia@olinlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471-8500
          E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

               - and -

          Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
          Michael Daniel Begey, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.
          Lincoln Plaza
          300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 1873 (32802-1873)
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 872-7300
          Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
          E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com
                  mbegey@rumberger.com


WHITNEY BANK: Cy Pres Distribution of Funds Has Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted a joint
motion for approval of cy pres distribution of settlement funds in
ANGELIQUE LACOUR, Plaintiff, v. WHITNEY BANK, Defendant, CASE NO.
8:11-CV-1896-T-33MAP, (M.D. Fla.).

On October 23, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement in this case. The settlement included a
common fund of $6,800,000 to be used to pay all distributions to
settlement class members who did not opt out, as well as a service
award to the named Plaintiff, and attorney fees and expenses to
class counsel.

The settlement agreement provided that if there are funds
remaining after distributions have been made to settlement class
members, the remainder may be distributed through a cy pres
program. The settlement agreement further provides that "[t]he
residual cy pres recipient shall be agreed upon by Whitney Bank
and class counsel, and approved by the Court."

The parties informed the Court that $799,370.26 remains in the
settlement fund, and seek Court approval for distribution of the
fund to these cy pres recipients: (1) United Way of Southeast
Louisiana, allocation: $591,374.12; (2) United Way of Southwest
Alabama, allocation: $70,344.58; (3) United Way of Okaloosa and
Walton Counties, allocation: $70,104.77; (4) Mississippi Center
for Justice, allocation: $41,327.44; and (5) United Way of Greater
Houston, allocation: $26,219.35.

Judge Covington granted the request and directed the parties to
effect the cy pres distribution in the amounts and to the
recipients identified within 30 days of the date of the Court's
Order.

A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5hhkcCfrom Leagle.com.


WORDEN LAW: "Seyerle" Suit Accuses FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Shirley Seyerle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Worden Law Office, Case No. 1:14-cv-00082-WYD-MJW (D.
Colo., January 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7277
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com


* Overtime Class Actions Move Forward in Canada in 2013
-------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Snowdon, Esq. -- dsnowdon@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy
Tetrault reports that Canadian employers continue to watch as
class actions regarding employees' claims for "overtime"
compensation move forward.  Although overtime class actions are
relatively new to Canada, 2013 saw developments in the area.

Ontario's Court of Appeal allowed the certification in two cases
in 2012 (Fulawka and Fresco); and on March 21, 2013 the Supreme
Court of Canada denied leave to appeal those decisions; meaning
those class action claims may now proceed towards trial.  The
Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal a Superior Court's
decision to deny certification in the Brown v. CIBC overtime
claim, which could lead to certification being granted in 2014.
And in August 2013 the Ontario Superior Court granted
certification in the Brown v. CIBC overtime claim; a decision that
was confirmed when the Ontario Divisional Court denied leave to
appeal that certification.

On November 8, 2013 another overtime class action suit was filed;
this one against Canada Cartage (a trucking company) and its
related companies.  Similar to the Fulawka and Fresco claims, the
Plaintiff is claiming improperly compensated overtime in addition
to other claims related to hours and pay.  The Plaintiff in this
action is expected to bring a certification application in the
near future.

While certification is a key step in any class proceeding, the
actual merits of each claim have not yet been tested, nor has the
value of any overtime claim been established.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ramsey Excavating Faces Fine Over Fibro Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Walsh, writing for The Star Tribune, reports that a
Minneapolis demolition company has paid a fine for sending clouds
of dust into nearby businesses during the razing of a late-1800s
Warehouse District commercial building that the excavators knew
contained asbestos.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on Jan. 28 announced
payment of a $10,000 penalty by Ramsey Excavating for using
improper procedures in the spring of 2013 to remove and contain
the asbestos-holding materials while tearing down the 119-year-old
building at N. 643 5th St., down the street from Target Field.

Al Ramsey, president of the 15-year-old company, pointed out on
Jan. 29 that "it was not confirmed" that the dust actually
contained asbestos.  "The only thing that caused the fine was the
visible emissions," Ramsey added.

During an inspection on April 29 at the three-story site where
Northern Auto Parts had operated until 2009, according to the
MPCA, agency staff saw dust being generated during demolition
coming from one area of the building and blowing into the
adjoining street and neighboring businesses.

Prior to demolition to make way for high-density housing, Ramsey
Excavating told the MPCA that asbestos-containing materials --
such as pipe and boiler insulation -- were in that area of the
building.

Asbestos has long been known to be a carcinogen, in particular
causing mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lung lining.

The contractor was spraying water on to the debris with a single
fire hose, but that was inadequate in preventing the dust from
blowing away from the site, the MPCA said.

Agency staff also saw that a pile of debris that included
asbestos-containing materials was not being processed for disposal
in a timely manner.  That pile had lingered for four days, the
agency said.

In addition to paying the fine, Ramsey Excavating also agreed to
use proper containment practices in the future and to manage
asbestos-containing materials and debris in a timely manner.

Ramsey Excavating counts among its projects assisting with
construction of Target Field, which opened in 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Cases Rise in Fibro Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that lung cancer cases are on the rise in asbestos litigation, and
one law professor says the incentive for plaintiffs attorneys is
to obtain money from bankruptcy trusts set up to pay out
claimants.

Lester Brickman, professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law at Yeshiva University, said the 60-plus asbestos
trusts, operating a system of more than $36 billion, will pay
claimants who can get a doctor to prove they have asbestos damage
to the linings of the lungs even if they had or have a smoking
habit.

"What's happened is the trusts are paying a claimant, a smoker,
who can show occupational exposure to asbestos and can get a
doctor to say the lungs indicate occupational exposure,"
Mr. Brickman said.

Mr. Brickman said claimants don't just apply to one trust.  They
get money from 15 to 20 trusts, and their attorneys make money in
the process.

"They can get as much as $100,000 dollars in total from these
trusts," Mr. Brickman said.  "Even if you don't bring any
lawsuits, you can get $100,000 for an unimpaired asbestos
exposure," he said.

With asbestos trusts paying out, claimants can also file a tort
claim.  Those lung cancer asbestos cases could always result in
settlements, Mr. Brickman pointed out.

"The number of lung cancer filings in the tort system based upon
asbestos exposure has no relationship to medical science,"
Mr. Brickman said.  "It's entirely a function of the economic
incentive for asbestos lawyers to file suits.

"So the trust payments are providing the seed money for the
lawyers to gain recruitments."

Mr. Brickman said lung cancer asbestos claims originated as part
of litigation screenings during the 1980s and 1990s.  Lawyers
would sponsor these screenings by sending fully equipped medical
vans to factory parking lots where unions would allow members to
receive free x-ray screenings, he says.  He added that most of the
readings attributing lung damage to asbestos from those x-rays
were bogus, though they generated about 500,000 claims of non-
malignant disease. Somewhere between four and 12 percent of the
screenings alleging asbestos-related injuries were true, he says.

"Because the x-rays could show lung cancer," Mr. Brickman said,
"that generated lung cancer cases."

Those lung cancer cases dropped after the screenings ended in the
early 2000s.

However, Mr. Brickman said lung cancer lawsuits have increased
significantly recently.  One such lawsuit is Carolyn McCarthy's.
A nine-term Congresswoman, Ms. McCarthy took a leave of absence
from Congress while she fights her lung cancer.

In her asbestos complaint, filed in October, she claims she was
exposed to asbestos fibers through her father's and brother's work
clothing when she was a child, also known as third-party exposure.
She also claims to have visited the two at their various work
sites over the years.  Both worked as boiler makers.

Third-party asbestos occurs after workers exposed to asbestos
unwittingly wear their work clothing home and embed the toxic
fibers into their cars.  Their families are then exposed to the
fibers through their clothing and their cars.

While this type of exposure has been proven before in previous
cases, Brickman said the basis of Ms. McCarthy's claim is that she
has found a doctor to determine that she has medical evidence to
asbestos exposure through scarring in the lungs.

Mr. Brickman says that while it is possible to develop lung cancer
from asbestos, approximately 90 percent of lung cancer is caused
by smoking.

Ms. McCarthy, represented by the Weitz and Luxenburg law firm,
filed her lawsuit against roughly 75 defendants.

Of those defendants, 25 have answered the lawsuit.

The defendants allege that Ms. McCarthy may have "significant"
pre-existing conditions factoring into her illness, specifically
McCarthy's lung cancer is the result of "other substances,
products, medications, and drugs, including by not limited to any
tobacco products."

The defendants also argued that Ms. McCarthy's injuries, if any,
should be exclusively remedied with the Workers' Compensation laws
in New York, and the lawsuit should not continue without involving
the various bankruptcy trusts.

They claim Ms. McCarthy did not work with the asbestos-containing
products and was therefore not exposed to the hazards to incur
damages.

"Plaintiff never purchased, directly or indirectly, any asbestos-
containing product or materials from Viking Pump, nor did
Plaintiff ever receive or rely upon any representation allegedly
made by Viking Pump.," one answer says.

Defendant Edison Company of New York, Inc. moved for summary
judgment.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler ordered on Nov. 12 that all claims
and cross-claims against Edison be dismissed with prejudice.

Requests for interviews or statements from Weitz & Luxenburg went
unanswered.

Third-party asbestos occurs after workers exposed to asbestos
unwittingly wear their work clothing home and embed the toxic
fibers into their cars.  Their families are then exposed to the
fibers through their clothing and their cars.

While this type of exposure has been proven before in previous
cases, Brickman said the basis of Ms. McCarthy's claim is that she
has found a doctor to determine that she has medical evidence to
asbestos exposure through scarring in the lungs.

Mr. Brickman says that while it is possible to develop lung cancer
from asbestos, approximately 90 percent of lung cancer is caused
by smoking.

Ms. McCarthy, represented by the Weitz and Luxenburg law firm,
filed her lawsuit against roughly 75 defendants.

Of those defendants, 25 have answered the lawsuit.

The defendants allege that Ms. McCarthy may have "significant"
pre-existing conditions factoring into her illness, specifically
McCarthy's lung cancer is the result of "other substances,
products, medications, and drugs, including by not limited to any
tobacco products."

The defendants also argued that Ms. McCarthy's injuries, if any,
should be exclusively remedied with the Workers' Compensation laws
in New York, and the lawsuit should not continue without involving
the various bankruptcy trusts.

They claim Ms. McCarthy did not work with the asbestos-containing
products and was therefore not exposed to the hazards to incur
damages.

"Plaintiff never purchased, directly or indirectly, any asbestos-
containing product or materials from Viking Pump, nor did
Plaintiff ever receive or rely upon any representation allegedly
made by Viking Pump.," one answer says.

Defendant Edison Company of New York, Inc. moved for summary
judgment.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler ordered on Nov. 12 that all claims
and cross-claims against Edison be dismissed with prejudice.

Requests for interviews or statements from Weitz & Luxenburg went
unanswered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,112 PI Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 29,112 asbestos-related cases remain pending against
General Cable Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2013.

General Cable Corporation subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by the Company.  As of June 28, 2013, the Company was
a defendant in approximately 29,112 cases brought in Federal
District Courts throughout the United States. In the six months
ended June 28, 2013, 64 asbestos cases were brought against the
Company.  In the calendar year 2012, 113 asbestos cases were
brought against the Company. In the last 21 years, General Cable
has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General
Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of
product identification. As of June 28, 2013, 22,354 asbestos cases
have been dismissed. In the six months ended June 28, 2013, 486
asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2012, 21,868
cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 29,112
remaining pending cases, General Cable is aggressively defending
these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to
General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack
of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable
product.

For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation as of June 28,
2013, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 328 asbestos-
related cases. In 187 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only
damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $142 thousand per
plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar
amounts requested as to any defendant. In the 140 other cases
pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL),
plaintiffs seek approximately $418.0 million in damages from as
many as 110 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted
damages related to General Cable in the amount of $10.0 million.
In addition, in relation to these 328 cases, there are claims of
$249.0 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants.
However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-
malignant injuries. As of June 28, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the
Company had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $5.1 million
and $5.2 million respectively, and as of June 28, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, had recovered approximately $0.5 million of
insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net
amount of $4.6 million and $4.7 million, as of June 28, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, respectively, represents the Company's best
estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future
asbestos-related claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is
relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement
release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of June 28, 2013 and June
29, 2012, aggregate settlement costs were $8.7 million and $8.2
million, respectively. For the three months ended June 28, 2013
and June 29, 2012, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million and $0.2
million, respectively. For the six months ended June 28, 2013 and
June 29, 2012, settlement costs totaled $0.2 million and $0.3
million, respectively. As of June 28, 2013 and June 29, 2012,
aggregate litigation costs were $22.0 million and $20.5 million,
respectively. For the three months ended June 28, 2013 and June
29, 2012, litigation costs were $0.3 million and $0.5 million,
respectively. For the six months ended June 28, 2013 and June 29,
2012, litigation costs were $0.6 million and $0.8 million,
respectively.

In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement
with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for
the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of
the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of
the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of
the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible
for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a
result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the
Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to
these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be
financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter
into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be
required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in
connection with these cases.

General Cable Corporation is a engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). On December 3, 2012, the Company completed
the acquisition of the Chinese business of Alcan Cable. On
November 2, 2012, the Company acquired Prestolite Wire, LLC. On
October 1, 2012, the Company acquired 60% of Productora de Cables
Procables S.A.S. On September 4, 2012, the Company completed the
acquisition of the North American business of Alcan Cable North
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $9.2-Mil Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation reported an estimated $9,200,000
asbestos-related aggregate liability, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2013.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.  In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
December 31, 2013.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $9,200,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2013. The recorded liability does not consider the
impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This
liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of
future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those
claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including
the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations,
defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the
broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects
to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,000,000
over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is
likely to extend over many years, management believes that the
potential additional costs for claims will not have a material
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity,
although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be
material to earnings in a future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In August 2012, it
sold its Gaffey division of Crane Equipment and Service Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settled PI Suits for $6-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has settled asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims for $6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended November 30, 2013.

The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course
of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims,
investigations and proceedings, including product liability,
personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property,
environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters.
While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we
have concluded, based upon currently available information, that
the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in
the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation described in the
following paragraphs, will not have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result
of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances,
settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under
these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to
delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October
2009, we commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of
our insurers in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the
action to address issues related to the scope of their coverage.
We recently entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant
insurers in this case that provided for the allocation of defense
costs and settlements in the future. The allocation under the
settlement agreement depends on the outcome of an appeal of two
issues to the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A summary of the number of and settlement amounts for asbestos-
related lawsuits and claims for the year ended November 30, 2013,
is as follows:

Lawsuits and claims settled:     $6 million
Settlement amounts:              $0.4 million
Insurance payments received or
       expected to be received:   $0.3 million

We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company operates in five segments: North America Adhesives,
Construction Products, Europe, India, Middle East and Africa
(EIMEA), Latin America Adhesives and Asia Pacific. Sales
operations span 40 countries in North America, Europe, Latin
America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East and
Africa. Industrial adhesives represent the Company's core product
offering. The Company also provides its customers with technical
support and solutions designed to address their specific needs.
The Company has a variety of product offerings for residential
construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grouts,
sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily
in the Company's Construction Products operating segment. In June
2013, HB Fuller Co announced that it has finalized the purchase of
Plexbond Quimica S/A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Recognized $3.2MM Fibro-related ARO
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company recognized an asset retirement obligation
liability of $3,236,000 at November 30, 2013, related to special
handling of asbestos related materials in certain facilities,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We recognize asset retirement obligations
(AROs) in the period in which we have an existing legal obligation
associated with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset, and
the amount can be reasonably estimated. The ARO is recognized at
fair value when the liability is incurred. Upon initial
recognition of a liability, that cost is capitalized as part of
the related long-lived asset and depreciated on a straight-line
basis over the remaining estimated useful life of the related
asset. We have recognized a liability related to special handling
of asbestos related materials in certain facilities for which we
have plans or expectation of plans to undertake a major renovation
or demolition project that would require the removal of asbestos
or have plans or expectation of plans to exit a facility. In
addition, we have determined that we have facilities with some
level of asbestos that will require abatement action in the
future. Once the probability and timeframe of an action are
determined, we apply certain assumptions to determine the related
liability and asset. These assumptions include the use of
inflation rates, the use of credit adjusted risk-free discount
rates and the estimation of costs to handle asbestos related
materials. The recorded liability is required to be adjusted for
changes resulting from the passage of time and/or revisions to the
timing or the amount of the original estimate. The asset
retirement obligation liability was $3,236,000 and $3,623,000 at
November 30, 2013, and December 1, 2012, respectively."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company operates in five segments: North America Adhesives,
Construction Products, Europe, India, Middle East and Africa
(EIMEA), Latin America Adhesives and Asia Pacific. Sales
operations span 40 countries in North America, Europe, Latin
America, the Asia Pacific region, India, the Middle East and
Africa. Industrial adhesives represent the Company's core product
offering. The Company also provides its customers with technical
support and solutions designed to address their specific needs.
The Company has a variety of product offerings for residential
construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grouts,
sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily
in the Company's Construction Products operating segment. In June
2013, HB Fuller Co announced that it has finalized the purchase of
Plexbond Quimica S/A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup Set to Begin at Former Citadel Plaza Site
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Horsley, writing for The Kansas City Star, reported that the
long-awaited cleanup of the failed Citadel Plaza development site
near 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue is finally set to begin, at
least in a small way.

Kansas City officials said test pit activity will begin and
continue for two to three weeks. It will take place on four to six
lots out of the 68 vacant lots identified for possible buried
asbestos. If contamination is found, it will be properly disposed
of, they said.

Results of those tests will set the stage for a full environmental
cleanup on the site later this year, said Andrew Bracker, the
city's brownfields coordinator. A brownfield is an area
contaminated by industrial or commercial use.

"It is the start," Bracker said of the process to address any
buried asbestos at the former development site -- encompassing
seven blocks -- so the city can try to market the location for
another developer.

Citadel Plaza was envisioned as an $80 million, 35-acre shopping
center with a grocery store, restaurants, other retailers and
housing. But the developer, CDC-KC, failed to properly monitor
asbestos removal before some homes were torn down in 2006, and the
project collapsed in a mess of environmental and financial
conflicts.

In November 2011, the Kansas City Council approved a $15 million
settlement to resolve lawsuits involving the development's
creditors. That settlement, made final in January 2012, gave the
city clear title to the land and freed the site for development.
But first the city has to make sure there is no more asbestos
contamination, and that process has taken much longer than
expected.

Consultants have taken samples from 154 properties and found only
one parcel with detectible asbestos fibers in the soil surface.
Subsoil contamination has been harder to determine.

Bracker said considerable research on more than 200 lots ruled out
contamination on all but 68 vacant lots. The city had hoped to
issue a cleanup contract in 2013, but that level of continuing
uncertainty about the 68 lots could lead to expensive bids,
Bracker said. So the city decided to proceed more slowly and do
the test pits. Even getting that contract in place took longer
than expected.

"We have not met our expectations with respect to the pace" of
cleanup, Bracker acknowledged.

The city has a $500,000 federal grant for cleanup and some bond
funds available, but Bracker said the city wants to conserve as
much money as possible for work needed before development begins.

The test pits are in the 6100 blocks of Park Avenue and Olive
Street. Bracker said the contractor will monitor air quality
before and during the activity and will take necessary precautions
to make sure no asbestos escapes into the air. Nearby residents
will not be at risk and will have access to their homes.

Bracker said it should take 45 days to get and interpret the test
pit results, and that will pave the way for a more complete
cleanup, which he hopes can occur by this summer.

The city also commissioned a market study about potential
development opportunities for the site, but the report released in
May 2013 wasn't overly encouraging. It saw no potential for a
convenience/neighborhood-oriented shopping center, noting there
are other struggling shopping complexes nearby.

The consultant's report recommended trying to attract four or five
regional traffic generators such as a Menards, Ross Dress for
Less, Target and Michaels. City officials have said they intend to
market the site aggressively, but that won't until the cleanup is
complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Rebuilding of S. Coffman St Complex
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rochat, writing for Longmont Times-Call, reported that the
burned-out apartment complex at 1322 S. Coffman St., in Longmont,
Colorado, will be rebuilt this year. But not quickly.

Owner Jon Bopp of Boulder said it will likely be the end of August
before the six-unit building is back in shape and ready to rent.
The holdup? Asbestos.

"The whole thing has to be taken down, abated and hauled off,"
said Bopp, who bought the building in 2002.

The Nov. 21 fire started accidentally. According to investigators,
the chimney chase -- the structure that a chimney pipe goes
through -- had deteriorated in the 40-year-old building, so that
it heated and combusted when residents lit their first fire of the
winter. The fire triggered an explosion in the attic, after which
ceilings began falling and windows bursting.

Twenty-five people were displaced by the fire.

"I feel bad for the tenants," Bopp said. "They couldn't take
anything out. All their possessions had to be taken to the
landfill because of the asbestos. It was tough on them, tough on
me -- we were all hurt in this disaster."

Asbestos removal tends to be a slow process anyway, given the
amount of paperwork and care involved. But that's even more true
for the South Coffman Street building.

Since fire burned through the roof, it's more difficult to make
sure that the work is properly sealed off. Any wind over 10 mph
means the removal has to stop until the air calms. If particulates
escape, the work has to stop until the source is found and choked
off.

Depending on how long it takes to go through the state's process,
it might be March before the big trucks with their big plastic
envelopes arrive to begin work. Even that's a guess, Bopp said.

Once the old building is down, he said, he'll try for a more
contemporary look on its replacement, or as much as the insurance
money allows. Starting over means a chance for newer carpet, newer
fixtures and the like. He'd been planning to do some remodeling
anyway, he said, but events forced his hand.

"The neighborhood needs to be improved," he said. "I don't know if
this'll do a big amount of improvement, but it'll help."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Fibro Left Behind After Telstra Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Kulich, writing for The Warragul Citizen, reported that
Louis Nelson from Warragul, in Victoria, Australia, noticed
several pieces of the material sitting on the cover of an
inspection pit outside his house and down the street, but it
wasn't until late the next day that the street was properly
cleaned up.

"I almost recoiled on the spot as if I saw a snake on the ground.
It's as if some kids have come along and lifted up the lid for a
look, and the asbestos pit lining has been broken up," Mr Nelson
told The Warragul Citizen.

"The lid [was] mostly put back in place, but the broken pieces are
just sitting on top of it, right next to the footpath. I reported
it immediately to Telstra's helpline, who seemed to take the issue
seriously."

A technician reached the pit this morning and Mr Nelson was told
the job was finished, but some material had been left behind.

"The lid had been put properly back into place and most of the
asbestos gone, however there was still a little piece left on top
of the lid," he said.

"I don't know what actually happened there or how they dealt with
it, but they didn't clean it up.

"They didn't even call me as requested about the other pieces down
the street."

A second technician was sent this afternoon and Mr Nelson said he
is now happy with the clean up but has expressed concern about how
the incident was managed.

"It's clear protocols aren't being followed here and it seems to
me that there isn't the level of seriousness in dealing with
asbestos in public areas which is required and called for by this
dangerous substance."

A Telstra spokesperson told The Warragul Citizen the company was
taking the incident seriously.

"We take these matters very seriously, especially in regards to
public safety," the spokesperson said.

"We have since had a second technician attend the site who has
removed some material and spoken to the local resident who
initially called us (Mr Nelson).

"We are testing some material that was on top of a pit lid to
determine its composition.

"We are urgently continuing to look into the matter."

Asbestos is a fine fibrous material which when inhaled can become
embedded in lung tissue. The possible health side-effects of
inhalation, which include asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma
and pleural disease, occur up to 30 years after the substances
enters the lung. These diseases often lead to death.

Mr Nelson has taken the incident as a chance to push for improved
education about the risks and prevalence of asbestos.

"It seems harmless enough at the time, but 30 years down the track
you could be on your way to dying a horrible death," Mr Nelson
said.

"Grown adults have no idea how prevalent this stuff is in our
houses and in our drainage and just about all public
infrastructure, it's everywhere.

"At a garage sale late last year in Warragul one bloke had a long
bit of pipe for sale in his front yard, and it was clearly
asbestos piping, and he was telling me he was trying to make a
pizza oven flu out of it."

Houses constructed between 1945 and 1980 usually contained large
amounts of asbestos, which was used as an insulator. Asbestos was
banned as a building material in 1989, and was only completely
banned from all new uses a decade ago.

Asbestos is still common, and statistics from the Australian
Government's National Health and Medical Research Council suggest
a majority of public buildings and around one third of private
dwellings built in the peak period of asbestos usage contain
asbestos in concrete, cement sheeting, pipes and insulation and
elsewhere. Much of the older housing in regional Victoria was
built in that period.

A number of older Telstra inspection pits are lined with asbestos.

"They talk about the third wave of asbestos victims now being home
renovators. I've driven down the street and seen people ripping
apart their awnings and any home that was built from the 1940s to
60s and onwards more than likely has asbestos in those awnings,"
Mr Nelson said.

"There should be education about this stuff from the earliest
possible point where kids can comprehend something like this.
There should be just as much emphasis on asbestos education as
there is for the harms of smoking."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Large Amount of Fibro Found After Fire in Petone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Herald reported that a large amount of asbestos
has been discovered in an abandoned school which caught fire
evening of Jan. 20 but the Fire Service says nearby residents are
in no danger.

Fifteen fire engines battled the blaze for about two hours after
flames engulfed a hall at the former Petone Technical College
campus.  The roof and external cladding were seriously damaged in
the blaze, senior station officer Rob Sullivan said.  The ceiling
had asbestos through it, but calm weather lessened the risk of the
dangerous substance being blown from the scene.

"All the fibres are kept wet, which is literally the fix-it . . .
you keep it all wet and that stops any fibres from becoming
airborne," he said.

Rain was a huge help in containing the asbestos.

The school had been targeted before by arsonists and the fire was
being treated as suspicious.  Police and fire investigators were
due back to determine its cause.

"But we've got a pretty good idea that it's not kosher," he said.

The building is expected to be demolished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Upholsterers Exposed to Deadly Dust For 5 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Nicholls, writing for Safety Sign Supplies, reported that a
firm in Rochdale, Manchester, England, has been fined after a
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspection discovered it had
been exposing its employees to potentially-fatal asbestos for five
years.

Mansfield Soft Furnishings Ltd, a furniture re-upholstery
business, had moved into a storage space in September 2007. The
roof of this space contained asbestos, and moving furniture in the
area would have thrown up clouds of dust containing fibres of the
hazardous chemical.

A HSE inspector visited the site in June 2012, noting what looked
like asbestos in the roof and that the company had not had an
asbestos survey carried out. A survey was ordered that discovered
large amounts of the material.

The HSE banned access to the building until the asbestos could be
removed, but the company director David Mansfield and another
employee ignored the warning signs and entered it in order to take
some furniture to the client.

Mansfield Soft Furnishings pleaded guilty to two breaches of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and was fined  GBP30,000.
Mr Mansfield himself was fined another GBP10,000 for breaching the
HSE's prohibition notice by entering the building.

The co-defendants were also ordered to pay GBP20,000 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scientists Nearing Magic Bullet v. Fibro Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANI News reported that researchers have come closer to finding a
cure for Mesothelioma -- a very aggressive cancer associated with
asbestos exposure -- usually diagnosed in an advanced stage.

In December, the research team of Antonio Giordano, an
internationally renowned pathologist, Director and Founder of the
Sbarro Health Research Organization in Philadelphia, PA and
Professor of Pathology and Oncology at the University of Siena,
Italy, published two separate studies aiming to address the urgent
need to identify possible new methods for mesothelioma treatment.

In the first study, published in the scientific journal Cell
Cycle, Giordano's researchers tested on mesothelioma cells the
effect of two drugs designed to reactivate the p53 protein, one of
the most important 'tumor suppressors', which is turned off in
most human cancers.

Lead author Francesca Pentimalli of the National Cancer Institute
of Naples "In mesothelioma, although p53 is rarely mutated, it is
inactivated by alterations in its pathway. Both of the drugs used
in the study target p53, but with different mechanisms of action.
One in particular, called RITA, proved to be very toxic.
Specifically, RITA caused mesothelioma cells, and not 'healthy'
cells, to undergo apoptosis - a type of programmed cell death that
occurs through the activation of a specific 'cascade' of events.

The second study, published online in Cancer Biology and Therapy
and led by Paola Indovina of the University of Siena and the
Sbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine,
Temple University in Philadelphia, was designed along the same
lines as the first study.

In the second study, the authors tested, for the first time in
mesothelioma, a new drug called MK-1775 in combination with
cisplatin. MK-1775 is a selective inhibitor of WEE1, a protein
that is crucial in activating a 'checkpoint' for the repair of
damaged DNA before the cell starts its division process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in Fibro Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Rhode Island court has
denied efforts by two hospital defendants to dismiss asbestos
claims asserted against them, ruling that until a discovery
dispute is resolved, the motion is premature.

In the Jan. 15 order, the Rhode Island Superior Court opined that
the subject of the discovery dispute -- contracts entered into
between the hospitals and contractors -- allegedly detail the use
of asbestos, which could potentially support their claims against
the premises defendants.

The plaintiffs contend that Leonard Lepore was exposed to asbestos
while working at the properties of Rhode Island Hospital and
Miriam Hospital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Help Hospices
-------------------------------------------
Halifax Courier reported that hospices in Yorkshire and Humber, in
England, have received more than GBP70,000 in the past 12 months,
thanks to legal rulings.

Asbestos lawyers from Irwin Mitchell's Leeds office have secured
the cash as part of their clients' claims.  It follows a landmark
ruling in a 2010 case led by Irwin Mitchell which found that
insurers of a company responsible for the death of a worker from
asbestos should contribute to his or her hospice care costs.

Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell acting for Jacqueline Prince, whose
husband Robert died of the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in
2012, secured costs of more than GBP6,000 for the Prince of Wales
Hospice in Pontefract, where Robert received care.

Jacqueline, 66, said: "This is what Robert would have wanted. He
could not have thanked the hospice enough for the support provided
to him by the wonderful doctors and nurses."

Irwin Mitchell secured GBP32,154 for St Gemma's Hospice in Leeds
to cover the care costs of former patients which the firm has
represented.

Ian Bailey, a partner and industrial illness expert at Irwin
Mitchell, said: " In times where fundraising has become more
difficult, I am very proud that we have been able to help our
clients support the hospices where they received their care at the
end of their lives.

"Our clients are always very clear that they want to benefit the
hospice where they were looked after by excellent carers."

Tracey Dick, director of business at St Gemma's Hospice in Leeds,
said: "We are extremely grateful to Irwin Mitchell for ensuring
that the full costs of the care given by St Gemma's is included in
any mesothelioma claim.

"All of our care is given free of charge to patients and families
but we have to raise the majority of our GBP9 million annual
running costs through donations, legacies, fundraising initiatives
and our chain of charity shops.

"The substantial contribution made through mesothelioma claims is
a valuable contribution and ensures St Gemma's can continue caring
for local people with terminal illnesses."

Other charities to benefit include Dove House, in Hull;
Wheatfields, in Leeds; St Catherine's, in Scarborough; St
Leonard's, in York; St Michael's, in Harrogate; and Marie Curie,
in Bradford.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WA High Court Set Feb. 13 Hearing in Boeing Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Washington's Workers' Compensation law, known as the
Industrial Insurance Act, is under fire over a mesothelioma
victims' lawsuit alleging The Boeing Company "deliberately
intended" to harm him because it knew of the dangers involved with
asbestos in the work environment.

In the case at hand, claimant Gary Walston worked at The Boeing
Company's hammer shop in Seattle from 1956 until 1992, where he
fabricated metal airplane parts. While he claims he worked with
and around asbestos-containing products throughout his career,
there was a time period in 1985 where crews were repairing pipe
insulation containing asbestos directly above Walston's work
station.

The insulation workers wore what Walston's co-workers called "moon
suits" for protection, but hammer shop workers continued working
without protective clothing or respirators.  The hammer shop
workers allegedly requested protection but were told to return to
work but try to avoid working directly under the overhead repairs
as dust and debris fell on the workers below.

Walston was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. He and his wife
filed suit against his employer. Boeing moved for summary judgment
dismissing Walston's claims, arguing employer immunity under the
exclusivity provisions of the IIA.

The trial court denied Boeing's motion, stating summary judgment
should only be granted "if it can be said that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact, that all reasonable persons could
reach only one conclusion, and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law."

The case went to the Court of Appeals, Division II, which reversed
the trial court and dismissed Walston's suit against Boeing on
Jan. 29, 2013.

Walston was granted discretionary review and moved to transfer the
case to the Washington Supreme Court.

Walston filed a supplemental brief in August arguing employers
should be held accountable for deliberate intention when the
employee can prove that the defendant knowingly and deliberately
forced the plaintiff to "suffer a toxic insult" over the
employee's objection, specifically when the parties involved are
aware of the potential dangers involved.

"Boeing deliberately intended to force Walston to inhale asbestos
and to produce lung injuries," the supplemental brief stated,
"which is the only way to produce mesothelioma."

Walston now seeks to include asymptomatic subcellular changes to
the list of compensable injuries, under the idea that an injury
can be defined as an employer's knowledge that workers are exposed
to harmful substances that could have negative effects on the
body.

"Since exposure to asbestos was not certain to lead petitioner to
develop mesothelioma, petitioner creatively alleges that
respondent Boeing's 'toxic insult' was certain to begin an
'invisible injurious process' of 'undetectable' subcellular
changes," Walston's brief states.

In an amicus brief filed Jan. 10, a group of reformers requests
the Washington Supreme Court to reaffirm the strict interpretation
of the IIA, specifically in reference to the "deliberate intent"
phrase.

Among the groups filing the brief are the American Tort Reform
Association, the American Insurance Association, the NFIB Small
Business Legal Center and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Legal
Newsline is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

"The IIA created a swift and certain no-fault workers'
compensation system for injured employees in exchange for granting
employers immunity from lawsuits arising from occupational
injuries," the brief stated. "The system reduces costs and fosters
predictability.

"An expansive interpretation of that IIA's narrow 'deliberate
intent' exception would violate the legislative intent embodied in
the IIA and lead to litigation that the legislature sought to
avoid."

However, the amici curiae argue that a manufacturer "has no duty
under common law products liability or negligence principles to
warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in products it did not
manufacture and for which the manufacturer was not in the chain of
distribution."

They say that the 60 trusts, operating a $36.8 billion privately-
funded asbestos compensation system, is the proper source for
compensation. Furthermore, altering the Workers' Compensation law
is not the answer to securing adequate rewards for asbestos-
related illnesses, they claim.

The group presented the amicus brief questioning whether an
employer could be held liable in a tort for "post-exposure
asymptomatic subcellular changes that merely reflect an increased
risk of disease" if the tort is viewed under a narrow "deliberate
intention" to injure exception to the IIA.

According to the IIA, disregard of occupational risks is not
sufficient to meet the requirements of "deliberate intent" to
injure, the group argues.

However, in Walston's supplemental brief, he claims that
"individual sensitivities to a toxic insult will always render
uncertain predicting whether someone will get a disease."

The amici argues that the petitioners want compensation for
injuries resulting from exposures that were not known to be
hazardous at the time, as well as pursuit of an asbestos lawsuit
with pain and suffering if they are able to prove fault.

"The worker wins in both situations," the brief stated. "What does
the employer receive in return? No immunity."

The amici argue that petitioners and plaintiffs in asbestos tort
cases "seek to erode, if not eviscerate" the IIA's exclusive
remedy rule, which could open the floodgates for future "toxic"
tort cases against employers

Ultimately, the amici implores the court to reverse its order and
grant Boeing summary judgment. Boeing satisfied its burden to show
that no disputed material facts existed, which shifted the burden
to Walston to prove that Boeing had actual knowledge that an
injury would occur, they argue.

The Washington Supreme Court scheduled a hearing on the issue for
Feb. 13, 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beaumont Fibro Law Firms Donate $45K to Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that two very
well-known law firms in Beaumont, Texas, are pumping tens of
thousands of dollars into Judge Donald Floyd's election coffers.

Since 1989, Floyd has presided over the 172nd District Court in
Beaumont -- the Southeast Texas city that birthed the Provost
Umphery and Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firms.

The firms' founders, Walter Umphrey and Wayne Reaud, earned
notoriety for their work in asbestos mass torts. Umphrey and
Reaud, two of the "Tobacco Five" lawyers, also earned fame by
negotiating a multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement for Texas in
1999, which netted $3.3 billion in attorney fees.

Floyd's campaign finance reports show that on Nov. 6, the PU firm
made a contribution of $15,000.

The report further shows Reaud & Associates made a donation of
$15,000 on Nov. 14. And almost two weeks later, Reaud, Morgan &
Quinn made a separate contribution of $15,000 on Nov. 26.

Floyd will face off against Republican challenger Rick Williams.

Every year, Floyd presides over civil lawsuits brought by the PU
and RMQ law firms.

In May 2008, Floyd, at the request of RMQ partner John Morgan,
tossed out a jury verdict in favor of chemical giant DuPont
without offering an explanation as to why, originally reported by
the Southeast Texas Record.

The RMQ firm, representing the family of Willis Whisnant Jr., had
unsuccessfully asked the jury to award its clients $1 billion in
damages, arguing that DuPont maliciously exposed Whisnant to
asbestos throughout his refinery career.

Since Floyd never clarified his reasons for granting a new trial
against DuPont, despite orders by the Texas Supreme Court to do
so, people can only speculate on his motives for granting RMQ's
motion for new trial.

A campaign finance report filed with Texas Ethics Commission shows
that on March 6, 2012, Floyd paid $300 to put an ad in The
Examiner -- a Beaumont newspaper owned by Reaud.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Unprepared for 'Third Wave' of Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gusman, writing for Property Casualty 360, reported that
insurers may be underestimating their exposure to a coming "third
wave of asbestos liabilities" by relying on outdated assumptions
and not accounting for factors such as longer life expectancy and
advances in medical knowledge, a research firm says.

In a January briefing, Assured Research, a research and analysis
firm for insurance and investment professionals, states, "Some
insurers have bravely, or naively, reported that the asbestos
environment is little changed in recent years. We disagree."

The firm argues that an "evolving body of medical literature"
combined with shifting societal and media trends point to "a third
wave of serious asbestos claims that will likely stain the
financial results of insurers for years to come."

Assured points out asbestos illnesses have a long latency period
that could reach beyond 40 years. With rising life expectancy
overall, the firm says people are more likely to live "into their
asbestos-induced disease," meaning they will live long enough to
discover their illness and then report a claim.

Advances in medical research should also concern insurers, the
briefing states. It points to studies indicating that the risk of
asbestos-induced lung diseases can be heightened not only by long-
term occupational exposures, but also by short but intense non-
occupational exposures, such as from a home renovation.

Furthermore, the briefing cites studies, including one published
in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,
that find a "malignant synergy" between asbestos exposure,
asbestosis and smoking.

As such, Assured says the typical plaintiff in this third wave may
be longtime smokers with non-occupational exposure to asbestos.
Assured says, "We believe the third wave will be dominated by
lung-cancer claims which are ostensibly lower quality than those
of mesothelioma because the cancer was predominantly caused by
smoking rather than asbestos."

The firm adds, "Nevertheless, large numbers of even lower-quality
claims could raise pressure on defendants anxious to settle and
minimize nuisance suits."

Assured also says the increasing use of high-resolution CT scans,
rather than "cloudier X-rays," may increase the diagnosis of
asbestosis, and social-media outlets make prospecting for
claimants by lawyers easier.

Worse for insurers, Assured believes current models used by
consulting firms "and most likely insurance companies" rely on
assumptions crafted in the mid-1980s and recalibrated once in the
later 1990s, and do not account for the new data on medical
research and life expectancy. The models, says Assured, generally
only account for occupational exposures, for example.

Speaking to the need to once again recalibrate models, Assured
says, "The result, we expect, would be higher forecasted claims
and an explanation for the series of annual 'surprises' that many
insurers relay each time they fund rising asbestos payments with
yet another 'one-time' annual reserve charge."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovered in Charleston Airport Renovation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren L. Wise, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that
Charleston International Airport is monitoring air quality in some
construction areas of the terminal after asbestos-laced materials
were discovered during demolition on two exterior walls.

The two areas include the front wall, which is being ripped away
to be replaced with glass to allow more light into the building,
and behind the outside wall of Concourse A. That area is being
expanded to include a new consolidated security checkpoint and
upper-floor administrative offices.

The 29-year-old terminal is in the throes of a $189 million
makeover. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to cancer.

"The uncovering of concealed asbestos-containing material is not
unusual in a building that is nearly 30 years old and in a
construction project of this magnitude," said John Connell, deputy
director of engineering and planning for the Charleston County
Aviation Authority.

Preliminary test results indicate that the glue used to install
vapor barriers or waterproofing material when the building was
constructed in 1985 contain asbestos materials, the agency said in
a statement.

"While we were demolishing those areas, we discovered that
material," Connell said. "It was concealed behind the walls. We
stopped work immediately, had it tested and it was confirmed that
it contained asbestos."

Airport officials notified the state Department of Health and
Environmental Control, which was sending someone to the site for
an inspection and advice on remediation.

"We will proceed with the appropriate removal," Connell said.

The affected areas were already barricaded from the public through
temporary construction walls when the materials with asbestos were
discovered.

"They are not in a public area," Connell said.

The discovery is not expected to affect air travelers or visitors
to the airport.

"We don't expect any impact on the operation of the airport,"
Connell said. "The airport remains a safe place to work and travel
through."

Airport spokeswoman Charlene Gunnells said workers and tenants at
the airport have already been notified of the asbestos discovery.

"The airport is acting swiftly to address this, and we want the
traveling public to know that the airport is safe," she said.

Before renovations began, the Aviation Authority hired experts to
survey and test for any asbestos that might be in the terminal.
Testing found limited asbestos-containing materials in the glue
under vinyl flooring in a handful of areas in the airport, and it
is being removed under state and federal guidelines.

Connell did not know if the work stoppage in affected areas will
delay construction.

"It will add to the cost," Airports Director Paul Campbell said.

Efforts will be made to remove the material without disturbing it
so it will not become airborne, Campbell said.

Terminal expansion and renovation involves adding five new gates,
a third baggage carousel, a new rental car pavilion, consolidated
security, a dome over the central hall, numerous other structural
and cosmetic changes and lots more natural lighting.

The project is expected to be completed in August 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Professor Explains Fibro Cases by Smokers
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that lung cancer cases are on the rise in asbestos litigation, and
one law professor says the incentive for plaintiffs' attorneys is
to obtain money from bankruptcy trusts set up to pay out
claimants.

Lester Brickman, professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law at Yeshiva University, said the 60-plus asbestos
trusts, operating a system of more than $36 billion, will pay
claimants who can get a doctor to prove they have asbestos damage
to the linings of the lungs even if they had or have a smoking
habit.

"What's happened is the trusts are paying a claimant, a smoker,
who can show occupational exposure to asbestos and can get a
doctor to say the lungs indicate occupational exposure," Brickman
said.

Brickman said claimants don't just apply to one trust. They get
money from 15 to 20 trusts, and their attorneys make money in the
process.

"They can get as much as $100,000 dollars in total from these
trusts," Brickman said. "Even if you don't bring any lawsuits, you
can get $100,000 for an unimpaired asbestos exposure," he said.

With asbestos trusts paying out, claimants can also file a tort
claim. Those lung cancer asbestos cases could always result in
settlements, Brickman pointed out.

"The number of lung cancer filings in the tort system based upon
asbestos exposure has no relationship to medical science,"
Brickman said. "It's entirely a function of the economic incentive
for asbestos lawyers to file suits.

"So the trust payments are providing the seed money for the
lawyers to gain recruitments."

Brickman said lung cancer asbestos claims originated as part of
litigation screenings during the 1980s and 1990s. Lawyers would
sponsor these screenings by sending fully equipped medical vans to
factory parking lots where unions would allow members to receive
free x-ray screenings, he says.  He added that most of the
readings attributing lung damage to asbestos from those x-rays
were bogus, though they generated about 500,000 claims of non-
malignant disease. Somewhere between four and 12 percent of the
screenings alleging asbestos-related injuries were true, he says.

"Because the x-rays could show lung cancer," Brickman said, "that
generated lung cancer cases."

Those lung cancer cases dropped after the screenings ended in the
early 2000s.  However, Brickman said lung cancer lawsuits have
increased significantly recently.

One such lawsuit is Carolyn McCarthy's. A nine-term Congresswoman,
McCarthy took a leave of absence from Congress while she fights
her lung cancer.

In her asbestos complaint, filed in October, she claims she was
exposed to asbestos fibers through her father's and brother's work
clothing when she was a child, also known as third-party exposure.
She also claims to have visited the two at their various work
sites over the years. Both worked as boiler makers.

Third-party asbestos occurs after workers exposed to asbestos
unwittingly wear their work clothing home and embed the toxic
fibers into their cars. Their families are then exposed to the
fibers through their clothing and their cars.

While this type of exposure has been proven before in previous
cases, Brickman said the basis of McCarthy's claim is that she has
found a doctor to determine that she has medical evidence to
asbestos exposure through scarring in the lungs.

Brickman says that while it is possible to develop lung cancer
from asbestos, approximately 90 percent of lung cancer is caused
by smoking.

McCarthy, represented by the Weitz and Luxenburg law firm, filed
her lawsuit against roughly 75 defendants.

Of those defendants, 25 have answered the lawsuit.

The defendants allege that McCarthy may have "significant" pre-
existing conditions factoring into her illness, specifically
McCarthy's lung cancer is the result of "other substances,
products, medications, and drugs, including by not limited to any
tobacco products."

The defendants also argued that McCarthy's injuries, if any,
should be exclusively remedied with the Workers' Compensation laws
in New York, and the lawsuit should not continue without involving
the various bankruptcy trusts.  They claim McCarthy did not work
with the asbestos-containing products and was therefore not
exposed to the hazards to incur damages.

"Plaintiff never purchased, directly or indirectly, any asbestos-
containing product or materials from Viking Pump, nor did
Plaintiff ever receive or rely upon any representation allegedly
made by Viking Pump.," one answer says.

Defendant Edison Company of New York, Inc. moved for summary
judgment.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler ordered on Nov. 12 that all claims
and cross-claims against Edison be dismissed with prejudice.

Requests for interviews or statements from Weitz & Luxenburg went
unanswered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunderland Electrician Launches Action Over Meso
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunderland Echo reported that a retired electrician diagnosed with
an asbestos-related cancer has launched a legal fight to
investigate how he was exposed to the deadly dust.

John Teasdale, from Sunderland, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
September after suffering from back pain and breathlessness.
Doctors told the 66-year-old it was most likely caused by exposure
to asbestos during his career as an electrician.  He instructed
law firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate where and when he was
exposed to the material so he can get what he believes is justice
for himself and his family.

John began his career as an apprentice at G.V. Cummins Ltd in 1962
and until 1970 carried out work at boiler houses in pubs and clubs
across Sunderland.  He later worked for firms Sunderland Forge and
Campbell & Isherwood where he worked on projects such as
shipyards, hospitals and schools between 1970 and 1972 and 1979
around Sunderland, Newcastle and Darlington. Father-of-two John,
who is undergoing chemotherapy treatment, said: "I spent a lot of
my professional career putting cabling in service ducts and
ceiling spaces where the pipework or boilers were lagged with
asbestos which I had no choice but to breathe in on a daily basis
as I had no protective clothing.

"It was a big shock to me when I was diagnosed with mesothelioma
and it has left myself and my family devastated as to what the
future holds for me.

"As a tradesman, I was never warned about asbestos and the
potential health risk it causes, so it never crossed my mind that
it would be a problem all these years later.

"I was looking forward to a long and happy retirement after
working hard all of my life."

Roger Maddocks, partner and an expert asbestos lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "While the dangers of asbestos have been well
known for decades, many companies and employers failed to take the
necessary action to protect both their workers and the local
community from the material.

"John worked as an electrician for many years and it is known that
during the 1970s many workers in the 'trades' worked closely
together so it is likely he was exposed to asbestos while plumbers
lagged pipes close by.

"Unfortunately many employers failed to give their workers the
necessary protective clothing such as face masks to stop them
breathing in the dangerous dust."

Any of John's former colleagues can contact the solicitors on 279
0091 or emailed via roger.maddocks@irwinmitchell.com.

A Government compensation scheme for those exposed to asbestos
began in 1979 and most claims are on policies dating back to the
1960s and 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prior Fibro Problems in Jacksonville, Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Varnum, writing for ActionNewsJax, reported that new
documents from Jacksonville, Florida, are giving insight into a
possible asbestos problem.

Neighbors in Springfield have big concerns after capturing
pictures of recent demolitions in their neighborhoods.  Action
News spoke to them, revealing the potential improper removal of
dangerous asbestos. It's an issue city leaders are now
investigating.

While the city doesn't know yet if that did happen in Springfield,
Action News found there has been a communication breakdown in the
two city departments that are supposed to protect you from
asbestos. Now, new documents given show the problem goes beyond
Springfield.

One shows a citation from 2011, complete with pictures before and
after demolition of the King Dragon Chinese restaurant in
Arlington. The violations included, failure of one city department
to notify the other about the demolition The 2011 citation also
noted not having a trained asbestos representative on site during
the removal. There was even a notice about asbestos demolition.

With the problems in the past and a new investigation being done,
the question still to be answered is did city demolitions put
neighbors at risk of a dangerous cancer causing material. Some say
yes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Closes Rooms at Halesowen School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that health and safety experts sealed off
the section of a teaching block at Earls High School, in
Halesowen, after finding the small amount of contamination in 10ft
of cast iron pipe.

The asbestos was discovered following a leak in the school's
heating supply.  The school was shut for two days to all pupils
while the heating was repaired.  Three drama classrooms and a
girls' toilet near the asbestos remain closed off as work is
carried out to remove it.

Vice-principal Rob Kew said he hoped the contamination will be
removed and for the classrooms to reopened the week following
removal.  He said: "The safety of our students and staff is our
priority and we have worked very closely with health and safety
experts to ensure it.

"All necessary steps to protect their safety have been followed
and every action taken.

"Asbestos is found in any building built before the 1950s."

Asbestos is not dangerous unless it is disturbed and fibres become
airborne. The Health and Safety Executive and a health and safety
team from Dudley Council have assisted the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at City Hall Nearly Completed
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sprague, writing for Whittier Daily News, reported that until
recently, the city was under impression that all the asbestos in
the old City Hall, in La Habra Heights, California, was removed,
then a layer of it was found under the roof.

So, a second round of removal is taking place and is scheduled to
finished, according to the project manager for the firm hired to
remove it.

Once the cleanup is completed, it will allow crews for Cal-City
Construction of Cerritos to get back on the job for the renovation
project.

Work was delayed about two weeks when asbestos was found in the
lower portions in roofs of two of the buildings at City Hall. The
removal is expected to cost an estimated $60,000, although that
figure could be lower, said Dave Nichols, the city's public works
manager.

The work began on Jan. 15 after their plan was approved by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Workers from Paramount-based Resource Environmental were removing
pieces of roof that also contain asbestos. The materials go into
double-lined bags that are then placed in a large bin. It will be
shipped to Azusa Reclamation, said Ernie Valdez, project manager
for the company.

"We're pulling it up layer by layer and bagging it," Valdez said.
"It's double-bagged and goes into the bin."

The workers wear protective gear with respirators. They also have
personal monitors to determine the air they're breathing. The two
roofs also are sealed up with plastic tarps.

There also are four pumps to check for air quality, said David
Tillema, senior project manager for Laguna Niguel-based Pacific
Environmental.

"It's mimicking what we breathe over an eight-hour period,"
Tillema said. "The workers have personal pumps. It goes over their
shoulder and breathes what they breath. It tells us how much
exposure they're getting."

Asbestos can cause cancer.

So far, the level of fibers from asbestos is lower than you would
find naturally occurring in downtown Los Angeles, Tillema said.

The project has raised concerns among some La Habra Heights
activists. Complaints were made to AQMD, which has sent inspectors
on a nearly daily basis to the work site.

AQMD officials in December found no asbestos on the site following
removal of it from the floor and boiler area.

But in January, it was determined there was asbestos in the lower
portions of the roof that needed to be removed.

George Edwards, who has sued the city to stop the project, said
the AQMD investigation was faulty. Edwards said he was concerned
about the safety of children at the nearby Heights Christian
Preschool.

But Mohsen Nazeni, deputy executive officer for AQMD, said Edwards
doesn't understand his agency's role.

"I don't know if he has a good grasp of what this agency does,"
Nazeni said.

AQMD's job is to make sure that the asbestos removal project is
being done safely.

"It's not our job to inspect facility to find where asbestos is,"
he said. "If you don't remove asbestos and leave it in place,
there is no danger. It's only dangerous when you start stir up the
material that could get in the air."

Nazeni said AQMD has requirements, which Resource Environmental
appears to be meeting.

"The contractor that is doing this work is not fly-by-night," he
said. "We've had experience with this contractor and we don't
think they try to cut corners."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Jury Awards $27MM Verdict to Cancer Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a jury in Ohio has awarded a
Cleveland-area man suffering from asbestos-related cancer a $27.5
million verdict.  The man's attorney tells The Plain Dealer that
it's the largest award of its kind in Ohio.

John Panza was diagnosed in 2012 with what is usually a fatal form
of lung cancer. The 40-year-old Panza got cancer after being
exposed to asbestos dust on the clothes of his father, who worked
at a plant that made brakes.

The December verdict means that Livonia, Mich.-based Kelsey-Hayes
Co. is responsible for the $27.5 million award to Panza and his
wife.

The company is the successor to the firm that made the asbestos
brake pads. A message seeking comment was left with the company's
attorneys.

The Plain Dealer reports an appeal is likely.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selah Grocery Closes Due to Fibro Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yakima Herald-Republic reported that a local grocery store in
Selah, Washington, has been closed because asbestos was detected
in the building, authorities said.

Save-On-Foods was undergoing a renovation but did not conduct the
asbestos test required by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency,
said agency spokesman Dave Caprile. Exposure to asbestos can lead
to various health issues including lung inflammation and cancer.

The agency received complaints, which led the store, at 800 N.
Park Centre, to shut down to allow an independent agency to
conduct a test, Caprile said. The test found there were minimum
amounts of asbestos present.

The store has remained closed while the site is cleaned up and
could reopen once a test verifies that there is no longer any
asbestos in the building, Caprile said.  The store is likely to
receive a notice of violation for not following procedures, he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Find Sparks OHS Probe
--------------------------------------------------
Siteri Sauvakacolo, writing for The Fiji Times Online, reported
that the New Zealand national Occupational Health and Safety team
is investigating the discovery of asbestos materials on the
ceiling of the Nasinu Secondary School boys' dormitory.

In a statement, Minister for Labour, Industrial Relations and
Employment  Jone Usamate said: "OHS inspectors had been assigned
to hold discussions with the school management and relevant
authorities and obtain samples to confirm whether it is asbestos
and investigate for proper removal and disposal upon confirmation
of asbestos."

"The National OHS Service liaises with the Ministry of Education
in all matters related to OHS in schools and only intervenes in
immediate threat situations.

"In the case of Nasinu Secondary School, we will provide all
necessary assistance to the Ministry of Education and the school
OHS Committee to ensure that the identified OHS issues are
addressed appropriately," Mr Usamate said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enhanced Regulations for Fibro Work Introduced
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vimita Mohandras, writing for Channel News Asia, reported that the
Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council and the Ministry of
Manpower in Singapore have announced enhanced regulations for work
involving asbestos, a substance that could potentially cause lung
cancer.

Many older buildings, especially those built before 1990, may have
asbestos-containing materials. These include corrugated roofs,
ceiling boards and partition walls.

The new WSH (Asbestos) Regulations will replace the existing
Factories (Asbestos) Regulations and take effect from May 1.
The new regulations come after three rounds of public
consultations conducted last year.

Under the new regulations, an expert must be appointed to
ascertain if asbestos-containing materials are present before
starting demolition or renovation works on buildings built before
1 January 1991.

If asbestos is present, it must be removed before demolition can
commence. The removal can only be carried out by an approved
asbestos removal contractor, under proper supervision.

"This will ensure that workers carry out these work activities
under proper management and protection. It will also prevent the
release of asbestos fibres into the air which can affect the
public," said Senior Minister of State for Health and Manpower Dr
Amy Khor.

To help the industry comply with the regulations, a new set of WSH
guidelines on the management and removal of asbestos has been
developed to guide contractors and building owners on the proper
management of asbestos-containing materials.

In addition, a video has been produced with the aim of educating
stakeholders on the health effects of asbestos exposure. The video
will illustrate examples of where asbestos can be found and
measures to apply in the management and removal process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. Court Remands "Davis" Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, in Charleston, on Jan. 28,
2014, granted a motion to remand filed by a plaintiff in an
asbestos-related personal injury action after the plaintiff
dismissed its suit against the defendant who removed the case to
the federal court.  Accordingly, Judge Copenhaver remanded the
case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.

The case is JOHN EDWARD DAVIS and GLORIA A. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v.
3M COMPANY and A. W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and AJAX MAGNETHERMIC
CORPORATION and AURORA PUMP COMPANY and BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. and
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, formerly known as Cooper
Cameron Corporation, and CERTAINTEED CORPORATION and CLEAVER-
BROOKS COMPANY, INC. and COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION and CRANE
COMPANY and DRAVO CORPORATION and FAIRMONT SUPPLY COMPANY and F.B.
WRIGHT COMPANY and FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, formerly known as
Durametallic Corporation, and BW IP, INC., other, Burns
International Services, formerly known as Byron Jackson Pumps, and
FLOWSERVE US, INC., formerly known as Durco International, Inc.,
and FMC CORPORATION and FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION and
GARLOCK, INC. and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and GEO. V. HAMILTON,
INC. and GOULDS PUMPS, INC. and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, formerly
known as Allied Signal, formerly known as Allied Corporation,
other Bendix Corporation, and HOWDEN-BUFFALO, INC. and I. U. NORTH
AMERICA, INC., other, Garp Company, formerly known as The Gage
Company, and IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as IMO DeLaval,
Inc., formerly known as DeLaval Turbine, Inc., DeValco
Corporation, and INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, formerly known
as Carborundum Company, and INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY and ITT
CORPORATION, doing business as Bell & Gossett Pumps, doing
business as Kennedy Valves, and J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES and
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, formerly known as Martin Marietta
Corporation, and McJUNKIN CORPORATION, now known as McJunkin
Redman Corporation, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and
NAGLE PUMPS, INC. and NITRO INDUSTRIAL COVERINGS, INC. and OHIO
VALLEY INSULATING COMPANY, INC. and OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. and its
predecessor in interest, other, Owens-Illinois Glass Co., and
PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, other, Abex Corporation, and PREMIER
REFRACTORIES, INC., formerly known as Adience, Inc., other,
Adience Company, LP, other, BMI, Inc., and RAPID AMERICAN
CORPORATION, in its own right and as successor in interest to and
liable for, other, Philip Carey Corporation, and RILEY POWER INC.,
formerly known as Riley Stoker Corporation, and ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION, INC. and SQUARE D COMPANY and STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS
LLC and SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., other, Sunbeam Corporation, and
SURFACE COMBUSTION, INC. and SWINDELL DRESSLER INTERNATIONAL
COMPANY and TACO, INC. and TASCO INSULATIONS, INC. and UB WEST
VIRGINIA, INC., formerly known as Union Boiler Company, and
VIACOM, INC., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, formerly
known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and VIKING PUMP, INC.
and VIMASCO CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-32308
(S.D.W.Va.).  A full-text copy of Judge Copenhaver's memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/KLpcnZfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Porta" Suit Enlarged
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, enlarged to the June 2014 Term the time to perfect
appeal in the case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to PORTA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS - CRANE CO.,
MOTION NO. M-6000 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Court's decision dated Jan. 30, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/xNhUPxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "D'Andrade" Suit Moved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, enlarged to the June 2014 Term the time to perfect
appeal in the case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to D'ANDRADE v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY - ESTATE OF
MISKILL - CRANE CO. - CRANE PUMPS & SYSTEMS, INC., MOTION NO. M-
6002 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Court's decision
dated Jan. 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/3pOpK5from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Requests in Mich. Criminal Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Essex and Roy Bradley, Sr., are charged with four
violations of the Clean Air Act.  The charges allege that Essex
and Bradley failed to properly handle, remove, and dispose of
asbestos-containing material during the renovation of a building
now used by the Bay City Academy.  Their co-defendant, Rodolpho
Rodriguez, is charged with obstructing the investigation into the
asbestos-related offenses and lying to the grand jury.

Essex and Bradley each filed several motions in limine.  Essex
filed six motions: (1) motion for a bill of particulars; (2)
motion to dismiss indictment; (3) motion for discovery; (4) motion
for extension of time to file motions; (5) motion to suppress; and
(6) motion to sever.  Bradley's four motions are substantially
similar and request the same relief as Essex's first four motions.

In an order dated Jan. 23, 2014, Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern
Division, among other things, denied Defendant Essex's and
Defendant Bradley's motions for Discovery pointing out that the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require the Government
to disclose the information the Defendants seek in their
respective motions.  Furthermore, Judge Ludington denied without
prejudice Defendant Essex's and Defendant Bradley's motions for
Extension of Time to File Motions because they do not offer any
further explanation of why an extension for filing motions in
limine is warranted.

Judge Ludington also denied Defendant Essex's and Defendant
Bradley's motions for Bill of Particulars after finding that the
indictment sets forth the elements of the offense charged and
sufficiently apprises both defendants of the charges to enable
them to prepare for trial.  Each count details the specific
actions that the defendants are alleged to have taken in violation
of 42 U.S.C. Section 7412(h).  The indictment also sets out the
names of all indicted co-conspirators, the relevant dates of the
violations, the means and methods of the violations, and the
location of the violations.

Moreover, Judge Ludington denied Defendant Essex's and Defendant
Bradley's motions to Dismiss Indictment after concluding that the
indictment states the relevant elements and provides sufficient
facts of the acts and locations attributed to the Defendants.

Furthermore, Judge Ludington denied Defendant Essex's motion to
Suppress Statement, holding that the failure to inform Essex that
he was a target before he made statements to the grand jury does
not mandate the suppression of his statements.  The Supreme Court
has rejected the argument that the failure to inform a target of a
grand jury investigation of his status as such is a constitutional
violation, Judge Ludington pointed out, citing United States v.
Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 189 (1997).

Lastly, Judge Ludington denied in part and granted in part
Defendant Essex's motion to Sever.  Inasmuch as Essex's motion
seeks to completely sever from his Co-Defendants Bradley and
Rodriguez, Essex's motion to sever is denied.  Essex's motion to
sever is granted to prevent a Bruton violation, and therefore the
trial will be bifurcated.  The proofs concerning Bradley and Essex
will be submitted to a jury before proofs concerning Rodriguez are
submitted.

The case is UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. D-1 ROY C. BRADLEY, SR.,
D-2 GERALD ESSEX, D-3 RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-
CR-20622 (E.D. Mich.).  A full-text copy of Judge Ludington's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/cQLx07from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Finds Company's Insurance Claim Time-Barred
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Southern Division, denied AC&R Insulation Co, Inc.'s
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and motion for
summary judgment in a lawsuit it filed against Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co., revolving around two
insurance policies -- a primary liability policy and an umbrella
policy -- for coverage in lawsuits arising from AC&R's asbestos-
containing products.

Judge Grimm found that AC&R's claim is time-barred, the evidence
on either side contains numerous gaps, and a ruling on the merits
would require him to resolve complicated issues of Maryland state
insurance law on an incomplete factual record.  Accordingly, Judge
Grimm declined to opine on the merits of the Plaintiffs' time-
barred claims.  Judge Grimm added that because the facts presented
by both parties at summary judgment may be relevant to whether an
amendment is prejudicial or merely conforms the pleadings to the
issues that are alive in the case, it was necessary to dispose of
summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to amend.

The case is AC&R INSULATION CO., INC., Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant, v. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE
CO., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. PWG-12-3528 (D.
Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Grimm's Decision dated Jan. 24,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/tAtvQDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies SLM's Bid to Dismiss "Engle" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
issued a decision and order on Jan. 22, 2014, denying Superior
Lidgerwood Mundy Corp.'s motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos personal injury action styled BETSY ANN ENGLE, as
Executrix of the Estate of ROLLAND M. ENGLE, deceased, Plaintiff,
v. 3M Company, et al. Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190284/12 (N.Y.
Sup.).

SLM argues, among other things, that there is no evidence to show
that plaintiff's decedent Rolland Engle was exposed to asbestos
from a product manufactured, supplied, or sold by M.T. Davidson.
SLM further argues that it is not responsible for replacement and
component parts used to maintain its valves that were manufactured
by third parties.

Judge Heitler find that, in light of the testimony presented in
the case, there is triable issue whether Mr. Engle worked with and
was exposed to Davidson's own asbestos-containing materials.
Judge Heitler said the Plaintiffs submitted a slue of documents in
the form of interrogatory responses, correspondence, testimony,
and Naval records which conclusively demonstrate that the Davidson
pumps supplied to the Navy specified and required the use of
asbestos components.  New York law, Judge Heitler said, is clear
that under these circumstances Davidson had a duty to warn of the
hazards associated therewith.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/3MbEwhfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *