CAR_Public/140214.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 32

                             Headlines


ABSOLUTE COLLECTION: Dist. Ct. Judgment in "Clark" Suit Vacated
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
AEROPOSTALE INC: $15MM Lawsuit Settlement Funded by Insurance
APPLE INC: Requires Customers to Provide ZIP Codes, Class Claims
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Violates RICO Act, Class Claims in Indiana

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: "Hymed" Suit Transferred to Pennsylvania
BIG LOTS: Seeks Dismissal of Ohio Securities Class Action
CALIFORNIA FAIR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Gaeton St. Cyr Suit Affirmed
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plan Member Seeks to Set Up Right to Benefits
CREDIT CONTROL: Class Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violations

DURHAM D&M: Removed "Pegues" Suit to W.D. Missouri
E.S. MANAGEMENT: Trial Ct. Ruling in Suit v. Kolman, et al. Upheld
EAST WEST BANCORP: Enters MOU to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
ENVIVIO INC: Defendant in Shareholder IPO Lawsuit
FOOT LOCKER: Pa. Wage & Hour Class Suit in Discovery Stage

FOOT LOCKER: 2nd Cir. Appeal in Age Bias Suit Remains Pending
FUSION-IO INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. California
GROCERYWORKS.COM LLC: "Cleveland" Suit Removed to N.D. California
HANSEN MEDICAL: Court Grants Final OK to Accord in Securities Suit
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Recorded $10-Mil Loss Provision as of Nov. 1

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed Claims in CityTime Program Suit
MERCK & CO: $100MM NuvaRing Settlement Gets Conditional Approval
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Removed "Vinson" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
NATIONAL MERCHANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Telemarketers Claim
NOVANT HEALTH: 18 Patients Likely Exposed to Rare Brain Disease

NTS REALTY HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Proposed Merger
PFIZER INC: Faces Personal Injury Suit Related to Lipitor Drug
PIE GUY: Recalls Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Martinez-Santiago" Suit Removed to D. N.J.
QUALITY LOAN: Trial Court Ruling in "Spinosi" Suit Upheld

ROSS STORES: Defendant in Wage & Hour Class Suit
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Directors Face Securities Suit in Del.
SENTRY CREDIT: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations in NJ
SCOTTS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Territory Service Reps Say
SEQUOIA SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says

SHOE CARNIVAL: Facing Ill. Suit Over Alleged FACTA Violations
SIBLINGS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear With Drawstrings
SICILIAN ICE CREAM: Recalls Bacio Tartufo Due to Undeclared Almond
SPARTAN: Recalls 66 Gladiator Cabs Due to Defective Radiator Fan
SPORT DESIGN: Recalls Junior Transitional Jackets - Celsius

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Five Product Liability Suits Over Riata
TARGET CORP: Faces "McFerrin" Breach-Related Suit in Alabama
TARGET CORP: Faces "Meeley" Suit in Kentucky Over Data Breach
TETRA PAK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims

U.S. SPECIALTY: Court Dismisses Class Cert. Bid in Wage Suit
U.S. SPECIALTY: "Jackson" Suit Parties to Engage in Discovery
UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Adams" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
UNITED STATES: Congress Removed "Cofield" Suit to District Court
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act

WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,307 Trailers
ZIONSOLUTIONS LLC: Dismissal of "Pennington" Suit Stands
ZUMIEZ INC: Reached $1.25MM Conditional Settlement in Steele Case


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPHC Allowed to Bypass Dist. Court in Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Emerges from Ch. 11 After 12 Years
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Records $74MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Had 2,700 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66,000 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Unit Had 21,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Estimates $1.4-Bil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Western Auto's Bid to Junk "Smith" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Partly Grants Bids to Junk "Wiacek" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Partly Grants Bid to Junk "Greene" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Court Won't Review Ruling in "Cary" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Cabasug" Suit Okayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Cabasug" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Flips Ruling in "DaBaldo" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prysmian Dropped as Defendant in "Olds" PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Scare Shuts Dickson Businesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Remands Action Over Waiver of Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middlesbrough Grandpa Dies After Receiving Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luton Council Faces Fibro Legal Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Raised Over Sunoco Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Northern NY Men Plead Guilty in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Suffers Fibro Disease From Husband
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brayton Purcell Releases Biggest Wins of 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears After Home Destroyed in Lawnton Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing in Sydney Houses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Hearing on Google Appeal in Defamation Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in South County Senior Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at New Zealand College Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglars Warned of Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Jury Awards $27MM in 2nd-Hand Exposure Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Cancer and Death of Factory Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SMART Procedure Doubles Patients' Survival Rate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Delays Opening of Barkingside Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Ducks Coverage for Insulator's Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct. Upholds Contractors' 10-Year Sentence

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Legal Challenge Planned for Stowey Quarry Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toledoan Who Dumped Fibro Gets Probation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Approves Fibro Removal at Tama School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Get Jail Time for Fibro Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Inspection at Calif. Univ.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diseases Continue to Take Toll on Aborigines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Excavator Fined for Stirring Dust in MPCA Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears of Fibro on Summer Hill School Playground
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. SC Rules for Insurer in Exclusion Dispute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed from Allendale School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piperhill Construction Fined GBP8K Over Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peck Place Elem. Students Move Into New School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burned Mill Contains Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Improves After Scare in Coburg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped in North East Lincolnshire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Faces Prison Over Fibro Removal


                             *********


ABSOLUTE COLLECTION: Dist. Ct. Judgment in "Clark" Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, vacated a
district court judgment entered in DANA CLARK, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; DAVID CLARK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-1151, and remanded the case for further
consideration.

This case involves a putative class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.
Dana Clark and David Clark (the Clarks) sued Absolute Collection
Service, Inc. (ACS), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, for its actions in attempting to collect a
debt. The Clarks alleged that ACS's collection notice violated
Section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA by stating that debtors only
could dispute the validity of their debt in writing. ACS moved to
dismiss the Clarks' lawsuit, contending that the collection notice
complied with the FDCPA because Section 1692g(a)(3) contains an
inherent writing requirement. The district court granted the
motion, and the Clarks appealed.

The Fourth Circuit found that the FDCPA clearly defines
communications between a debt collector and consumers. Sections
1692g(a)(4), 1692g(a)(5), and 1692g(b) explicitly require written
communication, whereas Section 1692g(a)(3) plainly does not.  "ACS
asks that we disregard the statutory text to read into it words
that are not there. We decline to do so," ruled the Fourth
Circuit.

Additionally, the Court found that Section 1692g(a)(3) permits
consumers to dispute the validity of a debt orally, and it does
not impose a writing requirement.

A copy of the Circuit Court's January 31, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/8BLIpIfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptabeck.com -- GUPTA BECK, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Sean T. Partrick -- spartrick@ymwlaw.com -- YATES, MCLAMB &
WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Craig M. Shapiro -- cshapiro@keoghlaw.com -- KEOGH LAW,
LTD., Chicago, Illinois; Joseph A. Bledsoe, THE BLEDSOE LAW FIRM,
Fayetteville, North Carolina; Gregory A. Beck --
greg@guptabeck.com -- Jonathan E. Taylor -- jon@guptabeck.com --
GUPTA BECK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Jennifer D. Maldonado -- jmaldonado@ymwlaw.com -- William T.
Kesler, Jr., YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Bodner, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Marc D.
Beer, Mark J. Fitzpatrick, Anne Marie Cook, and Mark Sumeray,
M.D., Case No. 1:14-cv-10105-MLW (D. Mass., January 15, 2014) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aegerion shares between March 15, 2012, and January 9,
2014, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Aegerion
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company, engaged in
the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to
treat debilitating and fatal rare diseases in the United States.
The Company's products include JUXTAPID (lomitapide) capsules, an
adjunct to a low-fat diet and other lipid-lowering treatments in
patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall W. Bodner, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP - MA
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 951-7050
          E-mail: rbodner@ropesgray.com


AEROPOSTALE INC: $15MM Lawsuit Settlement Funded by Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc., and plaintiffs have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims made in a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws, without any
admission of liability, for the amount of $15 million, all of
which will be funded with insurance proceeds, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 2, 2013.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and senior executive officers
Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named as defendants in
an action amended in February 2012, City of Providence v.
Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit
was filed in New York federal court on behalf of purchasers of
Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011 and August 18, 2011.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was experiencing
declining demand for its women's fashion division and increasing
inventory. A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25, 2013.
Aeropostale and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims made in this action, without any
admission of liability, for the amount of $15 million, all of
which will be funded with insurance proceeds. The agreement
remains subject to final documentation, notice to the class and
court approval.

Aeropostale, Inc., is a mall-based, specialty retailer of casual
apparel and accessories, principally targeting 14 to 17 year-old
young women and men through its Aeropostale stores and 4 to 12
year-old kids through its P.S. from Aeropostale stores. P.S. from
Aeropostale products can be purchased in P.S. from Aeropostale
stores, in certain Aeropostale stores, and online at www.ps4u.com.
As of January 28, 2012, it operated 986 Aeropostale stores,
consisting of 918 stores in 50 states and Puerto Rico, 68 stores
in Canada, as well as 71 P.S. from Aeropostale stores in 20
states. In addition, pursuant to a licensing agreement, it
operated 14 Aeropostale and P.S. from Aeropostale stores in Middle
East and South East Asia. In November 2012, the Company acquired
online women's fashion footwear and apparel retailer GoJane.com
(GoJane).


APPLE INC: Requires Customers to Provide ZIP Codes, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-10100-DPW (D. Mass., January 15, 2014) arises
from Apple's alleged violation of the Massachusetts General Laws.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the Laws through
its practice of requiring, as a condition of using a credit card
to make a purchase, the Plaintiffs' and the Class members'
personal identification information, specifically their ZIP codes.

Apple is a California corporation based in Cupertino, California.
Apple conducts business throughout the United States and
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Alexander Shapoval, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          1 Winnisimmet Street
          Chelsea, MA 02150
          Telephone: (617) 889-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 884-3005
          E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Violates RICO Act, Class Claims in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Kuhn, Mychelle Casel, Bryan Strohm, Shaun Booker and
Lester Rogers, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., Asset Acceptance, LLC,
Asset Acceptance Recovery Services, LLC, Legal Recovery Solutions,
LLC, Encore Capital Group, Inc., Rion B. Needs, Reid E. Simpson,
Deborah L. Everly, AAC Quad-C Investors, LLC, Quad-C Management,
Inc., Heartland Advisors, Inc., D3 Family Funds, LP, Nierenberg
Investment Management Co. and John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00059-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., January 15, 2014) alleges violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: "Hymed" Suit Transferred to Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled The Hymed Group
Corporation Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, et al., Case
No. 12-1385, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The
Pennsylvania District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00258-
JKG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit relates to coverage of Stevens' general liability
insurance policies issued by Auto-Owners.  The issue arises from
an underlying class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff in
connection with Stevens' sending out of junk faxes, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Auto-Owners is an insurance company with a principal place of
business in Michigan.  Stevens is an Arizona corporation with a
principal place of business in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
          Jeffrey Alan Berman, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: doppenheim@andersonwanca.com
                  jberman@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Barield Fopma, Esq.
          Henry S. Emrich, Esq.
          SECREST WARDLE LYNCH HAMPTON TRUEX & MORLEY P.C. (GR)
          2025 E Beltline Ave., Suite 600
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          Telephone: (616) 285-0143
          Facsimile: (616) 285-0145
          E-mail: afopma@secrestwardle.com
                  hemrich@secrestwardle.com


BIG LOTS: Seeks Dismissal of Ohio Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the putative class
action alleging that the Company made false or misleading
statements concerning its financial performance, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 2, 2013.

The Company states: "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and awaiting a decision.

"We believe that the shareholder derivative and putative class
action lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend
ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in these
lawsuits. While a loss from these lawsuits is reasonably possible,
at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss
that may result or whether the lawsuits will have a material
impact on our financial statements."

Big Lots, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a North
America's closeout retailer. At January 28, 2012, the Company
operated a total of 1,533 stores in two countries: the United
States and Canada. The Company operates in two segments: U.S. and
Canada. The merchandising categories include Consumables,
Furniture, Home, Seasonal, Play n' Wear, and Hardlines & Other.
The Consumables category includes the food, health and beauty,
plastics, paper, chemical, and pet departments. The Furniture
category includes the upholstery, mattresses, ready-to-assemble,
and case goods departments. The Home category includes the
domestics, stationery, and home decorative departments. The
Seasonal category includes the lawn and garden, Christmas, summer,
and other holiday departments. The Play n' Wear category includes
the electronics, toys, jewelry, infant accessories, and apparel
departments. The Hardlines & Other category includes the
appliances, tools, paint, and home maintenance departments.


CALIFORNIA FAIR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Gaeton St. Cyr Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In GAETON ST. CYR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA
FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B243159, the
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four
affirmed a trial court's determination that appellants failed to
state a cause of action against respondent.

In 1968, the Legislature enacted the California FAIR Plan to
provide property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable.
Appellants, who lived in high fire risk areas, were insured under
the FAIR Plan. Following the loss of their homes and other
tangible property following wildfires, appellants were paid the
full amount of their policy limits. Appellants contended, however,
that they were entitled to additional payments. The trial court
disagreed, determining that respondent California FAIR Plan
Association had met its contractual and statutory obligations to
them. The court dismissed appellants' actions against respondent,
after sustaining a demurrer to their first amended complaints.
Appellants contended the trial court erred, as they were entitled
to the protections provided in the standard form fire policy set
forth in Insurance Code section 2071.

The Calif. Appeals Court concluded that respondent fulfilled its
contractual and statutory obligations to appellants by timely
paying them the full amount of their policy limits. Thus,
appellants have failed to state a cause of action against
respondent under any theory of liability. Accordingly, the trial
court properly sustained respondent's demurrer to appellants'
first amended complaints.

A copy of the Calif. Appeals Court's January 31, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Tb0Jf3from Leagle.com.

Law Office of Denise Jarman, Denise Jarman --
denise@jarmaninsurancelaw.com ; Kreindler & Kreindler, and
Gretchen M. Nelson -- gnelson@kreindler.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants Gaetan St. Cyr, Doug Pace, Julie Pace, Marc Musicant,
Mark Kofler, and Chris Walden.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants Gary Reisenweber and Ivana Noell:

   Stephen C. Ball, Esq.
   John A. Roberts, Esq.
   Ball & Roberts
   300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
   Pasadena, CA 91101
   Telephone:  626-793-2117
               888-437-7298

For Defendant and Respondent:

   Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
   Raul L. Martinez, Esq.
   Elise D. Klein, Esq.
   221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
   Los Angeles, CA 90012
   Telephone: 213-250-1800
   Facsimile: 213-250-7900


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plan Member Seeks to Set Up Right to Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Plotnick, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Computer Sciences
Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Executives, and
Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00303-KM-MCA
(D.N.J., January 15, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of
participants in the CSC Plan, who retired from employment with CSV
before January 1, 2013, to establish their right to benefits under
the CSC Plan as it existed as of their retirement.

The Computer Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for
Key Executives is an "employee benefit plan" within the meaning of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that was
established and is maintained by Computer Sciences Corporation.
CSC is a global information technology services provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Matthew A. Smith, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com
                  msmith@cohenmilstein.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Class Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon S. Lighter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, d/b/a Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00319-FB-VVP (E.D.N.Y.,
January 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DURHAM D&M: Removed "Pegues" Suit to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pegues, et al. v. Durham D&M LLC,
Case No. 1316-CV30513, was removed from the Jackson County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:14-cv-00041-ODS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Kathleen P. Maloney, Esq.
          HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 283-8738
          Facsimile: (816) 283-8739
          E-mail: amaloney@hslawllc.com

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Alexander Thomas Ricke, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC-KCMO
          1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  atr@edgarlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory K. Wu, Esq.
          Katherine R. Sinatra, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP-KCMO
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: gwu@shb.com
                  ksinatra@shb.com

               - and -

          Rachel B. Cowen, Esq.
          DLA PIPER
          203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900
          Chicago, IL 60601-1293
          Telephone: (312) 368-7044
          Facsimile: (312) 251 5844
          E-mail: rachel.cowen@dlapiper.com


E.S. MANAGEMENT: Trial Ct. Ruling in Suit v. Kolman, et al. Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court ruling
entered in the case filed by E.S. Management against Timothy
Kolman, Michael Sless, Joel Hervitz, and Douglas Stanger.

Messrs. Kolman, Sless, Hervitz, and Stanger, appealed from the
judgment entered on December 21, 2012, in favor of E.S. Management
in the amount of $21,962.41.

The Appellants are the fathers of four college students who rented
a residential unit from E.S. Management pursuant to a written
lease. The Appellants guaranteed the obligations of all four
Tenants. The Tenants' lease expired on July 25, 2009, which was a
Saturday. The son of Mr. Kolman, Samuel Kolman, was the last to
leave the premises. He left the day before the expiration date, on
July 24, 2009. On his way out of town, Samuel dropped his key off
at E.S. Management's business office and let the person in charge
know that the apartment was vacant. Neither Samuel nor any of the
other Tenants supplied a new address at any time to E.S.
Management.  The next day, E.S. Management employees Robert Cohen
and Suzanne Marcini went to the unit to inspect it. There was
substantial damage to the apartment, well beyond normal wear and
tear, and eventually, on August 24, 2009, E.S. Management sent the
list of damages and a demand for payment of the amount due that
was not covered by the security deposit to each of the Appellants.
The Appellants refused to pay the difference and demanded payment
of double the amount of the security deposit.  The parties were
unable to resolve their differences and E.S. Management then filed
an action against the Appellants and the Appellants later filed
the first of their four versions of their Answer, New Matter, and
Counterclaim.

At various times, the Appellants' pleadings contained counts under
the Consumer Protection Law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act(RICO), and class action claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).  By order dated June 20, 2011,
virtually all of Appellants' counterclaims, cross-claims, and
class actions were dismissed with prejudice by the Honorable R.
Stanton Wettick, Jr. The current version of the Answer, New
Matter, and Counterclaim contains claims under the Landlord and
Tenant Act, [68 P.S. Sections 250.101 - 250.602]. It also contains
claims of wrongful use of civil proceedings, which were not
pursued.

Based on the credible evidence, the trial court concluded that,
since the Tenants never advised E.S. Management of their new
addresses, there was no violation of the Landlord and Tenant Act
and the trial court, thus, denied the Appellants' demand for
damages thereunder.  The trial court also concluded that E.S.
Management was entitled to the damages it sought in its claim, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs. The trial court thus entered
its verdict, in favor of E.S. Management and against Appellants,
in the amount of $21,406.25.

After reviewing the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record, and the opinions of trial judge, the Honorable
Judith L. A. Friedman, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
concluded that there has been no error in this case and that the
trial court's opinions, filed on July 13, 2012, October 22, 2012,
and January 4, 2013, meticulously and accurately dispose of
Appellants' claims on appeal.  "Therefore, we affirm on the basis
of the trial court's opinions and adopt them as our own," ruled
the Superior Court.

The case is E.S. MANAGEMENT, Appellee, v. TIMOTHY KOLMAN, MICHAEL
SLESS, JOEL HERVITZ AND DOUGLAS STANGER Appellants, NO. 1794 WDA
2012.

A copy of the Superior Court's January 31, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/83J8LWfrom Leagle.com.


EAST WEST BANCORP: Enters MOU to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
East West Bancorp, Inc., and MetroCorp entered into a memorandum
of understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a
putative class action challenging, among other things, the
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between East West and
MetroCorp and the proposed Merger, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated December 10, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 11, 2013.

MetroCorp, the members of its board of directors and East West
have been named as defendants in a putative class action filed on
behalf of MetroCorp shareholders filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (the "Court"), captioned In re MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 4:13-cv-03198 (the "Action"),
challenging, among other things, the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of September 18, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
between East West and MetroCorp and the proposed Merger.

On December 10, 2013, following settlement discussions, the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all claims under the Action, East West and MetroCorp
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed Merger, which are contained in the Current Report on Form
8-K.  East West has further agreed to forbear from requiring that
the full 3% termination fee payable by MetroCorp in the event that
the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances be
paid, instead requiring that a termination fee of 2.5% of the
merger consideration be paid in such circumstances. The memorandum
of understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in
good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including Court approval following notice to
MetroCorp's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into
a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect
the timing of the special meeting of MetroCorp shareholders, which
is scheduled to be held on December 16, 2013, but it may affect
the amount of merger consideration depending on whether the merger
consideration is calculated at $14.60 per share or 1.72 times the
per share tangible equity, as adjusted. The settlement is not, and
should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any defendant.

East West, MetroCorp, and the directors of MetroCorp continue to
believe that the Action is without merit and vigorously deny the
allegations that MetroCorp's directors breached their fiduciary
duties. Likewise, neither East West, MetroCorp nor the directors
of MetroCorp believe that any disclosures regarding the Merger are
required under applicable laws other than that which has already
been provided in MetroCorp's definitive proxy statement filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement"), which is included in the East West
registration statement on Form S-4. Furthermore, nothing in this
Current Report or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of
the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set
forth in this Current Report. However, to avoid the risk of the
putative shareholder class action delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger, to minimize the substantial expense, burden,
distraction and inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the claims, East West and MetroCorp have
agreed to make these supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement.

East West Bancorp, Inc. (East West) is a bank holding company.
East West's principal business is to serve as a holding company
for East West Bank (the Bank) and other banking or banking-related
subsidiaries. In addition to the Bank, the Company has 8 other
subsidiaries, namely East West Insurance Services, East West
Capital Statutory Trust III, East West Capital Trust IV, East West
Capital Trust V, East West Capital Trust VI, East West Capital
Trust VII, East West Capital Trust VIII, and East West Capital
Trust IX. At December 31, 2012, the Bank has four wholly owned
subsidiaries. E-W Services, Inc. holds property used by the Bank
in its operations. The secondary subsidiary, East-West
Investments, Inc., primarily acts as a trustee. The remaining
subsidiaries are East West Bank (China) Limited and East West
Securities Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. (Taiwan). In January
2014, East West Bancorp Inc completed the acquisition of MetroCorp
Bancshares Inc.


ENVIVIO INC: Defendant in Shareholder IPO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action on
behalf of purchasers of shares issued in an initial public
offering and generally alleges that the registration statement for
the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned
Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as
defendants the Company, each of our directors, our chief executive
officer, our chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of
our IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that
the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false
or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. On October 19, 2012 a
similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-
517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2, 2012 defendants
removed the cases to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California where they were assigned case
numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW. A similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v.
Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Company is, at this time,
unable to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on its
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any."

The Company is subject to claims and assessments from time to time
in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a
party to any other litigation matters that, individually or in the
aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

Envivio, Inc. is a provider of Internet protocol (IP) video
processing and distribution solutions, which enable the delivery
of video to consumers. The Company's solution is designed to
enable service providers and content providers to offer video
anytime, anywhere across a range of video formats, networks,
consumer devices and operating systems. Its software-based
solution runs on industry-standard hardware and includes encoders,
transcoders, network media processors all controlled through its
network management system. It enables service providers and
content providers to deliver linear broadcast and on-demand video
services to their customers through multiple screens, such as
tablets, mobile handsets, netbooks, laptops, personal computers
(PCs) and televisions. Its customers include mobile and wireline
telecommunications service providers, cable multiple system
operators (MSOs), direct broadcast satellite service providers
(DBSs), and content providers.


FOOT LOCKER: Pa. Wage & Hour Class Suit in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 2, 2013, Foot Locker, Inc., disclosed that the
consolidated purported wage and hour class actions against the
Company are in the discovery stages of proceedings.

The Company is a defendant in one case in which plaintiff alleges
that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The case,
Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his complaint, in
addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs. In 2009, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide collective action. During the course of
2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888 current and former
employees of the Company offering them the opportunity to
participate in the class action, and approximately 5,027 have
opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot
Locker filed in state court of California, Ghattas v. Foot Locker
filed in state court of California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker
filed in federal court of New York, all of these actions were
consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation with Pereira under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc.
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation. The
consolidated cases are in the discovery stages of proceedings. In
Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain
Illinois employees only. The Company's motion for leave to appeal
was denied. The Company has had and may in the future have
discussions with plaintiffs' counsel in an attempt to determine
whether it will be possible to resolve the consolidated cases and
Hill. Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously defending these class
actions. In Ghattas, the court has given final approval for a
settlement of the action. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
such matters, and because fact and expert discovery have not been
completed, the Company is currently unable to make an estimate of
the range of loss.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation, Hill, Cortes,
Kissinger, Ghattas, and Osberg, would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.

Foot Locker, Inc. is a global retailer of shoes and apparel,
operating 3,335 primarily mall-based stores in the United States,
Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand as of February 2, 2013.
The Company operates in two segments: Athletic Stores and Direct-
to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is an athletic footwear
and apparel retailer whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot
Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports, Footaction, and CCS. The
Direct-to-Customers segment includes Footlocker.com, Inc. and
other affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc. and CCS, which sell to
customers through Internet websites, mobile devices, and catalogs.
In September 2013, the Company acquired Runners Point Warenhandels
GmbH (Runners) from Hannover Finanz GmbH.


FOOT LOCKER: 2nd Cir. Appeal in Age Bias Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., and its U.S. retirement plan are defendants in
a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the
plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of
the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance
formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly
advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the
conversion. Plaintiff asserted claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA); (b) violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description; (c) violation of the
notice provision of Section 204(h) of ERISA; and (d) violation of
ERISA's age discrimination provisions.

In September 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Section 204(h) claim and the age discrimination claim.
In December 2012, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the remaining two claims, dismissing the
action. Plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 2nd Circuit, which appeal is currently pending.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters and the
current status of this case, Foot Locker is currently unable to
make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended November 2, 2013.

Foot Locker, Inc. is a global retailer of shoes and apparel,
operating 3,335 primarily mall-based stores in the United States,
Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand as of February 2, 2013.
The Company operates in two segments: Athletic Stores and Direct-
to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is an athletic footwear
and apparel retailer whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot
Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports, Footaction, and CCS. The
Direct-to-Customers segment includes Footlocker.com, Inc. and
other affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc. and CCS, which sell to
customers through Internet websites, mobile devices, and catalogs.
In September 2013, the Company acquired Runners Point Warenhandels
GmbH (Runners) from Hannover Finanz GmbH.


FUSION-IO INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Denenburg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fusion-Io, Inc., David A. Flynn, Shane V. Robison, and
Dennis P. Wolf, Case No. 4:14-cv-00242-SBA (N.D. Cal., January 15,
2014) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of Fusion-Io's publicly traded common stock between
January 25, 2012, and October 23, 2013, inclusive.

Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software systems company that
designs and manufactures memory storage solutions using flash
memory technology.  Flash memory, a type of solid state memory, is
traditionally used in small-scale applications, like mobile
devices and portable "flash drives."  Fusion-io's integrated
hardware and software solutions, however, allow the Company's
customers to utilize flash memory technology in large-scale data
centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com

Movant Sasan Hassani is represented by:

          Jonathan Krasne Levine, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com


GROCERYWORKS.COM LLC: "Cleveland" Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cleveland v. Groceryworks.com,
LLC, Case No. RG-13-707114, was removed from the Alameda County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00231-JCS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiff Darren Cleveland is represented by:

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq.
          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          580 California Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: stephenilg@gmail.com
                  lemma@sfemployment-lawyers.com
                  mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric Carl Sohlgren, Esq.
          James Lucian Payne, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-1100
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          E-mail: ecs@paynefears.com
                  jlp@paynefears.com

               - and -

          Samantha Noelle Evans, Esq.
          PAYNE AND FEARS LLP
          Jamboree Center
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 797-1289
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          E-mail: sne@paynefears.com


HANSEN MEDICAL: Court Grants Final OK to Accord in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc., has received final Court approval of a
settlement of the consolidated securities class-action lawsuit
related to the restatement of the Company's financial statements
that was first announced in October 2009, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated December 5, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2013.

On December 5, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted final approval of a settlement of
the consolidated securities class-action lawsuit related to the
restatement of Hansen Medical, Inc.'s financial statements that
was first announced in October 2009. The court had previously
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 25, 2013,
as disclosed by Hansen Medical, Inc. ("Hansen") on a current
report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on July 29, 2013.

As disclosed in Hansen's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2013 filed with the SEC on May 10, 2013,
the settlement agreement provides that the plaintiffs receive an
aggregate of $8.5 million, composed of (i) $4 million in cash from
Hansen's insurers and other sources, (ii) $4.25 million worth of
Hansen's common stock, and (iii) $250,000 in cash from Hansen.

The total number of shares of Hansen's common stock to be issued
in connection with the settlement will be 2,298,539 shares, as
determined by the average closing price of Hansen's common stock
for the 10 trading days preceding final court approval of the
settlement, which average was $1.8490 per share. The shares will
be issued by Hansen by December 19, 2013 and may be sold without
respect to any volume limitations.

In connection with the final court approval of the settlement, all
defendants, including Hansen, received a full and complete release
of all claims in the previously disclosed securities class action.
Hansen makes reference to its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2013 filed with the SEC on May 10,
2013, which disclosed that the shares are being issued pursuant to
an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of such Act.

Hansen Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets a
generation of medical robotics designed for accurate positioning,
manipulation and stable control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies. The Company's products include Sensei Robotic
Catheter System, or Sensei system, Magellan Robotic System,
Artisan Control Catheter, or Artisan catheter, Lynx Robotic
Ablation Catheter, or Lynx catheter and CoHesion 3D Visualization
Module, or CoHesion Module. During the year ended December 31,
2011, the Company had shipped a total of 109 Sensei systems, of
which 63 were shipped in the United States and 46 were shipped to
the rest of the world. During 2011, it had recognized revenue on a
total of 103 of these Sensei systems. As of December 31, 2011, it
had shipped one Magellan Robotic System in Europe and one vascular
research system in the United States. As of December 31, 2011, 76
Sensei systems the Company had shipped were configured with the
CoHesion Module.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Recorded $10-Mil Loss Provision as of Nov. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of November 1, 2013, Leidos Holdings, Inc., has recorded a loss
provision of $10 million, representing the low end of the
Company's estimated gross loss, related to lawsuits alleging,
among other things, negligence, breach of contract, breach of
implied-in-fact contract, and invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action, In Re:
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape
Data Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action
consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven
individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the
Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et
al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et
al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2)
Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE
Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4)Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was
transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an
IT services contract the Company was performing in support of
TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military,
retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally
identifiable and protected health information of approximately
five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no
evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually
been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an
unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup
tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific
hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data
structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted persons
by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services
to those who request these services and in certain circumstances,
one year of identity restoration services.

In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed
complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended
complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, California data breach notification
requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state
consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy
statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of
1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief,
including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys' fees, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims
made in the class action lawsuits. In November 2012, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company alleged
in the consolidated amended complaint and all substantive briefing
on the motion has concluded.

The Company has insurance coverage against judgments or
settlements relating to the claims being brought in these
lawsuits, with a $10 million deductible. The insurance coverage
also covers the Company's defense costs, subject to the same
deductible. As of November 1, 2013, the Company has recorded a
loss provision of $10 million related to these lawsuits,
representing the low end of the Company's estimated gross loss.
The Company believes that, if any loss is experienced by the
Company in excess of its estimate, such a loss would not exceed
the Company's insurance coverage. As these lawsuits progress, many
factors will affect the amount of the ultimate loss resulting from
these claims being brought against the Company, including the
outcome of any motions to dismiss, the results of any discovery,
the outcome of any pretrial motions and the courts' rulings on
certain legal issues.

The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division
of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and
the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA.
OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and
impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department
of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners'
contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with
TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) is a science and technology
solutions company focused on delivering solutions primarily in the
areas of national security, health and engineering. The Company is
a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiary is Leidos,
Inc., which delivers science and technology solutions in the areas
of national security, health and engineering to agencies of the
United States Department of Defense (DoD), the intelligence
community, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and
other United States Government civil agencies, state and local
government agencies, foreign governments and customers across a
variety of commercial markets. The Company's segments include
Health and Engineering and National Security Solutions. On
September 27, 2013, Leidos completed the separation of its
technical services and enterprise information technology services
business into an independent, publicly traded company named
Science Applications International Corporation.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed Claims in CityTime Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court on October 1, 2013, dismissed many claims
in the CityTime program complaint against Leidos Holdings, Inc.,
with prejudice, granted the plaintiffs leave to amend some claims,
and denied dismissal of limited claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended November 2,
2013.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated
securities complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that
the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements
or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income, and
internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the
CityTime project. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company
and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages
class members allegedly incurred by buying the Company's stock at
an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the district court
dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice, granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend some claims, and denied dismissal of
limited claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

The Company currently believes that a loss relating to the
stockholder matters is reasonably possible, but the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the range of loss in light of the fact that
these matters are in their early stages.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) is a science and technology
solutions company focused on delivering solutions primarily in the
areas of national security, health and engineering. The Company is
a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiary is Leidos,
Inc., which delivers science and technology solutions in the areas
of national security, health and engineering to agencies of the
United States Department of Defense (DoD), the intelligence
community, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and
other United States Government civil agencies, state and local
government agencies, foreign governments and customers across a
variety of commercial markets. The Company's segments include
Health and Engineering and National Security Solutions. On
September 27, 2013, Leidos completed the separation of its
technical services and enterprise information technology services
business into an independent, publicly traded company named
Science Applications International Corporation.


MERCK & CO: $100MM NuvaRing Settlement Gets Conditional Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a New Jersey state judge on
Feb. 7 signed off conditionally on a settlement that requires
Merck & Co. to pay $100 million to settle mass litigation over its
allegedly unsafe NuvaRing birth-control device.

Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti made the approval contingent
on achieving a 95 percent participation rate by plaintiffs in
about 3,800 filed and pending matters in New Jersey and Missouri
federal courts.

U.S. Judge Rodney Sippel in St. Louis also approved the deal on
Feb. 7.

The product, a contraceptive vaginal ring that releases hormones,
went on the market in 2001 after Organon -- a Dutch company with
its U.S. headquarters in Roseland -- in 2001 obtained Food and
Drug Administration approval.

The company was acquired in 2007 by Schering-Plough Corp., which
two years later was acquired by Merck.

The device allegedly causes blood clots in some women, leading to
increased risk of potentially fatal health problems like heart
attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction.

In August 2008, federal lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Missouri and
Georgia were centralized for multidistrict litigation in the
Eastern District of Missouri.  The New Jersey state court cases
were centralized before Judge Martinotti the following March.

The plaintiffs claim that Merck withheld information from the FDA
and failed to warn of NuvaRing's health risks.  They asserted
strict liability and warranty claims, among others.

Lengthy discovery was conducted, including about 100 depositions.
A bellwether trial was scheduled for last summer in the New Jersey
litigation for seven plaintiffs, including two fatal cases, but
Judge Martinotti dismissed them on summary judgment.  The
plaintiffs' appeal to the Appellate Division was stayed pending
the settlement negotiations.

A second bellwether trial, in Missouri, had been scheduled for
last month.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Removed "Vinson" Suit to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Vinson v. Metropolitan
Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2013-262, was
removed from the Independence County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00029-BRW to
the proceeding.

Gary Vinson alleges that the Defendant breached its contractual
duty to pay him and other Class Members the actual cash value of
their claims by unlawfully depreciating labor costs.

MetLife is a Delaware corporation conducting business in the state
of Arkansas with its principal place of business in Warwick, Rhode
Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred F. Tom Thompson, III, Esq.
          Casey P. Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          Post Office Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-2595
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stevan E. Vowell, Esq.
          Timothy Joseph Myers, Esq.
          Warner H. Taylor, Esq.
          William Benjamin Putman, IV, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          Post Office Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703-8310
          Telephone: (479) 443-5222
          E-mail: whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com
                  wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com
                  svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
                  tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq.
          WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
          Post Office Box 71
          Little Rock, AR 72203-0071
          Telephone: (501) 375-6453
          E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Melissa A. Economy, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          Sears Tower
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 876-7934
          E-mail: mhanover@sonnenschein.com
                  melissa.economy@dentons.com

               - and -

          Stuart P. Miller, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8896
          E-mail: smiller@mwlaw.com


NATIONAL MERCHANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Telemarketers Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kochilas and Ebony Copeland, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Merchant Services,
Inc., Reliable Management Services, Inc., Semyon Vays, Max Katsap,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00311-SLT-JMA (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2014)
alleged that the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs as hourly
inside sales telemarketers in their United States offices and
denied them overtime compensation as required by federal and state
wage and hour laws.

National Merchant Services, Inc., and Reliable Management
Services, Inc., are New York domestic corporations headquartered
in Brooklyn, New York.  NMS provides credit card processing
services to businesses nationwide, as well as providing cash
advances to small and medium-sized businesses.  The Individual
Defendants are residents of Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Brian Stoll, Esq.
          STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP
          475 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Telephone: (718) 852-3710
          Facsimile: (718) 852-3586
          E-mail: astoll@stollglickman.com


NOVANT HEALTH: 18 Patients Likely Exposed to Rare Brain Disease
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Jenkins and Marina Lopes, writing for Reuters, report that
18 neurological patients in North Carolina may have been exposed
to an incurable and fatal disorder similar to "mad cow" disease
while undergoing surgery at the Novant Health Forsyth Medical
Center because surgical instruments were insufficiently
sterilized, the hospital said on Feb. 10.

Surgeons operated on the 18 patients on January 18 using tools
that had not been sufficiently sanitized after they were used on a
man suspected of having Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), the
hospital in Winston-Salem said in a press statement.

"On behalf of the entire team at Novant Health, I apologize to the
patients and their families for having caused this anxiety,"
Jeff Lindsay, president of the medical center, said at a news
conference.

CJD causes failing memory, blindness, involuntary movement and
coma, and kills 90 percent of patients within one year, according
to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The condition is similar to mad cow disease, but is not linked to
beef consumption.

The incubation period -- before initial symptoms surface -- can
last years, the statement said.  After the first sign of symptoms,
most patients die within four months, it said.  The possibility of
contracting the disease through surgical exposure is very remote,
the hospital said.

Julie Henry, spokeswoman for the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services, said the department is aware of the
possible exposure of the 18 patients and is closely monitoring the
situation.

Last year, health officials said at least 15 patients in
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire may have been exposed
to the disease in a case similarly tied to unsanitary surgical
instruments.

In North Carolina, the surgical instruments were sterilized using
standard hospital procedures but were not subjected to the
enhanced sterilization procedures necessary on instruments used in
confirmed or suspected cases of CJD, the hospital statement said.
There are no treatments for the disease, which affects about 300
Americans each year, it said.

Every year, one in a million people around the world is diagnosed
with the disease, which can be contracted through organ
transplants or operations, said Florence Kranitz, president of the
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation.

"This is not something where there is a possibility they could
operate and get rid of it," Ms. Kranitz said.

"It is a 100 percent fatal brain disease robbing its victims of
their humanity pretty fast," she said.


NTS REALTY HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the
putative class action lawsuit relating to the Company's previously
proposed merger with Merger Sub, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated December 10, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 11, 2013.

On December 11, 2013, NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership
issued a press release to announce it has reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle the putative class action
lawsuit entitled Dannis, Stephen, et al. v. Nichols, J.D., et al.,
Case No. 13-CI-00452, pending against the Company, NTS Realty
Capital, Inc., our managing general partner ("Realty Capital"),
each of the members of the board of directors of Realty Capital,
NTS Realty Partners, LLC, NTS Merger Parent, LLC ("Parent") and
NTS Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub") in Jefferson County Circuit
Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The proposed settlement
involves claims relating to the Company's previously proposed
merger with Merger Sub (the "Merger") pursuant to that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger among Parent, Merger Sub, Realty
Capital and the Company (the "Merger Agreement") dated December
27, 2012. The special committee of Realty Capital's board of
directors (the "Special Committee") previously terminated the
Merger Agreement on October 18, 2013.

The proposed litigation settlement was conditionally approved by
the Special Committee and the board of directors of Realty Capital
at separate meetings held on December 10, 2013. Under the proposed
litigation settlement, Merger Sub would merge with and into the
Company pursuant to a merger agreement. If the merger is
consummated, the Company would continue as the surviving entity,
and all of Company' limited partnership units ("Units"), other
than Units owned by the Company' founder and the Chairman of
Realty Capital, J.D. Nichols, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Realty Capital, Brian F. Lavin, and certain of their
affiliates (collectively, the "Purchasers"), would be canceled and
converted automatically into the right to receive a cash payment
equal to $9.25 per Unit  (less attorneys' fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel, in an amount awarded by the Court, if any).

The proposed litigation settlement is subject to certain
conditions, including, among others:

* negotiation and documentation of a definitive litigation
settlement agreement, including, as exhibits thereto, merger and
voting and support agreements;

* receipt by Merger Sub of financing that is sufficient to pay the
merger consideration and related expenses of the transaction;

* distribution of a definitive proxy statement to our unitholders;
and

* approval by the Court.

The merger and related transactions are expected to be completed
in the first half of 2014. However, there can be no assurance that
the proposed litigation settlement will be approved by the Court
or that the merger will be consummated on the terms described
herein or at all. Upon consummation of the merger, the Company's
Units will be delisted from the NYSE MKT, the registration of the
Company's Units under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 will be terminated, and we will be a private company.

NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership is engaged in the business
of developing, constructing, owning and operating multifamily
properties, commercial and retail real estate. The Company
operates in three segments: multifamily, commercial and retail
real estate operations. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had
owned wholly, as a tenant in common with an unaffiliated third
party or through joint venture investments with both affiliated
and unaffiliated third parties, 23 properties, consisted of six
commercial properties, 15 multifamily properties and two retail
properties. The Company's commercial properties aggregate
approximately 607,000 square feet, and its retail properties
contain approximately 47,000 square feet. The Company owns
multifamily properties containing 4,391 units, which include 686
rental units at the Company's properties held as a tenant in
common with an unaffiliated third party.


PFIZER INC: Faces Personal Injury Suit Related to Lipitor Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Drusbasky, 1258 Madison Drive, Elizabeth, Pennsylvania
15037 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York
10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00063-NBF (W.D. Pa., January 15, 2014) is
an action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor
(also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium).

Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes,
supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for
resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical
practitioners.  Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of
cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Evans, Esq.
          JC EVANS LAW, P.C.
          436 7th Avenue
          The Koppers Building, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 642-2300
          Facsimile: (412) 642-2309
          E-mail: jcevans@jcevanslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  LCraig@myadvocates.com


PIE GUY: Recalls Frozen Meat Pie and Poutine Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Meat Pies Plus
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Meat Pies Plus is recalling various The Pie Guy brand frozen meat
pie and poutine products from the marketplace because they contain
milk, wheat, and gluten which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten should not
consume the recalled products described below.

These products have been sold in Ontario.

If you have an allergy to milk, wheat, or gluten, do not consume
the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

Affected products: All codes where milk, wheat, or gluten are not
declared on the label:

   -- Steak & Mushroom Pie;
   -- Lean Ground Beef Pie;
   -- Chicken Pie;
   -- Steak & Onion Pie;
   -- Steak & Kidney Pie;
   -- Steak & Veggie Pie;
   -- "Shepherds Pie"; and
   -- "Shepherds Poutine"


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Martinez-Santiago" Suit Removed to D. N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Martinez-Santiago v. Public
Storage, Case No. CAM L 4876 13, was removed from Camden County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-
cv-00302-JBS-AMD to the proceeding.  The lawsuit alleges fraud.

Jackeline Martinez-Santiago is represented by:

          Charles N. Riley, Esq.
          RILEY & SHAINE
          900 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-0379
          Telephone: (856) 667-4666
          E-mail: criley@rileysandilos.com

               - and -

          James A. Barry, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
          457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200
          Facsimile: (856) 661-8400
          E-mail: jbarry@lockslaw.com
                  mgalpern@lockslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua A. Zielinski, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
          Telephone: (973) 425-8147
          E-mail: jzielinski@mdmc-law.com

               - and -

          Jamie D. Taylor, Esq.
          Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
          MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 565-2043
          E-mail: jtaylor@mdmc-law.com
                  rdonovan@mdmc-law.com


QUALITY LOAN: Trial Court Ruling in "Spinosi" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel and Rose Spinosi appealed from a November 15, 2012 court
order denying their application for a preliminary injunction to
enjoin the foreclosure sale of their home. The trial court had
concluded that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits.

The plaintiffs filed their first lawsuit against defendants in
June 2011. In January 2012, Judge William M. Monroe sustained the
defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint -- without leave to
amend as to five causes of action and with leave to amend as to
four causes of action. Judge Monroe also denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction, ruling that
plaintiffs had failed to establish a probability of success on any
cause of action which would effectively stop any foreclosure.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint.

On July 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit against
defendants. Plaintiffs simultaneously filed an ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order and an order to show
cause to preliminarily enjoin the trustee's sale.  Judge Jamoa A.
Moberly granted plaintiffs a temporary restraining order and
scheduled an order to show cause hearing for a preliminary
injunction. Defendants peremptorily challenged Judge Moberly. The
case was reassigned to Judge David T. McEachen.

On September 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
captioned as a class action, thereby superseding the operative
complaint on which the temporary restraining order had issued. On
September 25, 2012, Judge McEachen transferred the case to Judge
Monroe. Judge McEachen stated that California Rules of Court, rule
3.300 (concerning related cases) is meant to prevent judge
shopping, although Judge McEachen stated, "I'm not saying that
that was [plaintiffs'] intent."

The hearing on plaintiffs' application for a preliminary
injunction finally was held on November 15, 2012. Defendants'
demurrer to the first amended complaint was also heard on that
date. Plaintiffs and their counsel did not appear nor did they
contact the court or defense counsel. Judge Monroe observed that
plaintiffs' allegation they tendered $16,786 "to wipe out the
entire arrears appears to have been a total fabrication, included
for the sole purpose of securing" a temporary restraining order.
In a lengthy ruling, Judge Monroe (1) found that plaintiffs had
engaged in illegal judge shopping and had hidden the illegal judge
shopping by failing to file a notice of related cases and failing
to advise Judge Moberly the new case was largely identical to
plaintiffs' prior lawsuit; (2) sustained defendants' demurrer to
the first amended complaint, with leave to amend two causes of
action; (3) denied plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion and
dissolved the temporary restraining order; and (4) scheduled an
order to show cause requiring plaintiffs' counsel to personally
appear concerning monetary sanctions for illegal judge shopping
and misleading a judge with false statements "regarding the
alleged $16,786.27 payoff and plaintiffs' bankruptcy filing/stay."

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, affirmed Judge Monroe's order saying the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by finding plaintiffs were unlikely to
prevail on the merits.

The case is JOEL SPINOSI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. G047664.

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 31, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/XOxrGkfrom Leagle.com.

Law Office of Lenore Albert and Lenore L. Albert --
lenalbert@interactivecounsel.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- Eric J.
Troutman -- ejt@severson.com -- Andrew A. Wood -- aaw@severson.com
-- and Kerry W. Franich -- kwf@severson.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


ROSS STORES: Defendant in Wage & Hour Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
As of November 2, 2013, Ross Stores, Inc., is a defendant in a
pending class action litigation alleging violation of wage and
hour and other employment laws, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on December 11, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended November 2,
2013.

Like many California retailers, the Company has been named in
class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and hour and
other employment laws. Class action litigation remains pending as
of November 2, 2013.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal and regulatory
proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.

Ross Stores, Inc. is an off-price apparel and home fashion chain
in the United States, with 1,091 locations in 33 states, the
District of Columbia and Guam. The Company operates two brands of
off-price retail apparel and home fashion stores: Ross Dress for
Less (Ross) and dd's DISCOUNTS. It offers designer apparel,
accessories, footwear, and home fashions for the entire family at
everyday savings of 20% to 60% off department and specialty store
regular prices. As of February 2, 2013, it operated 108 dd's
DISCOUNTS stores in eight states. dd's DISCOUNTS features brand
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for the entire
family at everyday savings of 20% to 70% off moderate department
and discount store regular prices.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Directors Face Securities Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matz Johansson, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Louis Ferrari, Ginger Constantine, M.D., Stephen O.
Jaeger, David P. Meeker, M.D., David Y. Norton, Robert G. Savage,
Virgil Thompson, Richard Crowley, John P. Hamill, and Philip K.
Yachmetz, Case No. 1:14-cv-00042-GMS (D. Del., January 15, 2014)
is brought against directors and officers of Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, non-Party Savient was a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on commercializing KRYSTEXXA
throughout the world.  KRYSTEXXA is indicated in the United States
for the treatment of chronic gout in adult patients refractory to
conventional therapy.  On October 15, 2013, Savient and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Savient Pharma Ireland Limited, filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.  As a result of Savient's bankruptcy, it has
not been named as a defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          201 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com


SENTRY CREDIT: Accused of Debt Collection Act Violations in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvira Marie Gabriel, Elvira Gabriel, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated v. Sentry Credit, Inc.; and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-00288-JLL-MAH (D.N.J., January 15,
2014) is brought for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

Sentry Credit, Inc. is a foreign corporation with a principal
place of business in Everett, Washington.  Sentry Credit, Inc.
uses mail, telephone, and facsimile to attempt to collect debts
alleged to be due another.  The identities of the Doe Defendants
are unknown.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


SCOTTS COMPANY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Territory Service Reps Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Hensley and Bradley Welch on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. The Scotts Company LLC and EG
Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00097-CAB (N.D. Ohio, January 15,
2014) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated non-exempt former employees of the Defendants, who worked
more than 40 hours in a workweek as territory service
representatives.

The Defendants required and permitted the Plaintiffs to work in
excess of 40 hours per week; however, the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours over 40, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Scotts Company, LLC is a foreign limited liability company
doing business in the state of Ohio.  EG Systems, Inc. is a
foreign business corporation doing business in the state of Ohio.
The Defendants provide lawn, tree, and shrub care and maintenance
services throughout Ohio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


SEQUOIA SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Bancroft, on behalf of Himself and those similarly
situated, 84 Deer Run Road, Perkasie, Pennsylvania 18944-2377 v.
Sequoia Supply, Inc., 1700 Cowpath Road, Hatfield, Pennsylvania
19440, Case No. 2:14-cv-00240-ER (E.D. Pa., January 15, 2014)
seeks to redress violation by the Company of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Company failed to
pay him proper overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.

Sequoia Supply, Inc. is a Pennsylvania business corporation with a
registered office located in Hatfield, Pennsylvania 19440.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. MacFarlan, Esq.
          1255 Easton Road
          Warrington, PA 18976
          Telephone: (215) 343-3700
          E-mail: davidm@macfarlanlaw.com


SHOE CARNIVAL: Facing Ill. Suit Over Alleged FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2013,
against Shoe Carnival, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, by printing the
expiration date of its customers' credit cards on transaction
receipts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on December
11, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended November 2, 2013.

The Company states: "On October 31, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois captioned Nicaj v. Shoe
Carnival, Inc. The complaint alleges that we violated certain
provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003, which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by printing the
expiration date of our customers' credit cards on transaction
receipts. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation
of this action as a class action, an award of monetary damages of
between $100 and $1,000 per violation, counsel fees and costs, and
such other relief as the court deems appropriate. This case is at
an early stage of litigation, and discovery has not begun. We are
still gathering information to evaluate this claim and our
defenses. As a result, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this claim. There can
be no assurance that the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows."

Shoe Carnival, Inc. is a family footwear retailer. The Company
offers customers an assortment of dress, casual and athletic
footwear for men, women and children with emphasis on national and
regional name brands. The Company's stores averaged approximately
10,800 square feet, ranging in size from 6,000 to 26,500 square
feet. As of January 28, 2012, the Company operated 327 stores
located across 32 states and offered online shopping at
www.shoecarnival.com. Its average store carries approximately
28,500 pairs of shoes in four general categories, such as men's,
women's, children's and athletics. In addition to footwear, its
stores carry selected accessory items complementary to the sale of
footwear. The Company operates a single 410,000 square foot
distribution center located in Evansville, Indiana. Women's, men's
and children's non-athletic footwear categories are further
divided into dress, casual, sport, sandals and boots.


SIBLINGS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear With Drawstrings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 4, 2014
Posting date:             February 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37801

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught
on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being
dragged.

Neither Siblings nor Health Canada has received reports of
incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 25000 of the recalled products were sold per year
since 2011 at Siblings and Urban Kid stores across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Pakistan and
Bangladesh and sold from January 1996 to Dec 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     YM Inc./ Siblings
                  Toronto
                  Ontario
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
hoodies to eliminate the hazard.


SICILIAN ICE CREAM: Recalls Bacio Tartufo Due to Undeclared Almond
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sicilian Ice Cream Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8587

Affected products: 36 count Bacio Tartufo Sicilian Ice Cream with
UPC (01)10771146370070(10)30123


SPARTAN: Recalls 66 Gladiator Cabs Due to Defective Radiator Fan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Chassis Cab
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           66
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014027
TC ID number:             2014027

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins ISM engines, the engine
cooling fan may fail and break apart.  If this occurs while the
hood is open, a person in the vicinity of the engine could be
struck by the blade and injured.

Dealers will replace the radiator fan and install a stiffener
disc.

Affected products: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Spartan Gladiator model


SPORT DESIGN: Recalls Junior Transitional Jackets - Celsius
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 5, 2014
Posting date:             February 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37805

Affected products: Junior transitional jackets - Celsius

The recall involves junior transitional jackets - Celsius, brand
name Verbio, grey color, style number 1383.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being
dragged.

Neither Sport Design Studio SDS Inc nor Health Canada has received
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 421 jackets were sold across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
September 2013 to January 2014.

Companies:

  Distributor     Sport Design Studio S.D.S. Inc.
                  Montreal
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the neck
area to eliminate the hazard.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Five Product Liability Suits Over Riata
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that five product
liability lawsuits filed against St. Jude Medical over its
recalled Riata defibrillator leads withstand a bid to dismiss
claims that St. Jude failed to warn about problems with the leads.

St. Jude Medical will face claims that it failed to warn patients
about problems with its Riata defibrillator leads before it yanked
the devices in 2010, after a federal judge shot down a bid to
dismiss the failure-to-warn claims.

Judge James Selna of the U.S. District Court for Central
California previously allowed claims for negligence and liability
for manufacturing defects, according to court documents, but had
ruled that the failure-to-warn claims were deficient and failed to
claim a link between the allegedly failed warnings and any
injuries.

When St. Jude pulled the devices off of shelves in 2010 it cited
issues with "externalized conductors as a result of inside-out
abrasion."  The FDA did not issue a recall notice on the device at
the time.  The company issued another warning on the devices in
November 2011 and the FDA gave the Riata leads Class I recall
status later that year after St. Jude said the defibrillator leads
failed more frequently than previously reported.


TARGET CORP: Faces "McFerrin" Breach-Related Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne McFerrin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00092-AKK (N.D.
Ala., January 15, 2014) is brought in connection with the
November-December 2013 security breach at discount retailer
Target.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
          GENTLE TURNER SEXTON DEBROSSE & HARBISON
          501 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 100
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 716-3000
          Facsimile: (205) 716-3010
          E-mail: ddebrosse@gtandslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara Anne Ford, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC
          400 20th Street, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581-0700
          Facsimile: (205) 380-9152
          E-mail: sford@lightfootlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Meeley" Suit in Kentucky Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Meeley on behalf of herself and a Class of persons
similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00035-
JGH (W.D. Ky., January 15, 2014) arises from the recent data
security breach at Target.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward, Esq.
          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building
          312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
                  alex@jonesward.com


TETRA PAK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Rafferty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Tetra Pak Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00293 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime.

Tetra Pak Inc. is a Texas corporation headquartered in Vernon
Hills, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Vincent Vito, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH V. VITO
          932 Pear Tree Lane
          Wheeling, IL 60090
          Telephone: (847) 279-2729
          E-mail: jvito.1979@gmail.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Cal. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Ahonen, individually and on behalf of all others v. Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00328-DSF-MRW (C.D.
Cal., January 15, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged
illegal actions in negligently and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading her privacy.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation conducted business in the state of
California and in the County of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

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


U.S. SPECIALTY: Court Dismisses Class Cert. Bid in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in ALBERT JACKSON, RICARDO JACKSON, and COLRIDGE
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated who were employed by Zoria Housing LLC and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Zoria Housing LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a HCC SURETY
GROUP, LAKHI ZORIA, and ZORIA HOUSING LLC and any related
corporate entities, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 156744/2012, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 002., 2013 NY Slip Op 33568(U), moved for class
certification with respect to their claims against defendants U.S.
Specialty Insurance Company d/b/a HCC Surety Group (HCC Surety),
Lakhi Zoria (Zoria) and Zoria Housing LLC (ZH), a general
contractor, for failure to pay a prevailing rate of wages,
supplements and overtime.

Defendants cross-moved, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law
and Rule 906 (2), to divide this proposed class into subclasses on
a per-project basis for the purpose of managing this case.
Defendants argued that this is warranted, because USSIC bonded
each project separately, and thus, the different job sites factor
into the determination of wages.

Judge Saliann Scarpulla of the Supreme Court, New York County
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as premature
at this stage of the litigation.  Defendants U.S. Specialty
Insurance Company d/b/a HCC Surety Group, Lakhi Zoria, and Zoria
Housing LLC's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 906 (a) was also
denied.

The Court directed the parties to appear for a discovery
conference in Room 335, on March 26, 2015, at 2:15 p.m.

A copy of the Supreme Court's January 28, 2014 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/FTWankfrom Leagle.com.


U.S. SPECIALTY: "Jackson" Suit Parties to Engage in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
captioned ALBERT JACKSON, ANDREW MITCHELL, and MICHAEL BARKER,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by Zoria Housing LLC and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Zoria Housing LLC, Plaintiffs, v.
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a HCC SURETY GROUP, LAKHI
ZORIA, and ZORIA HOUSING LLC and any related corporate entities,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 156616/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001, 2014 NY
Slip Op 30238(U).

The plaintiffs moved for class certification with respect to their
claims against the defendants for failure to pay a prevailing rate
of wages, supplements and overtime.

The motion for class certification is granted to the extent of
directing that pre-certification disclosure be conducted regarding
whether plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity, commonality and
superiority requirements of New York Civil Practice Law and Rule
901, ruled Judge Madden.

A preliminary conference will be held on March 6, 2014, at 9:30 am
in Part 11, room 351, 60 Centre Street, in New York, NY.

The plaintiffs are entitled to limited discovery to adduce
evidence to meet their burden of showing that the statutory
prerequisites to certification of a class are met, held Judge
Madden. The defendants are likewise entitled to limited discovery
on the statutory prerequisites, he added.

A copy of the Supreme Court's January 28, 2014 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/v3zTDdfrom Leagle.com.


UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Adams" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit titled Adams, et al. v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. CV-13-00199,
from the Circuit Court of Polk County, Arkansas, to the U. S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fort Smith).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02013-PKH to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bob Keeter, Esq.
          BOB KEETER, P.A.
          610 Church Street
          Mena, AR 71953-0229
          Telephone: (479) 394-1735

               - and -

          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 -

          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 -

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: 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 -

          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 Defendants are 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


UNITED STATES: Congress Removed "Cofield" Suit to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress of the United States, House of the Representatives
removed the purported class action lawsuit titled Cofield v.
United States of America, et al., Case No. 13ca8202, from the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00055 to the proceeding.
The case is brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

The lawsuit is initiated by Dr. Keenan Cofield, in Westover,
Maryland.  The Defendants are the United States of America,
President Barack Obama, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
National Institute of Standards & Technology, the Small Business
Administration, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, the Federal Communication Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Congress of the United States -- House of the
Representatives and the Congress of the United States -- United
States Senate.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kerry W. Kircher, Esq.
          William Pittard, Esq.
          Todd B. Tatelman, Esq.
          Mary Beth Walker, Esq.
          Eleni M. Roumel, Esq.
          Isaac B. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Thomas M. Sundlof, Esq.
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
          219 Cannon House Office Building
          Washington, DC 20515
          Telephone: (202) 225-9700
          Facsimile: (202) 226-1360
          E-mail: Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov
                  William.Pittard@mail.house.gov
                  Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov
                  MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov
                  Eleni.Roumel@mail.house.gov
                  Isaac.Rosenberg@mail.house.gov
                  Thomas.Sundlof@mail.house.gov


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., d/b/a Pottery Barn, Case No.
2:14-cv-00058-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 15, 2014) alleges violations
of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,307 Trailers
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           1307
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014025
TC ID number:             2014025

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

Dealers will replace affected deadbolt locks.

Affected products:

  Maker        Model                 Model year(s) affected
  -----        -----                 ----------------------
  WINNEBAGO    MINNIE                2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   BRISTOL BAY           2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2011,
                                     2012, 2013, 2014, 2011, 2012,
                                     2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   EDGEWATER             2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   HARMONY               2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   SUNSET CREEK          2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   TITAN                 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   REMINGTON MICROLITE   2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  WINNEBAGO    ONE                   2012, 2013, 2014
  WINNEBAGO    ULTRA LITE            2012, 2013, 2014
  WINNEBAGO    LITE FIVE             2012, 2013, 2014
  SUNNYBROOK   BROOKSIDE             2011, 2012, 2013, 2014


ZIONSOLUTIONS LLC: Dismissal of "Pennington" Suit Stands
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling in DAVID W. PENNINGTON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ZIONSOLUTIONS LLC and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-2878.

This is a class action suit on behalf of purported beneficiaries
of a "decommissioning trust" created by Commonwealth Edison, the
large electrical utility, to fund the decommissioning of its now-
shuttered nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois. Jurisdiction is
based on diversity of citizenship and the applicable substantive
law is Illinois', though federal regulation of decommissioning
lurks in the background.

The plaintiffs and the other class members are ComEd customers.
The two defendants are the current trustee (BNY Mellon) of a trust
(the Zion Trust) containing the assets that were originally in the
ComEd trust, and the company that is doing the decommissioning
(ZionSolutions) and drawing on the assets of the Zion Trust to pay
for its work.

The plaintiffs brought this suit against ZionSolutions and the
bank in 2011, claiming that the trust funds are being misused in
violation of both the Illinois Public Utilities Act and Illinois's
common law of trusts. The suit seeks the appointment of a new
trustee, an accounting, an injunction against improper expenditure
of trust funds, an order directing that "at least some of the
trust funds" be disbursed to ComEd customers at once, and other
relief. The district court, without deciding whether to certify a
class, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the ComEd Customers failed to
present a judicially cognizable claim. Accordingly, the litigation
must be, not suspended, but dismissed, as the district court
ruled.

A copy of the Circuit Court's January 31, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Wk41V8from Leagle.com.


ZUMIEZ INC: Reached $1.25MM Conditional Settlement in Steele Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2013, Zumiez Inc., and plaintiffs in the Steele
case agreed to a conditional settlement in the amount of $1.25
million which is contingent upon the preliminary and final
approval of the Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on December 11, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended November 2, 2013.

The Company states: "We are involved from time to time in claims,
proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of
business. We have made accruals with respect to these matters,
where appropriate, which are reflected in our condensed
consolidated financial statements. For some matters, the amount of
liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably
estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. We may enter
into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may
enter into settlement agreements if we believe settlement is in
the best interest of the Company's shareholders.

On February 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of all persons who are employed, or who have worked as, assistant
store managers for the Company in the State of California from
February 15, 2009 through the date of certification of the class
in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for work done off-the-
clock, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks (and to pay
meal and rest period premiums), failure to pay terminated
employees all wages due at the time of termination, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse employees for business expenses and unfair business
practices and declaratory relief. The Court has not set a date for
a hearing on class certification and has not set a trial date.

A second putative class action lawsuit, Ruben Hernandez v. Zumiez
Inc., was filed on September 3, 2013, alleging overlapping causes
of action. On or about October 22, 2013, the class action
allegations for the Hernandez case were dismissed without
prejudice.

On November 12, 2013, the parties in the Steele case agreed to a
conditional settlement in the amount of $1.25 million which is
contingent upon the preliminary and final approval of the Court
(the "Conditional Settlement"). The parties are in the process of
preparing a formal settlement agreement, and anticipate that a
motion seeking the Court's preliminary approval of the Conditional
Settlement will be filed with the Court within 45 to 60 days. The
settlement was recorded in selling, general and administrative
expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of income for
the three months ended November 2, 2013."

Zumiez Inc. (Zumiez) is a specialty retailer of action sports
related apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories operating
under the Zumiez brand name. As of January 28, 2012, the Company
operated 434 stores in the United States and 10 stores in Canada.
In addition, the Company operates a Website that sells merchandise
online. At January 28, 2012, its stores averaged approximately
2,900 square feet. Its apparel offerings include tops, bottoms,
outerwear and accessories, such as caps, bags and backpacks,
belts, jewelry and sunglasses. Zumiez's footwear offerings
primarily consist of action sports related athletic shoes and
sandals. Its equipment offerings, or hardgoods, include
skateboards, snowboards and ancillary gear, such as boots and
bindings. The Company also offers a selection of other items, such
as miscellaneous novelties.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPHC Allowed to Bypass Dist. Court in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware District Judge Sue L. Robinson certified for direct
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the
appeal by Specialty Products Holding Corp. from the bankruptcy
court's order setting the debtors' present and future asbestos
claims at $1.1 billion.

"I recognize that Third Circuit precedent gives the bankruptcy
courts wide-ranging discretion in making their estimation
determinations, leaving the district courts unhelpful at best,
impotent at worst, in any attempts to promote the resolution of
these complex cases.  Given that the Third Circuit has not
directly addressed the estimation process in the context of the
asbestos litigation, it strikes me that, consistent with 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 158(d), having appellate input earlier in the process would
go far in establishing needed guidance for the parties going
forward," Judge Robinson said.

There is also pending a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by
appellees in Misc. No. 13-194-SLR.  Judge Robinson said she will
consider the motion once the Third Circuit has made its
certification determination.

The case before the District Court is, SPECIALTY PRODUCTS HOLDING
CORP., et al., Appellants, v. OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANTS and the FUTURE CLAIMANTS'
REPRESENTATIVE, Appellees, Civ. No. 13-1244-SLR., 13-1245-SLR (D.
Del.).  A copy of Judge Robinson's Feb. 7, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/pyg8txfrom Leagle.com.

                     About Specialty Products

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

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

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

Counsel to the Official Committee of Asbestos PI Claimants are
Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq., and Mark A. Fink, Esq. of Montgomery,
Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, in Wilmington Delaware, and Mark
B. Sheppard, Esq. of the firm's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
division.

Counsel to the Future Claimants' Representative are James L.
Patton, Jr., Esq., Edwin J. Harron, Esq., Edmon Morton, Esq.,
Sharon Zieg, Esq., and Erin Edwards, Esq. of Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.

Competing bankruptcy exit plans have been filed by the Debtors, on
one hand, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and
the Future Claimants' Representative on the other.

The Debtors' First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization and the
explanatory Disclosure Statement, dated Nov. 18, 2013, provides
for an asbestos trust to be established and funded with cash to
pay present and future asbestos-related claims.  The trust will be
funded by secured notes, issued by the Debtors and their ultimate
parent, RPM International Inc. ("International"), and the amounts
and terms of the notes will, with one exception, be determined by
the final outcome or settlement of the litigation that will
determine the asbestos claimants' rights in the chapter 11 cases.
The one exception is that the notes will provide for an aggregate
initial nonrefundable payment of $125 million to the asbestos
trust irrespective of the outcome of any litigation.  In short,
the Debtors and International have committed to pay to asbestos
claimants the maximum amount to which they are entitled based on
the applicable judgments or rulings in the litigation that will
determine the extent of the claimants' rights in the chapter 11
cases, and to make comparable payments to other similarly situated
creditors.

The PI Committee and the FCR's Third Amended Plan, filed Oct. 15,
2013, provides that: (i) SPHC will be separated from non-Debtor
direct or indirect parent Bondex International; (ii) Reorganized
SPHC will be managed and/or sold for the benefit of holders of all
Claims that are not paid in Cash, subordinated, cancelled or
otherwise treated pursuant to the Plan; (iii) all of SPHC's causes
of action will survive; (iv) Asbestos PI Trust Claims against SPHC
will be channeled to an Asbestos PI Trust; and (v) current SPHC
equity interests will be cancelled, annulled, and extinguished.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Emerges from Ch. 11 After 12 Years
------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and its debtor affiliates notified the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that they have
satisfied or waived conditions to the occurrence of the effective
date of the First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
co-proposed by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, the Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative, and
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders.  The effective
date of the Plan occurred on Feb. 3, 2014.

The Joint Plan establishes two independent trusts to compensate
asbestos personal injury claimants and property owners.  The
trusts will be funded with more than $4 billion from a variety of
sources including cash, warrants to purchase Grace common stock,
deferred payment obligations, insurance proceeds, and payments
from former affiliates.

The Grace contribution to the Asbestos PI Trust includes:

     * Cash of approximately $471 million (which includes
       approximately $35 million of interest from January 1, 2009
       to December 31, 2012 on $250 million of such amount under
       the terms of the asbestos personal injury settlement
       announced in April 2008).

     * A warrant to acquire 10 million shares of Grace common
       stock at an exercise price of $17 per share expiring one
       year from the Effective Date of the Joint Plan.  Pursuant
       to an October 25, 2012 agreement with the PI Committee,
       the PI FCR and the Equity Committee, Grace will repurchase
       the warrant for a price equal to the average of the daily
       closing prices of Grace common stock during the period
       commencing one day after the effective date of the Joint
       Plan and ending on the day prior to the date the Asbestos
       PI Trust elects to sell the warrant back to Grace,
       multiplied by 10 million (the number of shares issuable
       under the warrant), less $170 million (the aggregate
       exercise price of the warrant), provided that if the
       average of the daily closing prices is less than $54.50
       per share, then the repurchase price would be $375
       million, and if the average of the daily closing prices
       exceeds $66.00 per share, then the repurchase price would
       be $490 million.  The agreement is terminable by the
       Asbestos PI Trust in the event a tender offer, or other
       proposed transaction that would result in a change in
       control of the Company, is announced during the one year
       period after the effective date of the Joint Plan. In such
       event, the warrant would be settled in stock.

     * Deferred payments of $110 million per year for five years
       beginning January 2, 2019 and of $100 million per year for
       ten years beginning January 2, 2024.

     * Rights to proceeds from Grace's asbestos-related insurance
       coverage.

The Grace contribution to the Asbestos PD Trust includes:

     * With respect to Asbestos PD Claims, excluding U.S. and
       Canadian ZAI PD Claims, a deferred payment obligation to
       fund Allowed Claims resolved after the Effective Date and
       Asbestos PD Trust Expenses.

     * With respect to U.S. ZAI PD Claims, a deferred payment
       obligation of $30 million payable on the third anniversary
       of the Effective Date and up to ten contingent payments of
       $8 million per year during the 20-year period beginning on
       the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date.  These
       contingent payments will be made only in the event certain
       conditions are met, including that the assets available in
       the Asbestos PD Trust to pay these claims fall below $10
       million in value.

     * With respect to Canadian ZAI PD Claims, a payment of
       approximately C$8.6 million to the Canadian ZAI PD Claim
       Fund.

In addition to the trust contributions, Grace will pay bank
lenders some $1.1 billion, which includes $500 million in loans
that were outstanding when the company filed for bankruptcy
protection in 2001.  All allowed claims of non-asbestos creditors
will be paid in full.

Sealed Air Corp. and Fresenius Medical Care AG are also
contributing to Grace's asbestos trusts.  Sealed Air, which
purchased Grace's Cryovac business, will contribute directly to
the Asbestos PI Trust and the Asbestos PD Trust a total of (i)
cash of $512.5 million plus accrued interest of 5.5% compounded
annually from December 21, 2002, and (ii) 18 million shares of
Sealed Air common stock.  Sealed Air common stock is priced at
$30.03 per share as of Feb. 3.

Fresenius will contribute directly to the Asbestos PI Trust and
Asbestos PD Trust a total of $115 million.

On April 2, 2001, Grace voluntarily filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve
its asbestos-related liabilities.  The Company was in bankruptcy
for more than 12 years.  The Baltimore Sun said Grace's Chapter
11 case is one of the longest on record.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out that during its bankruptcy,
Grace dealt with billions of dollars in asbestos liabilities
while its stock climbed from less than $2 a share to more than
$90.  The Journal related that Grace stock closed at $1.52 per
share on April 2, 2001, the day after it filed for bankruptcy.
On Feb. 3, the stock closed at $92.28 per share.  The Journal
also pointed out that, unlike shareholders in most bankruptcies,
who can only stand by while equity is wrested out of their hands
and given to creditors, Grace's shareholders will continue to own
their piece of a company with a market capitalization topping
$7 billion.

                       About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.  Grace employs
approximately 6,500 people in over 40 countries and had 2012 net
sales of $3.2 billion.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).

The Debtors are represented by Adam Paul, Esq., and John Donley,
P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Roger
Higgins, Esq., at The Law Offices of Roger Higgins, in Chicago,
Illinois; and Laura Davis Jones, Esq., James E. O'Neill, Esq.,
and Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones,
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Debtors hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial
advice.

Roger Frankel serves as legal representative for victims of
asbestos exposure who may file claims against W.R. Grace.  Mr.
Frankel, a partner at Frankel Wyron LLP, replaces David Austern,
who was appointed to that role in 2004.  Mr. Frankel has served as
legal counsel for Mr. Austern who passed away in May 2013.  The
FCR is represented by Frankel Wyron LLP as counsel; Phillips
Goldman & Spence, P.A., as Delaware co-counsel; and Lincoln
Partners Advisors LLC as financial adviser.

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.

W.R. Grace defeated four appeals from approval of the Plan.  A
fifth appeal was by secured bank lenders claiming the right to
$185 million of interest at the contractual default rate.
Pursuant to a settlement announced in December 2013, lenders are
to receive $129 million in settlement of the claim for additional
interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Records $74MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Meritor Inc. recorded $74 million for asbestos-
related liabilities, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 29, 2013.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,600 and
5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at December 31, 2013 and
September 30, 2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named
in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused
their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even
hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining its asbestos-related liability.

At December 31, 2013, Maremont recorded $74 million for asbestos-
related liabilities and $58 million for corresponding asbestos-
related insurance recoveries.

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

Pending and Future Claims: Maremont engages Bates White LLC (Bates
White), a consulting firm with extensive experience estimating
costs associated with asbestos litigation, to assist with
determining the estimated cost of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims that have been, and could reasonably be
expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White prepares these
cost estimates annually in September. Although it is not possible
to estimate the full range of costs because of various
uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would be
possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the
cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving
pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical
data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur
in the future.

Bates White provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range
of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $73 million to $80 million. Management
recognized a liability of $73 million as of December 31, 2013 and
September 30, 2013, as the most likely and probable liability for
pending and future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate
cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on
the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by
law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with
Maremont. Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental
insurance receivables associated with recoveries expected for
asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities for pending and future claim changes. Maremont
currently expects to exhaust the limits of its settled insurance
coverage prior to the end of the ten-year forecasted liability
period. Maremont believes it has additional insurance coverage,
however, certain carriers have disputed coverage under policies
they issued (see "Recoveries" below). Because no insurance
receivable is currently recognized for these policies in dispute,
Maremont recognized a $9 million charge in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2013 associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-
related liabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recoveries: Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial
portion of the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related
claims. The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related
liabilities is $58 million as of December 31, 2013 and September
30, 2013. The receivable at December 31, 2013 is for coverage
provided by two insurance carriers based on coverage in place
agreements. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining
limits provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten-years.
Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance
carriers that management believes covers indemnity and defense
costs. Maremont has incurred liabilities allocable to these
policies but has not yet billed these insurance carriers, and no
receivable has been recorded for these disputed policies. During
fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a lawsuit against these
carriers, seeking a declaration of its rights to insurance for
asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection
of insurance proceeds. The difference between the estimated
liability and insurance receivable is primarily related to
proceeds received from settled insurance policies and claims for
which coverage under Maremont's insurance policies is in dispute
with the insurer. Certain insurance policies have been settled in
cash prior to the ultimate settlement of the related asbestos
liabilities. Amounts received from insurance settlements generally
reduce recorded insurance receivables.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Unit Had 2,700 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Meritor, Inc., had approximately 2,700 pending
active asbestos claims, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2013.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability
for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of
the automotive business from Rockwell International in 1997. At
December 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013, there were approximately
2,700 and 2,600, respectively, pending active asbestos claims in
lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as
defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify
any of Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if
any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products,
and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the
claimants will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For
those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. For these reasons, the company does not
consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a
meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities.

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As
of September 30, 2013, Bates White provided an estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $40 million to $45 million. Management recognized a
liability of $40 million as of December 31, 2013 and September 30,
2013, as the most likely and probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next ten years. The ultimate cost of
resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the
history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law
firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $13 million at December 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013.
Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million
at December 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013 that are associated
with policies in dispute. Rockwell maintained insurance coverage
that management believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over
and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The
company has initiated claims against certain of these carriers to
enforce the insurance policies, which are in various stages of the
litigation process. The company expects to recover some portion of
defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to date, over and
above self-insured retentions, and some portion of the costs for
defending asbestos claims going forward. The amounts recognized
for policies in dispute are based on consultation with advisors,
status of settlement negotiations with certain insurers and
underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining
receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by one
carrier based on an insurance agreement in place. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66,000 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had 66,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2013.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period
to period.

For the three months ended December 31, 2013, Ashland had 66,000
asbestos-related claims.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2013 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be
decreased by $28 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were
$455 million at December 31, 2013 compared to $463 million at
September 30, 2013.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2013.
The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London
insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality
ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy
obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity.
Ashland discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the
projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless
likely settlement amounts can be determined.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companies
seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to
provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland has
initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certain
Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company and
Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entities
have wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At December 31, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $405 million, of which $91 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $408
million at September 30, 2013. During the June 2013 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers, was completed. This model update
resulted in a $3 million decrease in the receivable for probable
insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Unit Had 21,000 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland Inc. had 21,000 asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2013.

Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to
asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to
asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products
which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a
limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period
to period.

For the three months ended December 31, 2013, Hercules had 21,000
asbestos-related claims.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2013 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be increased by $46 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $337 million at December 31, 2013 compared to $342
million at September 30, 2013.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013 and September 30, 2013, the receivables
from insurers amounted to $75 million. As previously mentioned,
during the June 2013 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This
model update caused a $19 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Estimates $1.4-Bil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., estimated that total future litigation defense and
claim settlement costs on asbestos-related lawsuits could reach
$1.4 billion, 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.

Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from
approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible
that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on
an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as
approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos-related
litigation and approximately $640 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in the
aggregate).

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned
previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models
ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos-
related litigation and approximately $640 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,
2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of the
assets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,
LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition of
International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,
Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, which
include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,
the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Western Auto's Bid to Junk "Smith" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a products liability action brought by Plaintiffs Carlton and
Lucille Smith against multiple defendants including Defendant
Western Auto Supply Company.  The Complaint contends that Mr.
Smith was exposed to asbestos-containing automotive parts
including engines, gaskets, brakes and/or clutches while
performing shadetree automotive work from 1966 to 2006.  Western
Auto is an automotive parts retailer.  The Smiths allege that Mr.
Smith was exposed to asbestos-containing products that he
purchased at a Western Auto store while performing personal
automotive work and developed lung cancer as a result of this
exposure.

Unrelated to the claims against Western Auto, the Complaint also
alleges occupational exposure while Mr. Smith was working as
welder for Bakers Equipment from 1966 to 1968, as a laborer for
Shipment Rittmen from 1968 to 1970 and as a welder for Stanley
Smith & Sons from 1970 to 1995.

In a decision dated Jan. 24, 2014, the Superior Court of Delaware,
New Castle County, granted Defendant Western Auto's Motion for
Summary Judgment holding that, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, the Smiths have failed to
present sufficient evidence to permit a jury finding that exposure
to an asbestos-containing product attributable to Western Auto was
a substantial cause of Mr. Smith's lung cancer.

The case is CARLTON L. SMITH and LUCILLE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. NO. N12C-06-
286 ASB (Del. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Court's Decision
dated Jan. 24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/gSZ1hCfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Carlton L. Smith and Lucille Smith is represented by:

         Kara Hager, Esq.
         NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK LLP
         300 North Market Street
         Building One, Suite 100
         Wilmington, Delaware 19801
         Tel: 302-300-4625

Defendant Western Auto Supply Company is represented by:

         Peter J. Faben, Esq.
         WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA
         901 North Market Street Suite 810
         Wilmington, Delaware 19801
         Tel: (302) 4219935


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Partly Grants Bids to Junk "Wiacek" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
issued two orders on Jan. 27, 2014, in the asbestos personal
injury action styled MALGORZATA WIACEK, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of MARIAN WIACEK, deceased, Plaintiffs, v.
3M Company, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190096/12, MOTION SEQ.
NO. 009 (N.Y. Sup.), granting in part and denying in part two
defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross-claims asserted against them.

Judge Heitler separately granted in part and denied in part the
motions for summary judgment filed by defendant North Safety
Products LLC and defendants Bacou-Dalloz Safety, Inc., Bacou-
Dalloz USA Safety, Inc., Dalloz Safety, Inc., and Willson Safety,
holding that the Court cannot find as a matter of law that Mr.
Wiacek would not have heeded the Defendants' warnings were they to
be given, or that any warning was adequate in the circumstances.
As such there remains a triable issue of fact concerning the
adequacy of the warnings provided by the Defendants in respect of
their respirators designed to be used for asbestos abatement,
Judge Heitler said.

Judge Heitler denied the branches of the Defendants' motions,
which seek to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause
of action and to the extent that the Plaintiffs allege a failure
to warn claim against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' second
cause of action for breach of warranty as against the Defendants
is severed and dismissed in its entirety.  To the extent the
Plaintiffs allege a manufacturing or design defect claim against
the Defendants, that claim is dismissed for failure of proof.

Full-text copies of Judge Heitler's decision and order are
available at http://is.gd/GQVcDPand http://is.gd/HkQONefrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Partly Grants Bid to Junk "Greene" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part defendant General Dynamics Corporation's the motion for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint filed by Lejon Greene
("Decedent") alleging exposure to asbestos, inter alia, while
working aboard a Navy ship during the period of 1978 to 1987.
General Dynamics argued that (1) the Plaintiffs cannot establish
that the Decedent's illness and death were caused by asbestos
exposure for which the Defendant is liable, (2) it is immune from
liability by way of the government contractor defense, and (3) it
is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of the sophisticated
user defense.

Judge Robreno held, "Defendant General Dynamics is entitled to
summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' strict product
liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product" within the
meaning of strict product liability law.  With respect to
Plaintiffs' remaining negligence-based claims, Defendant General
Dynamics has not established that it is entitled to summary
judgment on any of the other bases it has asserted.  First,
Defendant has failed to identify the absence of a genuine dispute
of material fact with respect to Plaintiffs' negligence claims,
because Plaintiffs have identified sufficient evidence to support
a finding of negligence.  Second, Plaintiffs have produced
evidence to controvert Defendant's proofs regarding the
availability to Defendant of the government contractor defense.
Finally, General Dynamics has not presented evidence to establish
that Decedent was a sophisticated user of the asbestos-containing
products at issue as is required to support the sophisticated user
defense under maritime law.  Accordingly, with respect to
Plaintiffs' negligence claims, summary judgment in favor of
Defendant General Dynamics is not warranted."

The case is SUZANNE QUIROZ-GREENE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS
DEE ENGINEERING CO., ET AL., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED MDL NO. 875,
CASE NO. 11-05133, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-67756-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Order dated Jan. 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/K9fp0Xfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Court Won't Review Ruling in "Cary" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several defendants in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
jointly filed a motion for clarification of a part of a court's
ruling in a motion to compel.  The Defendants also requested an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether disputed documents are
discoverable.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, considered the
Defendants' motion for clarification as a motion for
reconsideration as they seek to advance new arguments and ask the
Superior Court to reconsider its Decision to grant the Plaintiff's
discovery request for photos and video footage taken by the
Defendants during a June 23, 2011 site inspection.

In a decision dated Feb. 7, 2014, the Superior Court denied the
Defendants' motion and their request for an evidentiary hearing,
pointing out that the Defendants had ample time and opportunity to
offer their own recounting of the site inspection or to request an
evidentiary hearing to establish the facts before the Court issued
its ruling on the Plaintiff's motions to compel.

The case is GLORIA CARY, as Executrix of the Estate of LAWSON
CARY, JR., and as Surviving Spouse v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. NO.
PC 10-3263 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Court's
decision dated Feb. 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/eY3hRT
from Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., Lisa Storti, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Lawrence
G. Cetrulo, Esq., Stephen T. Armato, Esq., Jonathan P. Michaud,
Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Cabasug" Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii granted defendant Viad Corp.'s motion for
reconsideration of a limited portion of the Court's prior order in
the asbestos-related personal injury action styled ROBERT A.
CABASUG and JOYCE C. CABASUG, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 12-00313 JMS/BMK (D. Hawaii).

Viad seeks reconsideration of a limited portion of the December
27, 2013 Order, which states that "Viad concedes that it is the
successor to Armour."  Viad asserts that its concession was made
for the limited purpose of its Motion for Summary Judgment, and
that it does not concede for all purposes or future actions that
it is a successor corporation to Armour.  Judge Seabright agreed
that reconsideration is appropriate -- in its Motion for Summary
Judgment, Viad explicitly stated that "[f]or purposes of this
motion only, Viad will not contest that it is a corporate
successor to Armour DE."

Accordingly, Judge Seabright granted Viad's Motion for
Reconsideration, clarifying that Viad conceded that it was the
successor to Armour for purposes of its Motion for Summary
Judgment only.

A full-text copy of Judge Seabright's Decision dated Feb. 7, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/ncjK6Nfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Cabasug" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii granted two defendants' motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss the asbestos-related personal injury
ROBERT A. CABASUG and JOYCE C. CABASUG, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 12-00313 JMS/BMK (D. Haw.).

Plaintiffs have named Defendants Maxim Evaporators, LLC, and Viad
Corp. as successors in interest to companies that allegedly
included asbestos components in their products to which Cabasug
was exposed -- Maxim's alleged predecessor is Emhart Manufacturing
Company, and the Plaintiffs assert that Viad's alleged
predecessors include Griscom-Russell Company, and "Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton."  Maxim and Viad both argue that the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that Cabasug was exposed to any asbestos
components supplied or manufactured by Emhart, GRC, or any BLH
entity, and in any event Maxim and Viad are not the legal
corporate successors to these companies.

Judge Seabright found that when construing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could
conclude that Viad is a successor in interest to any company that
provided asbestos components to which Cabasug was exposed.  In
particular, the evidence presented fails to raise a genuine issue
of material fact that (1) Cabasug was exposed to any GRC or BLH-PA
products that contained asbestos; or (2) Viad is liable for any
asbestos exposure attributable to BLH-DE, where BLH-DE was only a
subsidiary of Armour.  Accordingly, the Court granted Viad's
motion for summary judgment.

Judge Seabright also found that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish a genuine issue of material fact that Cabasug was
exposed to any asbestos manufactured or supplied by any
predecessor companies to Maxim and therefore granted Maxim's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Seabright's Decision dated Feb. 7, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/pZzUfQLeagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Flips Ruling in "DaBaldo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs-appellants, Paul Dabaldo, Jr., and Marlene DaBaldo,
filed a complaint against 19 defendants, including the defendant-
appellee, URS Energy & Construction, f/k/a/ Washington Group
International, as successor to Raytheon Constructors, f/k/a/
Catalytic, Inc. and Crane Co.  The complaint alleged that DaBaldo
developed "pulmonary asbestosis; asbestosis" as a result of
exposure to asbestos and sought recovery for those alleged
injuries.  After the completion of discovery, the Defendants moved
for summary judgment arguing that the DaBaldos' claims were barred
under title 10, section 8119 of the Delaware Code, the two-year
statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims.

The Superior Court heard oral argument on the Defendants' motions
for summary judgment and granted them, ruling from the bench that
the DaBaldos' claims were time-barred.

In an appeal, the Appellants submit that their 2009 complaint was
timely filed.  The record supports that assertion. Accordingly, a
three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Delaware composed of
Judge Randy J. Holland, Judge Carolyn Berger, and Henry DuPont
Ridgely, reversed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The case is PAUL DABALDO, JR., and MARLENE DABALDO, Plaintiffs
Below, Appellants, v. URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, FKA WASHINGTON
GROUP INTERNATIONAL, as successor to RAYTHEON CONSTRUCTORS, FKA
CATALYTIC, INC., and CRANECO., Defendants Below, Appellees, NO.
254, 2013 (Del.).  A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated
Feb. 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/QlpiXNfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellants are represented by:

         Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq.
         JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
         2 East 7th Street
         P.O. Box 1271
         Wilmington, Delaware 19899
         Tel: 302-656-5445
         Fax: 302-656-5875

Joel M. Doner, Esq. -- jdoner@eckertseamans.com -- and Christopher
C. Popper, Esq. -- cpopper@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee, URS
Energy & Construction.

Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Francis
C. Gondek, Esq. -- fgondek@swartzcampbell.com -- and Patrick M.
Brannigan, Esq. -- pbrannigan@swartzcampbell.com -- at Swartz
Campbell LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee, Crane Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prysmian Dropped as Defendant in "Olds" PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 5, 2014, dismissed the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled PAUL OLDS, Plaintiff, v. 3M
COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-08539 R (MRWX),(C.D. Calif.), with
respect to defendant Prysmian Power & Cable Systems USA, aka
Prysmian Cables & Systems USA, LLC.  In support of his decision,
Judge Real pointed out that Plaintiff Paul Olds filed no
opposition and no objections to any of the evidence supplied by
Prysmian and summary judgment is appropriate because the
pleadings, discovery, declarations, and other evidence on file
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
Prysmian is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  A full-text
copy of Judge Real's Decision is available at http://is.gd/nSp8Si
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Scare Shuts Dickson Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------
Nipuni Wijewickrema, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
several businesses in Dickson, Canberra, could be shut for months
after an asbestos scare in the busy inner north commercial
precinct.

Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe believes the asbestos is
located on the roof of the building but further tests are required
to determine the extent, exact source and asbestos levels.  Work
safety officers were onsite speaking to affected businesses and
continuing with their investigation.

At least five businesses have been ordered to cease trading until
all investigations are completed and the situation rectified.  The
asbestos was found after a tenant occupying the property reported
their suspicions to WorkSafe ACT. The building was assessed and
test results were released prompting WorkSafe ACT to issue a
Prohibition Notice to several businesses on the premises, ordering
them to cease operation.

Mr McCabe said that because of the high level of asbestos fibres
found, it was unsafe for anyone to be inside the building without
permission from WorkSafe ACT.

"The dangers of asbestos can be fatal. While there is a low
likelihood of exposure, there is a high consequence if a person is
exposed to it for a long time," Mr McCabe said. "There are two
ways in which we can fix the problem. We either remove and replace
the roof or encapsulate it to stop the asbestos fibres from going
down. Either will be a costly process for the property owners.

The owners of the property would not comment when contacted.
The affected businesses could be left out of action for months
until the roof is either replaced or fixed.

"WorkSafe ACT is committed to investigating the source of the
asbestos, working with the landlord to repair the roof and
determining whether any work safety obligations have been breached
by the landlord," Mr McCabe said.

Mr McCabe advised anyone concerned about possible exposure to
asbestos to contact their local GP.

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners president Dr Liz
Marles said "incidental exposure [to asbestos] poses quite a low
risk to members of the public. It's only when the asbestos has
been disrupted is the risk very high - even then it'll only be
evident decades down the track."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Remands Action Over Waiver of Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California federal court
has remanded an asbestos action, citing a waiver to all military-
related claims filed by the plaintiff shortly after the case was
removed.

In the Jan. 23 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California rejected the contentions of Crane Co., the
removing defendant, that the waiver was invalid since it was not
filed until after the case was removed.

Paul Schulz filed the asbestos-related complaint in Solano County
Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, Crane Co. removed the lawsuit,
arguing that the government contractor defense was available.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middlesbrough Grandpa Dies After Receiving Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Webber, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that the
inquest has been held into the death of a man who died of
asbestos-related cancer just weeks after receiving compensation.

David Berry, 60, a grandfather-of-four from Eston, near
Middlesbrough, in England, received an undisclosed out-of-court
settlement before the claim was due to be heard at court.

The inquest at Teesside Coroners Court heard that Mr Berry, a
retired electrician, was first diagnosed with asbestos-related
mesthelioma in 2011 and died last October.

Deputy coroner Claire Bailey was informed that Mr Berry,
originally from Grangetown, near Middlesbrough, had left school
aged 16 and began work as an apprentice electrician in 1968.  He
worked in schools, swimming baths and later housing which were
built with asbestos related materials.

A postmortem confirmed Mr Berry died of a malignant, cancerous
tumour, associated with exposure to asbestos in his chest. An
examination of tissue showed a high asbestos fibre count.

Ms Bailey, who recorded a verdict of industrial disease, said: "I
am satisfied that David was exposed to asbestos during his
professional life and he died as a result of that exposure. It's
clear from the number of people in attendance that David was loved
greatly."

Mr Berry, a keen angler, had spoken to local media of his relief
at receiving the out-of-court settlement from a former employer's
insurers, so he could concentrate on spending his remaining time
with his family.  He would often have to drill holes while
installing light fittings in social housing, and would unwittingly
breathe in dust.

The inquest heard he ended up running his own business, Eston
Electrical Services, and became asbestos-aware in later life,
routinely wearing a mask while working in older Tees Valley
Housing Association properties that may have still had asbestos.

Mr Berry, who was married to Janet, had been looked after by
Macmillan Nurses and at Teesside Hospice, returned home in his
final days and died on October 9.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Luton Council Faces Fibro Legal Threat
-------------------------------------------------------
BBC Bews reported that the family of a teacher who died from
asbestos-related cancer is planning legal action against Luton
Council, in England.

Ian MacDonald, of Harpenden, said he wanted the council to treat
all asbestos products with plasticiser.  His wife Hazel was
exposed to asbestos fibres while teaching at Denbigh Primary
School in the town. Her inquest concluded she died as a result of
inhaling airborne fibres.

The council said it followed government advice not to disrupt
asbestos.

Mrs Macdonald died on March 6, 2012 and her 69-year-old widower
said she had complained of chest pains for more than two years.
The coroner at her recent inquest concluded she died from
epithelioid mesothelioma.

Recruit former staff

Mr Macdonald said: "I now want to take the matter to court to
reverse the council's decision to leave asbestos in place in
schools.

"For the sake of children the fibres should be covered by a
plasticiser to keep them bonded.

"Asbestos in roof voids is open to air currents. Our advertising
campaign is to raise awareness of the problem and also to gather
evidence by recruiting the help of former staff and pupils."

Luton Borough Council said it was continuing to investigate the
matter with the school so that a response could be made to the
claim.

"It would be inappropriate to comment further until this process
has concluded," a council spokesman said.

"All asbestos-based products are safe unless they are damaged or
liable to damage, and in many instances it is safer to leave
asbestos in place and not remove it."

Out of the 63 council schools in Luton, 59 are recorded as
containing asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Raised Over Sunoco Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Laday, writing for South Jersey Times, reported that ahead
of the planned demolition of three structures at the Sunoco Eagle
Point Refinery, in West Deptford, New Jersey, officials are
working to allay fears and rumors circulating among residents
regarding the possibility of asbestos particles being released
into the air.

West Deptford has posted a letter on the township's website
stating Sunoco has removed the asbestos from the sites, under the
eyes of a monitor from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). In addition, township construction code
official Phil Zimm and Fire Marshal John Austin have both
inspected the sites in anticipation the implosions at the
refinery.

"There have been concerns spread from unofficial sources, with
regard to a bit of undue hysteria about this," said West Deptford
Mayor Ray Chintall. "Township officials are taking all measures to
ensure the safety of residents.

"The inspectors did the due diligence," he later added, "and the
mayors in National Park and Westville have all been advised that
this was going to happen."

Sunoco will trigger a controlled implosion at its fractionator,
one tower and one chimney. The demolition is expected to last
about two minutes, and will sound like "muffled shotgun blasts,"
Chintall said.

Jeffrey Shields, communications manager at Sunoco, said the
implosions will be among the last in a series of demotions at the
Eagle Point site, which ceased to be an operating refinery in
December 2009.

"It's part of a 2 1/2-year demolition of the refinery assets
there, which started in November 2011," said Shields. "This will
be one of the last pieces in the plan to break down all the
processing units that were used to refine crude oil into gasoline.

The former refinery, located on Crown Point Road, is currently
used by Sunoco for storage and transportation.

"After [the implosions], it will just be a matter of removing some
equipment," added Shields. "I know they are selling some of the
equipment, too."

According to Sunoco, asbestos remediation at the site was
completed by NCM Demolition and Remediation LP, based in
California with offices in Aston, Pa. The process was overseen by
Accredited Environmental Technologies Inc., an approved OSHA
monitor, according to West Deptford officials.

However, even with all of the reassurances from township and
Sunoco officials, concerns over asbestos in the concrete
structures persist.

Charles Musero, a West Deptford resident who lives adjacent to the
Eagle Point property, said he is worried about his family's health
in the wake of the implosions.

"Do they know about the effects of the winds, and if any particles
could spread in the air?" he said. "I'm worried about residue
spreading and getting on the snow in the area.

"I would've just liked to have more information before all of
this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Northern NY Men Plead Guilty in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that two northern New York men have
pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally removing and
disposing of asbestos.

John Mills and Terrance Allen of Malone admitted in court they
intentionally failed to report the release of the asbestos, which
was removed from the basement of buildings owned and operated by
Mills.  The two men were charged with making false statements to
law enforcement officers regarding properties that Mills owned and
operated. Mills also was charged with retaliating against a
witness.

According to the indictment, the defendants illegally removed and
disposed of more than 260 linear feet of pipe wrap containing
asbestos.  Sentencing is scheduled for May 12 in Albany. Maximum
penalty is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma Suffers Fibro Disease From Husband
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cheston, writing for London Evening Standard, a grandmother
whose terminal cancer was caused by washing her husband's
asbestos-laden overalls described her "relief and peace of mind"
after being awarded GBP700,000 damages in a landmark case.

Monica Haxton, 66, lost her husband Ronald to mesothelioma -- an
incurable lung cancer associated with asbestos -- caused by his
years spent working as an electrician in Balham.  Over the years,
she said she spent hours washing her husband's boilersuit after
his shifts at Philips Electronics where he was exposed to asbestos
dust while dismantling boilers.

Two years after his death in July 2009, she began suffering the
same symptoms and was diagnosed with the same cancer in January
2012.  But Mrs Haxton, from Sutton, was caught up in a protracted
legal dispute over the scale of her damages which has only now
been resolved in the Appeal Court.

The mother of four said: "Ronald and I were married for 45 years
and he worked there for 42 years, but the negligence of that
company by failing to protect us from asbestos exposure has ruined
both our lives.

"We were absolutely devastated by Ronald's diagnosis and I cared
for him until his final breath so I know the pain and horror that
this terrible disease causes and that I am now suffering.

"It's also incredibly hard for my children, knowing that they are
going to have to watch me deteriorate over the coming months. I
was determined to fight for justice to the end because neither
Ronald nor I had any control over contracting this horrendous
disease. His employers had a duty to warn Ronald of the dangers of
asbestos exposure and provide him with protective clothing, but
they failed to do either.

"I am relieved and have peace of mind that my children and
grandchildren will have financial stability after I am gone and I
can concentrate fully on my family and make the most of the time I
have left with them. I now finally feel that justice has been
done."

Mrs Haxton's lawyers helped secure her payout after the company's
insurer admitted full responsibility for her husband's cancer but
refused her a second settlement for negligence over her own
terminal cancer.  They claimed that because her life expectancy
had been reduced she was not entitled to the extra damages.
However, Appeal Court judges reversed a ruling in the High Court
and ordered the insurers to pay out in full.

Nicola Maier, a specialist asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who
represented Mrs Haxton, said: "This landmark ruling is a
restoration of justice for victims of injury and illness.

"Just as Monica was beginning to come to terms with the loss of
Ronald and began rebuilding her life, she too was diagnosed with
the very same illness that she had watched slowly destroy her
husband's life."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brayton Purcell Releases Biggest Wins of 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the law firm Brayton Purcell LLP, a plaintiffs law firm for
victims of asbestos-related illnesses, recently released its
biggest wins of 2013.

The largest award exceeded $10,500,000, with the smallest near
$60,000. The verdicts and settlements for claims arising from lung
cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis are:

-- In Sam Hasty v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Lamons Gasket Company,
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., before Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor of the
San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was settled during
jury selection, with Hasty receiving more than $375,000 in
December.

-- In Margaret Patrick v. Lamons Gasket Company, Inc., before
Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior
Court, the case was resolved during jury selection, with Patrick
receiving more than $1 million in December.

-- In Sandy Siegel v. Hennessey Industries, Inc., before Judge
Newton Lam in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case
was resolved during jury selection, with Siegel receiving more
than $700,000 in November.

-- In Eugene and Gail Rocha v. Hamilton Supply Co, Inc., before
Judge James J. McBride in the San Francisco County Superior Court,
the jury entered a verdict awarding Rocha compensation of
$2,505,880 in October/November.

-- In Charles Akins v. RPI Company before Judge Teri L. Jackson in
the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved
with other defendants, with Akins receiving more than $3,270,000
in November.

-- In James Chesser v. Supro Corporation before Judge David L.
Minning in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during jury selection, awarding Chesser compensation in
excess of $500,000 in October.

-- In Robert W. Cressy v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc. before
Judge Kathleen Dailey in the Portland Circuit Court, the case
settled after motions in limine, awarding Cressy compensation in
excess of $175,000 in September.

-- In Franklin and Patricia Schwab v. ZF Sachs Automotive of
America before Judge Rebecca Connolly in the Sant Cruz County
Superior Court, the case was resolved during the plaintiff's case
in chief, awarding Schwab compensation in excess of $2,500,000 in
August.

-- In Steve A. Brinkman v. Gypsum Wallboard Supply, Inc. before
Judge Catherine Shaffer in the Seattle Civil Court, the case was
resolved during jury selection, awarding Brinkman compensation in
excess of $100,000 in August.

-- In Randall Wilkins, Richard Phillips, Rex Crossland v. Amcord,
Inc., Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., Trizec Realty, LLC, before
Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith in the San Francisco County Superior
Court, the case was resolved during jury selection, awarding the
plaintiffs compensation in excess of $550,000 in August.

-- In Frances Murphy v. San Francisco Gravel Company Inc. before
Judge Newton Lam in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the
case was resolved during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding
Murphy compensation in excess of $6,600,000 in August.

-- In Karen Valentiner v. Union Carbide Corporation before Judge
Newton Lam in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case
was resolved during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding Valentiner
compensation in excess of $670,000 in August.

-- In Cindy Lindley v. D. Zelinsky & Sons before Judge Newton Lam
in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved
during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding Lindley compensation in
excess of $1,800,000 in August.

-- In Janette Denham v. Clausen-Patten, Inc. before Judge Newton
Lam in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding Denham
compensation in excess of $4,900,000 in August.

-- In John & Mary Beth Perniz v. Certainteed Corporation before
Judge Suzanne Bolanos in the San Francisco County Superior Court,
the case was resolved during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding
the plaintiffs compensation in excess of $10,500,000 in August.

-- In Edward Tesar v. Crane Co before Judge Newton Lam in the San
Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved during voir
dire, awarding Tesar compensation in excess of $60,000 in June.

-- In Richard Luros v. Amcord Inc. before Judge Jo-Lynne Lee in
the Alameda County Superior Court, the case was settled, awarding
Luros compensation in excess of $3 million in July.

-- In Roger Henderson v. Baldwin Contracting Company, Inc.,
Monterey Mechanical Company before Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor in
the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved
during opening statements, awarding Henderson compensation in
excess of $211,000 in May.

-- In Rosemary Mitchell, Marion Chappelle, Antonette Scriber,
Romeo Schneble, Charles Simpson, David Wilson v. Cleaver-Brooks,
Inc., Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Underground Construction
Company, Inc. before Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor in the San
Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved during
motions in limine, awarding the plaintiffs compensation in excess
of $1,836,000 in May.

-- In Rosita Pique v. Honeywell International, Inc. before Judge
Lynn O'Malley Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court,
the case was resolved during jury selection, awarding Pique
compensation in excess of $550,000 in May.

-- In Geraldine Hilt v. Otis Elevator Company before Judge Lynn
O'Malley Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the
case was resolved during plaintiff's case in chief, awarding Hilt
compensation in excess of $9 million in April.

-- In David Gerecke v. Crane Co. before Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor
in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was resolved
during jury selection, awarding Gerecke compensation in excess of
$590,000 in April.

-- In Georgia Allen v. Owens Illinois before Judge Lynn O'Malley
Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during jury selection, awarding Allen compensation in
excess of $840,000 in April.

-- In Beverly Lee v. Owens Illinois before Judge Lynn O'Malley
Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during jury selection, awarding Lee compensation in
excess of $670,000 in April.

-- In William Youngbluth v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation,
Parsons Government Services, In., Sequoa Ventures, Inc., Tosco
Corporation before Judge Emile H. Elias in the San Francisco
County Superior Court, the case was resolved during motions in
limine, awarding Youngbluth compensation in excess of $182,000 in
April.

-- In Jerry and Judith Cates v. Certainteed Corporation, Thomas
Dee Engineering Company, Yarway Corporation before Judge Ernest H.
Goldsmith in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during motions in limine, awarding Cates compensation in
excess of $800,000 in April.

-- In Michael Villaverde v. Flour Corporation before Judge Lynn
O'Malley Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the
case was resolved during opening statements, awarding Villaverde
compensation in excess of $1,500,000 in April.

-- In Flora Olson v. Timec Company Inc. before Judge Lynn O'Malley
Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the case was
resolved during opening statements, awarding Olson compensation in
excess of $3,500,000 in April.

-- In Michael Todd v. Todd Shipyard Company before Judge Lynn
O'Malley Taylor in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the
case was resolved during jury selection, awarding Todd
compensation in excess of $500,000 in March.

-- In David and Gail DeCeoursty v. Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc.
before Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith in the San Francisco County
Superior Court, the case was resolved during opening statements,
awarding DeCeoursty compensation in excess of $1,750,000 in
February.

-- In Donald and Ruby Silver v. Crane Co., Ford Motor Company,
Honeywell International, Inc. before Judge Edward Jones in the
Portland Multnomah County Superior Court, the case was resolved
during jury selection, awarding Silver compensation in excess of
$350,000 in January 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears After Home Destroyed in Lawnton Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Vonow, writing for The Courier-Mail, reported that a home
in Brisbane's north was burnt to the ground.

Fire crews rushed to the blaze on Foley Street in Lawnton about
8pm but the high-set timber building was destroyed.  The building
was empty, understood to be undergoing renovations.

Emergency services are now inspecting the scene with fears of
asbestos spreading.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing in Sydney Houses
-----------------------------------------------
Asbestos Check reported that houses in Sydney, Australia, built
before 1990 are quite likely to contain some form of asbestos
material.  Asbestos testing can identify potential asbestos
containing materials within such houses.

Bonded asbestos when left and maintained in a good condition does
not pose a significant health risk unless the asbestos containing
material is deteriorated or disturbed such that it liberates
fibres into the air.  Many people are unaware that their house may
contain asbestos and are at great risk of exposure to asbestos
during renovations. Those buying a house in Sydney should consider
having an asbestos survey or asbestos testing conducted on samples
of the material by an asbestos consultant, prior to purchasing the
property.

The cost of asbestos testing is relatively inexpensive compared to
that of the extra cost imposed to remove the asbestos safely. The
cost of asbestos removal is generally underestimated and must be
considered as part of the purchase price of a house if there are
plans for renovation. Asbestos testing also provides peace of mind
by confirming whether the material actually contains asbestos or
not.

Testing for the presence of asbestos cannot be confirmed by just
looking at the material with the naked eye. Asbestos testing
involves viewing the fibres under a polarised light microscope in
different conditions to confirm the type of asbestos. If there is
significant damage to materials, asbestos testing the air can
assess the relative risk of respirable fibres against the national
exposure standard.

Many Sydney councils also require asbestos survey and asbestos
testing to be carried out by a qualified person at the development
application stage, ensuring that people are aware of the potential
risk while renovating the house. Once the results of asbestos
testing are known, the location and condition of the material will
be recorded within an asbestos register.

Asbestos Check provides commercial and domestic clients with
extensive asbestos inspection services including asbestos
identification, testing, inspection and management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Hearing on Google Appeal in Defamation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akansha Prasad, writing for The Economic Times, reported that an
appeal in the Supreme Court by Google against an Andhra Pradesh
High Court's dismissal of its petition in a 2009 defamation case
comes up for another hearing.

The original lawsuit was brought against Google by Visaka
Industries, a Secunderabad-based asbestos cement sheets
manufacturer that claimed an organisation called the Ban Asbestos
Network India posted a blog that was specifically defamatory to
the manufacturer, using Google's blogging service.

Visaka named Gopal Krishna, the convenor of BANI for his July 2008
blogpost in its lawsuit and claimed Google too was liable as the
blog was hosted on its network.

While this latest hearing, the eighth listing, according to the
Supreme Court's website, will likely be one of many more to come,
"the outcome of the case will affect all search engines, social
media sites, blogs, online retailers and news sites to some
extent," said Prashant Mali, president of Cyber Law Consulting
(Advocates & Attorneys).

Google, an internet giant, faces allegations of privacy violations
in various jurisdictions of various countries across the world,
Mali said.

The company, best known for the eponymous internet search engine
that commands a lion's share of online searches by most users,
also censors the results of those searches in several countries,
including India, according to the Centre for Internet and Society.

Mali added, "I feel if the Supreme Court feels blogs are
equivalent to media or press and vent out expressions which are
democratic and constitutionally valid, then as it held that the
freedom of press and freedom of expression a constitutional right
it may hold the same."

If the eventual judgement goes in favour of Google "it should go
with riders, proper checks and balances should be place," he said.
Google will fight with its all might, which could include
diplomatic pressure as the US could expect to exert pressure on
the Indian government to protect the interests of US businesses.

"It would be a test of (India's) judicial independence too," Mali
said.

Google's petition to throw out the Vikasa lawsuit on grounds that
it did no more than provide a network service and a plat-form
where third parties uploaded their own content didn't find favour
in the Andhra High Court, which dismissed the petition in 2011.

Google then appealed in the Supreme Court the same year.

In his blogpost, Gopal Krishna alleged that Visaka enjoyed
political patronage at the highest level, which allowed it to
profit from making products from asbestos, a known cancer-causing
substance. While asbestos is banned in over 50 countries, India is
a large importer of asbestos for its applications in cheap roofing
and piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in South County Senior Center
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McKiernan, writing for Gazettenet.com, reported that a
hygiene consulting firm in Holyoke, Massachusetts, has discovered
small amounts of asbestos in the basement and on the second floor
of the building which houses the South County Senior Center.

Forbes and Wheeler Inc., hired in September for $5,000 to analyze
the historic building, also found traces of lead paint on the
second floor and signs of mold in the basement.

"It's very common in older buildings," said Building Inspector and
Health Agent Richard Calisewski.

The contaminants were not found on the first floor, which houses
the regional senior center shared by Deerfield, Whately and
Sunderland. The town has since closed the second floor and
basement to the public as precautionary measures. The third floor
or the attic has also been closed for some time. The first floor
is open to the public.  The Select Board has not made a decision
on what it wants to do with the building.

The Highway Department, which handles building maintenance,
requested estimates from two restoration companies, which were
done for free.

For $26,000, Evergreen Environmental Inc. proposed to perform the
asbestos abatement and mold remediation at the senior center.

For a fixed price of $21,500, Compass Restoration Services LLC of
Ludlow proposed to remove and dispose of all the contaminated
materials.

The town would have to put the project out for bid if it does
decide to clean the building of asbestos and mold.

Meanwhile, the town hired Agricola Corp. of Chicopee to evaluate
the building at 67 North Main St. for $8,500. The evaluation is
funded by Community Preservation Act money the town approved for
the Deerfield Historical Commission to assess the structure.

The building has a long history in town. Designed by Northampton
architect William Fenno Pratt, it was formerly a grammar school in
1888. In the past, the second floor was also used by the Boy
Scouts and for veterans' offices. The third floor attic was used
as a basketball court and gym.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at New Zealand College Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dominion Post reported that a specialist team has been called
in after exposed asbestos was found at the fire-damaged Petone
College site, in Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

Work has began to demolish a section of Petone College badly
damaged by the suspected arson on January 20.  The fire exposed
asbestos and a specialist firm has been called in to remove the
dangerous material safely.

Hutt City Council building team co-ordinator Craig Ewart said that
heavy rain after the fire reduced the risk by dampening the
asbestos.  The council has inspected the site and Ryman
Healthcare, which is planning a retirement village on the site,
offered to demolish the charred buildings and the rest of the
classrooms as soon as possible.  Once removed, the asbestos will
be placed in an approved landfill. The company doing the removal
has a safety plan in place and Mr Ewart is not expecting any
problems clearing the site.

Meanwhile Ryman has confirmed that two historic plaques on the
college site were undamaged and have been removed.  A decision on
the resource consent application for the retirement village is
still in the hands of commissioners but is expected next month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burglars Warned of Deadly Dust
-----------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that police in Southampton, England, are warning
burglars not to open up some equipment they stole from a break-in
at a building site in Southampton because it contains hazardous
asbestos. More than GBP11,000 worth of equipment was taken from
the site at Somborne House in Weston Lane last week.

The site is being prepared for demolition and a specialist company
are removing asbestos. Among the items taken were two negative
pressure units which are used to collect asbestos dust and
particles. If they are opened by the burglars they will be
contaminated by the potentially deadly substance.

They should also seek medical advice as exposure to even a tiny
amount of asbestos dust can cause serious illness in the long
term. Police would also like to hear from anyone who thinks they
may have been offered any of the equipment for sale or has any
information about the crime.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Jury Awards $27MM in 2nd-Hand Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Ohio jury awarded a Cleveland-area man who developed
mesothelioma allegedly through second-hand asbestos exposure and
his wife $27.5 million in a verdict issued last month.

Plaintiffs John and Jane Panza fought their case before a jury of
eight in Cuyahoga County Circuit Court. The verdict was given on
Dec. 18 against defendant Kelsey-Hayes Co., with Judge Harry Hanna
presiding over the 11-day trial.

Panza was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012. Since his
diagnosis, he has undergone several surgeries, including removal
of his right lung.

What makes Panza's case unique is his age, just 40 years old, and
the alleged method of his exposure. Panza was allegedly exposed to
asbestos through asbestos dust on his father's work clothing. His
father, who died of lung cancer in 1993, worked at Eaton Airflex
-- a brake manufacturing company -- for 31 years. He was even
president of the company's union.

The asbestos brake pads used at Eaton Airflex were manufactured by
the former National Friction Products Corp, now known as Kelsey-
Hayes Co.

Attorneys of the Waters, Kraus & Paul law firm worked up the case
and represented the Panzas during trial.

"This case was all about a young man, with a young family, who was
victimized by the greed of the asbestos industry," said John
Mismas , local counsel for the plaintiffs.

The jury decided that the defendant's product was defective due to
inadequate warnings or instructions and in design or formulation.
They also decided that the defendant's defective product was a
substantial factor in causing Panza's malignant mesothelioma.

In their verdict, they awarded John Panza, Jr., $515,000 in
economic damages and $12 million in non-economic damages.

The jury attributed 60 percent liability to Kelsey-Hayes and 40
percent liability to Eaton Airflex. However, Eaton Airflex is
immune to the lawsuit under Ohio law, so Kelsey-Hayes will be
responsible for all of the damages.

The jury also determined that Jane Panza proved her claim of loss
of consortium and awarded her $15 million.

"I am so proud to represent John and his wife Jane. True justice
happened here," said Gary Paul, lead trial attorney for the Panzas
and partner at Waters, Kraus & Paul.

Demetrios Zacharopoulos, second trial chair for the Panzas, said
the trial was particularly difficult due to the issue of exposure.

The Panzas' attorneys had to prove that John Panza's father worked
with certain asbestos products and brought asbestos fibers home on
his work clothing. Then they had to prove that Panza was exposed
to and inhaled the asbestos on his father's clothes, causing his
mesothelioma.

"In my long history in asbestos litigation, I am not sure I have
seen a more compelling family than the Panzas," said Peter Kraus,
a founding partner of Waters, Kraus & Paul.

John Panza is an English teacher at Cuyahoga Community College. He
and his wife Jane, 37, attended both high school and college
together. They have a six-year-old daughter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Cancer and Death of Factory Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired factory worker from
Southampton, England, died from exposure to asbestos, an inquest
heard.

Renee Dyer, of Quayside Road, died at Southampton General Hospital
shortly after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

A Southampton inquest heard how the 70-year-old came into contact
with the substance while working in an electrical components
factory for just four months during the 1960s.

A biopsy taken after her death on April 18 last year confirmed
that she had mesothelioma.  Southampton Coroner Keith Wiseman
recorded an industrial disease death determination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SMART Procedure Doubles Patients' Survival Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that treating
pleural mesothelioma with high-dose radiation just before
aggressive surgery, a reversal of the traditional procedure, can
double the three-year survival rate, according to recently
published clinical research at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
in Toronto.

The cancer center is the first in the world to study a significant
number of patients using the Surgery for Mesothelioma After
Radiation Therapy (SMART) and the approach is now the standard of
care in Toronto.

"I'm biased, and don't want to toot our own horn too loudly, but
very few places have come close to the results we've seen here,"
radiation oncologist John Cho told Asbestos.com. "This is pretty
significant. Our survival rate is remarkably good."

Patients in the study experienced fewer post-surgery
complications, a quicker recovery and a shorter treatment period.

The study included 25 patients from 2008 to 2012. All underwent an
accelerated five-day course of high dose, intensity-modulated
radiation therapy. That was followed by an extrapleural
pneumonectomy (EPP), an aggressive surgery that removes a
patient's entire lung, the lining around it, pericardium and parts
of the diaphragm. Several received adjuvant chemotherapy
afterward, depending upon pathologic findings.

The standard trimodality approach to mesothelioma treatment at
most specialty centers involves chemotherapy first, followed by
the EPP surgery and then radiation.

Reversing the order has proven especially effective, which is
encouraging to future mesothelioma patients who are surgical
candidates.

         An Aggressive Approach to Mesothelioma Treatment

"Ours is a very aggressive approach -- the radiation dose to the
lung is toxic -- but there was a strong belief that it could
really benefit the patient," Cho said. "It takes a tremendous
amount of coordination between the radiation oncologist and the
surgeon to make it work, but we have that here."

The three-year survival rate before the study, using the
traditional trimodality method, was just 32 percent. Under the
SMART approach in Toronto, the three-year survival rate jumped to
72 percent, which also includes subsequent patients who followed
those in the study.

The three-year survival was even more impressive for patients in
the study who had the epithelial subtype of mesothelioma. Their
survival rate increased to 82 percent.

The findings were published recently in the Journal of Thoracic
Surgery. An earlier version was presented at the World Conference
on Lung Cancer in November.

               Radiation Eliminates Recurrence

The theory behind performing the radiation first was that it could
eliminate the cancer's ability to seed or spill in the chest or
abdomen during the major surgery. The belief is the radiation will
prevent or reduce recurrence of the cancer, which has been a major
problem in the past.

Mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive cancer without a cure, or even
a consistent treatment approach. The average life expectancy after
diagnosis is only 6-18 months without an aggressive approach to
therapy.

Only a small percentage of patients become surgical candidates
because the cancer often has metastasized before it is
definitively diagnosed, which eliminates a large number of
patients.

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre saw 138 mesothelioma patients
during that time frame, but only 25 reached the surgical stage.
The study originally was slated for just 12, but the results were
so promising (all patients survived the radiation and EPP surgery)
that 13 more people were added.

"These research results offer real hope to mesothelioma patients
who have too often been told in the past that they may have only
six months to live," said thoracic surgeon Marc de Perrot, who
works closely with Cho at the cancer center in Toronto.

Both de Perrot and Cho emphasized the need to do the surgery very
soon after the high dose radiation because the toxicity to the
lung could be deadly if it is not removed.

Since the completion of the study, doctors at the cancer center
have treated another 25 patients with the SMART approach. The
survival times have been equally encouraging. Cho believes a
multicenter study, involving a few specialty centers in the U.S.,
might be on the horizon.

"It's an easy sell for us to the patients, especially when they
hear the preliminary numbers," Cho said. "We're very excited about
this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Find Delays Opening of Barkingside Park
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzie Dearden, writing for Ilford Recorder, reported that the
opening of the new "pocket park" in Barkingside, Ilford, England,
has been delayed by the discovery of asbestos during building
work.

The park is part of the Better Barkingside regeneration scheme and
was due to open around Easter.  But builders breaking up the
disused sun deck in Virginia Gardens unearthed asbestos, delaying
work.

Speaking at the area committee three meeting, Cllr Nick Hayes
(Fullwell, Cons) said: "The concrete in the sundeck was even more
difficult to get rid of than previously thought.

"If things are taking longer for safety so be it -- it's something
we should be welcoming, not denigrating."

Councillors now expect the park to open in the summer.

The sun deck was part of Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre but fell
out of use and has since been labelled an "eyesore".

The 2.1 million Better Barkingside project will see major changes
to High Street, including a new town square and improvements to
lighting, street furniture, planting and parking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PMA Ducks Coverage for Insulator's Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Maryland federal judge freed Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. from covering AC&R
Insulation Co.'s damages from hundreds of asbestos lawsuits,
finding that the insulation installer waited too long to file its
claims.

U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm ruled that the insurer does not
have to defend AC&R in hundreds of asbestos-related lawsuits
because the statute of limitations began to run in 1987, when the
company became aware of the asbestos exclusions in its insurance
policy.

The case is AC&R Insulation Co., Inc. v. Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company (PMA), Case No.
8:12-cv-03528 (Md.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct. Upholds Contractors' 10-Year Sentence
------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that a federal appellate court has
affirmed a lower court's 10-year prison sentence for a sprinkler
contractor who allegedly removed asbestos without the proper
training or licensing, dumping the contaminated material in
dumpsters and abandoned farmhouses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded on
Jan. 8 that the Central District of Illinois called defendant
Duane O'Malley's "bluff" by offering him an opportunity to plead
guilty rather than move forward with a trial.

Chief Judge Diana P. Wood and judges Joel M. Flaum and John D.
Tinder presided over the appeal. Tinder delivered the decision.

"Duane 'Butch' O'Malley was convicted of removing, transporting
and dumping asbestos-containing insulation," Tinder wrote. "A jury
was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that O'Malley knew the
insulation contained asbestos."

O'Malley requested the court to examine factual circumstances of
his alleged violations as well as the conduct by the district
court in his appeal.  He claims the government did not prove the
appropriate "mens rea" for his Clean Air Act violations, arguing
that the government was required to prove that he knew that the
material in the building was a regulated type of asbestos, as not
all forms are maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mens rea is a person's awareness of his or her criminal actions,
or mental understanding of guilt.

He also claims the district court acted inappropriately in the
plea negotiations, which the appeals court disagreed with.

"We find that the jury was correctly instructed on, and the
government proved, the correct mens rea for the violations in
question. We also conclude that the district court did not
improperly participate in plea negotiations," the decision says.

According to the criminal lawsuit filed by the United States
government against O'Malley, real estate developer Michael Pinski
purchased a building in Kankakee, Ill., that was found to have
2,200 linear feet of asbestos-containing insulation wrapped around
pipes.

Then in 2009, Pinski hired Origin Fire Protection, a company run
by O'Malley, to convert the wet sprinkler system into a dry system
in the building. O'Malley noticed the insulation-covered pipes and
offered to remove the insulation for an additional price.

A reluctant Pinski warned O'Malley that some of the insulation-
wrapped pipes contained asbestos, the opinion stated.

However, O'Malley, insisting on being paid $12,000 in cash and
promised to remove the insulation and dispose of it properly while
saving Pinski money.  He provided Pinski with no written contract
for the insulation work and later told an employee that he
requested that so "there wouldn't [be] a paper trail," the opinion
says.

No one in the company was properly trained in asbestos removal,
and many employees informed O'Malley that he needed a license to
remove asbestos insulation, the opinion says.

"Almost everyone in the cast of characters recognized the asbestos
for what it was," Tinder wrote.

O'Malley settled on hiring Jeff Franc, along with three employees
with no proper training, to strip the dry asbestos insulation off
the pipes using a circular saw and other equipment provided by
O'Malley. The employees also weren't given water or anything to
wet the asbestos to keep dust out of the air.

"Predictably, the circular saw produced large amounts of asbestos
dust that filled the room. The workers were equipped only with a
few paint suits, simple dust masks and useless respirators with
missing filters," the opinion stated. "The workers donned the dust
masks initially, but they quickly became clogged and the workers
were unable to breathe through them. Franc's crew stopped working
after a day or two because they inhaled a large amount of dust,
and they claimed the dust made them sick."

Discarded asbestos insulation was packed into roughly 100 large,
plastic garbage bags and were thrown into a dump truck.

Employee Steven Giles was directed to take the bags to Angel
Abatement, an asbestos abatement center. However, since O'Malley
didn't notify the federal EPA or the Illinois EPA about the
asbestos removal, Angel Abatement refused to accept the asbestos
waste.

So O'Malley instructed Franc to take some bags to an abandoned
farmhouse near O'Malley's property. He asked employee Virgil Leitz
to take the rest of the bags to a dumpster near a local Hobby
Lobby store. Employee James Mikrut took the remaining debris to a
field in Hopkins Park, Ill., where they dropped them off at the
end of a road near a vacant house.

Then in September 2009, Illinois EPA Director Joseph Kotas
inspected the field where the bags were dumped, finding open and
torn bags spilling out on the bare ground.

EPA Superfund contractors spent more than $47,000 on properly
removing and disposing of the bags as well as cleaning up the
contaminated soil in Hopkins Park.

Fearing a federal investigation, O'Malley instructed Mikrut to
deny removing the insulation and claim he only did alarm work at
the building if he were questioned by Kotas. However, when he was
interviewed, he revealed the truth and agreed to make recorded
calls to O'Malley, revealing O'Malley coaching him to mislead
federal agents.

"O'Malley also came up with the clever scheme to pin the illegal
asbestos removal on Franc," Tinder wrote. "When confronted by the
agents, O'Malley admitted in a verbal and written statement that
he had failed to stop the illegal asbestos removal even after he
suspected the material was asbestos."

When the removed insulation was tested, they found it to contain
asbestos ranging in concentration from four percent to 48 percent
asbestos.

In June 2010, O'Malley was indicted by a grand jury with five
counts of knowingly violating the criminal provisions of the Clean
Air Act. Pinski and Mikrut pleaded guilty, but O'Malley demanded a
jury trial.

During a pretrial hearing, the court clarified that the United
States was required to prove general intent, specifically that
O'Malley knew the building had asbestos-containing material. The
court also required an "ostrich instruction," which is deliberate
ignorance and proves that knowledge and deliberate avoidance of
knowledge are the same.

Ultimately, the jury returned guilty verdicts for all five counts.
He was sentenced to 120 months in prison, three years of
supervised release, a $15,000 fine and $47,085.70 of restitution
to the EPA.

O'Malley moved for a new trial, which was denied.

In O'Malley's appeal, he first sought review of the evidence
brought by the government proving that he knew the building
contained one of the six asbestos types regulated by federal law.

However, Tinder wrote that O'Malley is actually challenging the
district court's jury instructions on the mens rea elements of the
Clean Air Act.

The jury was instructed that the government must prove that
O'Malley knew the asbestos-containing material was present in the
building. They were also told that "regulated asbestos-containing
material" was anything containing more than one percent
concentration of asbestos that can be reduced to powder or dust.

However, the appellate court determined that the fact that
O'Malley knowingly worked with asbestos-containing material met
the mens rea requirement "as asbestos is certainly a dangerous
material of a type where 'the probability of regulation is so
great that anyone who is aware that he is in possession of it
. . . must be presumed to be aware of the regulation.'"

The court further ruled that O'Malley's claim would have been
dismissed regardless because he failed to challenge the district
court's jury instructions prior to filing his appellate brief.

"Because O'Malley failed to object to the jury instructions in
question in the district court, we need not even reach the plain
error review to which the district would nonetheless lead to the
conclusion that the district court's instructions on scienter were
proper," Tinder stated.

O'Malley also sought review of his case, claiming the lower court
improperly participated in plea negotiations when it "offered to
extend the acceptance of responsibility deadline and grant the
reduction of acceptance if O'Malley entered a guilty plea."

According to the opinion, the United States added Lietz to the
witness list prior to the trial, but O'Malley moved to exclude
Lietz's testimony by arguing that the deadline had already passed.
At the pre-trial hearing, the court told O'Malley that his
acceptance of responsibility deadline could be extended if
"Lietz's disclosure had caused the defendant to want to plead
guilty." O'Malley declined.

The appellate court ruled that a deadline for disclosing witnesses
was never officially set and was unclear. The United States filed
its original list on Sept. 7, 2011, but added Lietz on Sept. 16,
2011, after learning his last name in witness preparation. Lietz
had actually been a person of interest in the investigation, but
was only known by his first name. So, learning his full name
allowed the government to find and interview him.

Then on Sept. 21, 2011, the district court heard arguments from
both sides regarding Lietz's inclusion. O'Malley said he made his
decision to go to trial based on the witness list.

The district court was skeptical, stating, "So, really, Mr.
O'Malley's decision as to whether he wanted to change his plea
came before the filing of the witness list and the final pretrial;
but if somehow this is the witness that's the tipping point, the
witness that if it had -- if we knew he was going to testify, we
would have accepted responsibility long ago and we never thought
he was going to testify I'd extend the acceptance of
responsibility right now. I'd take an open plea right now, if
that's what the defendant wishes to do, and give him acceptance
instead of, in effect, sanctioning the government by striking the
witness."

Tinder stated that it was clear to them that O'Malley first raised
the issue of the acceptance of responsibility deadline.

"The court was merely responding to the alleged prejudice --
O'Malley's ability to choose whether to go to trial -- and
attempting to cure it," Tinder wrote.

He continued to argue that the district court indicated that
O'Malley believed his chances at trial were doomed by Lietz's
testimony. Therefore, O'Malley was given the opportunity to enter
a guilty plea rather than face a trial. Essentially, the judge was
"calling O'Malley's bluff."

"While we would not present the district court's statement as a
model of clarity, we believe it is clear that the judge had no
animus against the defendant or an improper motive in stating that
were O'Malley's concerns real, the judge would be willing to
address them," Tinder wrote. "The statement was far from an
actual, impermissible intervention in plea negotiations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Legal Challenge Planned for Stowey Quarry Dump
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that campaigners say they are pleased there has
been no legal challenge against a decision preventing the dumping
of asbestos waste at a site in Somerset, England.

In November a planning inspector ruled proposals to dispose of
materials at Stowey Quarry in Chew Magna near Bristol could not go
ahead.  The time frame for any further legal challenge has now
expired.

Stowey Sutton Action Group said it was "relieved" asbestos waste
disposal would now not take place.

Bath and North East Somerset councillors initially rejected the
plans to dispose of materials, including asbestos, in 2012.
Applicant Oaktree Environmental lodged an appeal which led to last
year's planning inquiry.

Sally Monkhouse, from Stowey Sutton Action Group said: "It was
with great relief we received confirmation from the planning
inspectorate that the quarry owners are not taking further action
to pursue their plans for asbestos disposal."

The application was to use the site to bury 150,000 tonnes of
waste a year over a 10-year period.

A petition against the proposal received more than 4,000
signatures.

Nobody from Oaktree Environmental was available for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toledoan Who Dumped Fibro Gets Probation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Toledo Blade reported that a Toledo, Ohio man who dumped bags
of asbestos waste in various locations around Toledo was placed on
probation for two years by U.S. District Court Judge James Carr.

Timothy Bayes, 32, pleaded guilty last year to illegal disposal of
asbestos. He was hired by John J. Mayer to get rid of trash bags
containing the material that had been illegally removed from a
Toledo warehouse.

Mayer was sentenced in December to a year in prison and ordered to
pay a $2,000 fine after he pleaded guilty to four counts of
violating the Clean Air Act.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Approves Fibro Removal at Tama School
------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Wiese, writing for Tama News-Herald, reported that the South
Tama School Board members has approved an agreement with Abatement
Specialties to perform asbestos removal at the South Tama High
School in Tama, Indiana, at a cost of $20,376.

Specifications for the project were prepared by Ames
Environmental, Inc. of Slater, Iowa.

The contractor will take all steps necessary within the scope of
the services performed for South Tama, to defend, indemnify and
hold South Tama harmless from any fines, penalties, causes of
action in which South Tama is subjected by reason of the
contractors' noncompliance with existing regulations and patents
for the removal.

The work for this project is to beginning on June 2, 2014 and
shall be completed by June 13, 2014.

Any controversy or claim arising out of this contract, or breach
of contract, shall be settled by arbitration administered by the
American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Arbitration
Rules, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be
entered in any court having jurisdiction.

The contractor certifies that all asbestos abatement personnel to
be used on this project are employees of the contractor and
further agrees no subcontractors will be used for the asbestos
abatement portion of the project.

Personnel

Contracted personnel approved were Sarah M. Leick, high school
special education, effective Jan. 20, at a salary of $16,260; Amy
Nachazel as a driver, effective Jan. 9, at a salary of $13 per
hour.

One person has been approved for resignation. Paula Neyens will be
retiring from the position of high school science teacher at the
end of the present school year.

Grant

A team of teachers and administrators have worked on a base plan
to submit for the state teacher leadership and compensation grant.
This has been discussed at previous work sessions.

The work is of high quality and the committee has developed some
solid components. This is the first year funding is available, and
there are some questions about long term substantiability beyond
grant funding.

The grant applications will be accepted for the next two years. It
may be advantageous to learn from the districts that are funded to
further refine the districts plan prior to full submission.

The district will continue to use the existing planning grant
funds to further refine the plan and submit the full application
in January 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Get Jail Time for Fibro Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McGlone, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reported that an
83-year-old Virginia Beach, Virginia, contractor was sentenced to
five months in jail and fined $2,000 after admitting he illegally
disposed of asbestos.

A judge also sentenced Billy J. Avery to five months of home
confinement upon release from jail and three years of probation.

U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. rejected a plea from
Avery's lawyer to spare his client jail time. The lawyer, Harry
Harmon, cited Avery's wife's "grave illness" in asking for a
sentence of only probation.

"He's going to jail," Morgan said, interrupting Harmon's argument.

Morgan cited Avery's prior conviction for another environmental
crime in rejecting leniency.

"You committed this offense while you were on probation for a
similar offense," the judge said. "You're not getting probation a
second time."

The judge allowed Avery to turn himself in to U.S. marshals.

Avery admitted that during the July 2012 demolition of the Wayside
Motor Inn at 400 S. Military Hwy. in Virginia Beach, his employees
of EC&C Environmental failed to properly bag and label asbestos
debris.

Prosecutors said Avery then hauled the asbestos waste to a former
business he owned in Chesapeake, placed it in dumpsters there and
abandoned the property, and the waste, when his lease expired.

The Chesapeake fire marshal discovered the waste after receiving a
complaint. When confronted, Avery agreed to dispose of the waste
at an authorized facility.

At the time, Avery was on federal probation for polluting the
Elizabeth River with petroleum products while dismantling a ship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Inspection at Calif. Univ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Kornak, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a routine
inspection in December revealed the presence of a potentially
harmful amount of asbestos dust, mercury vapors, and lead paint in
the San Francisco State University's three-story Science building,
causing the facility to be shut down due to the potential harm to
students and faculty. Fortunately, the discovery was made during
winter break, giving SFSU officials some time to figure out what
to do before classes resumed on January 27. The building houses
numerous departments, including business, liberal and creative
arts, science and engineering, and health and human services.

The problem was found to be more significant during a second
inspection, prompting the building to be shut down for the entire
spring semester. "It is not easy to find alternative seats for
9,000-plus enrollments, and to furnish spaces intended for other
purposes," said SFSU President Lee Wong in a message to staff,
faculty, and students. "I am deeply grateful for the creativity
and resourcefulness shown by the college deans, administrators,
faculty, and staff throughout campus. Their dedication has been
remarkable. As new classroom locations are identified, they are
being entered into the class schedule."

Mercury vapors were discovered in numerous classrooms, with the
greatest concentration found in a basement room that had already
been sealed off. The lead paint was peeling and covered an area
larger than 1,000 square feet. Asbestos, which was found in the
basement and first and second floors, was once considered a go-to
material in a wide range of industries until its ban in the 1970s.
The inhalation of friable, or airborne, asbestos is the primary
cause of mesothelioma -- a type of lung cancer that is almost
always fatal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diseases Continue to Take Toll on Aborigines
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that new cases of asbestos-related illnesses
continue to be diagnosed in a remote north coast Aboriginal
community decades after a James Hardie mine closed.

The mine at Baryulgil north west of Grafton, New South Wales,
operated from the 1940's until the late 1970's, and employed
dozens of local Aboriginal workers.

Doctors working in the area are diagnosing new cases of asbestos-
related illnesses regularly.

Grafton-based GP Dr Ray Jones said only a handful are still alive,
but the impact of the asbestos mine on the community is still
being felt.

"For the next 10 years at least, the number of cases of asbestos-
related illnesses across Australia will still increase," he said.

"We're still seeing many cases of disease as a result of the
asbestos that was breathed in 40 years ago in Baryulgil, when the
mine was operational."

Dr Jones said it wasn't just the miners exposed to large amounts
of asbestos.

"Local Aboriginal children used to be invited down to play in the
pile of asbestos tailings left lying around," he said.

"[The community] used to use the asbestos made at the mine - those
tailings, which were the leftovers - they used to use that around
the housing in Baryugle as a landfill."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Excavator Fined for Stirring Dust in MPCA Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Walsh, writing for Star Tribune, reported that a Minneapolis
demolition company has paid a fine for sending clouds of dust into
nearby businesses from the portion of a late-1800s Warehouse
District building that excavators knew contained asbestos.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has 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 643 N. 5th St., down the street from Target Field.

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

Sean O'Connor, who represented the MPCA during the visit, said it
was not his duty to address whether the dust actually contained
asbestos, adding that "there was no analytic sampling of the dust"
conducted for the carcinogen.

MPCA spokeswoman Alexis Donath said, "We don't know about the
content of the dust that Sean observed."  She added that it's too
late to do an analysis at this point: "The dust is gone."

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

Before the demolition, which was 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.

O'Connor 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears of Fibro on Summer Hill School Playground
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy McNeilage, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that students at a primary school in Sydney's inner west have been
prohibited from playing on the school's grass fields, due to fears
about a possible asbestos contamination.

On the first day of the school year, parents at Summer Hill Public
School were told small pieces of fibro had been found lodged in
the dirt while the playground was seeded over the summer break.

In a letter to parents, principal Karen Shehata, who is new to the
school this year, said the Department of Education had been
alerted to the finding and would inspect the grassed area and
provide a hygienist to test the fibro samples.

"Once I receive the report, a decision will be made as to how best
to proceed," the letter said. "In the meantime, the successful
seeding of the grassed playground has provided coverage over the
soil and containment of the area."

Until the school is satisfied the area is safe, lunchtime play
will be staggered so the remaining playground areas are not
overcrowded.

"I anticipate that this will meet the needs of our students until
the grassed area is fit and safe to be once again played on," the
letter said.

The results of the testing are expected to be returned in time for
the P&C meeting on February 18.

One parent at the school said she was very impressed with how
quickly the school had acted and how the new principal had handled
the issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. SC Rules for Insurer in Exclusion Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for the Legal Newsline,
reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has affirmed a circuit
court's ruling that despite purchasers' initial ignorance to
asbestos-wrapped ducts on their new property, the asbestos
exclusion in an insurance company's policy precluded coverage.

Judge Timothy M. Witkowiak of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court
ruled that intervening defendant American Family Mutual Insurance
Company had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant-sellers
with respect to allegations from the plaintiff-buyers.

"In the circuit court and the court of appeals proceedings,
American Family argued that there was no initial grant of coverage
under the policy," the opinion stated. "The issue of coverage is
not before us. The only issue presented is whether the asbestos
exclusion in the American Family Business Owners policy issued to
the defendant-sellers precludes coverage for the losses that the
plaintiff-buyers claim."

The original case was filed by Michael D. Phillips, Perry A. Petta
and Walkers Point Marble Arcade, known as plaintiff-buyers,
against Daniel G. Parmelee and Aquila Group LLc, known as
defendant-sellers. American Family Mutual Insurance Company was
granted permission to intervene as a defendant.

According to the opinion, issued last month, the defendant-sellers
had an apartment building inspected prior to purchasing the
property, which revealed that the building's heating supply ducts
likely contained asbestos.

So, they obtained a Business Owners policy from American Family to
insure the building and then put the property up for sale.

Defendant Parmelee also completed a Real Estate Condition Report
in order to sell the property, which contained a statement saying
the defendant-sellers "were not aware of the presence of the
asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises."

When the plaintiff-buyers purchased the building, a contractor cut
through the asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing the toxins.  They
filed a lawsuit against the defendant-sellers alleging breach of
contract/warranty and negligence for failing to fully disclose the
condition of the building, including the asbestos-wrapped ducts.
They further argue that dispersing the asbestos rendered the
building uninhabitable, so the tenants were ordered to leave the
building. Without tenants, the plaintiff-buyers could no longer
finance the property, which was later lost in foreclosure.

On appeal, the Supreme Court was required interpret American
Family's insurance policy to determine whether the building should
have been covered in the event of financial loss due to asbestos.

"We interpret the policy's language according to its plain and
ordinary meaning, as understood by a reasonable person in the
position of the insured," the opinion states.

The court began by looking at the initial grant of coverage to
determine if the insurance policy provides coverage, which was
moot as the case does not involve a question of initial grant of
coverage.

The court followed by evaluating whether the policy's exclusions
preclude coverage.

Lastly, the court looked to see if the coverage was withdrawn by
an exclusion and determined if an exception to that exclusion
possibly reinstated coverage.

"Our review is focused only on interpreting the asbestos exclusion
to determine whether it precludes coverage," the opinion stated.
"No other exclusion is before us. No exceptions to the asbestos
exclusion are involved."

According to the insurance policy, the asbestos exclusion
provision states that insurance does not apply to property damage
with respect to loss from asbestos or reduction in real estate
value due to asbestos contamination. It also doesn't apply to loss
"arising out of" the request that the presence of asbestos be
identified. The policy also makes it clear that the insurance
company is not obligated to share damages in the event of loss due
to asbestos.

The plaintiff-buyers argued that the exclusions are ambiguous
because asbestos has a variety of forms and meanings, but the word
"asbestos" is undefined in the policy. However, the court
disagreed.

"A reasonable person in the position of the insured would not
interpret the word 'asbestos' to limit the clause to certain types
of asbestos," the opinion states. "To a reasonable insured reading
this policy, asbestos in any form is asbestos."

However, the court did agree that the words 'arising out of' are
broad, general and comprehensive, but argued that there are still
limits to their meaning.

"The words 'arising out of' used in an automobile liability
insurance policy 'are commonly understood to mean originating
from, growing out of, or flowing from, and require that there be
some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which
coverage is provided,'" the opinion says.

The court also agreed with the plaintiff-buyers that wording of
the exclusion indicates a causal relationship between the loss and
the asbestos. However, the causal nexus is between the loss
claimed and the asbestos rather than the loss claimed and the
dispersal of asbestos throughout a building, which is the case
here.

The plaintiff-buyers argue that they would never have purchased
the property had they known about the possibility of asbestos,
further alleging that the defendant-sellers' negligence is not
covered by the exclusion.

"The exclusion's language concerns the loss itself arising out of
asbestos," the opinion states. "Our analysis focuses on whether
the loss suffered by the plaintiff-buyers is within the text of
the asbestos exclusion and thus reasonably contemplated by the
parties."

"In sum, we are persuaded that a reasonable insured would
interpret the asbestos exclusion in American Family's policy to
preclude the loss alleged by the plaintiff-buyers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed from Allendale School
----------------------------------------------------
Rosalind Saul, writing for Hexham Courant, reported that asbestos
has been removed from Allendale Primary School, in Australia,
after it was discovered in a classroom ceiling.

Work is under way to replace the ceiling of the school's early
years classroom.  The asbestos was discovered when the ceiling was
damaged by leaks over the Christmas break.

Headteacher Alison Hawkins said the planned replacement of the
ceiling had been brought forward as a result.  She said although
there had been some inconvenience there were no safety issues
because of the repairs.

Early years pupils have been taking lessons in the school hall
while the work is carried out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piperhill Construction Fined GBP8K Over Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Donnelly, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reported that a
contractor who admitted breaching Health and Safety legislation
while removing asbestos panels from a block of flats has been
fined a total of GBP8,000.

Piperhill Construction Ltd had been carrying out refurbishment
work on the stairwells of Kilbroney House in the Cregagh area of
Belfast on August 25, 2011.

Prosecutor David McAughey said the work essentially entailed the
removal of 28 asbestos panels, measuring three feet by one foot,
from the 14-storey Housing Executive apartment block.

Mr McAughey said when Health and Safety inspectors investigated
they found two workers wearing simple masks had removed up to half
of the panels.

The court heard that asbestos fibres had been exposed, and that
the area should have been sealed off and extractors put in place
to remove asbestos particles.

Belfast Recorder Judge David McFarland said it was clear from the
outset there was "some confusion" as to what work was envisaged
under the contract.

The Crown Court judge said in such circumstances the company,
based at Acorn Business Centre, Riara Avenue, Ballymoney, would
-- as was its practice -- have engaged another company to do such
specialist work.

This would have cost an extra GBP75,000, nothing like the GBP5,000
set aside in the contract.

Following the hearing, Anne Cassidy, an inspector with the Heath
and Safety Executive's major investigation team, said: "The
dangers of asbestos are well-known. Past exposure to asbestos
fibres is the greatest cause of work-related death in the UK.

"There is no safe level of asbestos and it is a legal requirement
that contractors keep to the correct procedures."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peck Place Elem. Students Move Into New School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut News reported that students at Peck Place Elementary
School in Orange moved into a new school after asbestos concerns.

The school was seriously damaged when a pipe burst earlier this
month exposing asbestos glue in the floors.

The cleanup is expected to last until the summer.

The students will finish this year at Yale's West Campus in West
Haven.

Earlier versions of the story said the asbestos was discovered
when the pipes burst. School officials said that they have always
known about the asbestos, but no action was required as long as
the floor was left untouched. They say the water damage caused
tiles to lift forcing the district to remove the asbestos for
repairs to take place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burned Mill Contains Deadly Dust
-------------------------------------------------
Jill Harmacinski, writing for Eagle-Tribune, reported that the
burned out remains of the Merrimac Paper Co. are unsafe, unsightly
and toxic. A lawyer for the building owner David Padellaro said
his client realizes this, but needs a month to work out demolition
plans.

"All we are asking is for 30 days for the safe and secure
demolition of the property," said Methuen attorney Sal Tabit, who
Padellaro retained to represent him at a housing court hearing.

Susan Trippi, clerk magistrate for the Northeast Housing Court,
presided over the hearing to determine if there's probable cause
to issue a criminal complaint against Padellaro to tear down
Merrimack Paper Co. at 9 So. Canal St. gutted by fire Jan. 13.

Trippi took the matter under advisement and could issue her
decision on the criminal complaint by late this week. The
Northeast Housing Court is on the second floor of the Fenton
Judicial Center -- the same building that houses Lawrence District
Court.

In brief remarks, Raymond Hileman, a city code enforcement
inspector, said the mill buildings are compromised, unsafe and
need to be torn down. Tabit agreed.

"The place is unsafe. There is no question about it," Tabit said.

But Tabit said the city told Padellaro, 50, of Seabrook, N.H., to
demolish the mill two days after the fire. His client needs
additional time to make plans, he said.

Trippi asked if Padellaro has the money for the job. "Can he
actually accomplish this?" she said.

Tabit said the mill is steel frame and could reap between $150,000
to $175,000 in scrap metal value. Padellaro may be able to
leverage the $10,000 in demolition costs in exchange for scrap
metal value, Tabit said.

A contractor "could do the work in exchange for the value of the
scrap metal," Tabit said.

Padellaro, a former Lawrence police officer fired in 1998 for
misconduct, owed the city $5.4 million in unpaid property taxes,
sewer and water bills, fire watch fees and interest. He inherited
the debts when he bought the mill from Andover developer Stephen
Stapinski for $1 in 2010.

Under questioning from Trippi, Padellaro and Tabit acknowledged
asbestos is present in the building. The state's Department of
Environmental Protection is aware of the asbestos and most
recently issued a report about it eight months ago.

"It's not airborne. It's protected," Padellaro told Tripp.

The housing court hearing was held after city officials said
Padellaro ignored the city's order to secure the building and
submit a plan for demolishing it, which was due Jan. 17.

In 2010, the city and the state began issuing orders to Padellaro
to demolish parts of the mill. Padellaro was also ordered to
develop plans to remove asbestos and oil, environmental
contaminants, from the two-acre site where the Merrimac Paper Co.
operated for 130 years.

Padellaro partially demolished one of the buildings on the site, a
project that stopped when crews reached a boiler room where
demolition was more complicated and expensive because of asbestos.
Padellaro allegedly disregarded an order to inventory
environmental toxins on the site, causing the DEP to hire a
contractor to do the job.

Merrimac Paper Co. went bankrupt in 2005. After the fire earlier
this month, state fire investigators picked through the ruins for
three days. Acting Lawrence Fire Chief John Marsh called the cause
of the fire "questionable." But to date, no definitive findings
have been released.

While in the Fenton Judicial Center, Padellaro also took care of
an outstanding arrest warrant issued in a criminal case against
him from the summer.

On July 11, he was convicted by a District Court jury of bouncing
three checks totaling $6,705 to Western Oil, a Rhode Island
company he hired to empty oil tanks at the former mill. Other
contractors walked off the job, saying Padellaro was not paying
him.  He was given a suspended sentence of a year in jail, placed
on two years probation, ordered to pay the oil company and submit
samples of his DNA.

An arrest warrant for Padellaro was issued after he failed to
appear on Jan. 17 for a probation hearing. The warrant was
recalled and Padellaro is due back in district court in March.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Warning Improves After Scare in Coburg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Robson, writing for Moreland Leader, reported that the
state education department is increasing scheduled asbestos audits
in Victorian schools after a breach at Newlands Primary School.

The Coburg school was one of three that WorkSafe Victoria found to
have insufficient asbestos labelling or auditing practices.

The department has committed to "significantly" increasing
scheduled audits over coming years, including to schools in
Moreland.

Education Department spokesman Simon Craig said WorkSafe
Victoria's concerns about the asbestos register and labelling at
Newlands Primary School had been addressed and asbestos warning
labels were installed a year ago.

"During the audits, which provide a point-in-time snapshot of
asbestos conditions at schools to assist them in forward planning,
labels will be placed in schools with known asbestos-containing
material," Mr Craig said.

"These warning labels will help schools manage potential risks and
ensure schools are compliant with occupational health and safety
legislation."

The labels would be installed at the front gate, reception and on
buildings containing asbestos, he said.

It has been reported that 400 audits must be completed by June 30
this year and 180 must take place in each subsequent year so the
government can track schools containing potentially hazardous
material.

Asbestos, which was used extensively in building materials between
the 1950s and '70s, is banned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Fibro Dumped in North East Lincolnshire
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grimsby Telegraph reported that more than 12 tonnes of asbestos
has been dumped in North East Lincolnshire in four months.

Locations around the area including Grimsby, Humberston and Ashby-
cum-Fenby have been targeted by criminals disposing of the toxic
waste.

Since September there have been 19 incidents of asbestos being
fly-tipped, including seven this month -- the latest of which saw
asbestos sheets being dumped in a disused garage in Colin Avenue,
Grimsby.

The amount dumped equates to about 12 tonnes -- the weight of two
full-grown African elephants -- and is reported to have cost North
East Lincolnshire Council in the region of oe5,000 to remove so
far.  It is understood from at least one report that the fly-
tippers are well equipped and may look official.

Councillor Ray Oxby, portfolio holder for the environment and
housing at the council, said: "The council is currently
investigating with our enforcement officers and legal team, in
collaboration with Humberside Police, those responsible for these
criminal acts and thankfully we have a number of leads we are
working on to secure a conviction.

"Those who do not respect the environment and deliberately rubbish
our streets and open spaces will be tracked down and brought
before the courts.

"We must to get tough on crimes that affect all our community,
especially those who represent a clear health and safety risk to
the public at large.

"We believe the recent dumping of asbestos is coming from the same
building or site because of sections of an old down pipe for a
guttering system which is painted in a distinct green colour.

"Someone out there must know of a building that is being worked or
pulled down -- a building that has a large amount of asbestos.

"This is a heinous act that is putting people at risk and is
costing the council money.

"Every time we are called out, depending on the amount of
asbestos, we could be paying anywhere from oe200 to oe1,000 to
dispose of it.

"On top of that, we have the cost of the workmen, vehicles and
equipment needed to remove the asbestos.

"These resources have to be pulled from their daily duties of
keeping our streets clean to deal with this, meaning your
communities are not getting the level of work they could be.

"This is a burden on our budget which means your council tax money
is being spent on cleaning their mess."

The illegal dumping of asbestos, which is estimated to occur every
35 seconds across Britain, can incur a magistrates court fine of
up to oe20,000, an unlimited fine imposed by a higher court, or
even a prison sentence.

The latest fly-tipping incident was discovered after the council
received a complaint about men removing and dumping asbestos
sheets from their vehicle and putting it in a disused garage off
Colin Avenue, in Grimsby.

A witness took a photograph of the alleged suspects dumping the
material.

Following investigation, the council found that the garage is
looked after by a local estate agent, who confirmed that no
permissions had been sought from them to use the garage for this
purpose.

Information to Humberside Police on 121, quoting crime reference
16/A03462647/14. To report fly-tipping to the council, call 01472
325823 or e-mail customerrequests@nelincs.gov.uk.

Why is asbestos dangerous?

If the asbestos fibres are inhaled they can cause serious diseases
which are responsible for around 4500 deaths a year.

There are four main diseases caused by asbestos: mesothelioma,
which is always fatal, lung cancer, asbestosis and diffuse pleural
thickening.

Asbestos fibres are present in the environment in Great Britain so
people are exposed to very low levels of fibres on a regular
basis.

However, a key factor in the risk of developing an asbestos-
related disease is the total number of fibres breathed in. Working
on or near damaged asbestos-containing materials or breathing in
high levels of asbestos fibres, which may be many hundreds of
times that of environmental levels can increase your chances of
getting an asbestos-related disease.

Asbestos related diseases won't affect you immediately but later
on in life, so there is a need for you to protect yourself now to
prevent you contracting an asbestos-related disease in the future.
It is also important to remember that people who smoke and are
also exposed to asbestos fibres are at a much greater risk of
developing lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Faces Prison Over Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Bichao, writing for myCentralJersey.com, reported that a
Sayreville businessman has pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing
asbestos from a hospital without a licensed and with workers who
were not properly trained or equipped.

Frank J. Rizzo, 55, pleaded guilty to a charge of second-degree
conspiracy as part of a plea deal that could land him a three-year
prison sentence, Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman said.

Michael Kouvaras, 61, of Maplewood, also pleaded guilty to a
third-degree charge of violating the Asbestos Control and
Licensing Act stemming from the case. He faces up to a year in
jail.

The two admitted that their company, Deuteron Capital, doing
business as South Street Fillit Recycling of Riverside, illegally
removed asbestos without a license and illegally disposed of
asbestos at the site of the former Zurbrugg Memorial Hospital in
Riverside.

"These two men showed an utter disregard for the health and safety
of the workers they hired, as well as the residents living near
this site," Hoffman said in a prepared statement. "We will not
tolerate contractors who ignore our laws and put the public in
danger to turn a profit."

In early 2010, Rizzo solicited the owner of the Zurbrugg site for
the contract to demolish the hospital. South Street was given the
contract. The defendants initially retained a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor, who estimated the cost of the work at
$220,000. But the defendants paid only enough to have the
contractor work one day, officials charged.

Officials said that Kouvaras, the owner of South Street, and
Rizzo, the project organizer, then used untrained day laborers,
including inmates from a work release halfway house to remove
asbestos and salvage valuable copper and steel from the hospital.

The investigation revealed that the defendants directed the
unlicensed workers to remove asbestos, bury bags of asbestos in
the ground, and dump bags of asbestos on the floor of a boiler
room to make it look like the building was vandalized. The workers
wore only unsafe paper masks.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took over the cleanup,
officials said.


                             *********

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  * * *